Switch to English Language Passer en langue franšaise Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 75,222   Posts: 1,659,583   Online: 738
      
Page 8 of 33 FirstFirst ... 23456789101112131418 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 329
  1. #71
    giacomo.fiani's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Trieste, Italy
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    33
    COSINA CT-1
    I bought it in a flea market, with a good kit of lenses (24, 50 and 150mm) for very little money, but it wasn't even worth that handful of euros. The worst issue is that the back part of the body opens at every small stroke (even the softest), letting the light come in and burn away all the pictures. I had to put a whole roll of tape all around the body to get some usable negatives, which quality was (as expected) very poor.

  2. #72
    David Lyga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,529
    darkosaric and all: Soviet cameras are fully capable of high quality results (ie, Zenit, or RF type). It's the quality control that leads many of them into the garbage pail. When they work right they are surprisingly competent, but limited in attributes.

    The Soviets also made a VERY cheap, plastic 35mm camera 'for the masses' way back in the fifties or sixties (?) but the lens is much better than one would find on a 'Brownie' and has limited aperture and shutter speed settings, unlike the box cameras and most Instamatic models made by Kodak. Other countries did not 'dumb down' photography for the masses as did Kodak. My opinion: I think that Kodak did more with cameras to denigrate status of quality photography than most manufacturers did. They made up for it with their film.

    The The Russian lenses are rightfully compared with the finest in the world. - David Lyga

  3. #73
    darkosaric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Hamburg, Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,411
    Images
    4
    I like soviet lenses - they are very good: I have jupiter 11 - excellent lens; had jupiter 8 - also excellent, I have jupiter 12 - good, industars are good, but I use them on M3 with adapter. Viewfinder on zorki 4 is very bad, kiev viewfinder also, and overall feeling of soviet cameras - not for me. Maybe M3 spoiled me - having nice and big viewfinder.
    Also winding of films often destroyed film in my case - but this is probably because I got bad example of cameras (as you sad: quality control problem).
    Last edited by darkosaric; 09-01-2011 at 08:29 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  4. #74

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Shropshire, UK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    829
    Images
    7
    Kiev 60. I didn't expect refinement - it was built like a tank, weighed a ton and smelled of oil and grease. I did think something so heavy and industrial would be tough and rugged and - in it's own way - be reliable. In reality it was fragile, temperamental and riddled with faults. Shutter and film transport, mostly. The first one went back for a film spacing fault. The replacement had a lesser film spacing fault, but the shutter juddered and jammed. I never got a fully working one. The dealer did the honourable thing and refunded my money after about 3 months.

    Shame - there was something about them that appealed - including lots of interesting lenses. I got a Pentecon 6 instead, a much better buy :-)
    Steve

  5. #75

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Burnaby, BC
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    718
    Agreement here on the F4. I have owned and used Nikon F series cameras going back to F2s in the late 70s. I currently own a pair of F2s (DE-1 variety), an F2A and a pair of F2ASs, an F3, F3HP, an F4s and an F5. I bought the F4s on a sort of whim (big mistake): it was the newest thing, it had autofocus, etc. Somehow the camera has never really felt right: ergonomics are awkward, changing batteries in a hurry is a pain in the *** and, compared to the marvelous F5, the auto-focus is slower than molasses in January. As a result, on most shooting excursions, an F2AS, F3HP and F5 are first into the bag; the F4s tends to get pulled from the shelf only in the rarest of instances.

  6. #76

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Boston
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    427
    Images
    5
    Mamiya 645 Super. Squeaky motor drive never felt securely attached, multiple failures in year one, shutter self-fired anytime it got cold, weird little cable adapter, inconsistent lens quality, cheap feel everywhere but my wallet, slow service from & overpriced by MAC.

  7. #77

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Wismar, Germany
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    161
    The very worst was a Kiev 88 CM which had a broken shutter after about 15 rolls, but before that it was a nice camera. Sadly, the price of repair was way above the price for a new one, so it's a very decorative paper weight now and I got a Kowa Six instead.
    Buying a Kiev is like a lottery - you can hit the jackpot, but most of the time, you just pay for nothing.

    There also was a Zorki 1e... basically a Leica II copy. It still works, but I just can't work with the tiny viewfinder, dark rangefinder and easily jammed shutter. I guess, I'd say the same about an original early Leica. I have no idea, what people like about those.

  8. #78

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    11

    Mamiya C220

    I wanted to love this camera, picked it up on fleabay and it is a beautiful camera - but... The shutter was gummed, the film advance worked then failed, then worked, then failed, the back needed foam replacement. A good CLA would have fixed this, but I didn't know better.

    Instead I sold it at a loss and found a Mamiya RZ67 I have been absolutely happy with ever since.

    In 35mm, a Kodak Signet 35 - the camera my dad gave me to take a photography class with - made the class torture as I struggled over and over to overcome the limitations imposed by a very slow lens and rangefinder focussing.

    I keep thinking I should get one of these to see if it really was as bad as I remember or if that was then - and then I recover and don't buy it.

  9. #79

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Toronto ON Canada
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    547
    The Signet 35 is actually quite a decent camera but, like many mechanical items, it takes time to get used to it and one needs to make an effort to stop fighing it.

  10. #80

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Whitestone, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    990
    Images
    74
    All you wonderful people disappointed with your Leica experience after using M3s need to try again with M7s. Also, are you sure it's not rangefinders in general that you are disappointed with?



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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