david_mcsparron

You are correct, you can draw no conclusions from images posted on a web page. The resolution is so poor, it is of no use in determining the quality of the original negative or slide.

It is quite possible to enhance a poor image to make it look better than a superior image that was poorly scanned.

Web page images have little more than curiosity value when it comes to judging the quality of a camera or lens.

This is probably caused by the insides of the extension tubes not being flat black. If there is any reflectivity on the insides of them, it will cause haze in the pictures. You may be able to paint the insides flat black yourself. Of course when using extension tubes you also have to apply an exposure correction unless you are using a TTL meter.

I once wrote to them to ask for an estimate on repairing a Voigtlander. I described the problems and work needed very thoroughly. I got a form letter back saying I could only get an estimate after they had examined the camera. They also refused to tell me how much it would cost me if I refused the repair. This put me off and I never did send my camera to them. However, I have heard they do good work but are very expensive.

Has anyone experience of the 4.5x6 version of the Kiev 60?

How does the version from the factory differ from the version

converted by KievUSA?

 

How if the viewfinder modified?

How is the film counter modified?

Does anyone know anything about Lippische TLR's. In particular the Optipet camera.

I believe Lippische also made the Rollop and the Flexora TLR's.

Ther are/were? a German company.

The Graflex 22 is a slightly updated Ciro-flex. There were several models. The best model had a 4-element F3.2 lens instead of the normal 3-element f3.5 lens.

The 3-element lens in my experience is horrendously bad.

The cameras are crude if robust.

There is a book called "Photography with the Graflex 22" by John S. Carroll published by Morgan ans Lester, but its l-o-n-g out of print (Its a 1950's book).

The Lumaxar lens fitted to early Yashicamats is a 4-element lens, the equal of a Yashinon and superior to the 3-element Yashimar or Yashikor.

Its highly unlikely that any selenium meter from the 1950's is still accurate even if the needle moves.

Buy an external selenium meter. The Gossen Pilot 2 is a good one.

There were many variations of the Yashica D.

Early models had 3-element Yashikor lenses, avoid them.

Later models had the better 4-element Yashinon lens.

The very last and most desirable models had an F2.8 viewing lens.

The ones with the 4-element lens will give identical results to the best Yashicamat but with the slower-operating wind on knob instead of the faster crank.

A folder will not be that much lighter than a TLR like the Yashica.

They are not as durable because of the bellows, and on all but the most expensive ones there is no rangefinder so you have to estimate distance.

Why are you using a medium-format camera for backpacking and hiking?

Use a small 35mm rangefinder like a Canon GIIIQL, Olympus SP35 or Rollei XF53. You will get more than adequate 11x14 prints from such a small camera with a good lens.

I checked out the Brenner Foto (Germany) site which was mentioned above and there is no mention of Kiev cameras anywhere on it.