dee said:
I guess with such ancient cameras - let alone dodgy repairing and adjusting , it's amazing that any work properly with a variety of lenses !
i have yet to try out my prewar Elmars and my Summitar on any of my Zorki/feds , can't wait !
dee
The variable (I feel that 'adjustable' is the more apt term) quality may be considered as a design feature arising out of the specific needs of the Soviet system of production.
Let me venture in this speculation:
Leica and Canon have made cameras whose rangefinders are 'on the dot' once they leave the factory or maybe even as early as the time they get off the production line. Their parts are so standardised to the point that one specimen can be expected to work as well as another when it comes to lens compatibility and rangefinder coupling. However to be able to produce such goods consistently, a lot of precision is required in making the parts and putting them together. That would mean more time is spent in making one unit as well as the parts that go into it. Then it would also mean that parts which don't fit get tossed out.
More time spent and critical tolerances also mean higher production costs.
Less cameras made in a given amount of time did not matter much since these
factories were not working under state-imposed quotas. Nor were they supposed to make so many in order to keep the costs down. These factories would only make what they could, minding instead the numbers of precision
equipment they churn out, rather than just churning them out.
On the other hand, the Soviet system of production puts more importance on quotas- ie how much is produced in a given time period- than anything else. A factory is successful if it produces an XXX number of units. Basing on the (new) cameras or lenses I've acquired over the years, it appears that it doesn't matter really if a good number of these units worked or not.
🙁
Going back to FED and Zorki rangfinders: I would also go as far to assume that
using the roller-tipped RF found in Leica and Canon would mean less cameras rolling off the production lines. Such would require greater precision in assembly. So the adjustable tip was used instead. This method allowed less precise assembly for both lens and camera; put them together first as fast as possible and then calibrate each to working specifications.
This was an elegant solution which worked quite well if only one lens (the one which the camera left the factory with) was to be used. I suppose that this was the case with the majority of the cameras sold and used. A FED instruction booklet from the late 1940s even warned against
removing the lens. Occasionally though, someone would get a fast 50mm to replace the collapsible 3.5 originally supplied with the camera. Or perhaps it could be a long lens. The instruction booklets of the early FED and Zorki always recommended (Maizenberg also stated this) that the cameras be adjusted for, and matched with the new lens to be used. The new adjustment would in turn be no longer compatible with the old standard lens.
It's not the camera's fault nor the lens's either. It was just that the optical blocks did not always have their optical nodes at the same place relative to the lens mount or the focal plane itself. This issue can often be resolved by reshimming the lens.
Jay
