Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Before you buy a Soviet Camera

kosmofoto.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 69 posts

Re: Before you buy a Soviet Camera

#31

Post by brudgers »

flyinghamster wrote: post #28

I had an East German camera (a Praktica) for a short while; my aunt brought it with her from England. Seeing the comments about Soviet build quality, I'd note that it also applies to Soviet satellites as well. The lens was wonderful, but it didn't take many rolls of film for the shutter to give out. I switched to a Minolta SRT202 after that, before I ditched film for digital. I suppose I could have gone with a Pentax…

The K1000 has the K Bayonet mount that superseded the m42 screw mount on Pentax 35mm SLR’s in the 1970’s.

However, my understanding is Soviet designs used both mounts. Just clarifying not arguing. Out of a fondness for Pentax and tendency to geek.

Re: Before you buy a Soviet Camera

#32

Post by skratlo »

> compete with the best of the West

> Soviet cameras appealed to a huge swathe of photographers with a limited budget

Whoever wrote this has zero respect. Some wannabe west superior looser. It's too bad, it could have been a nice article, but these remarks turned it into utter garbage.

Re: Before you buy a Soviet Camera

#33

Post by alamortsubite »

flyinghamster wrote: post #26
rvba wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Designs were sound since they were stolen by KGB from the West.

And one of the funny things I've noticed over the years is that often, the technology that was stolen (or sometimes legitimately transferred) from the west often more-or-less failed, or was superseded, in western markets. In the railway sphere, Alco and Fairbanks-Morse diesel engine designs dominated, long after they disappeared from American rails. Turning to home computers, many 1980s Soviet home computers were PDP…

Ural motorcycles are really the opposite, though- an example of the transfer of a technology that was very successful in the West. Yes, BMW iterated on the R71 and the R75 was more advanced than the M-72, but that technology didn't fail and neither was it superseded (at least not more abruptly than any other).

Re: Before you buy a Soviet Camera

#34

Post by mitjak »

iSnow wrote: post #19

I used to own the infamous Kiev 88 TTL with a range of lenses, and while I loved the knock-off design and heft, the build quality was disastrous. The film cassettes leaked light which ruined some films, the transport would jam, and the shutter as well. I've never been too fond of the softness of the 35mm's, the 120 photos were just that much better. But then digital happened and both lenses and sensors outgrew anythi…

> But then digital happened and both lenses and sensors outgrew anything analog.

maybe if you can afford an 80MP digital back with MF lenses? i still prefer 35mm compared to full-frame sensors but i'm more after latitude and colour rendition than sharpness.

Re: Before you buy a Soviet Camera

#35

Post by cesaref »

iSnow wrote: post #19

I used to own the infamous Kiev 88 TTL with a range of lenses, and while I loved the knock-off design and heft, the build quality was disastrous. The film cassettes leaked light which ruined some films, the transport would jam, and the shutter as well. I've never been too fond of the softness of the 35mm's, the 120 photos were just that much better. But then digital happened and both lenses and sensors outgrew anythi…

Agreed, the Kiev 88 isn't reliable. A number of years back I ordered a Hartblei - they take new Kiev 88s and fix the obvious shortcomings, before applying any modifications you require.

My Hartblei is configured for Hasselblad backs and hoods, and takes Pentacon six lenses.

I use this with an Arsat 35mm fisheye lens as the hasselblad equivalent is very expensive by comparison. The result is a strange mixture of multiple parts, but it's kind of fun!

Re: Before you buy a Soviet Camera

#36

Post by cesaref »

mitjak wrote: post #34
iSnow wrote: post #19

I used to own the infamous Kiev 88 TTL with a range of lenses, and while I loved the knock-off design and heft, the build quality was disastrous. The film cassettes leaked light which ruined some films, the transport would jam, and the shutter as well. I've never been too fond of the softness of the 35mm's, the 120 photos were just that much better. But then digital happened and both lenses and sensors outgrew anythi…

> But then digital happened and both lenses and sensors outgrew anything analog. maybe if you can afford an 80MP digital back with MF lenses? i still prefer 35mm compared to full-frame sensors but i'm more after latitude and colour rendition than sharpness.

if you live 35mm film you'll love medium format. It's much more forgiving due to less enlargement when printing, the trade off is that the equipment is large (although some of the fuji rangefinders aren't that much bigger than modern 35mm SLRs).

Re: Before you buy a Soviet Camera

#37

Post by iSnow »

mitjak wrote: post #34
iSnow wrote: post #19

I used to own the infamous Kiev 88 TTL with a range of lenses, and while I loved the knock-off design and heft, the build quality was disastrous. The film cassettes leaked light which ruined some films, the transport would jam, and the shutter as well. I've never been too fond of the softness of the 35mm's, the 120 photos were just that much better. But then digital happened and both lenses and sensors outgrew anythi…

> But then digital happened and both lenses and sensors outgrew anything analog. maybe if you can afford an 80MP digital back with MF lenses? i still prefer 35mm compared to full-frame sensors but i'm more after latitude and colour rendition than sharpness.

God, I'd love to have a digital back for a medium format camera. But those are incredibly expensive, there's no way I can justify that.

Re: Before you buy a Soviet Camera

#38

Post by raducu »

gambiting wrote: post #27
rvba wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Designs were sound since they were stolen by KGB from the West.

I mean..........urgh. It's an unbelivably convoluted topic and I feel like just dismissing it as "stolen by KGB from the West" is simply unfair. Yes, a lot of designs were simply copied from western equivalents. But also a lot of designs weren't, or were actually improvements over western designs in some crucial ways(washing machines being overbuilt because repairs were unlikely, so certain components were upgraded t…

A lot more designs than were stolen by the west from the west or non-existant designs stolen from the east by the west.

The parent comentator has a valid point, the East usually copied good designs from the West.

Which they could improve.

Re: Before you buy a Soviet Camera

#39

Post by overcastsky »

AcerbicZero wrote: post #10

I judge Soviet quality off of the 20 or so Mosins I’ve shot. Sounds very similar to their cameras, but at least the rifles are more fun.

As a former military man myself, I found that Soviet rifles (AK pattern) and even the RPK were far more robust and trustworthy than the fragile Swiss-watch approach of the American M-16A2/M4/M249 series of rifles. Many people preferred them, even some of the junior officers who carried them around, but for them, it more of a badge of office (look at me) since they were armed with handguns as well.
Post reply on HN