Topic
Topic author: fedka
Posted on: 20080426104648
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
<<Zoom, Hahaha... well I can tell you one thing about Praktica - I've had a conversation recently with a professional licensed photographer from USSR who worked in 1980s, here what he told me in short:
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
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
<<Zoom, Hahaha... well I can tell you one thing about Praktica - I've had a conversation recently with a professional licensed photographer from USSR who worked in 1980s, here what he told me in short:
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