File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
So what does /p/ think of this deal?

http://shop.lomography.com/zenit/fotosniper/about/
>> Anonymous
Let me know how wandering around while pointing a big gun-shaped object at people works out for you.
>> Anonymous
>>59379

I'm going to use it for wildlife shots. And the rifle-style stock is detatchable. I'm just specifically asking if it's a good camera and lens for 275 bucks.
>> Anonymous
The Soviets used properly built ones of these for the KGB during the Cold War. I don't know if the Lomographic Society sells anything properly built. Make sure they have a good return policy, because at $275, I really, really doubt it.

Oh, and lulz:

>And lets talk about one more aspect of the lens – amazing portraits! The longer your lens (and 300mm is LONG), the more “compressed” your subject becomes. If wide-angle lenses serve to stretch noses and chins, then telephoto lenses work to put the proportions back into their proper place. For this reason they are preferred by most professional portrait shooters.

Yeah, if I'm not mistaken (I could be) most professional portrait shooters use medium telephoto lenses. Only crazy fashion photographers use focal lengths that long on a typical basis. A totally flat face image is only desirable when trying to make some model look perfect to sell ugly, skimpy clothing.
>> Anonymous
The rifle grip is a good idea, but everything else there is fail. Manual-focus prime lens and a clunky 1970-era film camera don't look to me like a particularly good idea for wildlife photography.
>> Anonymous
>>59415
Oh, and also all that stuff weighs about 3 kg. It's probably good to fend off hungry bears, but seeing as the bears are a rare sight even here in soviet russia, I doubt that's desired.
>> Anonymous
>>59415
A manual focus prime and a manual film camera are fine for wildlife photography. Seriously, it is not that hard to focus manually with a moving subject. You just have to practice a bit.

This set, on the other hand, may or may not be. Russian cameras have notoriously poor quality control. If it was made correctly, it's not a bad setup.
>> Anonymous
>>59422
I know that stuff was used for wildlife photography for a long, long time, but seriously, a good zoom lens (with VR preferably) and a camera with AE and continious shooting result in less situations like "oh noes, the cute foxie ran away while I was tinkering with the dials". Of course, no one says that all these AF/AE/VR/etc. are mandatory now, but why not use things that make shooting easier?

More on the topic, the modern Zenits I've seen aren't any different feature-wise from Soviet Zenits of twenty years ago, only they are now made of poor quality plastic instead of metal. Lenses are usually quite good optically, but again suffer from poor exterior and lack of any features invented after 1970. (I don't know if the 300/4.5 lens of the Fotosniper even has an aperture control pin, there's a good chance it doesn't. Good luck shooting animals that are not nailed to trees)
>> Moga
     File :-(, x)
I got an older one off of ebay a few years ago for about $120. It looks cool, but that's about all it does.

Shooting with it is a little weird with the stock on because you have to take your hand off the trigger and move it up to the back to wind the film constantly. The shutter speed dial is in the normal place on the top right, and the aperature can be adjusted on the barrel up to f/22. The shoulder stock is short, so it makes it a little awkward to hold. However, the stock does make holding the camera a little more steady.

The photo quality is nothing special (picture related), it's a bit soft and there's an issue with a shadow or something on the left side of the frame on my camera. Contrast wasn't spectacular either, but it might be due to atmospheric haze and the film you use. (I believe this pic was taken with Mitsubishi MX-III 100ISO film.) I probably would have gotten better results with slide film like Velvia or Sensia.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNikonCamera ModelNikon SUPER COOLSCAN 9000 EDCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image Width5904Image Height4000Number of Bits Per Component16, 16, 16Compression SchemeUncompressedPixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution4000 dpiVertical Resolution4000 dpiImage Data ArrangementChunky FormatImage Created2007:06:30 13:24:25Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width2952Image Height2000
>> Moga
     File :-(, x)
Overall, it's a cool collector's item, but not worth it if you're serious about photography.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNikonCamera ModelNikon SUPER COOLSCAN 9000 EDCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image Width5904Image Height4000Number of Bits Per Component16, 16, 16Compression SchemeUncompressedPixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution4000 dpiVertical Resolution4000 dpiImage Data ArrangementChunky FormatImage Created2007:06:30 13:24:55Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width2952Image Height2000
>> twitchy !JuY/vFP4eM
>>59558
I was thinking about welding together a stock for my Camera to attach to the tripod mount. Thanks for the information.
>> Anonymous
As cool as it looks, it's Zenit - this alone invalidates any usefulness it could have had. Zenits were ok on the east side of the iron curtain 20 years ago, because there was no other choice back then. But today, there's no reason to shot with a clunky camera with dark as devil's ass focusing screen covering 65% of the image, and an unreliable cloth shutter with an astounding range of times between 1/30 and 1/500. Oh, and of the 6 or 7 Zenits I had in my hands, none had a properly working light meter.

I'm not saying you can't take good pictures with it, because people did, and some still do. It's just a constant struggle to get good pictures from it, while photography should be a pleasure.
>> Anonymous
Attn /p/: an anon plans to build his own mount for a Canon, because of the fail that is Zenit. It's in early planning stages, but I think I can do it. Expect pics in like a month or something. I dunno.
>> Anonymous
It should be possible to use a bit more money to buy an old Nikon body, like an FM-2, and some decent long manual glass like a 300/4. Then get a tripod/monopod, and if you really must, a rifle stock can probably be found separately. It'll be more expensive, sure, but the results will be much better.
>> Anonymous
Having to wind the film and set the shutter speed manually for each shot (and with the winding handle and dials to the right of the viewfinder, if that Zenit isn't specially modified) kinda defeats the usefulness of the rifle stock IMO...
>> Anonymous
>>59833
I would think so too, but the Soviets found differently. I can see this being useful to make one or two quick grabs of a photograph, and then getting away faster than with folding the tripod up and closing down the legs, or more discreetly than carrying a big, long extended tripod over one's shoulder.

Today, we have IS. If OP has the money, going with a film camera with a lens system with in-lens IS might be a better idea, come to think of it.
>> Anonymous
>>59845
That's even more expensive than going digital - film IS pretty much necessitates a pro-level film body, AFAIK. I don't think either Canon or Nikon included IS/VR support on their entry level film SLRs.
>> Anonymous
>>60015
Canon and Nikon IS/VR systems are implemented on the lens. It's a function that's separate from the body.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>60015
Er. Both Canon and Nikon's image stabilization is in the lens, not in the camera. It's a little iffy with the Nikons since really old cameras will probably be able to mount the VR lens but won't provide the juice to make the VR go, but every Canon EOS can use the IS EF or EF-S lenses, from the lowliest Rebel to the loftiest 1-series.
>> Anonymous
>>60015
EVERY alternative is going to be much more expensive than a Zenit. Actually, semi-pro and pro film bodies aren't too expensive now, especially if you get an used one.

However, if I wanted to shoot wildlife, I'd probably go digital. That's not the best example, but even my cheap Olympus E-500 with 40-150 kit lens (2x crop = 300mm/f4.5 @ telephoto end) weighs three times less than the Fotosniper, and it has zoom, unlimited continious shooting and all the AF/AE bells and whistles you may or may not need. Replace the E-500 with E-510 and you've got VR too.
>> Anonymous
Prepare to get shot my the fucking FBI for weilding that thing.
>> Anonymous
>>60040
With Soviet Zenit, FBI is shot bu you!
>> Anonymous
>>60035
He might have a point. Olympus DSLRs are the most compact, and that could be useful.

I followed a deer into the woods with my superzoom a few days ago. Couldn't have pulled that off with a larger DSLR, at least not while carrying a 432mm (full frame)/ 288mm (1.5x crop) lens and holding it steady. An Olympus might work.
>> Anonymous
>>60047
> a 432mm (full frame)/ 288mm (1.5x crop) lens
what?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>60052
He means he had a 288mm lens (or, more likely, a 300mm zoomed to 288) which is 432mm on a 1.5x crop.

I don't know why he didn't use the "288mm (432mm equiv.)" type terminology that the rest of the world uses...
>> Anonymous
>>60063
>>60052

I had a superzoom type point and shoot with a 36-432mm equivalent lens.

I didn't use the "equivalent" terminology because that wasn't what I was talking about. I was talking about two different lens sizes- a 432mm lens mounted on a full-frame camera, OR a 288mm on an APS-C size sensor camera. I was saying each of those would've been too bulky to go quickly through the woods with and hold steady by hand for a long time.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
Ohhhh. Okay, nevermind then.