Re: Shutterbug

[dlevy@worldy.com]

At 09:52  10/10/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Marc--
>Sorry about the "Russian" reference--though we all did talk about "Russian"
>cameras in the days of the Soviet Union.  I don't think you've refuted me on
>the substance, though.  Surely the Kiev items would rank at the absolute
>bottom if you took all current MF interchangeable lens equipment and rank
>ordered it on lens quality and reliability.  Don't forget, the variability
>in quality you mention certainly counts in such a ranking.  The only
>advantage I can see is price.--Charlie


There may be another advantage which those established in MF.  When most of
us got into MF there was a good supply of inexpensive used MF cameras such
as the Ikontas, Rolleis, etc. Today, most of these war horses are on shelves
(in collections or not usable), buried in our systems and being used
occasionally by us, or discarded when the repair costs outweighed the value
of the camera. Also, most of the MF films have been withdrawn from the
market such as 620 which made technically obsolete entire ranges of cameras.

While used MF are available at relatively reasonable prices for the well
heeled, there are at least 2 instances when the prices are not that
reasonable. 1). the acquirer is not financially established such as a
student or struggling to establish himself as an artist (be it photographer,
painter, sculptor, etc.) and 2). the acquirer has a substantial investment
in an alternative format, but would like to test MF waters without putting
assets at risk.

My first MF was an Argus (used 620 film). It was my parents. My first MF
acquired by myself was some Zeiss model which I don't even remember anything
about, purchased from a pawn shop with a $2.50 Omega Seamaster watch. It was
$1.50 and I was in 7th or 8th grade. From there were Rollei TLRs at prices
as low as $10.00. What I am saying is that while we got in at a time when
the format was possibly on the marketing decline and therefore had a good
supply at low costs, today this is not so.

The Kiev line is possible replacement for this supply. It is above the
Seagull line (I have never seen nor used 1, but from all reports I've gotten
it is only better than the 110 Kellogs camera).

As the manufacturer of the Kiev line operates in a more stable economic
environment and establishes itself with better consistent qc, I hope it does
not forsake MF and concentrate its efforts on 35mm. 

Also, there are places I'd rather not take my MF system, such as areas where
there are high concentrates of salt or in areas of high crime. I'd rather
not expose my system to such risks. The Kiev may be considered a disposable
alternative, but still provide system flexibility.
Brian Levy, J.D.
Toronto, Ont.
dlevy@worldy.com