| Author |
Message |
    
Harlee
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 07:36 pm: | 
|
I'm curious regarding the Russian GOST numbers vs. ISO numbers. As closely as I can determine, the GOST numbers of 130, 250 and 500 sort of approximate ISO 125, 300 and 425. Does that sound like it's anywhere in the ballpark? I need to write them down and keep the values in my Fed 5C to calibrate the lightmeter. Thank you. |
Winfried
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 02:07 am: |
|
It depends... A new GOST standard was introduced in the 1980s or so, and these new GOST numbers are equivalent to ASA/ISO numbers. I.e. 130GOST is 130ISO etc.
On older russian lightmeters you will find old GOST numbers. I have a conversion chart somewhere (and it is on the web, too). Old GOST numbers are roughly equivalent to 80% of their ISO counterparts, e.g. 64GOST is 80ISO etc. |
charlie
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 06:17 am: |
|
Older Weston meters (like my Master II) used Weston film speeds, also about 80% of ASA/ISO speeds. |
Harlee
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 06:57 am: |
|
In a picture of the top of a Russian camera I saw on Ebay, the film speed dial had both gost and iso numbers imprinted on it and it went something like this: gost 65 = iso 19; gost 130 = iso 22; and gost 500 = iso 25, which compare roughly with the values I gave up above, which sort of falls in with what I'm reading here. Thanks gentlemen! |
Glenn Middleton
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 09:58 am: |
|
Go to www.kievusa.com/index.html You will find a nice downloadable chart on this site. |
Peter Wallage
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 09:58 am: |
|
Can't remember now where it came from, so I can't vouch for its accuracy, but here are comparisons from a chart I have, reading horizontally:
ASA
16, 20, 25, 32, 40, 50, 64, 80, 100, 125, 160, 200, 250, 320, 400, 500, 640, 800, 1000, 1250
Old Gost
10, 12, 16, 20, 25, 32, 40, 50, 64, 80, 100, 125, 160, 200, 250, 320, 400, 500, 640, 800
Peter |
Glenn Middleton
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 10:13 am: |
|
Harlee I am afraid you are way off and Peter's chart does not agree with accepted values. ie
56 gost/64 iso
110 gost/125 iso
180 gost/200 iso
360 gost/400 iso
720 gost/800 iso
Winfried is of course spot on with his information. |
Winfried
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 11:40 am: |
|
Not really... old GOST used a method for evaluating film speed somewhat different from the DIN/ISO method, so you cannot compare both figures by a fixed factor. However, for practical use the 80p.c. rule is sufficient. |
Harlee
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 12:29 pm: |
|
Hummmmmmmmmmmmmm, interesting. The equivalent values I stated were those taken off the film speed dial on a Russian TTL or a 122, I'd have to go back and look. Leave it to the Russians to come up with something completely different from what the rest of the world thinks. I can say that cause I'm Russian, but my surname is Slovak!!!!! It was a ZTTL, which might make it an older version of the gost values. |
Glenn Middleton
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 05:40 pm: |
|
Harlee your dial speeds are in GOST and DIN! so are correct after all,sorry!.I have just done some practical checks with my Lunasix 3S and for all types of negative films it seems that latitude will allow you to read GOST values as ASA with no correction.By calculation ASA seems to be only larger by 10%/11%, so perhaps there were two old Gost standards or some subtle alteration so a 'correction factor' could be applied to aid sales to the West.
Russians might do things differently but they can also produce the goods;look at MIG 39 a magnificent aircraft. |
Ezio
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, June 02, 2005 - 06:21 am: |
|
Glenn, no MiG 39 exists. You perhaps meant MiG-29, which indeed is a very good design although in terms of the old Soviet approach of eminently expendable weapons (they estimated the combat life at less than 30 hours). The really magnificent Soviet/Russian design is rather the Sukhoi Su-27/30 series. The latest Su-30MKI version (in service with the Indian Air Force) is without discussion the best, most advanced and capable fighter aircraft currently operational in the whole world. Both the MiG-29 and Su-27/30 are based on the same advanced aerodynamic planform developed by the TSAgi bureau, which is highly emblematic of how all industrial things worked in the USSR (and to an extent still do in Russia) and also has implications for cameras. Their scientists and research guys were and are absolutely top notch. They designers and engineers are also good, but sometimes they loose touch with production issues. But when it came/comes to production, most of the above good is simply thrown away - all that matters is to meet the assigned production quotas with the minimum effort. Have you ever been close to a MiG-29? Its design is superb, but it is built like a Zimbabwean wheel barrow (with all due respect to Zimbabwe). Which explains a lot of things about the Zorkis, Feds, Zeniths etc. |
Glenn Middleton
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, June 02, 2005 - 08:49 am: |
|
Ezio,Yes of cause MiG 29 (should check what I write more) and yes I have seen build quality;but perhaps in some instances build quality can be taken too far especially in combat materiel,I do not know.Agree with comments on Sukhoi SU-27/30.Is this series where latest evolution has vectored thrust? Seen some fantastic film on Discovery Channel.
On quality control,I read on the Keiv USA site that there are no quality control inspectors or specifications in the factory even today.Keiv USA strip and rebuild/set up every new camera they sell. |
Ezio
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, June 03, 2005 - 12:15 am: |
|
I'm afraid we are stealing this tread far away from its original meaning, although the originator as a Russian may like it. Yes, the Su-30MKI has vectored thrust + fully moveable canard foreplanes, giving it five manoeuvre authorities rather than the usual three. The earlier MK (no thrust vectoring) is the aircraft that did beat US F-15s in every simulated combat encounter during a joint exercise in 2004, sending powerful shock waves across the USAF fighter community that are still reverberating today. And, yes, you are perfectly right that build quality for combat materiel can be taken too far - this is exactly what we are doing. Norman Augustine, the former President of Lockheed Martin, once presented a chart showing the rising curve of the cost of US combat aircraft plotted against the declining curve of the number of aircraft that could be purchased. His prediction was that by the middle of this century there will be a single fighter aircraft in the US inventory, this being shared by the USAF, US Navy and USMC on a rotation basis. |
|
