Reply to

Communist Pro SLR-cameras: my report and opinion

Message

[quote][img]http://www.saunalahti.fi/~juhamak/CommuProCamsS.jpg[/img]

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/[/quote]

Subscribe to this topic

Cancel