| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Vlad |
Posted - Jul 28 2014 : 8:06:18 PM
Not sure whether we discussed this camera before, what do you guys think this is?
http://www.ussrphoto.com/UserContent/2872014_2399-3.jpg
http://www.ussrphoto.com/UserContent/2872014_2399-2.jpg
http://www.ussrphoto.com/UserContent/2872014_2399-1.jpg
Being offered on eBay not for $47,000 |
| 7 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Chrispi49 |
Posted - Aug 19 2014 : 05:07:06 AM
Looks more like an attempt to copy a 3D World TL 120 than a Sputnik! |
| Vlad |
Posted - Aug 01 2014 : 6:17:24 PM
I guess my memory is going bad because I just found the old thread about this camera 
http://ussrphoto.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2275
|
| Vlad |
Posted - Aug 01 2014 : 6:09:20 PM
I don't think the lenses spaced wider apart than in Sputnik, it's just in Sputnik's design they did a smart thing, they placed the spools in the blind spots of the film chamber and this one is completely counter-intuitive because they brought the spools out thus making the camera body very wide. It almost seems to me this is some kind of home-made variation because it's a step backwards in the design..
See how they're hiding the spools in the front corners?
http://www.ussrphoto.com/UserContent/182014_spudrefl2.jpg
|
| Guido |
Posted - Aug 01 2014 : 5:20:53 PM
Hello Vlad
Well I didn't looked at details but all you say seems to be good points to me. And the dates indicate that's one century too late for the "race to the moon".
The reflex finder by the way looks not so optimal for the use with a helmet in space or in a space craft.
And yes, a plastic camera for space ... *LOL* - But okay, I can't say from the pictures if it's a plastic body or not. My second impression say's it could be a metall body. But not shure about this.
An other question is why the camera is so much wider than a normal Sputnik. Maybe it was intendet to use longer film (longer than conventional 120/220 film). But when I look to the pictures I can't say anything more about this. What do you think?
Best wishes - Guido
|
| Vlad |
Posted - Aug 01 2014 : 3:43:33 PM
Guido,
I thought the exact same thing about the size of the knobs and I also see some time discrepancy: the Sputnik camera was made in 1955 and if this is from 1974-1975 as the description on eBay claims, it cannot be a prototype for Sputnik, but maybe rather for Sputnik-2.. but we see the prototype for Sputnik-2 in 1958 Brussels world fair brochure (http://www.sovietcams.com/index.php?487737996), so the timeline is off again. I don't think it has anything to do with the main Sputnik line of cameras.
Also it uses the new style Triplet-22 lens found in Lubitel-166 from 1976 which is around the correct time frame so the theory that it's some kind of prototype is plausible, but a plastic camera for space program? I don't think so..
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Lomo-Stereo-Sputnik-Prototype-space-camera-/371110266039?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item5667e544b7 |
| Jacques M. |
Posted - Aug 01 2014 : 03:09:31 AM
Very interesting!
The three lenses for stereo photos and viewfinder are coupled to have an absolute precision, like on the original Sputnik. But here, it seems that the three lenses are the same.
Very well made. A topographic camera for the Army? A scientific camera for the Moon?
Jacques. |
| Guido |
Posted - Jul 31 2014 : 3:40:47 PM
Hello Vlad
I don't know if we had talk about this camera from Boris in the past, but it's on eBay since longer time IIRC.
Well, it's a nice camera but the first time i've seen it I wonder why it should be a "space camera" ?! I think a stereo camera makes a lot of sense if objects pictured with are in different distances. But if all objects are - in a photographic sense - in the same distance (ie. infinite) like in space, I really don't see an advantage of having two identical (!) "stereo" pictures.
If you take a look at other space cameras you can see that there are big knobs and oversized manual controls. Such cameras should be usable with gloves.
Best wishes - Guido
|
