There is no reason to believe Soviets had no technology to produce thoriated glass, but rather that they wanted to avoid such at at their consumer optics. Economics of glass sorts seems the more likely reason.
There is no reason to believe Soviets had no technology to produce thoriated glass, but rather that they wanted to avoid such at at their consumer optics. Economics of glass sorts seems the more likely reason....but it's nice to know soviets didn't have technology to produce the thoriated glass, I would rather avoid it as a personal choice.
But with FSU bodies and lenses, you can also be sure that they aren't radioactive
I wouldn't be so sure of that. Remember Chernobyl? I've got one of those radioactive Super Takumar 50/1.4, had it since 1981. It's one element made from thorium glass, it's inside the metal lens housing and it's not an exterior element -- and thorium is an alpha emitting. As long as you don't use it as a loupe for hours a day, for years, it's safer than living with a smoker. An FSU items that's spent any time in the Exclusion Zone may well be a different story, with gamma emitters, higher activity isotopes, and so forth.
Just saying...
True, but I don't that any item from exclusion zone would be radioactive unless it's covered with radioactive soil or dust.
This thread is clearly going the wrong way.
And now we're back to assuming that just because someone wants to shoot film, they have the budget of a moon shot. Some of us can't spend $200 for a camera that's likely to need a $125-$150 service almost immediately. For myself, the most I've ever spent on a single camera was close to $400 for my RB67, including 90mm lens, waist level finder, and 6x7 and 6x4.5 film back. I've got less than $200 into my Graphic View and 150mm Componon f/5.6.
For me, and others like me, it's FSU cameras, or fixed-lens, if we want to shoot RF instead of SLR. I've got at least six fixed-lens 35mm RFs. A Kiev was a way into the other side of the playground, so to speak. Otherwise, the paywall would block me out.
Two words: neutron activation
If subjected to neutron emission, the steel and brass and aluminum in the camera may become (mildly, in the general case) radioactive.
Chernobyl blew irradiated material into the air. Fukishima put it into the sea. Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been safe enough for people to live in once more, for decades.
None the less, "radioactive" doesn't mean "will sneak into your bed and kill you in your sleep" -- at worst, in this context, it means "increased risk of cancer, to be ignored if you or someone you live with smokes or you live in Virginia or North Carolina and have a basement."
Or instead of having 5-6 "cheap" $40-$80 cameras just get one + CLA that costs less than half of all those cameras combined. Like I said, get it CLAd if you cant stand the issues (high speed capping, maybe the frame spacing is bad).
Or instead of having 5-6 "cheap" $40-$80 cameras just get one + CLA that costs less than half of all those cameras combined. Like I said, get it CLAd if you cant stand the issues (high speed capping, maybe the frame spacing is bad).
Sure. I'll save up all the money I'd have spent on Kievs and Jupiter lenses, and get a pre-War Contax in three or four years, when I can save up a thousand dollars or so without common life emergencies eating the money (and a Sonnar in another three or four).
Or I can shoot with the Kiev I have, with the very nice Jupiter 8 and Jupiter 11 (and the Jupiter 12 still making its way from the Ukraine), get a backup, and either find someone who can and will work on the advance system to fix the frame spacing, or try to clean the gears myself.. I'm not really interested in a Retina, anyway. If my Kiev quits cold, I can replace it for under $100 (heck, I've got under $150 into the body and three lenses). If a Retina breaks, it'll cost more than that to fix it -- if it didn't break something you can't get fixed any more.
Sure. I'll save up all the money I'd have spent on Kievs and Jupiter lenses, and get a pre-War Contax in three or four years, when I can save up a thousand dollars or so without common life emergencies eating the money (and a Sonnar in another three or four).
Or I can shoot with the Kiev I have, with the very nice Jupiter 8 and Jupiter 11 (and the Jupiter 12 still making its way from the Ukraine), get a backup, and either find someone who can and will work on the advance system to fix the frame spacing, or try to clean the gears myself.. I'm not really interested in a Retina, anyway. If my Kiev quits cold, I can replace it for under $100 (heck, I've got under $150 into the body and three lenses). If a Retina breaks, it'll cost more than that to fix it -- if it didn't break something you can't get fixed any more.
its up to you if you want to save up a $1000, but we are literally comparing a $200ish IIIc vs the $50 FSU equivalent.
if it's a cheap shooter you want, find urself a good solid nikkormat, pretty much any model. They're built like bricks, can be had for less than $50 for the body, and the lenses are all dirt cheap and amazing quality.
The only bad thing I can say over the Praktica L-series is that the self-release lever is literally a pain due to its design, I thus prefer L-series models that lack it. One may grind its edges though.
The button for stopping down/stop-down metering at respective models is likely the best of its kind.
Long times at the shutter by now at many samples are slow, and that sticker at the rewind lever is a hassle during dismantling.
There is only one of the FSU Kiev rf lenses that I am aware of that will not work on the postwar Contax IIa/IIIa- it is the Jupiter 12 the 35mm with the large, deep set rear lens element. I am pretty sure of that as I have had both the Kiev and Contax IIa. I used the 50mm, 85mm and 135mm FSU lenses on my IIa with no issues. The postwar 35mm Zeiss was a painful purchase!You were. I was comparing a Kiev 2/3/4 with a pre-War Contax (the post-War IIa and IIIa have a different lens mount, can't use the Soviet lenses that ordinary people can afford even if you get the camera).
There is only one of the FSU Kiev rf lenses that I am aware of that will not work on the postwar Contax IIa/IIIa- it is the Jupiter 12 the 35mm with the large, deep set rear lens element. I am pretty sure of that as I have had both the Kiev and Contax IIa. I used the 50mm, 85mm and 135mm FSU lenses on my IIa with no issues. The postwar 35mm Zeiss was a painful purchase!
I don't get it. Why avoid lenses with thorated glass if they perform well?But with FSU bodies and lenses, you can also be sure that they aren't radioactive, as some of the lenses of 1960s-70s were. I know there's a debate but it's nice to know soviets didn't have technology to produce the thoriated glass, I would rather avoid it as a personal choice.
.
I had a set of anamorphic FSU Lomo lenses that were supposed to have the radioactive glass. There were a few discussions about it but other than the yellowing that can be counteracted with UV light there were no serious safety concerns.u
I don't get it. Why avoid lenses with thorated glass of they perform well?
The Soviets most certainly could have used thorium salts if they wanted to in their optics. Are you sure they did not?
The MTL5 has a brighter viewfinder. I also like the MTL50 and MTL5B.Anyways,
I'm getting close to buying a Praktica LTL-3, or MTL-5 that claim to have working meters and are tested. Anyone have any input on these cameras? I kind of want to try a german camera instead of a Japanese one, I have several Japanese autofocus cameras already.
Might scrap the Russian camera idea, since probably the viewfinders are free of thorium on these cameras and just buy a helio m42 lens for the body.
There isn't a sticker at the "rewind lever". He might mean the circular nut underneath the handle.I don't quite under stand - "and that sticker at the rewind lever is a hassle during dismantling" can you explain? I want to be aware of any problems with my copy, I'm OK if long shutter times are slow but wondering what you mean regarding rewind lever.
Kiev 2 and 3 were (intended to be) exact copies of the pre-War Contax II and III -- give or take name plate stamping and such. If they differ, it's because some of the machinery got damaged or lost when the factory was moved, or someone couldn't get part X to fit and work correctly, so they modified the manufacture of part X into part X1. The Kiev 4/4M was heavily modified to make it easier to build, and the Kiev 5 isn't even a related camera, as far as I can tell.
Anyways,
I'm getting close to buying a Praktica LTL-3, or MTL-5 that claim to have working meters and are tested. Anyone have any input on these cameras? ...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?