Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/10/10

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: Shutterbug
From: "Charles E. Love, Jr." <cel14@cornell.edu>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 20:51:34 -0400 (EDT)

Marc

This is not meant in a combative way at all, and I certainly don't want to
start a Medium Format thread (we've got the medium format digest for that)
nor do I want to start another Europe-Japan war.  But I am genuinely shocked
that you would rate the Kievs in at all the same league with the current
Mamiya and Bronica offerings (I do think Mamiya is better stuff than
Bronica, but that's another story).  

My brother owned the Hassy imitation Kiev and the Pentax 67 imitation Kiev,
with lots of lenses, and I spent some time with the cameras.  The cameras
and the mechanics of the lenses both seemed extremely rough and cheaply
made.  They worked, but not well.  I think this is confirmed by the ads in
Shutterbug which advertise that if you'll buy the cameras from them, they'll
put in different parts (Swedish, I think) and get them up to some minimum
level of reliability.  It's my impression, based on my brother's knowledge
and experience more than mine, that the lenses are extremely variable in
quality, so it is indeed possible to get a good one, but also to get a very
bad one.  

My own MF experience has included ownership of the Mamiya 6 and 7 and the
Pentax 67, with significant time with Hassys and some with an RZ.  I have
never even handled a MF Rollei.  I should say that I found the Mamiya 6 and
7 to be of extremely high quality in construction, and the lenses are truly
superb, especially the more recent Mamiya 7--I make giant Cibachromes.  In
fact, I wish Leitz had made these cameras-
- -I'd love them in M-type metal!

To me, if we are rating equipment, the Kievs are of very low quality, even
if it's possible to get a good one if the wind blows in the right direction.
On the other hand, the Hassy, Rollei, Mamiya, Bronica and Pentax all have
much better quality control, and all have some truly superb lenses (and
others that are a bit less good!).

None of this is to say that the Kievs aren't fun, or interesting, or capable
of producing good images.

Charlie

At 11:13 AM 10/10/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Charlie
>
>Optically, the Ukrainian cameras would, in my experience, rank immediately
>behind Rollei & Hassie in quality.  Superb lenses.  Certainly, in overall
>quality, the Kiev MF cameras would rank substantially ahead of Seagull,
>Pearl River, Lubitel, and the like, as well.
>
>In terms of quality, sure, their poor QA puts them in the middle with Mamiya
>and Bronica and the other also-rans.  It's the low price and superlative
>lenses which really pull the Kiev MF cameras ahead of the others in the
>middle, though.
>
>My experience is limited, however:  I have owned and shot extensively only
>with a slew of Rollei TLR's, Hassie, a Super Ikonta, Ikoflex, Baby Bessa,
>and a Mamiya RB67.  I have handled and used briefly most of the other major
>brands, but never enough to make a really deep impression, just a feeling
>that I'd not be happy with them as primary cameras.
>
>Marc
>
>
>
>msmall@roanoke.infi.net  FAX:  +540/343-7315
>Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir!
>
>
Charles E. Love, Jr.
517 Warren Place
Ithaca, New York
14850
607-272-7338
CEL14@CORNELL.EDU