kiev4a
Well-known
back alley
IMAGES
er, i kinda love the way it looks wayne.
but what do i know...
joe
but what do i know...
joe
L
Laika
Guest
At least its just the body shell. It must have looked in a bad way for them to bother with the respray. I guess its only going to appeal to someone as a shooter now but a refinish in black would be a easy job. Maybe black with a nice leather or snake skin? My take on it would be to refinish it better than it ever looked from the factory and use it as a sweet shooter 
kiev4a
Well-known
I've modified a few bodies -- always with black leather, but not on the rare models. I wouldn't think of peeling the vulcanite off my FED 1 NKVD, My Zorki 2 or Red Zorki 5. There just weren't that many made. You may be right, however, the red paint may cover some major problems with the vulcanite. Still....
Jocko
Off With The Pixies
I agree with Wayne. However bad the vulcanite was, spraying it with Lada-juice was not a solution! At least some sellers show imagination - http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQfgtpZ1QQfrppZ25QQsassZsellertreasure (!)
kiev4a
Well-known
Jocko said:
IMHO virtually anything done to change the look of a Zorki 2C or C is an improvement.
brians
Film Enthusiast
Jocko said:
Oh goodness.... At least they aren't -ugly- like that Halloween Zorki.
John Robertson
Well-known
I agree, but they do it because some damn fools buy them :bang:kiev4a said:
johne
Well-known
True, the Zorki 2C is pedestrian; remenber, so was the T34 tank but it was awesome in its own way. Just a comment.
Johne
Johne
Jocko
Off With The Pixies
johne said:
I'd have to disagree there, Johne; The T-34 was a fabulously elegant, efficient and advanced design, superior to any contemporary tank when originally deployed. The Zorki 2C reminds me of the allied Lee/Grant - designed before anyone had really worked out how the bits should go together!
kiev4a
Well-known
johne said:
I've always thought of the FED 2 as the photographic version of the T-34--a little rough around the edges in workmanship, no frills, but built to operate reliably under conditions when competitors fall by the wayside
John Robertson
Well-known
Yes John, and the first time I visited Prague there was a T34 painted pink as a Soviet memorial. It has now been removedjohne said:
John E (#2)
lubitel
Well-known
I am surprised to see people discuss the T-34 here.
Those "creative" cameras are absolutely terrible. Did you see the price on that Lubitel? 60$!! nuts.
Those "creative" cameras are absolutely terrible. Did you see the price on that Lubitel? 60$!! nuts.
Jocko
Off With The Pixies
lubitel said:
I think we considered the T-34 as a piece of industrial design. As an expression of Soviet industrial aesthetics, a camera like the FED 2 does bear a real relationship to - for example, the T-34 or PPSH41. In the same way, the Zorki 6 has always reminded me of the Moskvitch 407 and Smenas are dead-ringers for the ZAZ965! Although it's not always pleasant to remember, there are intimate historical links between the cameras we love and the military-industrial complex. The same ethos and attitudes find expression in different products.
Now the SU-85, based on the T-34, to me was way-cool.
http://www.anticsonline.co.uk/1222_1_1022811.html
T-34 is the Kiev with a Meter, T-85 is the Kiev without the meter.
http://www.anticsonline.co.uk/1222_1_1022811.html
T-34 is the Kiev with a Meter, T-85 is the Kiev without the meter.
nemjo
Avatar Challenge
Jocko said:
WOW, somebody out knows ZAZ965...
I had one for three years... I could sell it for 1HUF/kg. Less than 5$.
nemjo
kiev4a
Well-known
Jocko said:
The T-34 was unquestionably the best tank to come out of WWII -- not in terms of sophistication -- the German Panther was head and shoulders above it. But no other tank touched the T-34 in terms of reliability and the ability to do the job it was designed to do. It wasn't designed for comfort--I think the average tank crewman was about five foot six inches--any taller and you wouldn't fit. But it had some of the best armor, an outstanding power to weight ratio and a gun big enough to do real damage--plus a relatively low profile. And it was designed so it could be operated by people with almost no mechanical knowledge. I was a no nonsense, no frills piece of equipment.
The FED 2 seems to have been designed on the same principles--to do a specific job reliably.
BTW: My knowledge of the T-34 comes from the fact that in the 1960s I was a member of an armored cavalry troop and our instructors reminind us often that even our postwar designed M-48 tanks couldn't tackle a T-34 head-on.
Jocko
Off With The Pixies
Wayne, that's so very interesting!
Nemjo, What was the ZAZ like to drive?!
Nemjo, What was the ZAZ like to drive?!
nemjo
Avatar Challenge
Nemjo, What was the ZAZ like to drive?![/QUOTE]
O.K. in that time it was already out of the "normal" technical level. But it was the only car I could afford, bought for 100$ secondhand.
The most funny was in wintertime. It had a stove in it for heating. I tried it only two times, but switched off immediately for it's strange sound. Otherwise very simple construction, I could service it myself.
To describe it, I think it's enough to tell that my second car was a GREAT development - it was a Trabant.
nemjo
Back to topic, my camera was a Zenit that time. Despite theese cars it is still useable.
O.K. in that time it was already out of the "normal" technical level. But it was the only car I could afford, bought for 100$ secondhand.
The most funny was in wintertime. It had a stove in it for heating. I tried it only two times, but switched off immediately for it's strange sound. Otherwise very simple construction, I could service it myself.
To describe it, I think it's enough to tell that my second car was a GREAT development - it was a Trabant.
nemjo
Back to topic, my camera was a Zenit that time. Despite theese cars it is still useable.
Last edited: