| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Yuri Boguslavsky
fedka
USA
240 Posts
My Collection
|
 Posted - Apr 26 2008 : 10:46:48 AM
|
I think this topic is interesting enough to be under a separate subject.
I want to comment on Vlad's posting about Praktica and Zenit. (Quote below).
During my college years I used Zenit-E "professionally'. I do not have a real definition of "professional use", but at that time I was shooting on average 2-4 rolls daily for 4 years. Some for my newspaper assignments, some for [small] profit, some for fun.
I have to tell that Zenit-E is NOT a professional camera. The Helios-44 was a soft lens, and I eventually replaced it with a super-sharp Industar-61LZ. But the camera itsekf broke twice. Some internal gears that couple the winding crank with the shutter mechanism would simply wear out - the gear teeth would lose their shape. This was a pretty expensive repair and it took a week or so in a busy repair shop in Odessa (the actual repair is 10 min though).
I have to mention that my Zenit-E was made in Vileka, not KMZ, and this might explain a lot.
Priktica was my dream at that time. I made friends with an East German student, who eventually brought a brand new DTL3 for me. The camera was DM1000 at that time, or 330 rubles (huge amount in 1980).
I was stunned on how beautiful and smooth the Praktica was. Top notch workmanship, fast metal blade shutter, TTL metering. Self-timer broke after its first cycle (I am still traumatized by that), but the camera worked flawlessly since then, I used it for 10 years, with hundreds and hundreds of rolls shot, and it is still working fine. Unfortunately the plastic viewfinder optics developed some separation and became hazy. But I have to mention here that a stock Zeiss Pancolar lens was not impressive. Better than Helios-44, but not even close to Industar-61LZ.
About the Soviet film. yes, it was thick and hard until the mid 1970's, but by 1980's it changed a lot, and became flexible and thin.
Cameras used by professionals in the USSR (my observations) - Moskva-2, Moskva-5, Salyut and Salyut-S, Kiev-4a. I did not see Iskras then, but they are surely professional-grade cameras.
Yuri
<
When asked about Praktica, he told me the following: Soviet-made film was so tough and thick that after heavy use the plastic sprockets on the Praktica cameras would wear down, so it was never considered a professional camera for heavy use, but they did use a lot of Zenit E cameras with German lenses, Zenits because they had all metal sprockets. Helios lens, he said, were for playing around and not for pro shoots... (go figure, I always regarded Helios-44 to be excellent...)
That photographer would also do a lot of kindergarten and school pictures,and for that he used a Saluyt camera with a waist finder. Those cameras enjoyed a reputation of being a good high-quality pieces..
Vlad |
|
James McGee
James McGee
Azerbaijan
192 Posts |
Posted - Apr 27 2008 : 1:47:04 PM
|
Hi everybody,
I agree with Yuri, this topic is certainly interesting enough to deserve it's own space.
From my own experiences talking with a couple of Soviet professional photographers during the 90's they were very specific about the cameras that were worthy of professional use. This of course is the opinion of only two people and perhaps other professionals had other thoughts. That said these people were good friends of mine and I respected their opinions.
In any event my friends rated for medium format the Salyut as being far superior to either the Kiev 6C, or the Kiev 88, and for 35mm photography the Kiev IV was far more preferable than a Zenith SLR or any other Soviet 35mm camera.
Perhaps others have different views!
Regards,
Jim
|
 |
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Professional Cameras
