| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Juhani Halmeenmaki
cedricfan
Finland
1020 Posts
My Collection
|
 Posted - Nov 26 2007 : 3:21:49 PM
|
In the 70ies western pros used either Nikon-F2 or Canon F-1. Canon had easier metering and lens change, but when Nikon introduced F3 in 1980 the old mechanical time was gone. Now THE camera was electronic with excellent metering, plus auto exposure without any clumsy add-ons. But what had the pros in communist countries to choose from, if they used domestic cameras?
LOMO offered Almaz-103, Arsenal had Kiev-20 and Chinas (Sichuan) Pearl River S-201 was the top of the line. How did these compare?
Almaz is a real high end camera, with its removable prism and motor drive contacts. But no motor drive was offered to the buyers, either a metered prism which was found only in the very rare versions. Film speed dial is a reminder only, GOST-ASA 16-2000 so a wide scale was known in USSR also. Shutter is a vertical metal with speeds 1-/1000s so everything is as should. Inside finish is decent, and camera has good ergonomics. Lens Volna 1,8/50mm is high speed enough, closest focus 45cm and mount is Pentax-K. But as we know it isn't a very reliable camera, and although eg film advance can be done in short strokes it is not advisable. On the other hand even as one stroke it is short but not heavy. The clumsiest function is flash shoe: principally same idea than in Nikon-F but worsely solved.
Kiev uses Nikon-mount, and standard lens Helios is 2/58mm which focuses down to 50cm. Now prism is fixed, but this camera has working metering and even EV-range is usable. Three LEDs in finder to show correct value, but no indication of shutter speed nor aperture like western cameras in that time already had. Depth of view button is however found on all cameras. Shutter is again vertical metal and speeds 1-1/1000s so no real differences. Film speed dial GOST-ASA 16-2000 so even here both rivals have no differences, but as said Kiev has a decently working "lower center" weighted meter unlike Almaz. Inside finish is equal to Almaz. Mechanically Kiev is easier to repair, and does not tend to break that easily. Handling is not that smooth though. And chromed body was certainly more unprofessional than the black colour as in the other two, even in communist countries.
Pearl River is actually an ancient Minolta, but has evolved a lot from the original concept. The chinese have propably had a lot of influence from both Japan and USSR as even here the prism is removable unlike the Minolta. Now the waist level finder is even a standard equipment, although this may mostly be an influence from the so popular TLR-use in China? Shutter is derived from Minolta: cloth horizontal, speeds from 1-1/1000s as you may guess, and flash sync 1/45 unlike 1/60 in USSR-cameras. Film speed reminder is in shutterspeed dial with DIN 9-36 so even chinese were prepared for hi-speed films, at least theoretically? Lens is Pearl River 2/58mm with 60cm focus, in Minolta-mount. Minolta ergonomics are present, and even some smoothness unlike cheaper Seagulls! Still the basic design is ancient from 60ies, which the chinese didn't alter. Flash shoe fitting around rewind knob is now most worst: alhough easier to mount than on Almaz it is not to be used with any normal sized flash. Inside finish worse than Kiev & Almaz, but above a peoples Zenit. Mirror lock up is again a legacy from Minolta, but film box end slot is missing.
Size- and weightwise neither of these is lightweight. Handlingwise the smooth Almaz woud be the choice if you don't need a built-in meter. If you prefer an exp meter then Kiev-20 is a natural choice, and not a bad one. Trust me, I have used mine and I like it! Especially the 35mm MIR-24 is my favourite, and in M42/K-mount there never was as nice wide angle from USSR. Almaz finder is a bit brighter than others, but focuswise Pearl-River has absolutely best matt glass. Both USSR-cameras have both split image and microprism, Almaz being the only one of these three with a horizontal split instead of a more usable 45° split image.
Commercially both Kiev and Almaz were failures even in USSR: Kiev was far too expensicve, and to cut down Almaz price the mechanical solutions were solved with inferior materials. Ironically the Pearl River was the only success from this trio, although it didn't offer so much extra features compared to its domestic rivals like the others. What it did have was much better finish than Seagull and Peafowl, propably that was enough in China then?
And I did not include Zenits, possibly "19" would have been the one but in my opinion Almaz was the ultimate high-end. Also Praktica was left out, as it was "too western", even easily available in west, which none of the above was!
http://www.cedricfan.sivut.ws/Juhani's%20website%20ORIGINAALIT/ |
|
Vladislav Kern
Vlad
USA
4252 Posts
My Collection
|
Posted - Nov 26 2007 : 3:35:27 PM
|
Juhani, this is very informative article, you should post it into member articles section in the Wiki Catalog! This way it's easily accessible and searchable!
Vlad |
 |
|
Luiz Paracampo
Luiz Paracampo
Brazil
2002 Posts
My Collection
|
Posted - Nov 26 2007 : 7:51:35 PM
|
Juhani
excellent comparison
What you forget to say is that Almaz has the electronic and mechanical concept of Minolta XE, this in itself a complete failure. This camera was immediatly withdraw from the market. Leica R3 is also a derivative,it continued a while because of the name, but better saying it was really a cosmetic lift up of Minolta with another bayonet. It was an error of LOMO to copy Minolta this one as all the subsequent models became unreliable up to the Minolta camera production stop.
The electronics in such type of cameras is a non sense in terms of reliability and repairability although easier to produce and at lower cost. In these cameras you have splendid possibilities that are really uneeded.
In my opinion the F2 Nikon from which Almaz took the face is the best camera to be copied and at a low price can still result in a high quality camera. |
|
|
Juhani Halmeenmaki
cedricfan
Finland
1020 Posts
My Collection
|
Posted - Nov 26 2007 : 11:36:25 PM
|
Vlad: I am not pretty sure how to do it, if possible please post it for me...
Luiz: A103 can not have electrical problems as it is all mechanical. The problem is misalignment of everything, as the used metal is not good enough and gets misformed. I have heard that the other Almaz-models with meter had usually a non-working meter, but can't comment as I have not (yet) owned one. And from those I don't know if even Oleg in Mari Republic would know?
And I do have a well working R3 also, and like it better than the F2 but nothing beats F3
http://www.cedricfan.sivut.ws/Juhani's%20website%20ORIGINAALIT/ |
|
|
BERRY alain
mermoz37
France
814 Posts |
Posted - Nov 27 2007 : 04:04:35 AM
|
hi friends ,
i possess 101, 102, 103 and 104 Almazes so, last year, i published an article in "Cyclope" magazine in France (whith the help of "Andrew" from St Petersburg).
It is hard work for me to translate hystory and technical data about these cameras , but i can try to translate some lines if necessary.
The Almaz story is very sophisticated because politics intervention in LOMO factory to abort this project: that's the reason why so much LOMO compact LCA are product : too much work in the factory and no place for Almaz project which was strangle (Moscow hate St Petersburg's intelligentia since long historical centuries !) |
|
|
Juhani Halmeenmaki
cedricfan
Finland
1020 Posts
My Collection
|
Posted - Nov 27 2007 : 10:45:51 AM
|
Please send me the article and I will try to translate it? My french is bad but maybe I do understand enough to guess the rest (pleaase use juhamak"at"saunalahti.fi for large emails).
Maybe your "Andrew" is the fellow who has a huge Almaz-website written in bad english but giving astonishing amount of data? I have it bookmarked somewhere...
http://www.cedricfan.sivut.ws/Juhani's%20website%20ORIGINAALIT/ |
|
|
Zoom
596 Posts |
Posted - Nov 27 2007 : 10:59:26 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by cedricfan
And I did not include Zenits...
You are right, KMZ never made a "pro"* cameras (may be except for Start) -- such was the plant specialization.
*) -- in a vulgar marketer's sense
|
Edited by - Zoom on Nov 27 2007 10:59:59 AM |
|
|
Zoom
596 Posts |
Posted - Nov 27 2007 : 11:05:53 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by mermoz37
The Almaz story is very sophisticated because politics intervention in LOMO factory to abort this project...
What a "politics intervention"? The reason was more simple... "Ne smogli..." LOMO had not experiences in SLR making, at first... |
Edited by - Zoom on Nov 27 2007 11:09:19 AM |
|
|
okynek
759 Posts |
Posted - Nov 27 2007 : 11:24:53 AM
|
quote:
such was the plant specialization.
Specializaton all USSR camera's factories was anything but cameras 
Could it be a reason for all the troubles.  |
|
|
Zoom
596 Posts |
|
BERRY alain
mermoz37
France
814 Posts |
Posted - Nov 27 2007 : 12:45:45 PM
|
it is hard to say...but you know ther was no frienship between St petersburg/ Moscow and Ukraina...since long time in the past !
So politic said about Alamaz plant : "why do you want to do the best ? do just enought !!!"...
i repeat again , is it the place to discuss about that ?
i think no, because bad experiences in relationship whith collectors...
let's smile and admire workers products performances |
|
|
Juhani Halmeenmaki
cedricfan
Finland
1020 Posts
My Collection
|
Posted - Nov 27 2007 : 1:18:54 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by ZoomBtw, http://www.zenitcamera.com/archive/misc/counsil-solution-1987.html
There about Almaz cameras too...
Very interesting to read: so many plans, which never came true...
Arsenal did not make AF-compact but BeLOMO, Arsenal never produced Kiev-21 and so on...
[quote]Originally posted by mermoz37
it is hard to say...but you know ther was no frienship between St petersburg/ Moscow and Ukraina...since long time in the past !/quote]
In this topic political history is very important for camera history too. And we are not blaming our fathers, just saying they did wrong. Sometimes even parents can and shall be critisized!
So, we know that "zsars Petersburg" was not favoured by communist ruling, and Ukraina (plus Baltic countries) were not part of "mother Russia", so naturally Moscow had a favour to Moscow region.
And remember me being a finn, with a history of both russian and soviet influence. But it is history, and historical facts influenced in many things.
http://www.cedricfan.sivut.ws/Juhani's%20website%20ORIGINAALIT/ |
|
|
Vladislav Kern
Vlad
USA
4252 Posts
My Collection
|
Posted - Nov 27 2007 : 1:26:42 PM
|
So while we're talking about Almaz factory can someone educate me on it? Almaz factory manufactured TSVVS, did it also manufacture the Almaz series? Or that's strictly LOMO? Is Almaz factory LOMO subsidiary? For some reason I know nothing about that factory....
Vlad. |
|
|
Luiz Paracampo
Luiz Paracampo
Brazil
2002 Posts
My Collection
|
Posted - Nov 27 2007 : 2:05:41 PM
|
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Zoom
What a "politics intervention"? The reason was more simple... "Ne smogli..." LOMO had not experiences in SLR making, at first...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you forget Sport? probably the first 35mm SLR camera from GOMZ/LOMO Those cameras work until today with no faults.
|
|
|
Juhani Halmeenmaki
cedricfan
Finland
1020 Posts
My Collection
|
Posted - Nov 27 2007 : 2:12:25 PM
|
Princelle:
GOI-GOZ-VOOMP-GOMZ-LOMO "in 1962 GOMZ becomes LOOMP" ... "Jan 1st 1965 this becomes LOMO"
So yes, created on Jan 4th 1914, it is that factory with an awfully long history but with many names and under several regimes!
http://www.cedricfan.sivut.ws/Juhani's%20website%20ORIGINAALIT/ |
|
|
Zoom
596 Posts |
Posted - Nov 27 2007 : 5:12:09 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by mermoz37
but you know ther was no frienship between St petersburg/ Moscow and Ukraina...since long time in the past !
I never heard about a hostile attitudes between an inhabitants of both cities (Let's let alone Ukraine, Stalin, a general dislike for muscovites, etc.). May be I'm living in another Russia?.. ;) I think, that it is the next myth about Russia. For example, I often meet one expression in a foreign press: "Mother Russia". Russians do not speak so. In the Hollywood films it is a lot of the stamps which actually not having any attitude to Russia, like "Na zdorovie!" ;)
quote:
Originally posted by mermoz37
So politic said about Alamaz plant : "why do you want to do the best ? do just enought !!!"...
Dear Alain, who was this politician? I think that this is a very important historical point: on whose fault "Almaz" program has stopped?
|
Edited by - Zoom on Nov 28 2007 08:37:39 AM |
|
|
Vladislav Kern
Vlad
USA
4252 Posts
My Collection
|
Posted - Nov 27 2007 : 5:28:25 PM
|
Zoom,
I think "Mother Russia" is loosely translated word "Rodina" which is used quite a lot in Russia, at least it was when I was there until 1994...
Vlad |
|
|
Zoom
596 Posts |
Posted - Nov 27 2007 : 5:32:53 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Vlad
So while we're talking about Almaz factory can someone educate me on it? Almaz factory manufactured TSVVS...
One man (Yury Davidenko) talk about this ( http://www.dvdtechcameras.com/collect/fed/1/18.htm ). Nobody else... May be he is right, I don't know... No sources. No documents. Nothing.
And I think that it name was "VTS-VS".
"Almaz" plant site is there: http://www.raspletin.ru/
quote:
Originally posted by Vlad
...did it also manufacture the Almaz series?
No.
quote:
Originally posted by Vlad
Or that's strictly LOMO? Is Almaz factory LOMO subsidiary?
No. No.
|
|
|
Zoom
596 Posts |
Posted - Nov 27 2007 : 5:40:20 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Vlad
I think "Mother Russia" is loosely translated word "Rodina"...
No... Mat'-Rossiya, Matushka Rossiya -- this variants are meaning... ;)
Sorry for off topic... |
|
|
Vladislav Kern
Vlad
USA
4252 Posts
My Collection
|
Posted - Nov 27 2007 : 5:49:52 PM
|
I said "loosely" .. yes, Matushka Rossiya is not used that often... and no, any cultural insights are not considered off-topic.. helps us understand the culture, thus understand the history.... this is not Zenit Camera Group ... hehe
Vlad. |
|
|
Bill Parkinson
nightphoto
USA
1027 Posts
My Collection
|
Posted - Nov 27 2007 : 6:42:52 PM
|
Zoom,
You are right that only Yuriy Davidenko has this theory about TSVVS and unfortunately he does not give the information about who his sources for it may be. So of course it has to be only one theory for now, unless he can give the sources and they are proven in some way. In the meantime, unfortunately, many who believe this to be the exact truth (TSVVS from Almaz), have stopped research and questioning the origins of the camera... which I think may not be so good.
But my question to you is ... you said that you think the initials are "VTS-VS". Can you tell me what this would be an abbreviation for?
I am interested in going down all roads of inquiry about this camera. I have thought for a long time that it may not have been made for a "Topographical Service" because they would be more likely to use larger format cameras for the type of work they do.
And thank you for your good information always!
Regards, Bill
|
Edited by - nightphoto on Nov 27 2007 7:02:18 PM |
|
|
Zoom
596 Posts |
Posted - Nov 27 2007 : 7:30:33 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by nightphoto
Can you tell me what this would be an abbreviation for?
VTS -- "Voenno-Topograficheskaya sluzhba" (Military Topographical Service)
VS -- "Vooruzhennye Sily" (Armed Forces)
There was only one Topographical Service in Russian Empire, Soviet Union and Russian Federation: VTS "pri General'nom shtabe" (under a General staff)*. So...
*) -- The exact name slightly varied in a years. |
|
|
Bill Parkinson
nightphoto
USA
1027 Posts
My Collection
|
Posted - Nov 27 2007 : 8:25:20 PM
|
OK...thank you.. I see.
Regards, Bill
|
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
Communist Pro SLR-cameras: my report and opinion
