Disheartening

[davelrods]

I'm getting in pretty deep in my little Russian camera collection now with several pretty nice ones, two on the way from Yuri, several more that look to be as good or maybe even better than the two from Yuri, along with some junkers.

I visited my camera repair shop yesterday to check on a lens they are supposedly cleaning and lubricating for me. When I asked the owner about some screws for my Russian cameras, I could see the pent up anxiety burning inside him. Finally when I spoke of buying some Zorki's and Fed's, he said "why." I said because they are fun. "They are junk," was his reply.

Now I've had the top case off a Fed 3 and seen pictures of the innards you folks have posted here, then he got out his Russian camera box with parts from three or four Fed and Zorki 1's in there, I could see the crudeness of it all. He sorted through the works for some screws, then priced an Industar collapsable lens for $5 and the whole junk box for $20, I could see what he meant when he said "junk." I bought the box that included one more or less complete Zorki 1 and a bunch of junk parts probably excluding the screws I need and walked a way kind of disillusioned. I'm not easily shaken, but I have had a lot of cameras over the years and just about all of them are not junk. Look closely at the insides of these cameras and the word does indeed shake your confidence a bit.

I'm really wondering now if I've been chasing after rainbows here. The stuff is cheap and fun and looks nice and even takes fairly decent pictures, but look inside and you see the junk. In fact you probably don't even need to look inside.

Are you folks here operating from wishful thinking or have your heads in the clouds or are you really satisfied with these 50 year old Russian examples of machining and craftsmanship. I'm not going to bail because I don't have enough in all this to feel all that bad about it, but I never like to feel cheated. Have I cheated myself. I'm just looking for support, I guess.

 

[Jack Ketch]

What is your point in owning them?

If you like them, play with them. If you are pinning some sort of emotional baggage on them, you are expecting far too much from a cheap hobby.

 

[Drewus]

"The stuff is cheap and fun and looks nice and even takes fairly decent pictures"

Isn't that all that matters? It could be constructed out of sticks and piece of twine, but at the end of the day if it's doing what it's supposed to do, which is taking good quality photos, then what does it matter how it's constructed?

Considering how cheap the Russian rangefinders are, you can't really expect the greatest craftsmanship in the world. If you're going for construction, then look at a Leica instead.

 

[paul beard]

I visited my camera repair shop yesterday to check on a lens they are supposedly cleaning and lubricating for me. When I asked the owner about some screws for my Russian cameras, I could see the pent up anxiety burning inside him. Finally when I spoke of buying some Zorki's and Fed's, he said "why." I said because they are fun. "They are junk," was his reply.

Relax. A camera shop isn't likely to find much good to say about them, as they are not at all popular, with all that goes with that (both knowledge and parts will be rare). And so they take up more time and shelf-space than they are worth. I look at them with the same affection as air-cooled VWs. Reasonably reliable, eminently repairable, and with their own quirky and timeless charm. I would no more turn down a Leica than I would a New Beetle or a Mercedes, but at a certain basic level a camera is a camera, as a car is a car.

I have accumulated my own junk box, though not with all the parts I need. That's part of FSU fandom, I think. And you don't need a garage for them ;-)

 

[Drewus]

Also, I don't know about anyone else, but half the fun I get from using old stuff is how crude it's construction is. If you're going for finely machined parts, slapped together by robots with precision within a fraction of a millimeter then buy something new. I love the fact that i'm using something put together by hand 60 years ago with crude instruments. It gives it character and a little bit of life.

 

[Blake Werts]

Extremely satisfied here.

I have to confess, though, that I've not "come over" from the world of Leicas and the like--no way in heck I can afford them. I have never had any expectation that the mechanical makeup and quality of the cameras would be as precise as the German cameras they have copied. And nor will I ever have this expectation.

I have, however, believed that there are examples that are very well made and produce fantastic results. It is hard to read so much "good press" here on the forums to not believe that there is some truth behind some of the comments. When I finally made my first purchase, I took the advice written here time and time again--buy from someone who has a good track record and don't be afraid to spend a little more to get a better quality example. Another good suggestion is to be patient. So far, I've managed to build a small collection of some fantastic cameras. Granted, I've paid more for my examples so I suppose that I'm getting what I've paid for?

I'm willing to bet that the camera shop owner that made the comment to you are like many who have seen examples of Russian cameras that should clearly be scrapped or recycled. If you've only seen bad examples then it is easy to make this kind of judgement. An analogy close to home for me would be to make judgements about the condition and reliability of ALL pickup trucks if the only examples that I've made contact with had 500,000 miles of hard farm labor on them.

In short, I'm very happy with the FEDs that I have. None of them have failed me and they have far exceeded my expectations when I made my initial purchases. I'm still amazed that a $75 camera continually gives me results that exceed both my expectations and my needs. "Junk insides" or not, I trust them and the results still excite me.

- Blake

 

[brachal]

The older ones tend to be better. My Kiev 2 and Fed 2 are both well-built. My 70's Kiev 4a and Fed-3 ... well not so much. I still like them, especially the Feds.

 

[bucks11]

Don't worry about it...A cheap camera is a cheap camera, but you do get a dandy every now and then. The only reason I like old rangefinders is for the history. Who all has looked through the viewfinder? What kind of shots has it captured?

People will always have their opinions, so if they disagree with us, oh well. More to go around...

 

[WDPictures]

Well I suppose my nearly dead FED 2 is none too pretty on the inside as I will likely be finding out soon but there is something about it that I like. The shear mechanical heft of the thing seems cool to me. Yours might become even more important to you once you've tinkered with them even if they don't work.

 

[vrgard]

"The stuff is cheap and fun and looks nice and even takes fairly decent pictures"

Isn't that all that matters? It could be constructed out of sticks and piece of twine, but at the end of the day if it's doing what it's supposed to do, which is taking good quality photos, then what does it matter how it's constructed?

I was going to say that Drewus' comment above said it all. And then I remembered that one of my best shots was taken with a 1961 Kiev 4A. And then I got to thinking about what a modern dSLR user might say about those of us using old mechanical rangefinder cameras of whatever brand. Bottom line in my book is that I enjoy the process of taking pictures and handling mechanical cameras. And to also yield good quality photos makes it all the more rewarding. Guess I don't subscribe to the "all that matters is the final image" religion, do I? Of course, you gotta decide your own religion...

 

[K14]

I never would have experienced MF if it weren’t for these Russian beauties! How about the glass for these cameras? One of my best shots of the Milky Way came from my 30mm Arasat fisheye. Forget about the service folks who turn their heads, DIY for most of these cameras are all over the place. My Kiev 60, 88 and Zorki 1D are serviced exclusively by K14 😀

Gary

 

[Drewus]

I was going to say that Drewus' comment above said it all. And then I remembered that one of my best shots was taken with a 1961 Kiev 4A. And then I got to thinking about what a modern dSLR user might say about those of us using old mechanical rangefinder cameras of whatever brand. Bottom line in my book is that I enjoy the process of taking pictures and handling mechanical cameras. And to also yield good quality photos makes it all the more rewarding. Guess I don't subscribe to the "all that matters is the final image" religion, do I? Of course, you gotta decide your own religion...

Oh, I wasn't implying that the final image is all that matters. I mean, everyone want's a final image that is ultimately an enjoyable photo to look at. But USING the camera has got to be an enjoyable experience as well, hence why I like using old equipment. Walking around with my Leica IIIc in a sea of DSLR's is an enjoyable experience.

Up until davelrods realised how the camera was constructed, he was completely happy with using it. So why should knowing how it's constructed change that? Like I said, using sticks and twine, if it aquires a photo then that is all that counts. But of course you still have to enjoy using sticks and twine.

To be honest, if I had a camera cosntructed out of sticks and twine that actually took a photo, i'd be using it every day 😉

 

[Livesteamer]

Yes they are crude but they are affordable and can deliver excellent photos. FSU cameras deliver a lot of bang for your money if you are patient. Remember also Russian design philosophy of keep it simple. The Russian T 34 was the best tank of WW 2 even though it was quite crude. Several years ago, a T 34 from WW 2 was found stuck in a swamp in one of the Baltic states. A crew went back to it with some tools and supplies and after several hours work fired it up and drove it out. Sometimes simple is good. Joe

 

[vrgard]

Oh, I wasn't implying that the final image is all that matters. I mean, everyone want's a final image that is ultimately an enjoyable photo to look at. But USING the camera has got to be an enjoyable experience as well, hence why I like using old equipment. Walking around with my Leica IIIc in a sea of DSLR's is an enjoyable experience.

Up until davelrods realised how the camera was constructed, he was completely happy with using it. So why should knowing how it's constructed change that? Like I said, using sticks and twine, if it aquires a photo then that is all that counts. But of course you still have to enjoy using sticks and twine.

To be honest, if I had a camera cosntructed out of sticks and twine that actually took a photo, i'd be using it every day 😉

Yes, I did understand that Drewus. Your comment that I quoted above seemed very clearly to say that it's more than just the final image that matters when you stated that, with reference to FSU cameras, "the stuff is cheap and fun and looks nice." My apologies if my earlier posting implied otherwise.

-Randy

 

[ItsReallyDarren]

Russian cameras are.....Russian cameras. You've got a good one when they work exactly as they were designed to, consistently.

Their quality and craftsmanship reflect their price pretty accurately I think. And for what I paid, I feel I've gotten much more out of them.

I can't imagine the repairmen who work on FSU cameras thinking of them as junk.

 

[K14]

But USING the camera has got to be an enjoyable experience as well, hence why I like using old equipment. Walking around with my Leica IIIc in a sea of DSLR's is an enjoyable experience.

Mablesound converted a Zorki into a Leica Ic, another thread. I'd have to say that is one killer camera mod! I would catwalk (strut) that camera at any fashion show and tell them it's a Zorki. 😱
Try that mod on your IIIF, (if) you dare to...

 

[BigOwl]

You know, sometimes we forget that there is so much more to taking memorable pictures than the quality or fit and finish of the gear we use. Very few people in this forum would use their 40-year old FSU rangefinder to compete against top-of-the-line digital or film cameras and lenses on some sort of lab test of performance purity. But so what? By and large, our cameras work and they return results that often make us very proud. And they can be fun and satisfying to use. What more can we ask of them? Look at historical photographs that have made their photographers famous. They are not necessarily razor sharp, free from abberation, or even properly exposed. And their fame is hardly ever tied to the nameplate on the camera that was used to make the exposure. As has been quoted here before: "No photographer is better than the simplest camera". IMHO we need to quit worrying about our FSU gear and just load up some film and shoot some pictures. Who knows, we may really like what we produce. And other people may be impressed too.

 

[davelrods]

Well, you folks have brought up all the reasons I've been attracted to these cameras and you've not called me a fool as the repair guy was sort of doing. I am glad to see there are other "fools" like me who are enjoying all this stuff with no guilt or need for rationalization. I guess I should have known I would receive support here. What about in the other forums on this board. Are you folks the only ones who take such pleasure in these rough relics from the past or are other folks curious enough to suggest they are at least worth a look.

I've been thrilled with what I've enjoyed so far with this new passion. I hope the thrill continues long enough to get good a solid base in my psyche. In the mean time, I'll still strive to get the rangefinder setting just perfect on one or two of my relics. Easy to get infinity perfect, but the rest are an exercise in frustration. I guess that is the way with life. You definitely will know when you are dead, everything else is a best guess.

Thanks, folks, you've been a big help. Now, anybody want to wager a guess as to how you use the built in light meter in a Kiev 4m. Seems a dark alley in the dark to me.

 

[Drewus]

You know, sometimes we forget that there is so much more to taking memorable pictures than the quality or fit and finish of the gear we use.

I gradually began to realise that there's more to it than just trying to acquire the sharpest image possible. A DSLR might be able to get me a crystal clear image with massive amounts of zoom, but if the process involved in getting that isn't an enjoyable one then what's the point?
Of course, other people feel differently, but lugging around a heavy, obnoxious digital camera just has no joy what-so-ever when compared to carrying around a beautifully machined 60 year old piece of equipment. The image quality might suffer, but if that's the definition of a good photo then we might aswell burn everything leading up to this point in time.

 

[fanshaw]

The rough fit and finish of Soviet cameras causes people to continually complain about poor quality 'control', whereas poor quality is the real problem. Surely the fact that most of these cameras need some fixing is why we find them attractive. Making something work properly is a lot of fun and now that most things are computer controlled there are few opportunities for this activity with modern artefacts for people without specialist training.