Originally posted by KNG This is a serious accusation. Please give examples.
Not an accusation, just an observation and not unexpected for an Internet resource. The example that immediately comes to my mind is the absence of the KMZ Helios 44M variant from the list of specifications at
ZENITcamera.com: Helios 44. Why this lens is missing from zenitcamera.com when so many copies are in existence seems strange to me if the site is truly authoritative and complete. I was also puzzled that the Zenit E is stated as having the Industar 50 and Helios 44 as normal lenses while the (captioned) illustration indicates the Helios 44-2 as well. (
ZENITcamera.com: Zenit E) From what I have been able to gather, all three lenses were sold attached to the Zenit E at one time or the other.
As noted in the footnotes throughout the site, diagrams and illustrations are often derived from other Web sites and not from KMZ-source materials. It is also not often clear as to what the actual sources are for various specifications. The "About" section is clear that the site is the work of a group of enthusiasts and has no official connection with KMZ and may not accurately represent what might actually be found in the field.
All that being said, I have found zenitcamera.com to be a VERY useful and exhaustive resource. I can think of one case in particular (filter threads on early 1960s version of Jupiter-9 in Contax/Kiev mount) where the product page provided the answer I was looking for and nobody (Fedka included) seemed to know anything. I consider the site to be a valuable resource to be used along with other such sites, but am always careful to state that information I have reposted from there is not from KMZ.
Steve
(...am small-time FSU enthusiast...3 rangefinder bodies...2 M42 lenses...7 rangefinder lenses...)