Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply. To register, click here. Registration is FREE!
T O P I C R E V I E W
dee
Posted - Jun 25 2010 : 01:53:35 AM Excuse my Westerner ignorance . For decades we have been told that the Soviets could not make quality cameras , yet my early KNeB IIs prove this to be untrue . I have always had respect for engineers creating clever cameras within the obvious limitations of the era - I love my Zenit 1 and Zenit C which are still so useable . Are there any other well made cameras which have been unfairly tarred with the ' poor copy ' label ? dee
2 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First)
Valkir1987
Posted - Jun 26 2010 : 01:01:47 AM I hear many issues about 'quality control' on other forums /boards etc. About unserviced camera's which spent their time in cuboards. I brought many of these camera's back to life, cleaning and repairing. And they all turned out good. I learned all this using patience and building op experience.
The only common problem I encounter with Russian camera's, is the fact that they often have been misrepaired in the past by uncertified repairmen (or at home).
Maybe it is good to avoid such an endless discussion here! The 'quality' never put me down to stop collecting and repairing!
Vlad
Posted - Jun 25 2010 : 7:27:29 PM Dee,
according to history of the camera industry by G. Abramov and others in the USSR the camera quality only got worse during the 1970s when production philosophy became quantity over quality, generally speaking cameras before 1970 is considered to be on par with world standards. Especially early were German-like Kiev II since those were identical copies of Contax II.
