Quality Comparison .

[dee]

Comparing my Contax III [ currently returned to Kiev for meter part transplant ] with my 1951 / 1952 KNeB II cameras , other than a less polished finish , there is nothing between them in quality . Later models are , of course , another matter .

I don't have a prewar Fed , or early Zorki - mine are from the 50s , but in no way compare with my Leica II or 1947 IIIc .

Were any early Fed 1 cameras built for quality ? Or were they all compromised by material situations etc ?

Or do you think that they do compare favourably ?

 

[santino]

I don't know, maybe it's the original german spares used by the russians (and "imported" german engineers from Zeiss)? 😉 that make the early Kievs such high quality cameras?

 

[wolves3012]

I have a '39 FED 1, a mid-50s FED 1g and a couple of mid-50s Zorki 1s and a '47 Leica IIIC to compare them to (not quite fair since they're "copies" of the Leica II). The '39 FED has a more sparkly chrome (that's the best way I can describe it, it looks like base metal was blasted before chroming). They've all been fully and properly serviced. The fit and finish on the IIIC is noticeably better and the controls are a little smoother (better-machined gears etc) but the difference is not huge. One of the Zorkis is my quietest FSU, noticeably quieter than the IIIC (which isn't noisy itself).

To be honest, I think they are all not that far behind the Leica and seem to be fairly well made. The Leica is just that bit smoother and somehow more perfect. So yes, I do think the earlier FEDs and Zorkis were reasonably well made for quality. Later ones, FEDs especially, no way!

 

[Dralowid]

I have an early Fed with black rangefinder portholes, rounded moulding under shutter dial and collimation hole at the back. It makes a very 'quality' sound when used and mechanically is not bad at all. However the cosmetic finish and the quality and crispness of the mouldings is a long way from those found on Leitz products. The results however are comparable.

It is better to observe the differences than to try and make a comparison!

Michael

 

[rxmd]

I guess the difference was that with the Kievs, basically they transported half the factory to Kiev and told the German engineers to mass-produce the same camera they had been producing before the War, while with the FEDs they developed a copy, and the production facilities to make it, at the same time.

The oldest FEDs I've handled so far were one with a serial number in the 500 range and one in the 6000 range, which would make them 1934 and 1935, respectively. They were certainly well made, most noticeably the engraving, but there was not a huge difference with other, later FEDs.

The subjectively "best-made" FSU camera I've handled so far was a TSVVS.

 

[dee]

Thanks - this confirms what I thought . Certainly a Fed / Zorki is highly useable - considering the difference in cost with a Leica . I cheated on the finish with some fanciful but exquiste Leica-likes from Moscow photo , but my restored 50s cameras work beautifully , but can't be compared with the - crisp ? - finish of the 1951/2 Kievs .

I can set these early Kiev II alongside a Contax II and they do not suffer in comparison .
Maybe they were seeking a world class product , but that is inconsistent with production quantities . My later mid 50s 1954 / 5 / 6 Kievs seem less well finished somehow , but I can't quite sense why I feel this ...
I am informed that the 1st few years they managed only about 2000 per month which rose to 5000 by the mid 50s - something had to give ...

 

[Ron (Netherlands)]

Comparing my Contax III [ currently returned to Kiev for meter part transplant ] with my 1951 / 1952 KNeB II cameras , other than a less polished finish , there is nothing between them in quality . Later models are , of course , another matter .

I don't have a prewar Fed , or early Zorki - mine are from the 50s , but in no way compare with my Leica II or 1947 IIIc .

Were any early Fed 1 cameras built for quality ? Or were they all compromised by material situations etc ?

Or do you think that they do compare favourably ?

My Z2 is build - as far as a can judge from how it looks and feels - as good as a Leica II, or a IIIf (but then without the slow speeds of course).

 

[Valkir1987]

I did many cla's and curtain replacements on Fed 1's and Zorki 1's. From the Fed's the 1d and had the best finish and fit of the parts. It comes very close to Leica sometimes. Zorki's are built very good as well.

Main difference between the Leica is the space (play) between the gears. In a fed or Zorki they are a little looser to allow larger production numbers. A Leica holds and winds smoother. Next is the viewfinder and rangefinder.

I do not agree on most 'quality control' stories. Many camera's have been 'repaired' afterwards or are not in original condition. Have dried out curtains and grease. They all need attention sooner or later, and they are worth it often.

 

[dee]

I would agree with you Valkir - ex-USSR cameras have a poor reputation because most have been messed with or not touched for decades .

I bought two Leica copies in black , my 1st USSR cameras which worked perfectly . I liked them so much that I had Oleg service them [ again ] because I was not sure if they had been made from poor cameras .

He confirmed them both a Fed 1g - and mechanically very sound with new curtains .
Cameras to last a lifetime .
They match my twin 1933/4 Leica IIs in black and nickel - but less worrying to leave in the car .

I also have several restored cameras - Z1 , Fed 1 , Fed 2 , ZS , Z2S , Zenit 1 and S from Altai which are smooth and lovely to use . He ' admits ' that they are rebuilt from parts cameras ,
but I wanted a small collection looking and feeling like new .