Film Brake

Bandicoot wrote:
"Chris Loffredo" wrote in message
...
[SNIP]
Actually, the Kiev 60 is a better camera (not just a Soviet copy). It is
important to flock the insides against reflections (kits exist for that).

Otherwise, mechanics, viewfinder coverage, frame spacing are all
better and it uses the same lenses of course. Most of the complaints
(unadjusted meter, uncalibrated focusing screen) are easy DIY jobs to
solve.
However I just got a Pentax 6x7, so in a few weeks (after I've tried it
out well and decided if I really prefer it) there might be a flocked &
tested Kiev 60 + lenses for sale...
;-)

I keep thinking I should try a Kiev 60, though the handling of the P6s is
much nicer. I have a Kiev pentaprism that I use on the E66s with an
adapter, and it is much brighter than the P6 prism.

Yes, a a Pentax 67 is a much more serious camera - but I like the square
format for certain subjects and, much as I like Pentax glass, in P6 mount I
have a number of the wonderful Schneider lenses. It's those lenses (and the
Sonnar 180) that really make me keep using the P6 mount. But not for
shooting anything that I couldn't go back to and shoot again!

I've only handled P6's and not used them seriously, but I agree that the
Kiev 60 does define the concept of "Klunkiness"!

I've taken some of my best pictures with a Rolleiflex TLR, but now the
attraction of the Pentax 6x7 is the format, as well as the 45mm lens
(wider, lighter and with a good lens shade - compared to the Zeiss Jena
50mm).

The P6 Schneiders are as expensive as Mamiya 7 equipment (which I
suppose would be the ideal MF system for my use). If all goes "well", I
might keep my P6 180mm & 300mm Sonnars for use with my Exakta!

Andrew Price wrote:

Moreover, although there is no question about it, the K60 is
intrinsically much more reliable than the P6, using CZJ lenses on it
isn't always as straightforward as some would have one believe.

I can vouch for compatibility with the pre-MC 50mm, 120mm, 180mm & 300mm
CZJ lenses.

I've heard about the incompatibility problem, but these are the majority
of the non-Arsat lenses (65, 80, Meyer 300 & 500 - anything else? -
excepted).

"Chris Loffredo" wrote in message
...
[SNIP]


Actually, the Kiev 60 is a better camera (not just a Soviet copy). It is
important to flock the insides against reflections (kits exist for that).

Otherwise, mechanics, viewfinder coverage, frame spacing are all
better and it uses the same lenses of course. Most of the complaints
(unadjusted meter, uncalibrated focusing screen) are easy DIY jobs to
solve.

However I just got a Pentax 6x7, so in a few weeks (after I've tried it
out well and decided if I really prefer it) there might be a flocked &
tested Kiev 60 + lenses for sale...
;-)

I keep thinking I should try a Kiev 60, though the handling of the P6s is
much nicer. I have a Kiev pentaprism that I use on the E66s with an
adapter, and it is much brighter than the P6 prism.

Yes, a a Pentax 67 is a much more serious camera - but I like the square
format for certain subjects and, much as I like Pentax glass, in P6 mount I
have a number of the wonderful Schneider lenses. It's those lenses (and the
Sonnar 180) that really make me keep using the P6 mount. But not for
shooting anything that I couldn't go back to and shoot again!



Peter

On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 00:32:42 +0100, Chris Loffredo
wrote:

I've only handled P6's and not used them seriously, but I agree that the
Kiev 60 does define the concept of "Klunkiness"!

That's why I persevere with the P6 - when they decide to work, they
are much nicer to handle than the K60.

Moreover, although there is no question about it, the K60 is
intrinsically much more reliable than the P6, using CZJ lenses on it
isn't always as straightforward as some would have one believe.

On some K60 bodies, you need to drill out the slot into which the lens
indexing screw fits, otherwise it isn't possible to lock the lens onto
the camera body securely - Zeiss and Arsat specifications are not
strictly identical. Or file down the CZJ indexing pin, which I find
somewhat barbaric.

On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 07:25:36 +0100, Chris Loffredo
wrote:

Moreover, although there is no question about it, the K60 is
intrinsically much more reliable than the P6, using CZJ lenses on it
isn't always as straightforward as some would have one believe.

I can vouch for compatibility with the pre-MC 50mm, 120mm, 180mm & 300mm
CZJ lenses.

My experience doesn't contradict that - I had the problem only with MC
lenses.

I've heard about the incompatibility problem, but these are the majority
of the non-Arsat lenses (65, 80, Meyer 300 & 500 - anything else? -
excepted).

I had difficulties with a Flektogon and a Sonnar, both MC.

Andrew Price wrote:
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 07:25:36 +0100, Chris Loffredo
wrote:

Moreover, although there is no question about it, the K60 is
intrinsically much more reliable than the P6, using CZJ lenses on it
isn't always as straightforward as some would have one believe.
I can vouch for compatibility with the pre-MC 50mm, 120mm, 180mm & 300mm
CZJ lenses.

My experience doesn't contradict that - I had the problem only with MC
lenses.

I've heard about the incompatibility problem, but these are the majority
of the non-Arsat lenses (65, 80, Meyer 300 & 500 - anything else? -
excepted).

I had difficulties with a Flektogon and a Sonnar, both MC.

Good to know!

It will still be a while until I decide whether the Pentax 6x7 will
really replace the Kiev 60 kit. More likely I'll decide that one or more
CZJ lenses have some unique & irreplaceable characteristic and I'll end
up keeping everything...
:-(

Doing a little drilling & filing, if necessary, is certainly part of the
old DIY East European camera philosophy. It has its charms!
;-)