Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,692   Posts: 1,482,413   Online: 691
      
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 33
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Philadelphia area
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    267
    Images
    9
    I would stay away from the Lubitel as there are many other cheap alternatives these days unless bad ergonomy and poor quality is what you are looking for.

    Take care.
    "The problem with photography is that it only deals with appearances." Duane Michals

    "A photograph is a secret of a secret. The more it tells you the less you know." Diane Arbus

  2. #12
    Richard Sintchak (rich815)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    San Francisco area
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,567
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Dali View Post
    I would stay away from the Lubitel as there are many other cheap alternatives these days unless bad ergonomy and poor quality is what you are looking for.

    Take care.
    OP, keep the way you already have on the other side of the room.
    -----------------------

    "Well, my photos are actually much better than they look..."

    Richard S.
    Albany, CA (San Francisco bay area)

    My Flickr River of photographs
    http://flickriver.com/photos/rich815...r-interesting/

    My Photography Website
    http://www.lightshadowandtone.com

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    277
    Quote Originally Posted by kr236rk View Post
    The Lubitel is for a specific project which may not work out in the end. But if it does I could well be looking to upgrade

    Bests!

    Ric

    No problem. I just saw someone's review of the Lubitel 166 Universal on the internet and bought one based on the positive things that were said and the screen size images. I can see someone using it for a special project but as an every day shooter I thought there should have been an evaluation with a comparison to other widely available cameras.

    Quote Originally Posted by rich815 View Post
    You had a bad one. I worked at a pro lab when I had mine. Many of the photo techs were blown away by the quality I was getting from my Lubitel.
    That may be so. I only bought one Lubitel 166 before giving up. My problem with the camera is in all the years I've researched the camera people who like it just say it's "sharp." They never say compared to what. Well I read one person who ranked it slightly lower than a Hasselblad Zeiss and above a Contax lens. Allegedly that guy's Lubitel was even sharper than Bronica lenses if I read his rather lengthy post correctly. I've shot Lubitel and I've shot Bronica ETRS. The Lubitel was not even in the same ballpark. Like I said though I only used one copy of each. I usually don't get into this lens is sharper than this lens debates for the simple reason that once you reach a certain level of sharpness like the better Rollei/Hasselblad and Mamyia lenses other camera/system considerations are what differentiate. But my Lubitel 166 was so inferior to every Canon (including FD), Nikon, Rollei Zeiss, Bronica PE, etc lens I have ever used it really did warrant being mentioned.

    Oh, and the guy that said the Lubitel 2 was slightly less sharp than the Hasselblad also claimed Rollei SLR lenses are sharper than Hasselblad lenses... Not sure if the guy realized several of the Zeiss lenses are the exact same design in both mounts. He did mention "better dampening" with the Rolleis but one can only assume he was unaware of MLU... assuming "dampening" was even an issue with the Hasselblad. Anyway the whole thing was quite dubious.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Philadelphia area
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    267
    Images
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Noble View Post
    Well I read one person who ranked it slightly lower than a Hasselblad Zeiss and above a Contax lens. Allegedly that guy's Lubitel was even sharper than Bronica lenses if I read his rather lengthy post correctly.
    The usual internet BS... Why buying a Planar when a triplet can do the job??? A Lubitel can take decent pictures as long as the lens was correctly assembled and adjusted to the body (optional). But you have to deal with one of the worst viewfinder I never see, a less than average film flatness, a half-decent lens coating and a low grade overall reliability. And don't even think about using 220 film, you still have the red window for film advance.

    As long as you know what you are buying, it is OK. After all, eveyone has different expectations in life, but a Lubitel "slightly" lower than a Planar, really? this is total BS. But you already knows that as you noticed that your ETRS lenses were better than a russian T-22 lens which is just plain logical.

    Take care.
    "The problem with photography is that it only deals with appearances." Duane Michals

    "A photograph is a secret of a secret. The more it tells you the less you know." Diane Arbus

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    239
    My Lubitel was also my first MF camera and it was FREE! Not bad at f16 and below. Picky about the backing paper quality.

  6. #16
    edp
    edp is offline

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    195
    I have a Sputnik, which is effectively two Lubitels joined together, and it looks and feels exactly like what it is: a clunky, poorly-designed (it's shiny on the inside!), badly put together, hard to use chunk of bakelite that came out of a Russian tractor factory sixty years ago.

    It's the only camera I really enjoy using.

  7. #17
    Richard Sintchak (rich815)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    San Francisco area
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,567
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by edp View Post
    I have a Sputnik, which is effectively two Lubitels joined together, and it looks and feels exactly like what it is: a clunky, poorly-designed (it's shiny on the inside!), badly put together, hard to use chunk of bakelite that came out of a Russian tractor factory sixty years ago.

    It's the only camera I really enjoy using.
    Fun? But does the Sputnik impress people? :-)
    -----------------------

    "Well, my photos are actually much better than they look..."

    Richard S.
    Albany, CA (San Francisco bay area)

    My Flickr River of photographs
    http://flickriver.com/photos/rich815...r-interesting/

    My Photography Website
    http://www.lightshadowandtone.com

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    69
    Images
    40
    During last few years I got one simple but very true thing - in photography result directly depends on photographer's skills, experience and creativity, and only a little bit on equipment used. Yes, Lubitel (mean "amateur" in russian) is simple and low quality camera. Of couse "better" TLRs are more easy to handle, have more features and better build quality etc. But if you know and understand what you are doing Lubitel may give you very good results.

    Here are two links to galleries with pictures from 2 very first 120 rolls I did in my life - Gallery 1 - (click here) and Gallery 2 - (click here). I understand that they aren't that great from "artistic" point of view, but from "technique" side I do not see any issues there. They are good enough medium format pictures so the most people will never ever guess that pics were taken with Lubilel if they will not be told so.

    Is Libitel my favorite TLR - no, not at all. But I will definitely spent another $30 to buy one more of those on *bay in like new condition to have a fun shutting it once a year. They have great value for $$ and very good ones to start and learn medium format with low $$.

    Vic
    Last edited by vfalendysh; 05-04-2013 at 03:23 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Philadelphia area
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    267
    Images
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by vfalendysh View Post
    During last few years I got one simple but very true thing - in photography result directly depends on photographer's skills, experience and creativity, and only a little bit on equipment used. Yes, Lubitel (mean "amateur" in russian) is simple and low quality camera. Of couse "better" TLRs are more easy to handle, have more features and better build quality etc. But if you know and understand what you are doing Lubitel may give you very good results.

    Here are two links to galleries with pictures from 2 very first 120 rolls I did in my life - Gallery 1 - (click here) and Gallery 2 - (click here). I understand that they aren't that great from "artistic" point of view, but from "technique" side I do not see any issues there. They are good enough medium format pictures so the most people will never ever guess that pics were taken with Lubilel if they will not be told so.

    Vic
    Of course it is possible to get pictures from a Lubitel, after all it is supposed to be a camera. And to paraphrase you, if you know and understand what you are doing, any camera may give you very good results. My question is: why limit yourself with a low quality camera? There is plenty of used TLR to buy for a reasonable cost (Yash A, some 'Cord and Ikoflex, Ricohflex, etc...) which IMO offer much more and are more user friendly.

    I won't comment about your picture (even if I see some vignetting and uneven zones coming maybe from flare or light leak - BTW your first link does not work) as small picture from the internet is not a valid way to assess their technical value. Come with 16in x 16in prints and I am pretty you will change your mind.

    Don't get me wrong: I enjoy using some Soviet cameras (FED and Zorki 1, FED 3) because they can be the equivalent of western cameras. Sorry but the Lubitel is not in the same league.

    Take care.
    "The problem with photography is that it only deals with appearances." Duane Michals

    "A photograph is a secret of a secret. The more it tells you the less you know." Diane Arbus

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    69
    Images
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by Dali View Post
    Of course it is possible to get pictures from a Lubitel, after all it is supposed to be a camera. And to paraphrase you, if you know and understand what you are doing, any camera may give you very good results. My question is: why limit yourself with a low quality camera? There is plenty of used TLR to buy for a reasonable cost (Yash A, some 'Cord and Ikoflex, Ricohflex, etc...) which IMO offer much more and are more user friendly.

    I won't comment about your picture (even if I see some vignetting and uneven zones coming maybe from flare or light leak - BTW your first link does not work) as small picture from the internet is not a valid way to assess their technical value. Come with 16in x 16in prints and I am pretty you will change your mind.

    Don't get me wrong: I enjoy using some Soviet cameras (FED and Zorki 1, FED 3) because they can be the equivalent of western cameras. Sorry but the Lubitel is not in the same league.

    Take care.
    You missing my point here. As most people who use TLR or any other film camera modern times, they doing it for fun and joy only. There are no that many pros left who constantly use film. I like Lubitel not because of results (I have over 20 tlrs including 5 yashicas, 2 mamiyas with 65mm, 80mm, 105mm, 135mm and gorgeous 180mm "Super" lenses, few zeises, ricohs, rolleicords, and even rare mamiyaflex with olympus lenses, plus few other ones) but once a while I'm going back to Lubitel just because I like. I'm just enjoying process with lubitel which forces me to be more careful and think more, and I'm surprised every time when I see results from this plastic camera. And I never had feeling that I'm limiting myself.

    As I said - there nothing that much to talk about my sample pictures. They aren't perfect and I know it. They were my first tests I took with lubitel that I assembled from 3 donor cameras that I got as a gift and first medium format I ever did...

    Going back to the topic of this thread - guy made some pictures with lubitel and he enjoyed his results (whose I like too, btw). Why should we tell him that camera he used is not perfect?
    Last edited by vfalendysh; 05-04-2013 at 04:51 PM. Click to view previous post history.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin