|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
Related Local Links:
Kiev
88
Kiev 60
Iskra
Moskva 5
Russian rangefinders
Medium Format Cameras List
Page
[N.B. lots of Kiev related resources at above URL]
Related Links:
Photonet
Discussion on Salyut
Date: 12 Feb 99
From: Nathan Dayton NathanDayton@netscape.net
To:
rmonagha@post.smu.edu
Subject: Re: [Re: Salyut]
Bob,
Just a little about my self. I assume that you have Princelles book, look on
page 2. I have the largest collection of Soviet cameras and accessories in the
US (possibly in the world). I have over 300 cameras and about 200 accessories. I
wrote several articles for the Kiev report most notably the article on the
Kiev-90. I also collect Praktisix and Pentacon Sixes and am in the process of
putting together a web page for them. If you would like it I will send you a
copy of the draft.
Nathan
Here is the text:
The Salyut was the first attempt by the Soviet camera industry to produce a
sophisticated medium format camera. It was probably a near copy of the
Hasselblad 1600. The Soviets claimed that both the Hasselblad and the Salyut
were derived from a Nazi prototype, however none of these supposed forerunners
have ever been seen so this origin is dubious. These cameras were very expensive
at 400 Rubles, which represented 6 months salary to the average Soviet citizen.
The Mir-3 cost 240 Rubles. This means that production was very limited and these
cameras and lenses are rare. This information is based on 2 cameras, which I
own, and a third camera, which I have seen, and my 3 lenses.
Production started in 1957 or 1958 and ended in 1972 with three variations.
Variation one has a top speed of 1500 and a self-timer. Variation two has a top
speed of 1500 and no self-timer. Variation three has a top speed of 1000.
The camera came in a brown leather case with the waist level finder, 2 backs,
a neck strap and 3 filters. A press on lens cap was also provided in black
plastic with Salyut in raised letters. The filters are a light yellow, a medium
yellow and an orange in 40.5mm. The lens takes an adapter cone that allows the
use of 40.5mm filters. Interestingly the film backs for my 1958 Salyut do not
have serial numbers.
The normal lens is an Industar-29 80mm F2.8. There were also two accessory
lenses made for this camera the Mir-3 65mm f3.5 and the Tair-33 300mm f4.5.
These lenses have a far better finish and attention to detail than is normally
found in soviet equipment. They came in a brown leather case with two filters
(both take the same filters) in 88mm a light yellow and an orange. The Mir-3
came with a huge slip on plastic lens hood. The Tair-33 has a built in lens
hood.
The lens mount in these cameras is semi automatic. It is not the same as the
later cameras and has different linkages. Although the lens mounts are similar
this series of lenses will not work properly with the Salyut-S and the Kiev88
and vice versa. I have never seen a Hasselblad 1600 and am unable to say if it
is the same. The Industar-29 and the Mir-3 are semi-automatic have a lever which
must be cocked for each shot. The Tair-33 is a typical preset lens and will work
with the later cameras.
[Ed. note: Mr. Tom Jenkins is a noted photographer and author/teacher, see
his Photo College for links to online training courses...]
Date: Mon, 20 Dec
1999
From: The Photo College thephotocollege@thephotocollege.com
To:
Robert Monaghan rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu
Subject: Re: salyut mf Re: Kiev 6x6
Hi, Robert,
Thanks for the prompt reply. Your link to Nate's listing defined my camera as
a Saliut-S, apparently the last of three Saliut forerunners to the Kiev line.
The condition of my -S is amazing, now that I know some of it's history. I
went through 5 Hasselblads (C's, CM's, EM's, ELX's, SWC's) in my career asa
working pro (our kids now have them all as mantel pieces) and none of them ever
looked as nice as my Saliut after putting them through the mill.
Of course it's now just a conversation piece (with the Cyrillic text) for new
friends to handle, but it still works and I occassionally run a roll of film
through it just to see if I can still do-the-deed (I'm disabled, now, and have
trouble holding heavy items; that's why the kids all have my old Hassy's).
Again, thanks for the info; very interesting reading.
Tom Jenkins
The Photo College
http://thephotocollege.com
Photo of this Soviet copy of the early Hasselblads is provided courtesy of Yuri Boguslavsky, along with other photos of the listed Soviet camera links above. Thanks, Yuri!!
From Kiev88 Mailing List;
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000
From: kelvin
kelvinlee@pacific.net.sg
Subject: Re: Newbie Question
I had a Salyut C briefly. Unlike the later 88, it was handbuilt and some
quarters say the quality is better than the 88 (which is based on it). However,
I'm not so sure myself... except to say it seemed smoother.
You can find stuff on Bob Monaghan's site as well as Nathan Dayton's sites on
the Salyuts. About 20,000 were built, I think. There were also several versions.
I did a short write-up to share my experiences, and you can find it on
photo.net . There is a percularity about the Salyut C which I must warn you
about... only attempt to mount lenses with the mirror UP or you risk damaging
the stop-down lever. This is not impt. on the K88 which overcomes that problem.
...
Re- Kiev 88/Salyut.
Since getting this Salyut - doing some experimenting with it - as I mentioned
had many Kiev 88 models years back.
How to sight through back of camera - since one cannot easily use groundglass
on the back unless you get such an attachment (is made) - but then you don't get
the ability to test with specific backs in place -
Cut a piece of Wax Paper to about the width, or a little less, of a roll of
120 film. As long as needed to wrap around the film insert portion of the film
back and tape in place with masking tape near where the rolls of film go. Then
put insert in back.
Set shutter to "B", release shutter and hold open- and sight through opening
in back where you see the numbers on the film backing paper.
Now you can sight through the film plane to check focus - be careful not to
have masking tape on the film plane where it might get caught on the shutter
curtains.
Best,
Sam
...
[Ed. note: Special thanks (again!) to Sam Sherman for sharing these
interesting notes about Kiev cameras and lenses, esp. the earlier
models!]
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001
From: "S. Sherman"
flexaret@sprynet.com
To: rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu
Subject: KIEV 80
Over the years I have had much experience with Kiev 88, Kiev 60 and Kiev 6C.
I was involved with people originally importing these cameras in the 1980s
and at that time there were lots of defectives. The main problem came from the
lack of quality modern lubricants at the Arsenal factory and the use of steel
wind and slow speed and other parts.
These steel parts were roughly finished and underlubricated if at all. Some
of the better finished models would work and some of the rougher finished ones
quickly jammed up. This could also extend to Kiev (Contax style) 35MM
rangefinder cameras too.
In the USSR I guess they expected elbow grease and constant winding to polish
the gears instead of lubricating grease.
I found that usually to be true as Kiev 6C cameras which were very worn
externally from a lot of use had the smoothest film winds that I encountered on
60 or 6C models.
Today I got in an earlier version of the Kiev 88 for experimenting.
This camera had a lot of use, and although it has the steel gears it winds
smoothly.
The model I got was Salyut-C (Salute model C) - the second or third Soviet
Hassy copy.
This model was from the late 1970s, was sold in the US as Kiev 80, in England
as Zenith 80 and around the world as Zenit 80. There is no difference between
this model and the early Kiev 88 models- only this camera has the close focusing
90MM f2.8 Vega lens instead of the 80MM f2.8 lens commonly on the Kiev 88. The
90MM lens was also the standard lens on the Kiev 6C.
In my files I have a letter of 1978 from Anthony Koclanes of Anthony's Camera
Exchange and Repair in St. Louis, Mo. He was an early advocate of the Kiev 80
cameras and advertised in Shutterbug and claimed superiority for their lenses.
To quote from his letter:
" This lens (90MM) is extremely good. It is so good it even puts the Zeiss
lenses on the Pentacon 6 to shame. I have gotten negatives that are crystal
clear without a bit of aberration & haze. They have made beautiful crisp 35"
x 35" blowups."
I don't know if Anthony is still around, but he was certainly an advocate for
this equipment early on. Ivor Matanle has numerous excellent photos in at least
one of his books taken with Zenith 80.
The Kiev 88 in the late 1980s was improved with brass gears replacing the
steel gears and these first such cameras were generally more reliable than
earlier ones (and later ones). The new model had a wind knob with notches around
its perimeter instead of the hill and dale knob of the earlier models.
In my collection I found I still have the Kilfitt adapter for Hasselblad
1000F and taking the 39MM basic lenses. It fits perfectly on the Salyut-C and
the 150MM Kilar focuses well. I will be experimenting with this camera and the
Kilar lenses too.
Best,
Sam
[Ed. note: thanks to Kevin and Sam for sharing these tips!]
Date: Wed, 21
Mar 2001
From: Kelvin kelvinlee@pacific.net.sg
To: "S. Sherman"
flexaret@sprynet.com
Cc: Robert Monaghan
rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu
Subject: Re: [medium-format] Digest Number 104
Sam
What is the serial number of yours?
What is a little-known secret is that the late pieces i.e. 1979 and 1980,
have the running curved plate which stops-down the lens as it is mounted , like
the later Kiev88.
The earlier pieces (I previously had a #76-) don't... and as such, the lens
should be mounted with mirror UP so as not to cause misalignment of the
stop-down lever arm in the long run . The alternative for mounting the lens is
to set the lens wide-open and depress the activating pin.
Given the small nos. of Salyut C built, I imagine the #79 and #80 pieces are
even rarer... so that's why I am sharing this with you in private till I have a
chance to buy one myself ;)
The Salyut C were hand-built and are generally much better built than all the
later Kiev 88 I've owned.
As for the bronze... I read on one ebay auction by a Russian that why bronze
was used in the aperture blades was because it was self-lubricating .
----- Original Message -----
From: flexaret@sprynet.com
To:
medium-format@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2001
Subject: Re:
[medium-format] Digest Number 104
> from: flexaret@sprynet.com (Sam Sherman) 3-20-2001 > > Bob, > > This week, I have been experimenting with a Salyut-C I recently obtained > with the > 90MM f2.8 lens and bronze aperture blades. > > I shot a roll of Ilford XP-2 in Red Bank, New Jersey - various street scenes > and such. This camera has the normal interior, no flocking and such. > > I had the negatives developed by my one hour lab. > > The results - the negatives came out with - incredible sharpness, incredible > crispness - this is a great normal lens. > > With the bronze aperture blades and the brass colored metal shutter curtains > - > no flare of any kind- regardless of what others have claimed. > > I once heard that these blades and shutter curtains, although light in > color, > were coated with an anti-reflection coating. > > I have had some problems with the backs with this camera and am returning > one defective > one. The other one needed two thin washers added to the takeup spool pivot > which the takeup > roll turns on. This moved the geared part out so that it locks more > accurately into the back shell. > > Other than that, the camera works fine. Proof that the older models which > have had their interior gears smoothed out from use - wind and work fine > (unless the poorly designed back is a problem). > Newer Kiev 88 models with rough gears have been known to jam on only the > third roll of film, > as reported by Jay Abend in Shutterbug Magazine story. > > The 80MM Lens also allows a light leak at the stopdown lever slit. The > earlier 90MM lens > has no such lever and slit, is close focusing and a well kept secret. Any > user of a good Kiev 88 > or similar model should seek out one of the 90MM f2.8 lenses, which by > themselves may be hard to find. > > Best, > > Sam
From Kiev 88 Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001
From:
flexaret@sprynet.com
Subject: Salyut-C/Kiev 88 Backs and Tests
I have continued my testing of Salyut-C and Kiev 88 cameras.
I am not sure how many Salyut-C cameras were made (predecessor of Kiev 88) I
have heard numbers of only 3000 to 30,000. I do not know if they are rare or
not. They are a reasonably well made (hand made) example of this type of camera,
but suffer from all of the common faults, mainly the backs are inadequate.
I am now testing another Salyut-C with 90MM f2.8 Vega lens, which is a close
focusing lens that I like.
I also like the older type groundglass finder screen which works better for
me with tele lenses than the later type screens.
An important accessory is the groundglass back which replaces the film back
and allows you to check the focus on lenses which is hard to do on the older
closed style backs. This is accessory is rare as it is normally only sold with
the macro kit of various accessories. I think it is something that Arsenal
should sell by itself and every user should buy.
Re- the current Salyut-C tests, I have used a 300MM f5.6 Kilfitt telephoto in
Hassy 1000F converter mount on the Salyut. Checking focus on a distant object,
the finder yielded a razor sharp image as did the groundglass back.
Putting the filmback on the camera and shooting a test with Kodak T400CN film
- did not yield the same sharp results on every exposure, with two different
backs. I can only assume that the film does not always lie perfectly flat in the
old-style backs, or the backs were out of focus alignment depth.
I have now taken one of the NT backs which came with my Kiev 88CM and put it
on the Salyut-C. I really like these new backs and feel they are a great
improvement over the old design. The film winds smoothly with the NT back on the
Salyut-C and my spacing test revealed closer, more even spacing than the old
backs provided. With the NT backs one can remove the film insert and put a
groundglass and loupe combination on the film rails and check focus. My initial
tests reveal the focus to perfectly match the finder and the film seeming to lie
flat in the aperture.
I will conduct this test with film and if okay will continue to use the
Salyut-C only with the NT back.
- Sam Sherman
Macro photo of original stopdown
hook on the back of the 80MM f2.8 Industar lens. (Taken with Salyut-C and
Kilfitt 90MM f2.8 Macro lens with Hasselblad 1000F mount.) Tech info: Photos
taken on new Kodak Portra 400 (C-41) black and white film - scanned in with Umax
Astra 2200 scanner.
The following article represents my own opinions and the results of my tests:
From the original Arsenal (Kiev) factory version of the Hasselblad
1600F/1000F and up to the present Kiev 88CM, the original rollfilm backs have
purposely been made not to be able to fit Hasselblad cameras. For that reason
alone I am convinced that the Kiev 88 and its breed are not copies of the
Hasselblads, but they ARE the Hasselblad early models continued in production
through some trade agreement involving Hassy designs/tooling and some kind of
barter with the USSR.
The Arsenal factory spent many years in production of the original Contax II
and III cameras, having obtained the original Zeiss Ikon designs and tooling.
They made a clever evolution of these cameras in the well made and designed Kiev
5. Furthermore, they have made a clever and well designed original camera in the
Kiev 6C (6S) and Kiev 60, which are not copies of the Pentacon 6, but original
cameras using the Pentacon lens mount only.
For these and other reasons I believe the Kiev 88s are evolutions of the
early Hasselblads, not copies. Some of these cameras made at Arsenal are well
made, and some are not. The under-lubrication of the two main wind gears and the
poorly made backs initiate probably 90% of the repair problems.
The early model of this camera is generally known as Salyut and has a
"cocking-automatic" lens stopdown system. As the early Hasselblad cameras only
had manual or preset lenses, this cocking system, requiring the user to use a
lever on the lens to open it to full aperture after each photo taken, was
typical of 1950s cameras. So I think that Hasselblad designed it but never used
it, giving it later to Arsenal. This system is primitive but very well designed
and made. In the 1960s most companies dropped the cocking system in favor of
lenses which re-opened by themselves after each photo was taken or the mirror
returned.
The early Salyut models, as with most of the later models (except those with
Pentacon 6 mounts) all use the Hasselblad 1600F screw mount known as the Arsenal
"B" mount for later models. The early cocking lenses may be the "A" mounts.
These early lenses cannot fit on the later cameras with the "B" mounts and even
used manually, as some have suggested. The lens release hook prevents mounting
these lenses on the later cameras, and the lens opening cannot be changed unless
the auto mechanism lever is set.
Interested in upgrading a good Salyut-C for use. I did the following:
1- Added minor light lubrication to the two stacked main shutter gears and
wound/released the shutter many times to work the lubrication in. The shutter
and winding now work fine.
2- Cleaned the PC contact of oxidation, and now the flash sync works fine.
3- Replaced the old poorly made waist level finder with the new, improved
Kiev 88 finder with better magnifier.
4- Replaced the old style back (many are out of alignment and wind badly)
with the new, improved NT back, which works fine on the Salyut-C, is easier to
load and delivers a flatter film plane.
5- Bought a new Neckstrap - which locks on solidly on Salyut-C (large early
neckstrap posts) or later Kiev 88CM (smaller later posts). This is the OP/TECH
USA "Pro Strap" for Hasselblad (about $20 (US) ) All of the Kiev neckstraps I
have seen have locking clips which are weak and give me a mental image of a
camera crashing down to a cement pavement.
The Salyut-C is an improved model of the early Salyut and introduced the
improved B mount with automatic stopdown and lens aperture return. The stopdown
pins on these cameras are in the same spot as on the Pentacon 6 / Kiev 6C/60
lenses - obviously an idea by Arsenal to use the same lenses on the Kiev 6C and
the Salyut-C, by only changing the mount on the back of the lenses.
I obtained two of the early "cocking" lenses from the first Salyut, which
would not fit on or work on the Salyut-C.
The lenses are-
In order to use them on the Salyut-C, I removed the internal cocking
mechanism and lens releasing hook on each lens. I then painted the exposed
chrome screws with black paint to not reflect back to the film. The lenses will
now fit on the Salyut-C or any standard Kiev 88. They operate as "pre-set"
lenses only by using the cocking lever to open the lens to maximum aperture and
then stopping the lever down to the preset aperture.
I have done some tests of the Salyut-C with the new finder, NT back and the
above adapted lenses. I have used Ilford XP-2 film, which is extremely sharp,
and my local one hour lab will process the negatives in 30 minutes. The NT back
provides a flat film plane and the two adapted lenses delivered sharp results
and were easy to use.
The conclusion: There is much to explore in the Salyut/Kiev 88 system. The
lenses can yield sharp results and many of the cameras can work properly. Yes,
there are some problem cameras, some can be repaired and some are difficult to
repair. It is up to the user to find equipment which works and delivers good
results.
From Kiev88 Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001
From: Kevin Kalsbeek
krkk@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: Fw: info needed ...
Hi,
The Zenith 80's were made only for export, and are based on the Salyut (not
"S"), not the K88. Parts might be difficult to come by and repairing these
cameras is MOST Definitely not do it yourself projects. Further, most repairmen
do not want to touch them. It would be wiser to get a K88, and no, the lens
mounts are not really compatible. I do know that the magazines are
interchangeable, as I have used my Z80 mags on an 88.
Kevin
From Kiev88 Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001
From:
firefly@uio.satnet.net
Subject: z80
so the Z80 and K88 are not compatible for uses the lenses ???
thanks, olivier
From Kiev88 Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001
From: Kevin Kalsbeek
krkk@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: z80
Afraid not. The main problem is not the mount itself but the stop down
mechanism inside the camera, and the lenses. I haven't tried switching things
around for several years, but I do remember it wasn't what I would call a
success.
Kevin
From Kiev88 Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001
From:
flexaret@sprynet.com
Subject: Re: Fw: info needed ...
Olivier,
If your Zenith 80 has an aluminum colored normal 80MM lens which you must
cock to the wide open setting, your campera is similar to an early model Salyut
(not a Salyut-C which is like a Kiev 88).
You can bid on the auction for a regular Salyut on Ebay.
- Sam Sherman
From Kiev88 Mailing List;
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001
From: "Noel Del Pilar"
noelfoto@coqui.net
Subject: Battery for the Meter Prism Kiev 88.
It is very difficult to buy the original battery for the Kiev 88 Electronic
Meter Prism.
But if you use a A76 battery(1.5 volts) plus a PX28L (Duracell 3 Volts) then
you have the required 4.5 volts for your meter.
It very difficult to me to use this meter.
Can any of you use this Prism Meter? Explain to me how easy can be!
Noel Del Pilar
Master Photographer
Federation of Wedding Photographer
in Puerto Rico noelfoto@coqui.net
From Kiev88 Mailing List;
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001
From: Kevin Kalsbeek
krkk@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: Battery for the Meter Prism Kiev 88.
Noel,
It is usually not recommended to use different types of batteries together,
and I just stack 3 LR44 batteries, but 3 S76 batteries coulld be used also. What
part of the metered prism is difficult for you? I'll take a stab at explaining..
Kevin
From Kiev88 Mailing List;
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001
From: mark hahn
markhahn2000@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Battery for the Meter Prism Kiev 88.
Noel,
I use the meter all the time on my K60, don't have one on my K88. It is
pretty easy to use and mine is also quite accurate.
here's the skinny:
* set the film speed using the center knob so that the ISO value is shown in
the little window.
* set the lens speed of the installed lens by spinning the silver dial until
the red arrow points to the f-number of the lens.
* slide the ON switch on the side of the prism to turn on the meter and then
turn the outer meter dial until both red lights light inside the viewfinder.
* look at the meter dials, they are now lined up so any corresponding pair of
shutter speed/f-stops will give you a proper exposure.
* set the shutter speed and f-stop that you choose and fire the camera.
once you get used to it you can do it pretty fast. The outer dial has three
set screws so you can loosen them and adjust the meter if you have to. Mine was
off by about two stops, but I adjusted for it and I trust this meter as much as
any other that I have.
Even though you can't set the exposure through the lens I find that it is
useful seeing the full possible range of exposures... I tend to make more
thoughtful choices.
mark
PS I use the 76 batteries in mine.
From Kiev88 Mailing List;
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001
From: Kevin Kalsbeek
krkk@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: Battery for the Meter Prism Kiev 88.
Noel,
OK, the easiest thing to do is to check this online
manual:
http://www.hartblei.com/products/operating_manuals/ttl-88_manual.htm
It sounds like you have an older prism that has the film speeds in GOST and
DIN. For 400 film, use DIN27, as the old GOST doesn't really equate to western
film speed, though there are conversion charts."New" GOST equals ISO, BTW.
Briefly, to use the prism, set in the film speed using the black center knob.
Set in the MAXIMUM aperture of the lens you are using- if you are using the
80mm, turn the silver ring with the f stops on it until 2.8 lines up with the
red arrow on the film speed dial. If you change to a slower lens, this of course
must be reset to reflect the slower lens. Press the power switch and rotate the
outer black dial which has the film speeds on it until both LEDs inside the
prism are lit, which the correct exposure. You will find that frequently, you
can't get both LEDs to light at the same time, so I usually make sure the right
hand side one (overexposure) is just lit-- this is fine for color print film.
I would check the TTL prism against a trusted handheld meter using a gray
card for insurance. I think the TTL prism is most accurate outdoors.
I hope this helps!
Kevin
From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001
From: Bob
Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: Salyut Camera - Good, Bad, or Ugly ???
> From: "Kelvin" kelvinlee@pacific.net.sg > Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 > To: russiancamera@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [russiancamera] Salyut Camera - Good, Bad, or Ugly ??? > > From what I understand, the automatic diaphram is Kiev's biggest > contribution to the ol' hassy 1000F design on which it's based.
I think it is important to note that the idea of the Kiev 88 being derived
from the Hasselblad may not be correct.
I've done some research into this, and it is certainly possible if not
probable that both the Hasselblad 1600F/1000F and the Kiev 88 were derived from
a prototype camera Zeiss Ikon had developed before the war.
Supposedly one prototype was captured by the British while being used by a
German U-Boat crew and shipped by the Brits to Sweden for study. The rest of the
prototypes were taken to Kiev along with the rest of the Contax factory.
The only proof I have is this story which was told to me by a former Zeiss
Ikon engineer, who said he designed the shutter for the camera. He is now dead,
and I have no more leads to follow on this, but it could well be true.
Interestingly, while I was working on my Hasselblad System book some twelve
years ago I told this story to some of the old timers at Hasselblad. There was a
lot of head scratching and thought, but no denial of the story.
Personally I think the story is true.
Bob
From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001
From:
Blanka007@aol.com
Subject: Re: Salyut Camera - Good, Bad, or Ugly ???
Salyut-S is very much like the Kiev-88, with the same mount and the same
Volna lens (auto aperture).
The original Salyut has the Industar-26 (?) lens which has to be armed first.
The lens is chrome.
Yuri
...
From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001
From:
nathandayton@netscape.net
Subject: Re: Salyut Camera - Good, Bad, or Ugly ???
Bob,
I keep hearing the story but, no one has one of these camras to show me. To
make the story true there had to be at least 2 of these cameras. Why is it that
no one can show me one?
Second as an engineer I do not believe in parallel development to the point
where the parts interchange and the lens mount is the same. Although good
engineering principles can lead to a remarkable similarity, they would never
lead to a high 90s percent of commonality in the design of the parts. At the
very least the timing escapements would vary slightly in design and placement.
They would also vary slightly in physical placement and external design. I
cannot except the fact that the focusing hoods have exactly the same dimensions
and are interchangable(for instance)as a coincidence. There is no logical
engineering reason for them not to vary a little in length and width.
From talking to several old repairmen they share the consensus that the
Salyut is a copy of the Hasselblad 1000.
Nathan Dayton
www.commiecameras.com
From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001
From: Bob
Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: Salyut Camera - Good, Bad, or Ugly ???
> From: nathandayton@netscape.net > Reply-To: russiancamera@yahoogroups.com > Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 > To: russiancamera@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [russiancamera] Salyut Camera - Good, Bad, or Ugly ??? > > I keep hearing the story but, no one has one of these camras to show me. To > make the story true there had to be at least 2 of these cameras. Why is it > that no one can show me one?
I don't know what would have become of them. The old Zeiss Ikon engineer was
living in an old folks home outside Munich when I got the story from him, and
from my point of view he had absolutely no reason to fabricate such a tale. I'm
satisfied that he was who/what he claimed to have been. Also, the point that
none of the old timers at Hasselblad would deny the story lends it some
strength.
> Second as an engineer I do not believe in parallel development to the point > where the parts interchange and the lens mount is the same. Although good > engineering principles can lead to a remarkable similarity, they would never > lead to a high 90s percent of commonality in the design of the parts. At the > very least the timing escapements would vary slightly in design and placement.
Do they vary from Contax II and III to the equivalent Kiev 35mm rangefinder
cameras? No, they don't. Can you use parts from real Leica cameras in some Leica
copies and vice versa? Yes you can. If Hasselblad made an exact copy of the
camera and Arsenal made their cameras from the original prototype tooling, you
could see the level of duplication that we see. Hasselblad film magazines do not
fit Kiev/Salyut and vice versa. Salyut lenses do not fit Hasselblad 1600/1000F
unless modified. There are enough differences to indicate that they are not
exact copies of each other, or of a common original.
> They would also vary slightly in physical placement and external design.
They do. Put them side by side.
>I > cannot except the fact that the focusing hoods have exactly the same > dimensions and are interchangable(for instance)as a coincidence. There is no > logical engineering reason for them not to vary a little in length and width.
Yes, but if derived from a common ancestor there would be no reason for them
not to interchange.
> From talking to several old repairmen they share the consensus that the > Salyut is a copy of the Hasselblad 1000.
And they could be wrong.
Bob
From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001
From: Marc
James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net
Subject: Salyut Camera - Good, Bad, or
Ugly ???
...
>Personally I think the story is true.
That's not the tale told either by the SPS folks or by Hasselblad, Bob. Zeiss
Ikon has naught to do with it! (You really SHOULD read some of the other books
written by the Hove Compendium guys -- check out Rick Nordin's sterling THE
HASSELBLAD SYSTEM COMPENDIUM for discussion.)
The camera in question was the "Handkammer HK 12.5/7x9", an aerial-recon
camera made by Fritz Volk in Berlin and equipped with a 2/12.5cm JSK Xenon.
The Swedish military asked Hasselblad to copy this camera, and the "Ross HK7"
resulted, with the original 1600F being a later, and substantial, development.
Supposedly, the Soviets captured one of the Fritz Volk cameras and went down the
same path as did Hasselblad. The Volk camera was made in the thousands and one
recently surfaced which had been retrieved from a downed Japanese recon plane in
New Guinea in '43, so at least one such camera reached the Orient, presumably by
U-Boat.
I DON'T believe the tale, but primarily due to dating: the initial 1600F
dates from 1948, and the first Salyut from nine years later. I have difficulty
believing that the folks at the Arsenal works were so out of touch with what was
going on in the West that they were not aware of the 1600F's design and
features.
Marc
msmall@roanoke.infi.net
From russian camera mailing list;
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001
From: Bob
Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: Salyut Camera - Good, Bad, or Ugly ???
>... > from a downed Japanese recon plane in New Guinea in '43, so at least one > such camera reached the Orient, presumably by U-Boat.
I'm well aware of this story, as was the former Z-I engineer, who later
designed a super speed shutter for Heinz Kilfitt for a proposed SLR Kilfitt had
intended to produce. The 1600F was derived from a different camera. Just look at
the Ross HK7 aerial camera and a 1600F and see how similar they really are. The
answer, not very.
> I DON'T believe the tale, but primarily due to dating: the initial 1600F > dates from 1948, and the first Salyut from nine years later. I have > difficulty believing that the folks at the Arsenal works were so out of > touch with what was going on in the West that they were not aware of the > 1600F's design and features.
Sure, they may have pulled out some of the stuff carted off from Jena and
dusted it off when they saw Hasselblad having some sales success with the F
series cameras.
I'm not saying I buy into the story 100%, but some where close to 95%.
Bob
From Russian Camera list:
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001
From: Bob Shell
bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: Salyut Camera - Good, Bad, or Ugly ???
> From: kelvin kelvinlee@pacific.net.sg > Reply-To: russiancamera@yahoogroups.com > Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 > To: russiancamera@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [russiancamera] Salyut Camera - Good, Bad, or Ugly ??? > > That story correlates with what I know as well (though I'm no expert by > a stretch). Well, let me rephrase it then... the Russians improved on it > where the Swedes didn't!
I agree. The prototype cameras had no diaphragm coupling mechanism, so the
Ukrainians took the linkage from Pentacon Six and copied it to add auto
diaphragm to the camera.
Bob
From Russian Camera Mailing List;
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001
From: "Brian
Bednarek" BrianB30@aol.com
Subject: Re: SALYUT question still open
Bruce,
I have both a Salyut C and a Zenith 80... the Zenith is basically the export
version and actually is better as far as fit & finish. I also have a recent
Kiev 88... the Kiev 88 and the Zenith 80 are about the same as far as
reliability... the Salyut is come and go... more a paper weight than a camera...
I would recommend either getting a new Kiev 88 CM (Pentacon Six lens
compatability is a plus) or find a nice Zenith 80 for under $200. With the Kiev
gear you have to be willing to put up with a certain crankiness, but the results
can be QUITE rewarding.
brine
From Russian Camera List:
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001
From:
nathandayton@netscape.net
Subject: RE: What kind of lens mount does a Salut
have
Just take the lenses off the cameras and you can see the
differences. The
diaphragm automation is completely different. If you use
extreme care you
can use the lenses interchangably.
for more information go to <www.commiecameras.com>
Nathan
Dayton
mazar@minn.net wrote:
>Greetings: I have a Salut and
Salut C. I was told the mounts are
>different and noninterchangeable. What
is the mount for the Salut?
>What other cameras, if any, share this mount.
From Russian Camera Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001
From: "Kelvin"
<kelvinlee@pacific.net.sg>
Subject: Re: Salut lens mount - what mount
is it?
They are not strictly different, just that you can't really use
the lenses
interchangable. If you can, they become preset lenses.
The
other camera which uses a similar mount is the Hassleblad 1600F
and the
1000F. However, the hassy is strictly pre-set.
From russian camera mailing list: Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 From: Blanka007@aol.com Subject: Re: Salyut, Salyut C or Kiev 88 tigerarm2000@yahoo.com writes: >>I feel that the earlier Salyut(C)s were made without giving too much consideration to the production cost and time. They should be better cameras. >> This is my observation as well. The older Salyuts, though not without quirks, are really well made cameras. I have a Salyut and like how it handles and looks. I had all never Kievs, like 6C, 60, 88 and Salyut-S (very similar to Kiev-88) and with time sold them all - I did not use them and never liked their workmanship. Of course, a clean Salyut and its lenses (not compatible with the never Kiev-88 lenses) are hard to find and this system, therefore, is not practical.
From Kiev88 Mailing List: Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 From: flexaret@sprynet.com Subject: Re: remove the stop down pin ... The Kiev 88 style cameras are revisions of the old Hasselblad 1600F/1000F (no lens stopdown) and the original Salyut (early hook stopdown). When the Salyut-C was devised, a stopdown connected to the mirror arm was devised to take lenses originally in Kiev 6C (like Pentacon 6) lenses - with the stopdown button in one position, but the factory would change the rear mount of the lens to the "B" screw mount. With revising the Kiev 88 to various models which take the Pentacon 6/Kiev 60 lenses this was only possible as the camera stopdown was in the correct position for those lenses since the original Salyut-C stopdown design was based on Kiev 6C (pentacon 6 type lenses). Unfortunately, there has been a problem with this Pentacon 6 lens mount and stopdown since the original design with the first Praktisix, that is why the camera stopdown lever can be folded out of the way on these cameras to use the lenses manually. I have also removed the stopdown pin on the Jupiter 250MM f3.5 lens to use as manual. The advantage is that there is no slow stopdown to deal with (some lenses have this) and no focus shift. That is focusing at f3.5 and shooting at f8 and the focus has shifted. If I focus at f5.6 and shoot at f8 - it is a very sharp lens. Best, Sam
From: "eMeL" badbatz99@hotmail.com Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Newbie: Pentagon Six question Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 FLEXARET2 flexaret2@aol.com wrote ... > .. > 1) The Salyut-C from the 1970s (predecessor of Kiev 88) - was a largely hand > made, precision > camera and many of these are still around and working just fine > ... I'd strongly dispute that assertion... Hand made it was...precision..? Well, let me put it this way... a 99 cent hammer is more "precise..." than the Salyut 60s-70s vintage camera. had 2 sets of this puppy. Both with the "proper" hard leather case (square bag) housing the body, 2 backs, the standard lens, filters, etc. In 1971 my good friend and "photo buddy" also bought a set (his was made for "export" - mine "domestic.") What was wrong with all these systems: The lenses were so-so: I've gone through 5-6 standards (Volna..? it was 30 years ago...all were "pre-set", non-automatic lenses) and neither was comparable to a 80 mm Planar (Zeiss Oberkochen) or even to a good sample of a Jena Biometar 80 mm lens. They were soft, mushy and flared like crazy! All three bodies had light leaks. The mirror slap was such that handholding this puppy below 1/125s was almost out of the question. Some of the lenses(!) had a light leak (needed a piece of opaque tape on one of the rings...) The film transport was uneven and very quirky - I had to remember to turn the knob in a "special" way or the film would not advance properly... The magazines had light leaks & were a bit*c to load... The shutter speeds were *way* off above 1/250s and no amount of adjustments (by a *very* knowledgeable factory-trained, honest camera technician) would remedy that. The focusing screen was dark and very grainy, darker even than the one on Hasselblad 500C (remember? it was the early 70s in a commie country...not too many choices...) The mirror and focusing screen needed a periodic alignment - they would go out of whack just from being carried around... Believe me, that camera cost my 2 months salary (then) and I babied it a lot..! Precision, I don't think so... All the above is etched in my memory forever...I do tend to remember the good and the bad cameras of my life. (I must admit that every time I go to Europe I have a morbid attraction to commie/ex-commie photographic stuff... I guess I fit well a psychological profile of a "perpetual victim...") >. I have one and > it works well. As I stated in another message...You're a very lucky guy with your commie cameras...Unfortunately - like they say in ads for diet and investment plans - "results may vary..." :-) Good shooting! Michael
From: flexaret2@aol.com (FLEXARET2) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Date: 22 Feb 2002 Subject: Re: Newbie: Pentagon Six question Michael, To correct you - the first model Salyut, and not the model "C" had the preset/stopdown lenses. You must have had the earlier models. Secondly, cameras do not belong to politcal parties. The Berlin wall has fallen and the Eastern Bloc is now various independent nations all in the throes of creating democratic forms of government. Thirdly, none of this is worth getting angry about. Some Eastern Bloc cameras work .. some do not. Some cameras from the West work ... some do not. Any camera that is broken may be repaired at the owner's option, or tossed in the trash bin. I have had Salyut and Kiev cameras in the past that were pieces of junk and I sold them for parts. I returned to this test/study of Kiev cameras about a year ago - some were good - some not - some were traded and new ones obtained. This is an interesting study and I have had mostly (75% at least) good results on a larger sampling. The fact that others had problems with this years ago is immaterial. Facts - speak louder than words. I have stated my facts here about the good results I have had. Delphi Forum - www.delphi.com / Kiev Report and www.kievaholic.com These sites have many people who have had and are having good results with Kiev 88 and Kiev 60 type cameras. No amount of protesting here will wipe out those facts. Anybody interested can check out- www.kievaholic.com and see some of the great photography taken with Kiev cameras. These are the facts - the rest has no meaning for intelligent people. - Sam Sherman
From russian camera mailing list: Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 From: Anya oui@paco.net Subject: [Russiancamera] Re: How Good is the Salyut? Hello Tom I have had a Saliut that I used a couple times before selling, I found it to be very well made and smooth !, somethings I look for when buying 1) metal curtains with no dents 2) smell of mould inside, ( if they get damp they are terrible ! 3)shutter works correct on all speeds, sometimes the slower speeds stick a little but after firinf 10 times it should be correct 4)general use ! if it looks like it has seen hard use it may not be so good but if the leather is nice and crome not sratche dit is probaly ok, cgheck also the lens mount for wear 5)check the backs fit tightly ! leaking light on loose back is big problem and saliut backs are hard to find, kiev 88 backs fit ok but the leather is different so it looks odd ! 6) check seriel numbers of camera and back match, not really problem but it is nice to have all orignal as possible 7) lens,,,usual checks and look for oil on the diaphram !! if oily it will need cleaning or it may not stop down correctly 8) if possible run a fim through first and see what if any problems In general I would say they are good items, if cared for well will last many years, service and spares is not a problem,,,well here at least ! Best wishes Anya
from russian camera mailing list: Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com Subject: Re: Salyut C with P6 mount kelvinlee@pacific.net.sg wrote: > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1361666393 > > Something for you collector buffs. ... a custom factory modified Salyut C > which takes P6 mount lens, and the supplied lens was a biometar. > > Seems a bit strange why the KGB as it is alledged, would bother ... > > My experiences with the seller so far have been ok. I've seen this type of modified Salyut for some years in the USSR display at photokina. Yes, it is uncommon, because I don't think more than a few samples were ever made. I do not believe the KGB story. Bob
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 From: Bruce Feist bfeist@flock.org To: russiancamera-user@beststuff.com Subject: Re: [Russiancamera] Kiev 80 production numbers? Doug wrote: >Any ideas how many Kiev 80 cameras were made by Zavod Arsenal? > >I understand (through asking many questions) that the Kiev 80 is basically a >Salyut w/new nameplate (thanks to Nathan D) and that production ran roughly >from 1975 to 1980 when the Kiev88 was introduced (again, thanks Nathan). >However, I've yet to find any production info. According to a book I have entitled "Russian and Soviet Cameras 1840-1991 Catalog", about 30000 Salut-S's were made from 1972-1980, and that includes Kiev-80s and Zenit-80s. Bruce Feist
From: Lassi lahippel@ieee.orgasm-research.invalid Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Russian MF Cameras? Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2003 Stephen wrote: > steven.sawyer@banet.net..: > > >I know that the Kiev system is often referred to as "Russian". But > >currently and going forward, it is a Ukranian product. So who's making > >MF cameras in Russia? Are any of them left? And are there any P6 mount > >lenses being made in Russia? > > Arsenal in Kiev is manufacturing the Kiev 60, Kiev 88CM and some lenses. ...which is still in Ukraine, not Russia. There were true-Russian MF manufacturers, at least LOMO in Leningrad (now St. Petersburg, once again) and KMZ in Krasnogorsk near Moscow. LOMO made the Lubitel TLR and the Sputnik stereo camera, and KMZ made the Moscow and Iskra folders, to give examples. None of those are in production, even though both LOMO and KMZ are still in business. -- Lassi
From: flexaret2@aol.com (FLEXARET2) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Date: 08 Mar 2004 Subject: Re: Russian Optics on FP Hasselblad Bodies I would not suggest ruining a classic Hasselblad 1600F or 1000F, which is well worth collecting, as well as using, by ruining its mount. The Salyut-C (pre-Kiev 88) can be a very excellent camera and can be cleaned-lubed adjusted and you would have a fine camera with Hassy 1000F/Kiev 88 mount. I have one such camera (which has seen use - so its gearing works smoothly) and it works really well. - Sam Sherman
From: Stacey fotocord@yahoo.com Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Realy new Kiev 88CM mlu Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 steven.sawyer@banet.net wrote: > I remember reading that the Kiev 88 (not P6) lenses had a aperture pin, which > was an improvement over the previous Salut lenses. Would this pin couple > the aperture to the prism a la the Exakta 66? The early salyut's had a manual aperture, the pin of the K-88 and P-6 lenses automated the aperture. None ever were linked to the prism. Several companies have modified the K88 bodies to use P-6 lenses with a "twist/click" mount machined into the front of the body. These seem to work great. See a few different samples of K88 models at the bottom of this page: http://www.geocities.com/kievgurls/ -- Stacey
End of Page