martin_f._melhus

Kalimex is now listing the Hartblei cameras for sale on their website.

They have 3 models that I'm interested in, the 66, 1006 and 1008. The

66 looks like a P6 mount Kiev 88. The 1006 appears to be an improved

P6 mount 88, and the 1008 is a Kiev88 mount 88. They also claim that

these cameras can take Hassie backs and finders.

1) My gut is telling me that these are the same people who used to

rebuild the K60 and K88 cameras for Kalimex, and they are now selling

the rebuilt cameras under their name. Anybody else have any info on

this?

2) The 1006 Studio Master (SM) version is listed at $660 for the body

only. The 1008 SM lists at $440 for the body only. Why the huge price

difference for the P6 mount? Wouldn't another lens be better instead?

(Yes, I know about the other lenses available for the P6 mount. But

is this option worth $220?)

To get the whole scoop on this, download the MF Price List PDF file,

and look at the info in their online shop. While some of the side

frames don't load right, the upper ones do, and you can see the text

and images.

Thanks for any information.

Regards,

Peter may very well be right. They list a street address in Georgia,

but their e-mail address is bdmphoto@email.msn.net, and the web page

sure acts like it comes from overseas.

I suppose it is possible that the Kiev Camera Company opened a US distributor, or something like that.

Regards,

B&H Photo in NY also carries them. The bodies have some light leaks, the lenses are plastic, and probably 2 or 3 elements at most, the

shutter speed varies by perhaps 50% from shot to shot, and the film

advance is incosistent.

It's kinda the modern version of the Diana. Cheap, but can take

pictures that are recognizable. Forget about sharpness. Soft and

artistic is what you'll get (if you're lucky.)

Regards,

I just discovered what I suspect is a new store carrying Kiev

equipment. They call themselves Kiev Camera, are located in

physical space in Atlanta, Georgia, and in cyberspace at:

http://www.camera.kiev.ua/

Their prices blow everyone else out of the water. For example,

for the Zodiac/Arsat 30mm f3.5, Kiev/USA wants $525. Kalimex,

in the Czeck republic, wants $370 for the multicoated Zodiac-8

(same 30/3.5.) But Kiev camera is asking a mere $170. I shot

them off an e-mail asking if this was a multicoated lens, and

they claim that it is. I also asked if they did any repair work

or checking on the new cameras, and they kinda said that they

didn't, but they do offer packages similar to Kalimex's, like

a 88 with cloth shutter, flocked interior and P-six mount (for

a mere $400.)

I don't have any idea whether their service is any good, whether

they are selling junk or not, or if they have a return policy or

not. I haven't bought anything from them yet. But their prices

are fabulous, and they do respond to e-mail, so I thought at least

some of you MF Digest Kiev people would be interested. As always

(and especially with Kiev equipment,) buyer beware.

Regards,

Colin -

Please go ahead and be bold. I shoot underwater so that I can

blow up the best shots and put them on my walls. The largest

that I've gone is 11x14, and those show some grain when looked

at closely. Even my favorite shot, with a rented Nikonos 15mm

lens on a Nikonos IV-A is grainy at 11x14. I'd love to be able

to make much larger images, but would to need to move up to

MF.

I currently have a Nik III, Nik IV-A, and Nik V, 17mm S&S, 28mm,

35mm and 80mm lenses, Ikelite 225, Helix Aquaflash 28 and Oceanic

2003 strobes, as well as macro framers, viewfinders, etc. The

Nikonos system is OK as far as it goes. But above water, I shoot

almost entirely MF and LF (Koni-Omega, Voigtlander, Yashica 124G,

Super Speed Graphic.) I like using manual exposure cameras, am

not a huge fan of TTL (although it definitely has it's strengths,)

and really enjoy technical photography, as well as building stuff.

So that's why I'd like a Medium Format U/W system. I understand

that the film and processing are more expensive, but if I can't

get an image that I'm happy with at 35mm, the extra cost is

trivial. After all, a cheap computer that doesn't work will

effectively cost more than an expensive one that does work.

-----

Thomas -

There was a post here a while ago where some guy claimed that

he picked up a hassie 1000 back at a camera show for $50, fixed

it up for $20, and it works great on his 88. Was hoping that

this would be true.

-----

Peter -

The 30mm fish-eye is pretty wide. And the 45mm lens has

a field of coverage comparable to a 17mm lens on a 35mm

camera. Of course, a properly curved dome port would be

needed, and perhaps an Ivanoff corrector of some type.

Also the differences between amatuer and pro U/W photographers

kinda look like this:

1: Ams get maybe 2 good shots a roll.

Pros get maybe 4 good shots a roll.

2: Ams shoot maybe 40 rolls a year.

Pros shoot maybe 400 rolls a year.

This produces 80 keepers/yr for the am, and

1600 for the pro. These are clearly ballpark

figures, but they point out a basic truth.

If you are paid to shoot u/w, you'll shoot more,

and keep more.

-----

Dan -

Everyone that I've talked to says TTL is pretty useless

for W/A shots u/w. For macro, it makes life a lot easier,

and for fish portraits, it helps some. Given that, a

full manual camera and a good knowledge of full manual

technique will produce more keepers than blind faith in

the camera's electronics, at least for W/A work, which for

me is the cat's meow.

-----

I hope I've explained myself some. A while ago I thought

that the Hassie 903SWC and it's housing were the ultimate

in U/W equipment, but I then thought about flooding it and

decided that it was too much money to put into a housing and

dunk in the briny deep. Kiev makes the MF option cheaper,

and more reasonable to dive with, and has no hassles that the

Hassie system wouldn't have (aside from the quirkyness of

the Kiev system, but that's a land problem as well.)

Thanks for your input.

Regards,

I was thinking about putting together a Kiev system, and seeing if

Ikelite would make a custom housing for it. Before you laugh out loud,

here are the reasons that this might not be a terrible idea.

1) It is said that you shouldn't put any camera underwater that you

couldn't afford to have flooded. You can get a housing for a Hassie

903SWC, but if it floods, your U$ 5000 camera will probably need

$1000 of repair, and may never be the same again. It makes more

sense to put a less expensive system like a Kiev in the ocean.

2) Film length. I am speculating that there are 70mm backs for

the Hassie 1000 that could be stuck on a Kiev 88. And even if

they exist, they may be unbuyable (cause no-one is selling.)

This would probably rule out the 60 as well, unless there's a

custom option for a 70mm back. Interchangable backs (like

interchangable lenses) don't help one bit underwater.

Given the above, and that Ike might be intrigued, one could put

together 3 lenses, a body or two, a 70mm back, a couple of strobes

(got those already,) and a housing, and have a MF U/W system for

around U$ 1500.

Obvious caveats - get used to the 88 body, and get one that works.

Same for the film back, lens, etc. Test extensively on land before

trying it on your $2000+ dive trip.

Problems - 70mm back availability. Also, UW, cameras have to be

even more reliable. Salt water, humidity, temperature changes,

and so forth can wreack havoc with fine shutters and delicate

transport mechanisms. Many people advise only taking pro level

cameras (N90 or above in Nikon's line) for U/W work. This might

work against the Kiev solution.

Of course there are bad Kiev 88's out there, and no one would

want to use one on land - never mind under water. But there are

good ones too, and if one could get one of those, it might be the

way to go.

I'm interested in hearing any and all comments, especially from

other U/W photographers, and people with better than terrible

experiences with Kiev stuff.

Regards,

Ed -

One other thing. The link for Continent-Wide Enterprises does not

work for me. Could you see if there's a new one, or if they

went belly up for selling stuff too cheap? Thanks for the

great information.

I'd like to offer a slight correction to the comments of Shigehiro

Ishii (shige-i@tkd.att.ne.jp). He states that the coatings on lenses

have nothing to do with sharpness. This is incorrect. Coated and

multicoated lenses are treated to correct chromatic aberration. CA is

a lens error in which light of different wavelengths (or colors) is

focussed to different distances. This is a standard problem with

simple glass lenses. Around WWII, techniques were devised for coating

lenses so that the colors all focussed to the same diatance. See Jim

Stone's book "A User's Guide to the View Camera," pp. 115-116, for a

more complete explanation of chromatic aberration (both axial and

transverse.)

<p>

So an uncoated lens will have more difficulty focussing any image with

different colors of light in it. Colored fringes will appear on color

film; with B&W film, there will just be general unsharpness.

<p>

Aside from this quibble, I agree with Shigehiro Ishii's comments, and

appreciate the info about the serial number codes.

<p>

Regards,

The Kodak 203mm f7.7 Ektar lens has a lot of people singing its

praises. The weight is light enough to carry into the field, and

the lens is very sharp, and very inexpensive for a LF lens.

<p>

My question is how does one differentiate between the uncoated and

coated versions of this lens? Does the shutter or serial number give any clues? Is there a way to tell by looking at the reflections inside the lens? Any info appreciated.

<p>

Regards,

I have a nice Bessa I with a Skopar lens. The problem is that the

bellows has a bad spot in the pleats and doesn't fold correctly.

They are still light tight, and seem to be supple. It's just that

the cloth and leather are seperated, and when I fold the lens in,

a few spots that should fold in fold out, and the nearby out spots

fold in.

<p>

I've retrained the leather and cloth by holding it with one of those

large clips for reports (black metal with the two wire loops that

act as levers to open the clip.) Left in place for a week, this

reversed the preferential folding direction. But I suspect that

I need to use some glue to reattach the leather and interior cloth.

Any suggestions on how to proceed? Rubber cement in a syringe might

be enough to get the two attached without losing all flexability. Or

perhaps there's a known standard glue that I'm unaware of. Any info

appreciated.

<p>

Regards,

We're shooting images of air flow fields for scientific research, and

we've lost a day of shooting because of a jammed Hasselblad. This is

really expensive, as we only get a few days a year to shoot these.

<p>

Are there any good web pages about avoiding jams in Hassie equipment?

I've looked for a few hours with little success, other than what I've

gleaned from the MFD. We rent the gear, so no-one here is really

familiar with it. What I've read in the MFD has given me some ideas

about the specific nature of the problem, but I don't feel confident

enough about it to risk fixing a rented, many thousands of dollars

camera. Additionally, this information will have to get to a number

of people, so a nice, graphic oriented web page will be perfect.

<p>

For specifics, we're using 553ELX cameras with 30mm and 40mm lenses.

<p>

Regards,

<p>

Martin.

For landscapes, and close up work with objects, I can't imagine a

better choice than a LF camera.

<p>

For close up work, you can actually choose the focal plane; it doesn't

have to be parallel to the film plane. Tilt and swing will accomplish

this. It's all well defined by the Scheimpflug rule. For books, look

at Steve Simmons or Jim Stone's books on using LF cameras, or look at

the descriptive info on B&H's web site.

<p>

For wide angle landscapes, LF is pretty straightforward. For architectural work, shifts and swings are important.

<p>

The only problems that LF could pose for you are (as I see it, anyway)

<p>

1. Cost. LF gear is really expensive. A typical lens runs $1000.

They can be had for less, but new ones are not cheap. Film and

developing are also a lot more than for 35mm. 2 Quickloads cost

about as much to develop as a roll of 36 35mm slides. An average

LF setup new will cost about as much as a Hasselblad or Mamiya 6x7

rig.

<p>

2. Bulk. LF gear is heavy and bulky. I have a book of breathtaking

photos along the Colorado trail. The photographer used 2 llamas

to carry his gear.

<p>

3. For landscapes, you'll probably want a bag bellows, and a wide and

semi wide lens. For close-up work, you'll need a flat field or

macro lens, and a very long bellows. So you'll have to get 2

bodies, one for each of your chosen areas.

<p>

Anyway, good luck. I have a Koni-Omega 6x7 setup with 3 lenses, and

a Super Speed Graphic. I'm getting more use out of the SSG setup,

even with fewer lenses and greater reload times.

I have a Super Speed Graphic, and want to get a focussing loupe.

The Toyo 3.6x GG loupe has a lot of really nice features, but

the "low" magnification of 3.6x is not what I want. I tried one

out at Helix, and I liked the length (3.9"), and the rubber coated

ends (my fresnell lens and GG need replacement.) But the magnification wasn't enough for my taste.

<p>

What do you all out there use for focussing? Is there some other

brand that I don't know about? B&H advertises a Docter 8x GG loupe,

but the guy on the phone couldn't tell me anything about it, as he

has never seen one.

<p>

I won't get anything shorter than the Toyo. The Wista 7x looks long,

but doesn't (as best as I can tell) have the rubber coatings.

<p>

Any advice is appreciated. Thanks in advance.

<p>

Regards,

I was right about the Yen, by the way. The 210 mm lens, at

49,500 Yen, converts to $350.00. Conversion rate as of 6/11/98

was 1000 Yen = 7.07 U$D. So knock off 2/7 of the price on their

list.

<p>

Regards,

I've been particularly intrigued by the prices of the Congo lenses

(http://www.cosmonet.org/~congo/index_e.htm) and the Osaka lenses

(dist by Bromwell marketing, see http://www.bromwell.com/bromwell.htm). The reason for this interest is primarily the

price. The Congo 210 mm is listed at $450 right now (with an old list and a falling Yen, this might be too high,) as compared to the

Rodenstock APO Ronar 240 mm, at $1100 and change.

<p>

Does anybody out there have direct experience with either of these less expensive lenses? They apparantly lack the APO designation (or at least I couldn't find it listed.) How much of a difference does this make in final image quality? How do these lenses compare with a Rodenstock or Schneider, and how do they compare with each other?

The Osaka lenses are available in fewer focal lengths, and seem to cost more (but that may just be the distributor's cut.)

<p>

Any info appreciated.

<p>

Regards,

In a word, yes. In terms of the price, on eBay last week, some

of Rapid 200's with the 90mm lens and a 120 back went for $200,

and a 180mm lens went for $230. Backs have been going for $50

or so. So the price is fair.

<p>

The optics on these cameras seems a real bargain to me. I have

a Rapid M, and a 200, with the 58mm, 90mm, and 180mm lenses, as

well as 2 220 backs, 3 120 backs, and a ground glass back that I

can attach an Omegaflex reflex viewer to. I'm really happy with

this setup, and have taken many nice photos with them.

<p>

The potential problems I see for you are the following:

<p>

1) The rangefinder is a different beast than a Hassie (SLR) or a

TLR. Best to decide if this is a camera you're comfortable with.

<p>

2) The accuracy of the rangefinder isn't quite as good as a SLR.

I've found that both of my rangefinders are just a touch off at

certain distances. For supercritical focussing, I use the GG back.

<p>

3) There are only 4 lenses available for this camera. 58, 90, and

180 are around, but not easy to find. The 135 is very difficult to

get, and can cost about $500. Accessories are similarly difficult

to find. Extension tubes exist, as well as a close-up adaptor.

<p>

4) The filter sizes are not quite standard. The 90 takes a series

6, or a 49mm if you remove the insert ring. The 135 and 180 take

series 8, which is functionally 67mm. The 58 (or 60) takes a

series 7 filter that is hard to match with modern filters. I use a

series 7 UV or sky, held in by a series 7 to 8 adaptor ring, and I

can strap on additional series 8 filters if I need them.

<p>

So it's a good deal, and can shoot great images, but has it's

quirks and foibles. If you can put up with these, and like

the 6x7 format, go for it.

<p>

If you have any other questions, feel free to write me.

<p>

Regards,

Martin F. Melhus

I have to respectfully disagree with Randolph above. Check out

eBay, in the photographic section (http://www.ebay.com to start

with.) There are typically 2-5 of the mini Speed Graphics on

sale there, and the occasional 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 Speed or Crown

Graphic. Century Graphics also come up periodically. And on

all of these, the price is market driven, and not some dealer's

inflated idea of what he should get for the camera.

<p>

For more info on Graflex cameras, check out http://www.graflex.org .

It's somewhat biased towards these cameras, but has a lot of good

information.

<p>

Good luck.

I saw in the Wisner catalog that they are selling a remake of

the Zeiss Hypergon lens. Supposedly, this is an 85mm lens that

can cover 8x10 with movement, and is rectilinear, flat field, and

has virtually no distortion or astigmatism. Coverage is claimed to

be a whopping 140 degrees. Of course, this is their ad copy, so I don't expect them to dwell on the lens's inaccuracies and problems. Wisner's version has waterhouse stops, and sells for something like

$2000. From what I could gather from the ad, it's just 2 elements

in 2 groups, looking a bit like a hollowed out glass marble.

<p>

I've never heard of this lens design, or anything like it. Has

anyone used it, or any of it's cousins? Does anyone have any familiarity with it's history, design strengths and weaknesses,

and most importantly, usefulness for photography? Are there any

lenses of similar design for other formats? I can't imagine that

a lens of this type, scaled down to 35mm (and perhaps improved to

get up to modern lens standards) wouldn't sell well. But perhaps

the 4x5 version would have the most usefulness, if it had a focal

length of about 40mm, and could cover 4x5 with significant movement.

<p>

Any comments on this?

Another option for a 6x6 SLR is a Kowa system. The Kowa Super 66

has interchangable backs, a set of 4 finders (waist level, waist level with metering, 45 degree and 90 degree, one of the last two is also metered.) There are several lenses available, as well as extra backs, etc.

<p>

The biggest plus to this camera is low cost. It should be available used, with a std lens and back, for around $500. Another $1000 will get you 2-3 more lenses. Way less than anything new. Also, all the

lenses have leaf shutters, so unless you want to shoot at 1/1000 or faster (which they can't do), they have flash synch at ALL speeds.

<p>

The minuses are that it is no longer made, so you have to look around for it. The mechanicals are a bit quirky (but then so are Hassie's, in different ways.) They are fairly well represented in the used

marketplace. Check out Impact!, at:

<p>

http://www.eecs.tufts.edu/~jalbro/impact/used.html

<p>

for a pretty long list of used dealers with web sites. Finally,

on the Super 66, mirror lock-up is only available via the self-timer.

The 6MM (?) has mirror lock-up, but doesn't have removable backs. But

since the 6MM body costs less than a hasselblad back alone, this isn't

a tremendous problem.

<p>

And of course, many will claim that the optics aren't as great

as Hasselblads, or the other top end MF systems. But some will

say that you can't see the difference. I don't know, having

never owned a Kowa system. But if I had to get a MF SLR on a budget,

I'd probably end up with a Super 66 or 6MM.

<p>

Regards,

I'm looking to get started in LF photography sometime in the next

year or so. I've been looking around at used dealers on the net,

eBay, Shutterbug, etc. It looks like I should be able to find

a Super Speed Graphic in good condition (with the Speed lens)

for under $500. Is this a good first field camera? Will I be

limiting myself somehow with this choice? Is there anything

readily available new or used in this price range that is better?

The speed lens would be more of a collectable, and I'd plan on

using newer lenses most of the time (or is this stupid?) The

rotating back and front shifts seem worthwhile to have, and the

metal construction looks nice.

<p>

Any input appreciated. Regards,

I'm interested in really wide angle lenses. Many systems stop at a 50mm lens (6x7); a few go to 40mm, but the price goes way up. Then there's the SWC cameras. I've seen an older used one for $1300, which isn't cheap but is not unreasonable.

<p>

Despite all this, and about 100 posts in the Hasie section here, no-one is talking about the SWC and its cousins. Why is this?

Is it unpopular because it has a fixed lens? Or does it have reliability problems? Any comments or opinions out there?

<p>

I have a K-O Rapid M, and have just bought a 58mm lens. But I still can't help thinking that I'd like to be able to go wider (but I don't like fisheyes, except for special effects.)

<p>

Regards,

I also have to agree with the previous poster. My own experience comes from using an Ansco Viking 6x9 to shoot cityscapes at night.

I bracketed from 15 seconds to 4 minutes in factors of 2, and was very pleased with the 2 minute exposure on Provia 100 at f16 (Provia I, not the newer II stuff.) But importantly, it still looks like night.

<p>

Overexposing can produce very surreal effects. For example, the city lights reflecting off of the bottom of clouds produces luminous blobs for exposures in the 6-12 minute range. When we get the right kinds of clouds one night, I'll shoot a few rolls and try to get a nice artistic print (it's a major crapshoot, but the time would otherwise

be wasted doing junk on the internet :-).

<p>

Anyway, bracket, and bracket some more. At these levels, your eyes are decent enough lightmeters to get started. Also, shoot short rolls, and get to know your subject area over time if you have that luxury.

<p>

Regards,

I'd recommend picking up a copy of McBrooms guide to cameras. It has

a pretty decent section on medium format systems, and approximate figures for prices as well. It should run $25.00 new, $24 mint,

$22 ex+, $20 ex, $18 good, $12 user, $7 bargain :-).

<p>

That said, if you want really economical, look at TLRs. The Yashica Mat 124G is a nice basic TLR with a decent fixed lens for about $200.

Mamiya C2 and C3 (and 22, 33, 220 and 330) systems have interchangable lenses but will run more. The Rolleis are also nice, but pricier.

<p>

If you really want SLR on the cheap, I'd look at Kowa. They are no longer made, but have a decent following and are available at camera shows and swap meets, as well as on many of the used camera web sites.

3 models were made, the 6, the 6mm (with mirror lockup), and the super 66. Only the last has interchangable backs. All the lenses have leaf shutters, so you can flash sync at all speeds (up to 1/500.) And there are several lenses available.

<p>

There's also Kiev cameras, but you should know that the mechanical parts of this camera are somewhat unreliable (some people can tolerate the quirks, others hate them with a passion.) The optics are reported to be top notch, though. Inquire with people more knowledgeable about these cameras than me, (hint, hint to you Kiev and older Hassy users out there.)

<p>

Going up in price, there's the Pentax 645 and 67, and then the

Mamiya stuff, the Bronica stuff, and the Hasselblad and Rollei SLR stuff. All of those will set you back big bucks (I'd guess $1000 with one lens and one back. And adding lenses and backs will be more expensive as well.)

<p>

Good luck.

<p>

Regards,

Another option is to go to a camera show. I found a guy at one

who sold me 5 Varta PX625 batteries for $3 each. He had something like 40 of them, several different brands. However, he didn't have

a sign saying that he was selling them; I just noticed them in a bag

on the table, and asked. This is probably the simplest way for

anyone not living in an incredibly remote area to get Mercury batteries. Note that they are now illegal to sell, but not illegal

to have.

<p>

Regards,

Shutterbug has an ad from CRIS Camera Services that sells a converter

to replace a PX13 or PX625 battery with the converter and a Silver 76

battery. Their claim is that there are electronics inside the

converter that will reduce the voltage to PX13 specs. I havn't used

one, and have no experience with anyone that has.

Potential problems are that these gizmos are $29.95 each, plus S&H,

and that they may add internal resistance that could throw off the

meter. Their simplest contact is at 800/216-7579. Ad is on the

bottom left corner of page 270 in Feb '98 Shutterbug. YMMV.

<p>

Regards,