shead
Newbie
Hi folks, new around here and fairly new to FSRs. I'm about to load up my FED-2d and Zorkie 3c and get back to enjoying these mechanical wonders.
I am wondering what other nations made cameras that are similar to the classic Russian rangefinders? Obviously the Leicas, but other than that, what other rangefinders have that classic appeal?
I would perhaps say the Argus C3, but it didn't have the quality or versatility. It was a classic though. Any ideas?
I am wondering what other nations made cameras that are similar to the classic Russian rangefinders? Obviously the Leicas, but other than that, what other rangefinders have that classic appeal?
I would perhaps say the Argus C3, but it didn't have the quality or versatility. It was a classic though. Any ideas?
erikhaugsby
killer of threads
Nikons?
Canons?
Any of the hundreds of styles of folding RFs by Zeiss, Agfa, Voigtlander &etc.?
Non-FSU Leica copies (Leotax, Nicca)?
Canons?
Any of the hundreds of styles of folding RFs by Zeiss, Agfa, Voigtlander &etc.?
Non-FSU Leica copies (Leotax, Nicca)?
Why Nikon rangefinders (link) of course
The Nikon SP, S3, and S4 were essentially the same camera with different viewfinders and formed the basis for the Nikon F, the quintessential 60's SLR.
moretto
EFKE Lover
I don't mean to dissrespect, I love FSU RF, but in my opinion, the most of their appeal is the price. For the price of a good Zorki, You can't buy a decent filter or a used leather case for Leica. At least in my part of the world. Would You pay 300 or 500 or 1000 $ for a Fed or Zorki?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
None, really: most other people (a) made them properly and (b) didn't start with a flat copy of an existing camera. As Moretto said, they also charged more...
Consider Hensoldt, Steinheil's Casca, Bell & Howell's Foton, Ilford's Witness*, Reid* (which was a flat copy, but built to Leica standards), Voigtländer's Prominent 35mm, Werra, Kodak's Ektra, Foca, Hasselblad's Xpan, Meopta*, Retina, Robot...
Asterisked cameras are Leica-compatible (though the Witness mount was cleverer). Those are only a few of my favourites. Never was keen on Contaxes and Kievs were just badly made Contaxes.
You might find this book about rangefinders interesting:
http://www.rogerandfrances.com/photography/rangefinder.html
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
R
Roberto
Guest
giovatony
Well-known
Personally I don`t feel the FSU`s deserve the bashing or bad press they get.
Most of these FSU`s are coming here needing some degree of professional servicing but rarely get it and consequently these once fine tools get put thru the wringer ( even in a faulty condition) to the point where they eventually fail or break down completely and are rendered useless. Even Leicas need to be serviced periodically and will break down as fast as an FSU under these same circumstances.
The difference lies in the fact that a Leica or Contax user is far more likely to repair and or service their faulty camera than a FSU user will soley because of the resale value.
Most FSU`s coming off Ebay work only to a degree and apparently that seems good enough to satisfy most purchasers who would rather buy another $45 Kiev than spend $70-80 for a CLA or service to the one they already have.
But I can tell you from experience that a professionally serviced Kiev or Zorki is a beautifully crafted item that can work smoothly and precisely and produce as fine pictures as the Leicas do , and definitely give it`s owners as much satisfaction.
IMO, nothing is as frustrating or rediculous as having to take pictures with a camera and lens that functions less than how it was intended to function. And it is the sole responsibility of an owner to ensure that his gear is in tip top operating condition and not to blame his poor photographic experience on his equipment.
John
.
Most of these FSU`s are coming here needing some degree of professional servicing but rarely get it and consequently these once fine tools get put thru the wringer ( even in a faulty condition) to the point where they eventually fail or break down completely and are rendered useless. Even Leicas need to be serviced periodically and will break down as fast as an FSU under these same circumstances.
The difference lies in the fact that a Leica or Contax user is far more likely to repair and or service their faulty camera than a FSU user will soley because of the resale value.
Most FSU`s coming off Ebay work only to a degree and apparently that seems good enough to satisfy most purchasers who would rather buy another $45 Kiev than spend $70-80 for a CLA or service to the one they already have.
But I can tell you from experience that a professionally serviced Kiev or Zorki is a beautifully crafted item that can work smoothly and precisely and produce as fine pictures as the Leicas do , and definitely give it`s owners as much satisfaction.
IMO, nothing is as frustrating or rediculous as having to take pictures with a camera and lens that functions less than how it was intended to function. And it is the sole responsibility of an owner to ensure that his gear is in tip top operating condition and not to blame his poor photographic experience on his equipment.
John
.
Last edited:
shead
Newbie
Well folks, I appreciate the replies. I am fairly ignorant about rangefinders in general. I learned on 35mm SLRs and shoot mostly Yashica TLRs for fun, along with the obligatory Holga and some junk shop cameras. I shoot only for fun, nostalgia and pleasure.
As for the Russian rangefinders, I love them for the price AND because, to a fairly naiive hobby photographer who has knowledge of only a small slice of SLRs, they seem a good bang for the buck.
And, to be honest, my first FED was purchased as a prop to take photos of my other former Soviet collectibles, Soviet-era rifles. I set up an Afghanistan group of props to go along with the rifle and the FED seemed to be of the appropriate era.
So for me, like the venerable Kalashnikov that is built like a tank, does its job well and isn't particularly the pinnacle of elegance, so seems the cameras of the Soviet Union.
Like the Russian Mosin Nagants and Kalashnikovs, the nifty little markings and factory logos found on various parts of these cameras, lenses and rifles are all of the same school and similar in design. Fascinating to decode them all!
Thanks for the replies!
As for the Russian rangefinders, I love them for the price AND because, to a fairly naiive hobby photographer who has knowledge of only a small slice of SLRs, they seem a good bang for the buck.
And, to be honest, my first FED was purchased as a prop to take photos of my other former Soviet collectibles, Soviet-era rifles. I set up an Afghanistan group of props to go along with the rifle and the FED seemed to be of the appropriate era.
So for me, like the venerable Kalashnikov that is built like a tank, does its job well and isn't particularly the pinnacle of elegance, so seems the cameras of the Soviet Union.
Like the Russian Mosin Nagants and Kalashnikovs, the nifty little markings and factory logos found on various parts of these cameras, lenses and rifles are all of the same school and similar in design. Fascinating to decode them all!
Thanks for the replies!
The Kodak Signet cameras were higher build quality than the C3 "Brick". The Lens on the Signet 35 is an Ektar, a high-quality Tessar formula lens. The Signet 80 has a well-thought out breech-lock mount that makes changing lenses quick and easy. It also features a 1x Viewfinder.
V
varjag
Guest
No, sorry. An AK is a competent and reliable weapon, perhaps the most reliable in its class. It is also remarkably well built, unless you talk about Chinese, Hungarian and other countless copies.
Soviet cameras however, like most of civilian goods, were always made from scraps of military industry. They were last in the line for materials, tooling or design effort. There is more difference between an old Zorki and a Barnack Leica than frequency of service; Zorki had a few simplifications in construction from the start (e.g. brass fittings in the holes for axles were dropped). Those relaxed assembly requirements a lot, but let's say did no good for smoothness, precision or long-term reliability. Ditto for Kievs, not as pronounced difference vs. Contax at first, it went downhill gradually and by 1980s the internal works have been abysmal.
My humble experience (maybe 300 rolls) with Soviet RFs was fun, and I still have my first Kiev home. Still if you going to shoot them seriously, you would *need* to learn how to fix them. If you find one that can do 15-20 rolls without a single glitch hold on it and consider yourself lucky
micromontenegro
Well-known
R
ruben
Guest
I don't mean to dissrespect, I love FSU RF, but in my opinion, the most of their appeal is the price. For the price of a good Zorki, You can't buy a decent filter or a used leather case for Leica. At least in my part of the world. Would You pay 300 or 500 or 1000 $ for a Fed or Zorki?
Hi moretto,
You are putting here a very interesting question. So interesting that I am going now to open a special thread about it: "Let's Imagine"
See you in a quarter of hour.
Cheers,
Ruben
shead
Newbie
Good perspective on the cameras varjag, thanks for that.
Not to go too entirely off topic, but I never said the AK was not competent and reliable and realize you know that. I too know them to be both extremely competent and utterly reliable. Even the Hungarians. I have built both AMD-63 and 65 variants from demilled parts kits and the workmanship is on par, if not better, than some Russian rifles. Same goes with some of the Polish rifles. Chinese rifles, though not licensed and made to the same physical dimensions and specs, are also known to be very good, with the exception of a few well known commercial versions made for export. The Russian Kalashnikovs I have seen (a '71 AM Type 3 milled rifle, a Russian '73 RPK, and countless SAIGA rifles and conversions based on the SAIGA export rifle) are all exceptionally well made. But what I am speaking of is elegance and finesse. I do not believe the Kalashnikov nor the FED and Zorki that I have are "elegant" nor are they designed with those touches of finesse that make one say "wow, that was a great idea and a brilliant design decision". Indeed they are sort of chunky and clunky.
I DO however, believe that is part of their success, from the Kalashnikov at least, contrary to popular opinion, they CAN break but they can also be fixed easily. They are over-built and well engineered. From a newbie's perspective, the FEd and Zorki both seem to have that same overbuilt feel. Perhaps that is unfounded, but first impressions at least seem that way. Your post indicates they are not in fact analagous to the Kalashnikov, and that's fine, I'm speaking on terms of impression.
Having not run many rolls of film in these, I am ignorant in this area, but will surely be learning!
micromontenegro
Well-known
Good, interesting argument. I'd like to point out that the AK47 is also a "copy", or better, an evolution, of a revolutionary German design: the StG44
shead
Newbie
Not so much, it was the same concept (medium power between a pistol and a full out rifle, detachable mag, select fire, layout, etc), and the German moving bolt carrier/gas bleed system inspired Kalashnikov to think in that manner, but the AK is pretty much a different beast. I understand where you are coming from, but its more of a legend held over from the cold war era before Kalashnikov's bureau's work was known than a real "copy". Inspired, OK, I can go with that.
The Stg-44 and the general direction of German assault rifles did give way to further design progress after the war in Spain, the CETME rifle was the next iteration in the German series, moving its way back to Germany later under license and then fully bought by Jeckler and Kock (the G3 family, including the MP-5). Most people don't realize the HK line had its immediate origins in Spain.
Now that I have thoroughly gone off topic, and such a newb to boot, I'll pipe down...
Roger Hicks
Veteran
(Roger, please try to be nice, especially to our new comrades.).
Dear Richard,
Fair enough. A well made Kiev is a delight -- but many were poorly made, because (as they used to say in the Soviet Union) 'They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work.'
Then again, I'd suggest that Contaxes were needlessly complicated to begin with, partly to dodge Leica patents and partly for appearences' sake (1/1250 instead of 1/1000, the 'roll top desk' shutter). Variable tension as well as the usual variable slit-width was also a bit of an odd idea on a 35mm camera.
Also, they are now very old, and the lubricants have often dried and gone manky. With the extraordinarily long rangefinder train on a Contax/Kiev, this means that trying to focus by wheel is, on many of them, a penance and the speeds are well off.
My point, though, was that there are no real equivalents, because no-one else (a) started off with quite such slavish copies and (b) used quite such casual assembly techniques. Sure, a Reid is a dead copy, but at least it was made right.
I've just been fixing the rangefinder on a Werra 3, and I have to say, I was reminded of both the advantages and the disadvantages of those very pretty little cameras -- which were very original indeed.
Cheers,
R.
bmattock
Veteran
Perhaps it would be instructive to hearken back to the original question asked, which was "I am wondering what other nations made cameras that are similar to the classic Russian rangefinders?" and the comparison was made to Leica.
I think this has led to some confusion, because it stemmed from a logical misstatement.
Zorki was a copy derived from Leica, not the other way around. So one could say that a Leica is similar to a Zorki, but more properly, I would say a Zorki is similar to a Leica.
Leica is the source. Zorki is the copy (yes, Fed too).
By the same token, Contax is the source, and Kiev is the (successor and then later) copy.
When one considers the question in that context, cameras like the Argus are not really acceptable answers to this question, because it was not derived from either the Leica or the Contax.
Was the Argus C3 'similar' in the sense that it was a cheap and competent rangefinder? Then, yes. And the list of cameras that match THAT qualification is enormous.
There were Leica copies made by a huge number of companies, some more compatible than others, but all more-or-less capable of mounting and using Leica lenses (and vice-versa), so we'd have cameras in Japan like the Canons and Yashica and Leotax and Nicca (well, Yashica again) and Minolta and on and on (I don't know them all, but there were a lot of them). In England, we'd have the Reid (I don't think the Ilford Witness, excellent camera though it was, was a Leica clone, was it?), and I believe there was a US-made Leica clone as well.
In China, we had the Shanghai, as I recall.
There may have been other Leica copies made in other countries. I'm not a collector or specialist, but I think I've seen references to Italian and Eastern-Bloc (other than the USSR) countries that cranked out clones of Leica thread-mount cameras.
In Contax copies - not so much. I think Nikon is about it, and that's only a 'mostly like' copy, since the lenses are a tad different in registration, if not mount. The shutters are quite different as well.
Now, in terms of 'work-a-like', then we have many choices, and several people have named some of the best/most famous.
And then we have the cameras that were designed to look somewhat like a Leica M style camera, but which in fact were nothing like them, such as the Aires IIIC.
I do not think that the Zorkis, Feds, and Kievs were themselves copied, though. So when you say "similar to Russian rangefinders" I would say "similar to Leica and Contax rangefinders in the same manner as Zorki, Fed, and Kiev."
I think this has led to some confusion, because it stemmed from a logical misstatement.
Zorki was a copy derived from Leica, not the other way around. So one could say that a Leica is similar to a Zorki, but more properly, I would say a Zorki is similar to a Leica.
Leica is the source. Zorki is the copy (yes, Fed too).
By the same token, Contax is the source, and Kiev is the (successor and then later) copy.
When one considers the question in that context, cameras like the Argus are not really acceptable answers to this question, because it was not derived from either the Leica or the Contax.
Was the Argus C3 'similar' in the sense that it was a cheap and competent rangefinder? Then, yes. And the list of cameras that match THAT qualification is enormous.
There were Leica copies made by a huge number of companies, some more compatible than others, but all more-or-less capable of mounting and using Leica lenses (and vice-versa), so we'd have cameras in Japan like the Canons and Yashica and Leotax and Nicca (well, Yashica again) and Minolta and on and on (I don't know them all, but there were a lot of them). In England, we'd have the Reid (I don't think the Ilford Witness, excellent camera though it was, was a Leica clone, was it?), and I believe there was a US-made Leica clone as well.
In China, we had the Shanghai, as I recall.
There may have been other Leica copies made in other countries. I'm not a collector or specialist, but I think I've seen references to Italian and Eastern-Bloc (other than the USSR) countries that cranked out clones of Leica thread-mount cameras.
In Contax copies - not so much. I think Nikon is about it, and that's only a 'mostly like' copy, since the lenses are a tad different in registration, if not mount. The shutters are quite different as well.
Now, in terms of 'work-a-like', then we have many choices, and several people have named some of the best/most famous.
And then we have the cameras that were designed to look somewhat like a Leica M style camera, but which in fact were nothing like them, such as the Aires IIIC.
I do not think that the Zorkis, Feds, and Kievs were themselves copied, though. So when you say "similar to Russian rangefinders" I would say "similar to Leica and Contax rangefinders in the same manner as Zorki, Fed, and Kiev."
shead
Newbie
bmattock, that's what I am looking for, thanks! My general ignorance of these cameras and indeed everything Leica means even my questions can be cloudy. Thanks, I think I would have probably worded my question differently in light of the answers now, but you have read my mind before I even knew the exact question to ask. Thanks!
V
varjag
Guest
Bill, you outlined it pretty well but there are some subtler nuances. Yes, the common Kievs and initial FED/Zorki models were faithful copies of their German prototypes.
But, is FED-2 a Leica copy, with its removable back, original RF assembly, its own exterior design? Is Kiev-5, a camera most unlike original Contax, still a copy? Are Zorki 3 through 6? Are Droug, Leningrad copies of anything?
One could argue that most of them still have shutters derived from German originals, but in the same vein majority of classic cameras in existence would be counted as Leica copy. Which is true of course, since most 35mm cameras are Leica derivations of varying kinship anyway but it feels like really stretching the meaning of "copy".
But, is FED-2 a Leica copy, with its removable back, original RF assembly, its own exterior design? Is Kiev-5, a camera most unlike original Contax, still a copy? Are Zorki 3 through 6? Are Droug, Leningrad copies of anything?
One could argue that most of them still have shutters derived from German originals, but in the same vein majority of classic cameras in existence would be counted as Leica copy. Which is true of course, since most 35mm cameras are Leica derivations of varying kinship anyway
but it feels like really stretching the meaning of "copy".
bmattock
Veteran
bmattock, that's what I am looking for, thanks! My general ignorance of these cameras and indeed everything Leica means even my questions can be cloudy. Thanks, I think I would have probably worded my question differently in light of the answers now, but you have read my mind before I even knew the exact question to ask. Thanks!
I am happy to be of service.
One thing that helps to understand the history of rangefinder cameras is to understand a bit of the history of WWII.
Leica (and Zeiss, maker of Contax) were leading camera makers in the world, esteemed and highly valued, prior to the outbreak of WWII. There were many other fine German camera-makers as well, of course. But concentrating on just Leica and Contax - when WWII broke out, the Allied countries had no access to German cameras anymore, and some of them chose to make 'copy' cameras that were either exact copies (very close copies) or just 'close enough' copies so that they could make use of existing Leica lenses.
Some of the companies that Leica had ties with prior to WWII, such as Wollensak, continued to make Leica lense, but without the Leica name on them, during the war. The US government (and I presume some others) used 'seized assets' to make it legal to do what would have otherwise have been copyright infringement on Leica cameras.
With regard to FSU cameras, when WWII ended, Contax found itself on the Russian side of divided Germany, and the Russians disassemble the plant, put it on a train, and sent it off to Kiev (along with some of the workers), so one could say that at least at first, Kiev cameras WERE Contax cameras (but perhaps not made as well). The Zorkis were direct Leica copies, and the Feds were Leica work-alikes that did not resemble the Leica, but used the same sort of lenses and worked like them. The Fed has an interesting history if you're into stories about child labor camps and Soviet Secret police. Seriously!
Anyway - it was WWII that initially made Leica copies into an industry. Otherwise, Leica would no doubt have put a stop to the blatant copyright infringements. I do not think such copyrights still exist now.