Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/10/10
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]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