Hi Doro,
> that's what it is. Some think they are ugly
> (http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/mf/kiev60.htmlhttp://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/mf/kiev60.html),
>
Ugly? Well, that's a matter of taste. I looks like a brick.
> most of them don't work properly because the films we use are thinner
> than the one's she was designed for resulting in overlapping frames.
> Kiev 88 was the russian Hasselblad - copy, Kiev 60 is a lot like
> Pentacon 6.
Yes, i can see that from the picture. Like an oversized 35mm SLR with attached
matte screen finde.
What makes them so interesting is the lenses. Arsat, the
> russian factory in Ukrain, got the technology from Carl Zeiss Jena after
> WW II (Reparationsleistung - don't know the english word for it).
I heard about that before. Like the lots of Leica rangefinder look-alikes in
antique shops in Eastern Europe or German flee-markets.
> So the original russian lenses are already very good - for the price
> even outstanding.
I heard somewhere (drf?) that these lenses and cameras were made with the
original machining equipment, but without good raw materials.
The bayonet of the 60 is the same as for Pentacon 6
> (GDR made) and Exacta. So you get a lot of Carl Zeiss Jena lenses as
> well as Schneider Kreuznach, if you happen to have too much money ;) -
> of course, *if I had, I would buy some Zuikos :)))
This interchangeability is a good thing.
Have you solved the problems with the film transport at your Kiev?
Bernd
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|