A beginer's trilema - Kiev, FED or a Zorki

If one just cares for a fast shooter, then a cheap Nikon F80 would make him happier.
Besides these are so cheap that one can buy one of each and keep them all, or just the one that feels more fun using.
(I am not talking for an ultra rare Fed-S, or a Kiev with a Zorki lens)
 
The Fed 2 is a simple, solid good looking camera. The Zorki 4 is IMO reliable enough too. Forget the Kievs unless you can service them...
 
David Murphy said:
SNIP ...I think more important, is that Zeiss did not maintain historical continuity into the modern era as did Leica with their rangefinder system... .
Click to expand...

This is interesting, Leica have always been there and are still making RF's and getting them reviewed and so on. So their reputation is maintained in the mainstream.

Contax models, OTOH, have been more varied and their RF's disappeared very early; most forum members have never seen a Contax or CZ RF advertised, for example.

It's interesting to ponder what would have happened if Contax RF's had continued to be available and advertised and reviewed up until (say) recently labelled "Contax" with little stickers under them saying, initially, "Assembled in Kiev From German Made Parts" and then going on to say "Made in the European Community"...

When all's said and done, I've never seen a long running and high volume forum discussion on the difference between a camera model that was "Made in Japan"; "Made in Hong Kong"; "Made in Taiwan" and "Made in China". As long as the name of the Japanese company is on the front people seem happy.

Taking well know makes/brands people seem quite happy that many camera models cannot be repaired and will even buy and sell them with the "ERROR" message openly advertised but it's a funny old world.

Regards, David
 
Last edited:
Early Kiev cameras seem identical to Contax II's according to a lot of people. And many early ones are part Contax and part Kiev parts.
Click to expand...

I should have been more kind. Although many parts look identical there are many differences.

If you still have the original shutter I can restore it back for you in original condition. At no cost. :)
 
Valkir1987 said:
I should have been more kind. Although many parts look identical there are many differences.

If you still have the original shutter I can restore it back for you in original condition. At no cost. :)
Click to expand...

It's difficult to know what to believe at times but the stories about the entire Contax works, parts and a few tech's going to the USSR seems fairly well accounted for.

Secondly, that's a kind offer but I've not got it. The only used part I want to get my hands on is an old Leica shutter blind because I want to see if I can burn a hole in it in normal conditions with just sunlight. I can't see how the sunlight could get there if the camera was put down on a table and the sun was in the usual position in the sky. And how long would it take?

Regards, David
 
David Hughes said:
The only used part I want to get my hands on is an old Leica shutter blind because I want to see if I can burn a hole in it in normal conditions with just sunlight. I can't see how the sunlight could get there if the camera was put down on a table and the sun was in the usual position in the sky. And how long would it take?

Regards, David
Click to expand...
David,

I tried this some years ago with an offcut from re-shuttering some FSU cameras. The thread should still be on here but you may have to hunt for it!

The answer is yes, you can burn a hole quite quickly. However, it does require circumstances that are less than likely. You need to focus the sun accurately on the blind and use a reasonably large aperture. From memory, f/2 will burn a hole in a couple of seconds but by the time you get to f/8 it's difficult even to scorch the cloth without some effort.

If you're foolish enough to aim the sun directly into a wide-open lens and you happen to have focussed correctly (not on the film but the blind) you could burn the blinds. In real life, I don't see it happening without bad luck and carelessness or a concerted effort. However, it's something a lens-cap can prevent, or setting a small aperture (which is likely on a sunny day anyway).
 
It depends where you are. I took FED-2 with J-3 out just for few minutes outside on very bright day to take shadow pictures on very white snow. Shutter was burned. I was taken pictures wide open for contest. It was another guy in Germany taking pictures for same contest and he managed to burn with fast Leica lens the curtain in his M Leica.
 
Several years ago I was looking for the effect of sunlight in fungus infested lenses (an Helios 58 mm and a Jupiter 135 IIRC). Both were wide open and oriented to the sun.
The only result I got was solar "engravings" on the rear lens caps. The trajectory of the sun is visible in both caps. No visible effect on fungi...



I was lucky - this could have started a fire !

Regards

Joao
 
wolves3012 said:
David,

I tried this some years ago with an offcut from re-shuttering some FSU cameras. The thread should still be on here but you may have to hunt for it!

The answer is yes, you can burn a hole quite quickly. However, it does require circumstances that are less than likely. You need to focus the sun accurately on the blind and use a reasonably large aperture. From memory, f/2 will burn a hole in a couple of seconds but by the time you get to f/8 it's difficult even to scorch the cloth without some effort.

If you're foolish enough to aim the sun directly into a wide-open lens and you happen to have focussed correctly (not on the film but the blind) you could burn the blinds. In real life, I don't see it happening without bad luck and carelessness or a concerted effort. However, it's something a lens-cap can prevent, or setting a small aperture (which is likely on a sunny day anyway).
Click to expand...


Hi,

Yes, that's more or less what I thought about it. Wide open on a sunny day seems unlikely, focussed on infinity or near seems unlikely and putting the camera down on its back or base might not get the sun in the frame.

Then I thought I'd better try it. There's nothing like being scientific, even though this is on the internet.

Joao and Ko.Fe., thanks also for your contributions. It's nice/weird to get what appears to be an internet myth confirmed.

Regards, David
 
Hmmm: if a FED-2 is a Leica clone, then a VW Beetle is a Porsche 911 clone.

Simply put, it is no clone. Nope.
 
Last edited:
Daryl J. said:
Hmmm: if a FED-2 is a Leica clone, then a VW Beetle is a Porsche 911 clone.
Click to expand...

You sound disappointed. Remember, its the image that counts.

Besides, I would more consider the Fed-1 to be a Leica clone. The Fed-2, while lumped into that large amorphous group of "Leica Clones", is its own camera -- an improvement really! Longer RF base and combined viewfinder are genuine real improvements.
 
It is. And here is nothing wrong with it.
To understand why it is the clone you need to look inside of the FED-2. Under the top plate and into the shutter cradle. It is nothing but Zorki and Zorki is the clone of Leica.
 
Disappointed? Nope. I find the comparison hilarious.
FWIW, the VW Beetle and the Porsche 944 share some common, interchangeable parts. Clones they are not.

And I'm pretty pumped about the FED-2. And my Leica IIIc. And M4. Etc.
 
Daryl J. said:
Thanks, nukecoke. For some reason I can only access the first page of FSU threads.
Click to expand...

At the bottom of the page, you can change how far back the posts are shown in each sub-section of the forum. I think 75 days' of posts is the default. Change it to "since the beginning"and there are over a hundred pages of posts in this section alone! Some good reading in there.
 
Daryl J. said:
Hmmm: if a FED-2 is a Leica clone, then a VW Beetle is a Porsche 911 clone.

Simply put, it is no clone. Nope.
Click to expand...
It's always a clone when it's for sale! Simple "logic": it's derived from the FED 1, which itself was (loosely) a clone of a Leica. Leica has a certain reputation, so it's a bonus to have the prestigious name association. No, it doesn't fool me but there are some gullible folk out there.

Personally, I like the FSU cameras for what they are - unpretentious items that are capable of excellent results. I'm not that interested in who copied whom and so on.
 
Daryl J. said:
Hmmm: if a FED-2 is a Leica clone, then a VW Beetle is a Porsche 911 clone.

Simply put, it is no clone. Nope.
Click to expand...

No, the original VW (that eventually evolved into the Type I aka Beetle) was a Tatra clone of sorts—Ferdy Porsche was inspired by Ledwinka's brilliant and innovative T series models. As I recall VW paid up after the war for the infringement of Tatra's designs. Besides which, the 911 came much later than the Beetle anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom