Q: Fixing up a Sputnik

Vincent Becker wrote:
I have a Wray Stereo Graphic here in Germany. I have a Stereo Realist
in London. It seems to me that all these stereo 35mm cameras have
vignetting in the corners.

It depends on the f/stop used, but it is true that the Realist has
vignetting above f/11. It is hidden by the cache once mounted in it
though. And I prefer vignetting to light leaks ;-)

Got the Sputnik today. Both lenses (and even the viewing lens) had
advanced stage fungus on the *uncoated* glass surfaces. The shutter
didn't work right, either. And this was from a German photography
store.

Got the Sputnik today. Both lenses (and even the viewing lens) had
advanced stage fungus on the *uncoated* glass surfaces. The shutter
didn't work right, either.

The good side is that it solves the internal reflexions problem... Can
you return it?

--
Vincent Becker
Photographies et appareils anciens - Photography and classic cameras
URL:http://www.lumieresenboite.com

wrote:

Got the Sputnik today. Both lenses (and even the viewing lens) had
advanced stage fungus on the *uncoated* glass surfaces. The shutter
didn't work right, either. And this was from a German photography
store.

I hope you can return it easily. The taking lenses should
be coated BTW.

Oleg of www.okvintagecamera.com is an honest and reliable
source of working soviet cameras. He has one listed in
"excellent" condition for $120 plus $25 shipping.

Peter.
--

Peter Irwin wrote:
wrote:

Got the Sputnik today. Both lenses (and even the viewing lens) had
advanced stage fungus on the *uncoated* glass surfaces. The shutter
didn't work right, either. And this was from a German photography
store.

I hope you can return it easily. The taking lenses should
be coated BTW.

There is a slight blue reflection, now you mention it. Nothing much.

Oleg of www.okvintagecamera.com is an honest and reliable
source of working soviet cameras. He has one listed in
"excellent" condition for $120 plus $25 shipping.

I'll check it out. I was hoping to buy from Germany (where I am living
now) as I know returns are likely. Of course, I will be paying over the
odds but I'd was hoping to buy one good camera rather than several and
to keep sending them back. That's what stops me buying from Russia.

wrote:

Peter Irwin wrote:

I hope you can return it easily. The taking lenses should
be coated BTW.

There is a slight blue reflection, now you mention it. Nothing much.

What counts is that there is less overall reflection than
from uncoated glass.

Oleg of www.okvintagecamera.com is an honest and reliable
source of working soviet cameras. He has one listed in
"excellent" condition for $120 plus $25 shipping.

I'll check it out. I was hoping to buy from Germany (where I am living
now) as I know returns are likely. Of course, I will be paying over the
odds but I'd was hoping to buy one good camera rather than several and
to keep sending them back. That's what stops me buying from Russia.

I've been very happy with both the Zorki-1 and the Iskra
I bought from Oleg. I woudn't hesitate to buy from him
again, if I ever wanted another soviet camera.

Peter.
--

In article .com,
wrote:

Peter Irwin wrote:
wrote:

Got the Sputnik today. Both lenses (and even the viewing lens) had
advanced stage fungus on the *uncoated* glass surfaces. The shutter
didn't work right, either. And this was from a German photography
store.

I hope you can return it easily. The taking lenses should
be coated BTW.

There is a slight blue reflection, now you mention it. Nothing much.

Oleg of www.okvintagecamera.com is an honest and reliable
source of working soviet cameras. He has one listed in
"excellent" condition for $120 plus $25 shipping.

I'll check it out. I was hoping to buy from Germany (where I am living
now) as I know returns are likely. Of course, I will be paying over the
odds but I'd was hoping to buy one good camera rather than several and
to keep sending them back. That's what stops me buying from Russia.

A good starter Sputnik goes for about US$100 at most. Whether you buy
locally or from ebay is personal preference. Unless you buy from
someone who specifically rebulids Sputniks (and I don't know anyone
doing so in Europe), you should expect that even an "excellent"
Sputnik will need tinkering.

A friend tells people that Sputniks are all kit cameras. You should
expect to fix it up a bit.

By the way, there is a MF3D mailing list. I've forgotten how to
subscribe, but let me know if you're interested and I'll dig up the
information.

--
Brian Reynolds | "It's just like flying a spaceship.
| You push some buttons and see
http://www.panix.com/~reynolds/ | what happens." -- Zapp Brannigan
NAR# 54438 |

In article ,
Vincent Becker wrote:
a écrit :
I see the camera boasts a resolution of 20 lines per mm in the centre
and 8 lines per mm at the edges. That should be good enough for contact
prints. It makes me wonder why they bothered making it.

As someone else pointed out that's wide open. You never use a Sputnik
wide open. I usually shoot at f/22 and will open up to f/16 if I have
to. I use Kodak E100G pushed to EI200 and have no trouble getting
good, sharp exposures.

I must say again that, though non-MF, the Stereo Realist is actually
better and much more convenient to use than the Sputnik. It is worth
considering if you intend to take stereo shots regularly. It makes
excellent holidays pictures :-)

I've been shooting MF stereo (first with a pair of Lubitels, and then
with my Sputnik) for almost nine years now. I've played with 35mm
stereo a little, and I've used Yashica Mat 124Gs, Pentax 645 and
Pentax67 for twin and single camera stereo. For me, the Sputnik is
the most convenient of the bunch.

A bunch of years ago I wrote the following when someone asked about
Sputnik vs. Realist:

http://www.pauck.de/archive/mailinglist/photo-3d/mhonarc/msg40410.html

I'm not so sure a Sputnik is lighter than a Realist as I stated above,
but it sure feels like it.

Although I recommended a tripod, I actually shoot mostly handheld, or
with a string tripod.

I bought my Sputnik from a well known importer of Soviet cameras and
paid a bit more to make sure it worked. Since I wrote the above I've
had my camera rebuilt by someone else twice, about once every two
years. That's about the same maintenance schedule as some of the
fancier MF cameras, and I'm paying a lot less for a rebuild. I figure
rebuilding a camera with known flaws is better than buying another to
discover new flaws.

The two worst flaws of the Sputnik are light leaks and flare. The
light leaks can be taken care of by either taping the seams after
loading film (which slows reloading), or using camera foam or flocking
paper in the seams (a more permanent and better solution). Flare is
solved by flocking the interior (Marco Pauck's site has patterns) and
using lens shades (ditto).

By the way, since the above was written the Saturn Slide viewers are
back in regular production. A new source of reasonably priced
achromats was found.

--
Brian Reynolds | "It's just like flying a spaceship.
| You push some buttons and see
http://www.panix.com/~reynolds/ | what happens." -- Zapp Brannigan
NAR# 54438 |

wrote:


The optics are the same as in a Lubitel TLR.

-- Lassi

Is that a recommendation or a condemnation? )

If it is like the Lubitel I had remeber to put some of
the black flocking over the lens so you can re-use the
film in a camera that works.

The one I had had an awful lens and fungus on the lens. It looked like
someone had given the fungus a Dremel by the condition of the lens.

Pete


--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk

Peter Chant wrote:
wrote:


The optics are the same as in a Lubitel TLR.

-- Lassi

Is that a recommendation or a condemnation? )

If it is like the Lubitel I had remeber to put some of
the black flocking over the lens so you can re-use the
film in a camera that works.

The one I had had an awful lens and fungus on the lens. It looked like
someone had given the fungus a Dremel by the condition of the lens.

)

I've got the flocking. All I need now is a decent Sputnik roll film
camera to use it on. I might have to wait for that.

I've accepted the recommendation in this thread to order it from a
recommended place in Russia so I will wait and see what happens and
what I get.

Brian Reynolds wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:

Peter Irwin wrote:
wrote:

Got the Sputnik today. Both lenses (and even the viewing lens) had
advanced stage fungus on the *uncoated* glass surfaces. The shutter
didn't work right, either. And this was from a German photography
store.

I hope you can return it easily. The taking lenses should
be coated BTW.

There is a slight blue reflection, now you mention it. Nothing much.

Oleg of www.okvintagecamera.com is an honest and reliable
source of working soviet cameras. He has one listed in
"excellent" condition for $120 plus $25 shipping.

I'll check it out. I was hoping to buy from Germany (where I am living
now) as I know returns are likely. Of course, I will be paying over the
odds but I'd was hoping to buy one good camera rather than several and
to keep sending them back. That's what stops me buying from Russia.

A good starter Sputnik goes for about US$100 at most. Whether you buy
locally or from ebay is personal preference. Unless you buy from
someone who specifically rebulids Sputniks (and I don't know anyone
doing so in Europe), you should expect that even an "excellent"
Sputnik will need tinkering.

A friend tells people that Sputniks are all kit cameras. You should
expect to fix it up a bit.

By the way, there is a MF3D mailing list. I've forgotten how to
subscribe, but let me know if you're interested and I'll dig up the
information.

Thanks for that. I'll wait until I think I've got a roll film Sputnik
that might be usable before I subscribe. I'm not holding my breath.
)