UPA-6E ZENIT (YNA-6E ZENITH) enlarger, is there any manual available?
This is simple yes or no question, but it may as well turn into one of those longer discussions.
I have this marvelous deadweight for years now, but I have some questions that should be answered in the original manual. Parameters, maintenance, adjusting autofocus, proposed arrangement of parts in the suitcase, since mine suitcase has no foam left. I just need to know the basic stuff, that's the important part.
I've seen UPA-5 manual already, and the design in most aspects differs a lot.
If there's any proud user of this particular enlarger, I'd be more, tan glad to hear any advice, like how she or he deals with light leaks, what types and formats of paper are being used, if the grain is sharp or not, what lightbulb should I use when the original, oddly-shaped tungsten one will break etc. I'm interested in all the odds, in all the guts of working with this tool, mostly how to avoid the errors and hidden traps. Also, I need a fair word about print quality, best if with examples, and if it's reasonable to even start tinkering wit this tank-like creature, or should I simply sell it and look for some other suitcase enlarger that would be up to standards.
I still have to get my hands on proper set of trays and multigrade filters, so it's nothing urgent.
Is that enlarger made by the KMZ company? I could not find any hint at that.
That UPA-5 enlarger is one of those simple (or ingenious) out-of-box enlargers, not a autofocus one as the OP is inquiring on.
My "Raduga" UPA-5 is apparently identical to the one in Mustafa Umut Sarac's video. It is autofocus and well made, except for that foam case lining. Its Industar f/3.5 50mm lens outperforms a few of the Omega lenses that I've encountered. I can provide a copy of the meager 8-page instruction booklet if anyone needs one.
Originally Posted by AgX
YNA-6E, N shaped oddly, so I reckon it's P, and whole name is UPA-6E. Russian H is latin N FWIK.
Lens is marked N50Y, so it becomes I50U (another kind of N letter ), meaning it's Industar, well-respected lens indeed. If it's good enough, I guess I have one thing less to worry about. At least two of the elements are coated with purple tint on a coated element, M39 mount, no stops on aperture ring and it looks like a funnel.
Whole upper body design is totally different, than UPA-5. It's heavy, cast, cubical, big chunk, painted with grayish paint. Closer to UPA-603, but the set of accessories is different - timer and lamp are different, the body and the suitcase seems the same though.
Here's 603 model, possibly incomplete:
I'm able to get 18x28cm print size without using provided 45 deg. mirror or swinging the head, so maximum magnification seems to be lower, than 8x, that UPA-5 manual states, and it's a tiny bit below what I'd be happy with (10x). But with a mirror, who knows... Also, there is one more negative frame, than what UPA-5 manual says - I have four.
Light leaks are horrific, but, I hope, manageable.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Found this - not much of a help apart from proving the fact, that the machine exists:
NO ! If they are a fool like me who soled his for way to cheap.
Yups, Focomat would be great asset, so would a Leica. Also there are some suitcase-sized Dursts... Leitz gear is still not quite abundant where I live, it's easy to find information, but hard to find a given product - there's actually zero Leitz enlargers on our biggest auction site in this moment, and at least one full UPA suitcase set, fully working and in decent condition for under 20 USD. That's the reality.
I'd be happy to accept a gift or two, but having to spent a small fortune, I'd rather waste some film and paper and actually learn something or do something at least semi-decent or good enough. Light leaks are manageable, it just takes some time and thinking to plug all holes in the head without restricting ventilation, and I'm wondering how other people fixed this issue.
For now, my analog toolset consists of low-end lenses in K mount (28, 35-80, 50, 70-200) with Ricoh XR-1s, Cokin filters, lightweight tripod and a flash, and alternatively of Zorki C with two Industar lenses (22 and 61 L/D). I'll be buying something soon (ME Super or P30 body, Zorki 4 if there will be enough funds left for that), cause I'm selling trusty, but heavy Pentax Z-1 body, together with some other gear, that was only gathering dust recently.
Films and developers differ, I haven't found my favorite yet, but I'm trying to stay in 50-125 ISO range. What I do is mostly landscape photography, and I'm doing almost exclusively b&w photos, at least as long, as film goes. Digital stuff is a different animal. This year I've done some serious shooting with Polypan F, which is said to be Ilford Pan F without anti-reflective layer, but I doubt this kind of animal to be anybody's favorite. I'm not a typical landscape photographer, but I think we've already tackled this subject some time ago.
LOL I guess it's not only the leaking we have in common, also Zenit and Helios experience
Yups, this enlarger is built like a tank, not only from outside. I've just finished cleaning it throughly. Die-cast, crude and heavy, much like some Opemus enlargers I've seen, minus all the rounded edges. Russia is unlike any ordinary, civilized place, things there either are solid or borked.
It looks like I can mount some M39 lenses to the enlarger if I50U won't be up to the task. Not every one of them, cause there's very little space there (m42 thread won't fit the space designed for the lens, so it's less than 3mm of space), but still it leaves me with options like Nikon or Rodenstock lenses made for enlargers. I've visually checked image quality of the lens I have, and I guess it'll be sufficient to at least seriously try to work with this tool. The image is sharp and contrasty, the lens and timer are easy to use, the condenser seems to be working fine, and the enlarger itself is pretty stable thanks to its weight. All I need to start with.
We have three Zenit bodies here (E, 12XP and 3M). One I borrowed, one belongs to my GF and one I keep for sentimental reasons only. I can't stand their tiny viewfinders, no-go for a tool one has to work with. Plain, ground glass, 20x30mm size at best. Especially if you can replace it with any other semi-decent camera, there's just no coming back. But all three are in working condition. The curtain shutter in FSU 35mm cameras won't break easily BTW, it's derived from pre-war Leicas - doesn't matter if it's FED, Zorki or Zenit, it originates from Leica II. It gets used, either ribbons, curtains or glue will finally give up, but it's a matter of proper maintenance to prevent it from happening.
Also Helios originates from pre-war Germany - Zeiss called it Biotar back then. 44m is an excellent design, Russian engineers were perfecting it for over 60 years, and you just have to love the swirly bokeh it gives Actually a different Helios (103) is regarded as one of the best lenses for Kiev/Contax rangefinders. I've had Kiev 4AM with this lens, and I must say the body was inferior. Heavy like a brick, I was unable to nail framing in vertical direction, and it suffered from uneven film transport. On the contrary, the lens was pure magic, Ive done my best photos with it. I've sold it long time ago. Best, apparently, is not good enough. I'd give all but one film cameras, filters and lenses I have for an old Contax II with two lenses and two filters (Helios mentioned above and any decent backup lens plus polarizer and pale yellow-green filter), but I'm afraid the world just won't work this way.
I've been working with Z-1 for a short while, disliked the experience, and it was left unused ever since. I won't regret selling it, really. It's a pity to see such a decent camera gathering dust in a dark corner just because me being not flexible enough. But I am what I am, I can't work with it the way I like. So I don't. It should capture light, enable someone to make brilliant photos. Cheap Ricoh bodies in K mount have better viewfinders (bigger coverage and magnification) and some of them will never complain about depleted batteries. And this is more or less what I value, getting the job done without any distraction. I guess I'm Zorki/Leica type of guy, a lost case anyway.
I'll keep tri x and pyro in mind and try it as soon as I'll run out of Polypan, thanks a bunch for the tip I've never worked with pyro developers, and I recall I've done only like one or two rolls of any b&W kodak film, apart from Accademy, years ago. I was working more with Foma and Ilford films. I don't mind toxicity, pyrogallol is noting compared to dichromate anyways.
Beware, Polish is one of hardest languages to master. A lifetime task, even for some native speakers
I might have jeopardized myself by posting here, search engines throw this thread out in the very top.
I've found more photos of a similar unit, so that maybe someone sees it and chimes in with any advice: http://www.ussrphoto.com/wiki/defaul...table+Enlarger - the enlarger looks the same, though the red lamp is different. So maybe the actual -6E part isn't that important in the model name.
The manual I've found for UPA 5 is here:
It seems to provide some substantial information, like the fact, that last stroke to adjust focus should be made upwards, or the fact, that autofocus should be adjustable, even though the design of this part is completely different in 6E model.
After quick search I've found only one fresh 8mm film readily available: FOMA B&W reversal. You may have more luck in Czech Republic or Germany, I think.
Last edited by q_x; 11-15-2013 at 04:05 AM. Click to view previous post history.
Use the Force, Luke!