Blurry image help

[Dispos]

Greetings everyone, i hope this is the right section.

I have recently come into possesion of a Zenit EM, however looking trough the viewfinder, the image seems blurry.
Adjusting the focus only makes it less blurry.
I cleaned the lens and the viewfinder but to no avail.
Looking only trough the lens shows they are clean, looking at the mirror system in the body shows its clean aswell, and the viewfinder isnt that dirty. What could it be? :???:

Second thing I dont know is, how come the circle thing in the middle of the viewfinder (please excuse my lack of technical knowledge) is more in focus than the rest of the image i see in the viewfinder? Why isnt it equally blurry if its blurry?

Pardon the excessive usage of the word "blurry" :/

Regards, Dispos

 

[tirediron]

How blurry is 'blurry' (BTW, 'blurry' is a perfectly good word!)? Does the scene appear just slightly soft, or is it like you've put on a strong pair of glasses? Do you wear glasses normally? I don't think these Zenit's had a diopter correction control; is there a small knob around the viewfinder? What lens are you using?

 

[Dispos]

How blurry is 'blurry' (BTW, 'blurry' is a perfectly good word!)? Does the scene appear just slightly soft, or is it like you've put on a strong pair of glasses? Do you wear glasses normally? I don't think these Zenit's had a diopter correction control; is there a small knob around the viewfinder? What lens are you using?

Hello tirediron, thank you for replying!

It is kind of an uniform blurry (except in the center where its a bit sharper), it doesnt look smudgy or double-image, its more kind of a soft looking image as you said.
Yes i normally wear glasses, however at the distance i was testing this i can see perfectly.
Yeah, i dont think it has a diopter. The metal ring on the viewfinder can be removed by rotating though, but i dont imagine this was their diopter.
Im using the Helios 44M lens. I removed them from the body to see if they are the problem, but they seem to be crisp.

Regards, Dispos

 

[compur]

Is this the case when focusing at any distance including far away?

 

[Dispos]

Is this the case when focusing at any distance including far away?

Unfortunately these glasses i got some time ago, and since then my short sightedness progressed, im afraid i cant see well far away.
However i think i can still test if it focuses on greater distances by seeing how well (or bad if you will) i see at the distance, and seeing i can match this with the camera, if i can see equally bad trough the camera and without camera, can we assume its focused properly? If i can determine it like this, i shall do so tommorow, as right now its nearing midnight and its quite dark.

But from what I have tested prior to this, no, it doesnt focus at long ranges either.

 

[coffeefilter]

I had the same problem with my camera, a soft image in the viewfinder. I figured out that my camera body has an adjustment for the viewfinder that brings it into focus. Yours may not have that, but this sounds like the problem. The viewfinder is just out of focus for your eyes.

 

[Dispos]

I had the same problem with my camera, a soft image in the viewfinder. I figured out that my camera body has an adjustment for the viewfinder that brings it into focus. Yours may not have that, but this sounds like the problem. The viewfinder is just out of focus for your eyes.

I think i understand what you mean, yet i dont see it. Correct me if im wrong but if i can see fine at 2 meters, my subject is at 2 meters, and im focusing to 2 meters, shouldnt it be fine? If i couldnt see for 2 meters, the image would be out of focus i imagine. Could you clarify a bit on what you mean by "out of focus for your eyes"?

Regards, Dispos

 

[compur]

Another thing you might check ...

Your camera uses screw-mount lenses. If the focus ring on your lens is stiff then turning it may be causing the lens to unscrew from its mount which will throw off the focus. Make sure the lens is firmly screwed in as far as it will go and that it isn't turning when you twist the lens focus ring.

 

[Dispos]

Another thing you might check ...

Your camera uses screw-mount lenses. If the focus ring on your lens is stiff then turning it may be causing the lens to unscrew from its mount which will throw off the focus. Make sure the lens is firmly screwed in as far as it will go and that it isn't turning when you twist the lens focus ring.

Good suggestion, no it is quite secure.

 

[Derrel]

One of my first SLR's was a Cosmorex SE, which was a USSR-made Zenit, rebranded by the importer, NYC's old Cambridge Camera. It has a 58mm f/2 "Auto-COsmogon" lens....I still have it...the view through the viewfinder has been ATROCIOUSLY AVERAGE since the day I bought the thing, back in 1977. Comparing it with the school's yearbook cameras, a Minolta SRT-101 and a Nikon F2, the Russian SLR's viewfinder image was always...very poor. Just...cheezy. Not contrasty. Not bright, NOT SHARP...just simply the worst SLR viewfinder I have ever experienced. I'm not familiar with the Zenit EM...my Cosmorex SE was I believe the Zenit B when sold in the USSR. I wonder if the quality control might have varied on Zenits, based on supply issues, or years of production, or whatnot? I've heard a few people say they were ,"Not bad," but my example had a LOT of problem areas.

I can still recall how challenging it was to focus the danged thing, even in the summertime outdoors, in good light.

 

[Dispos]

One of my first SLR's was a Cosmorex SE, which was a USSR-made Zenit, rebranded by the importer, NYC's old Cambridge Camera. It has a 58mm f/2 "Auto-COsmogon" lens....I still have it...the view through the viewfinder has been ATROCIOUSLY AVERAGE since the day I bought the thing, back in 1977. Comparing it with the school's yearbook cameras, a Minolta SRT-101 and a Nikon F2, the Russian SLR's viewfinder image was always...very poor. Just...cheezy. Not contrasty. Not bright, NOT SHARP...just simply the worst SLR viewfinder I have ever experienced. I'm not familiar with the Zenit EM...my Cosmorex SE was I believe the Zenit B when sold in the USSR. I wonder if the quality control might have varied on Zenits, based on supply issues, or years of production, or whatnot? I've heard a few people say they were ,"Not bad," but my example had a LOT of problem areas.

I can still recall how challenging it was to focus the danged thing, even in the summertime outdoors, in good light.

Oh, i see. Well that does make sense.
It was this thing right? Matt's Classic Cameras: Cosmorex SE (Zenit EM) Looks fairly identical to what im holding right now.
So what now? do the pictures come out better and its just the viewfinder or is it..the worse option?

 

[gsgary]

How blurry is 'blurry' (BTW, 'blurry' is a perfectly good word!)? Does the scene appear just slightly soft, or is it like you've put on a strong pair of glasses? Do you wear glasses normally? I don't think these Zenit's had a diopter correction control; is there a small knob around the viewfinder? What lens are you using?

Hello tirediron, thank you for replying!

It is kind of an uniform blurry (except in the center where its a bit sharper), it doesnt look smudgy or double-image, its more kind of a soft looking image as you said.
Yes i normally wear glasses, however at the distance i was testing this i can see perfectly.
Yeah, i dont think it has a diopter. The metal ring on the viewfinder can be removed by rotating though, but i dont imagine this was their diopter.
Im using the Helios 44M lens. I removed them from the body to see if they are the problem, but they seem to be crisp.

Regards, Dispos

ACP - Zenit-EM manual
[h=2]FOCUSING[/h] Focusing the lens as well as its setting by distance scale is performed by turning the lens focusing ring.
In the centre of the viewfinder eyepiece field of view one can see a microraster with a ground glass ring. Turn the lens focusing ring until the image seen in the circle (microraster) and ground glass ring becomes sharp.
In cases where several objects are to be included in the shot and the distances between objects and the camera vary, the depth-of-field scale should be used. The scale consists of the lens aperture numbers repeated on each side of the main index mark. When the diaphragm is set and the lens is focused, the limits of depth of field can e read against these number pairs on the distance scale.
For example, with the lens focused at 3 m and the aperture set at f/8, the image of objects, placed within the limits from 2.2 m to 4.5 m, will be sharp on the film. Approximate depth of field limits can be determined visually as well.
With the shutter release button pressed till definite stop before the moment the shutter operates, the diaphragm closes to the pre-set value. In this position it is possible to determine what objects are sharp in the viewfinder eyepiece field of view.
W



[h=2]FOCUSING[/h] Focusing the lens as well as its setting by distance scale is performed by turning the lens focusing ring.
In the centre of the viewfinder eyepiece field of view one can see a microraster with a ground glass ring. Turn the lens focusing ring until the image seen in the circle (microraster) and ground glass ring becomes sharp.
In cases where several objects are to be included in the shot and the distances between objects and the camera vary, the depth-of-field scale should be used. The scale consists of the lens aperture numbers repeated on each side of the main index mark. When the diaphragm is set and the lens is focused, the limits of depth of field can e read against these number pairs on the distance scale.
For example, with the lens focused at 3 m and the aperture set at f/8, the image of objects, placed within the limits from 2.2 m to 4.5 m, will be sharp on the film. Approximate depth of field limits can be determined visually as well.
With the shutter release button pressed till definite stop before the moment the shutter operates, the diaphragm closes to the pre-set value. In this position it is possible to determine what objects are sharp in the viewfinder eyepiece field of view.
W

 

[Dispos]

What i gather from this is, i should focus the microraster and the rest will take care of itself? Is that really how it works? Should i just ignore the blurriness of the rest of the frame and assume its gonna be fine on the film? Am i supposed to be working blind when operating this camera?

 

[compur]

Only one way to know for sure: shoot a roll.

 

[vintagesnaps]

You could try looking at the original instruction book on Mike Butkus' website. Link below - scroll down to Viewing and Focusing.

In Gary's post it talks about distance focusing. I don't use that often because I'm not good at judging distance! But you might try that, maybe try a subject several feet away. If you adjust the focus ring for the distance you are from the subject I'm thinking that might get you close to being in focus so you might only have to turn the focus ring a little each way and see if it is any more or less in focus.

I'd go out on a nice bright sunny day, maybe morning or later afternoon/early evening (not in harsh midday sun) so you're not trying to focus in lower light when it's harder to see. I'd try as suggested in Gary's post an aperture of f8 or maybe f5.6 or f11 so you get enough area around the subject in focus. (If you have your lens fairly open like 2.8 that's going to have less area in focus).

Derrel talked about the one he used being tricky to focus, and I read in the manual that it says because of its 'unique' features it's somewhat 'different', and it recommends shooting a test roll. Maybe write down what you did so when you get the film/pictures back you can figure out what worked best (or what didn't work, you can learn from that too).

Cosmorex-se camera manual, user manual, russian cameras

One other thing I happened to think is if you've looked in the camera when the lens has been removed, and the mirror looks clean and undamaged, maybe see if the Fresnel screen looks OK - it's above the mirror in mechanical cameras I have and it can be seen reflected in the mirror. It's supposedly somewhat easy to damage; I've always understood it should not be touched (unless I suppose absolutely necessary and I'd do so carefully by the edges). It looks textured not clear but if it had gotten scratched or dirty I suppose that could affect what you're seeing.