Ignat Solovey

Ignat Solovey

Lives in Russian Federation Moscow, Russian Federation
Works as a photojournalist
Has a website at http://www.dyor.ru
Joined on Jul 24, 2004

Comments

Total: 192, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Otherworldly? Lomography introduces Jupiter 3+ lens (159 comments in total)
In reply to:

HB1969: There seem to be a few of these "new-old lenses" about. It's not just the Petzval and now Jupiter 3...there's the Helios-40 (85mm f/1.5) which is back in production and a kickstarter to get Meyer-Optik-Gorlitz Trioplan (100mm f/2.8) back. Interesting time in manual focus photography.

@ProfHankD. Sigma and Chinese (Zhongyi, Anhui Changgeng, Yongnuo). And Samyang, of course, who were and are responsible for all lenses badged “made in Korea”.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 22, 2016 at 12:36 UTC
On article Otherworldly? Lomography introduces Jupiter 3+ lens (159 comments in total)
In reply to:

Suave: How much is real Contax Sonnar these days?

€200 tops, I guess. Especially if you know where to look.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 22, 2016 at 12:35 UTC
On article Otherworldly? Lomography introduces Jupiter 3+ lens (159 comments in total)
In reply to:

Neodp: Nice job with samples.

I'd recommend an old Nikkor 50mm f/1.2

(cheering): Zuiko! Zuiko!

Direct link | Posted on Jan 22, 2016 at 12:34 UTC
On article Otherworldly? Lomography introduces Jupiter 3+ lens (159 comments in total)
In reply to:

fatdeeman: Coming soon: Helios 44-2 for only $749

Shh, Lomography guys read comments here! They may take it as feasible advice! ;)

Direct link | Posted on Jan 22, 2016 at 12:32 UTC
On article Otherworldly? Lomography introduces Jupiter 3+ lens (159 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ignat Solovey: Ok. Why don't the guys recreate Argus lenses from Steinheil and Enna-Werk München for that matter, but in more adequate mounts? Why call it Russian? Russian design was a carbon copy of CZ Sonnar 50/1.5, originally developed for Contax rangefinders, and, as a copy should, was inferior in quality to original. Ok, Jupiter-3 isn't THAT bad lens when it costs $40. When it's ten times more expensive, it's utter crap.

@Jura S Remember that German-made Argus lenses were made at almost half-ruined factories in a country which suffered dictatorship and war, and that factories were sweeped by reparation commissions two years before. Your Pentacon (or Meyer-Görlitz Trioplan) 100/2.8 is at least 10, if not 20 years younger, with better machining and internal blackening, better lens polish, better coatings...

Direct link | Posted on Jan 22, 2016 at 12:28 UTC
On article Otherworldly? Lomography introduces Jupiter 3+ lens (159 comments in total)
In reply to:

tedolf: $649.00!!!!!!!!

Are they kidding?

Why not just buy a real one for $49.00?

TEdolph

@tkbslc eBay, watch for sellers from Ukraine and Russia. Or contact me in private, I guess I can try to arrange that, safe and secure. Which mount would you like, LTM or Contax? Which version — earlier white, later white, later black? With this release I doubt you'll get it even for $100, but I can promise $150 tops.
Just in case: I live in Moscow and really know my way around gear-related people and photographic community in general.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 22, 2016 at 12:20 UTC
On article Otherworldly? Lomography introduces Jupiter 3+ lens (159 comments in total)
In reply to:

Stollen1234: sorry but not going to invest a dime in Russia until they respect their own people.. dont forget photography is all about art and art is intesive feeling and love..and this is all missing in today,s Russia

@Stollen1234 I'd gladly invest in American camera industry, if it wouldn't be dead by 1973, after Graflex, Argus and Kodak management overlooked “Japanese invasion” of previous decade. And, well, buying that new Jupiter you'll invest into Austrian Lomography Inc. marketing department, rather than into lens production at KMZ and Russian camera industry (which is dead as they are buried since 2004). I still wonder, though, why Lomography still chooses KMZ as their OEM. Chinese Zhongyi (Mitakon) and Anhui Changgeng (Venus Optics/LAOWA) are no inferior in terms of production quality, have their own R&D, and will be much better and interesting in several years. Probably, Russian production is cheaper now... Anyway, Lomography's customers each seem to have something written on their foreheads, and in publicly acceptable words that can be described as “victim of marketing brainwash”.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 22, 2016 at 12:15 UTC
On article Otherworldly? Lomography introduces Jupiter 3+ lens (159 comments in total)
In reply to:

eyeswideshut: Why are folks so negative? It's all grist for the mill and if it is really made of brass and glass, the price is not unreasonable - comparable to cosina voigtlander and way cheaper than a Zeiss labeled Sonnar.

However, I wonder wether the good folks at Lomography and Zenith remembered this little gem:

http://www.dantestella.com/technical/compat.html

If Dante Stella is right, good luck focusing close on your Leica...

;-)

I got to know that story of Lubitel-166B cameras because in 2007, when I worked part-time in a second-hand camera shop in Moscow to supply some steady part to my freelancer photographer's income, one of these cameras was brought that shop for sale, along with original and newer test films and prints, which the seller later took back after the camera was sold. Another interesting item (not related, though) was customized pre-ware Voigtländer Bergheil camera — the back was made tilting and the lens got chemical multilayer coating at KMZ. I had really strong urges to by that Bergheil for myself, but decided against it for some reason.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 22, 2016 at 06:41 UTC
On article Otherworldly? Lomography introduces Jupiter 3+ lens (159 comments in total)
In reply to:

eyeswideshut: Why are folks so negative? It's all grist for the mill and if it is really made of brass and glass, the price is not unreasonable - comparable to cosina voigtlander and way cheaper than a Zeiss labeled Sonnar.

However, I wonder wether the good folks at Lomography and Zenith remembered this little gem:

http://www.dantestella.com/technical/compat.html

If Dante Stella is right, good luck focusing close on your Leica...

;-)

Another story related to that, but this one's true to the letter and illustrates the standards story really well. There was (and still is, though privately owned since 1993) a shop called “Amateur Cinematographer” (Kinolübitel') in Moscow, on Leninsky avenue, 62 in Moscow, which sold camera equipment (cine and photo), film and stuff, now it's just another camera store.

Once there was a shipment of Lubitel-166B cameras, 500 pieces. Shop staff took a couple of overnight shifts to check it out, as they usually did before putting cameras on sale. About 100 cameras went back to the LOMO factory in Leningrad, as they were next to defunct. About 400 other cameras went on sale, as they were passable. Three of that lot went “under a counter”, being purchased by employees to be later resold at black market at much higher price, because these three cameras yielded a picture as sharp and even as original Rolleiflex with comparable Triplet-type lens. That pretty much describes the whole QC thing.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 22, 2016 at 06:26 UTC
On article Otherworldly? Lomography introduces Jupiter 3+ lens (159 comments in total)
In reply to:

eyeswideshut: Why are folks so negative? It's all grist for the mill and if it is really made of brass and glass, the price is not unreasonable - comparable to cosina voigtlander and way cheaper than a Zeiss labeled Sonnar.

However, I wonder wether the good folks at Lomography and Zenith remembered this little gem:

http://www.dantestella.com/technical/compat.html

If Dante Stella is right, good luck focusing close on your Leica...

;-)

Also, there's partially true anecdote about Soviet approach to quality.
In 1970s a delegation from Soviet factory, where modern German equipment was installed, went to similar German factory (not clear, West or East), watched the process and asked, how the hell German stuff goes out always good and Soviet... well... not always, despite the equipment, materials and production standards were similar. How come German factory never produced sub-standard stuff? Germans thought a bit and asked: “What does ‘sub-standard’ mean? Standard is a minimum and you can't produce anything which isn't up to it”. Soviet delegation nodded and explained: “Now we've got it. In the USSR, when we do something, standard sets an average: we can produce better or worse. And you can do only better”.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 22, 2016 at 06:16 UTC
On article Otherworldly? Lomography introduces Jupiter 3+ lens (159 comments in total)
In reply to:

eyeswideshut: Why are folks so negative? It's all grist for the mill and if it is really made of brass and glass, the price is not unreasonable - comparable to cosina voigtlander and way cheaper than a Zeiss labeled Sonnar.

However, I wonder wether the good folks at Lomography and Zenith remembered this little gem:

http://www.dantestella.com/technical/compat.html

If Dante Stella is right, good luck focusing close on your Leica...

;-)

@Jura S
If they were sold by Technical and Optical Equipment Co., Ltd. of London, that's the key. That company had massive pre-sales service facility, and no Soviet camera, lens, microscope or telecope (the last two kinds of equipment were made to higher standards, though, as was cine equipment) undergone thorough overhaul, tuning and testing before making it to shelves.

@PeaceKeeper Export versions of were really made, or, more exactly, QC'd to higher standards (not to mention TOE's overhauls), and I about a decade ago I had first-hand reports, spoken, of course, of retired KMZ and LZOS employees on that. In later Soviet years, though, approximately in times starting slightly before Moscow Olympics, this was taken advantage of, and some pieces of equipment were just badged in Latin script, though sold locally, and now that makes quite a confusion. Actually, you can be sure that Russian stuff is more or less up to standard if it was purchased through TOE, but there are no ledgers...

Direct link | Posted on Jan 22, 2016 at 06:07 UTC
On article Otherworldly? Lomography introduces Jupiter 3+ lens (159 comments in total)
In reply to:

miric: Lol, a piece of Russian сrap. Heritage? Yup, copy-pasted from Jena Sonnar with a piece of Soviet sh iiii t as always. It's better to buy second-hand C Sonnar.

@tom1234567
I do talk from experience, sorry, man. Jupiter-3 is a mediocre copy of dated German lens. Even if they did it nice this time (corrected optics, proper machining, adequate QC), it doesn't worth its RRP compared to modern equivalents. Jupiter-3 and other Soviet/Russian lenses are good when they cost like garbage. When they cost like a lens — no way.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 21, 2016 at 16:24 UTC
On article Otherworldly? Lomography introduces Jupiter 3+ lens (159 comments in total)
In reply to:

AlanG: I thought the "glory days" of rangefinder photography were brought to us by first by Leica and Zeiss then with assists from Nikon and Canon. If you like this Russian stuff I have a Kiev 6x6 system that I'd like to sell you.

@nycgazelle only if it's ARAX or HARTBLEI tuned. Original 88CMs are disaster in terms of build and operation quality, especially until they decided to copy Bronica film backs, so-called NT (but it was too late), because original Kiev backs (clones of Hasseblad's) are... well... inconsistent at best. Calling them just crap is to make them quite a compliment.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 21, 2016 at 16:16 UTC
On article Otherworldly? Lomography introduces Jupiter 3+ lens (159 comments in total)
In reply to:

eyeswideshut: Why are folks so negative? It's all grist for the mill and if it is really made of brass and glass, the price is not unreasonable - comparable to cosina voigtlander and way cheaper than a Zeiss labeled Sonnar.

However, I wonder wether the good folks at Lomography and Zenith remembered this little gem:

http://www.dantestella.com/technical/compat.html

If Dante Stella is right, good luck focusing close on your Leica...

;-)

You probably had no experience with Russian lenses and Russian quality control. I have too much of both.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 21, 2016 at 16:11 UTC
On article Otherworldly? Lomography introduces Jupiter 3+ lens (159 comments in total)

Ok. Why don't the guys recreate Argus lenses from Steinheil and Enna-Werk München for that matter, but in more adequate mounts? Why call it Russian? Russian design was a carbon copy of CZ Sonnar 50/1.5, originally developed for Contax rangefinders, and, as a copy should, was inferior in quality to original. Ok, Jupiter-3 isn't THAT bad lens when it costs $40. When it's ten times more expensive, it's utter crap.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 21, 2016 at 11:01 UTC as 61st comment | 2 replies
On article Kodak revives Super 8 with part-digital cine camera (367 comments in total)
In reply to:

Eduardo from Colombia: Excellent Idea. Although the digital technology delivers excellent images. chemical film has a quality that is, in opinion, way over digital. It is similar to the Lp records. They do offer better sound over Cds, DVDS MP3 and other technologies.

Technically they are not. It's sensual stuff — big cover for art, the process of setting the disc for playback and caring of it, look and feel... And the sound quality in technical sense is pure imagination.
Several days ago in Lisbon I saw a kid of 14, maybe 15, walking away from the flea market with dozen of LPs... But, probably, it was vinyl not only because it came into fashion among the generation for which it is new, but because he had those discs for €1..3 each, way cheaper than the the same music acquired via iTunes. Although he looked like he did a time travel — the music selection, clothes and even his haircut (or, rather, hair-non-cut, huge natural ball of curls which would be an afro if he wouldn't be white) would look in place 35 years ago.
I had enough of roll tape, cassettes, cart machines, DAT cartridges and vinyl to love digital.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 8, 2016 at 09:46 UTC
On article Kodak revives Super 8 with part-digital cine camera (367 comments in total)
In reply to:

draschan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Nh9BTMWj9M

For what you spend on film, development and scanning you can get quite nice 4K digital video camera with flat profile... in not so long run. Although in one thing film gives more advantage, and it's archival longevity. It takes one accidental button push or power failure to lose a lot of digital footage, but properly developed film can survive for decades. The hquestion is, how many casual users will choose messing with film, so that future generations will have the same insight of current era as we do of 20th century, where it was film or nothing. And also, how many casual users will choose a camera that requires thoughtful approach over their no-brainer smartphone. Anyway, you can already get this look and feel with digital for a fraction of expense.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 8, 2016 at 09:33 UTC
On article FAA officially launches drone registration system (173 comments in total)
In reply to:

CameraLabTester: "Every gadget that functions as a camera for taking pictures should now be registered..."

Emperor Paypal, after the Drone Wars.

.

Don't you think that taking pictures exclusively with dedicated camera by competent professional (at least when it comes to news and events) has its advantages? I do.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 17, 2015 at 09:16 UTC
On article FAA officially launches drone registration system (173 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ignat Solovey: Calm down, guys (girls, etc.). You are just to provide your ID to government in connection with some activities. What, when, where and how do you do it, is your concern, unless you fly over the WH, Capitol, Andrews AFB, Area 51 and airfields.
In Russia, where politicians started talking drone registration even earlier but didn't pass any regulations yet, you'll be dubbed Pilotless Airborne Vessel Outboard Crew/Commander, the last one “governs the work of the crew and is responsible for flight safety”. Drones may be required to carry flight documentation “onboard in electronic form”, so that you must have scans of your paperwork on your drone camera memory card. And they may add the requirement to present the reason for your activities, desired area, date and time in two weeks advance to six different and mutually independent authorities (FSB — ex-KGB, area ATC, district police, local government, area communications authority, local rescue service).

So don't weep.

And the most important of all, if they really require written justification of why do you need to fly your drone there and then, you may be declined by any of the authorities mentioned because your reasoning seems insufficient. Like: certain official hates everything flying, or just doesn't want to sign anything that day, or thinks that filming should be done only from still tripod (yes, here bears lost their ability to walk around the streets playing balalaikas and drinking vodka, but officials came to like teaching filmmakers how to film movies)

What I heard though, is that no permit will be required for flights under 25 meters (82 ft)... and where there are 25 meters, no one will notice 35 (as it's said, Russian laws are stringent, but not compulsory).

Direct link | Posted on Dec 17, 2015 at 09:08 UTC
On article FAA officially launches drone registration system (173 comments in total)

Calm down, guys (girls, etc.). You are just to provide your ID to government in connection with some activities. What, when, where and how do you do it, is your concern, unless you fly over the WH, Capitol, Andrews AFB, Area 51 and airfields.
In Russia, where politicians started talking drone registration even earlier but didn't pass any regulations yet, you'll be dubbed Pilotless Airborne Vessel Outboard Crew/Commander, the last one “governs the work of the crew and is responsible for flight safety”. Drones may be required to carry flight documentation “onboard in electronic form”, so that you must have scans of your paperwork on your drone camera memory card. And they may add the requirement to present the reason for your activities, desired area, date and time in two weeks advance to six different and mutually independent authorities (FSB — ex-KGB, area ATC, district police, local government, area communications authority, local rescue service).

So don't weep.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 17, 2015 at 08:46 UTC as 31st comment | 1 reply
Total: 192, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »