farlymac
PF McFarland
I have found that any FSU camera that is in good working condition will at best last only a couple of years in regular use before starting to have issues. That said, I prefer the Zorki 1d or 1e as they have a slightly better build. The I-22 if cleaned inside and out is a very good lens. The one I cleaned myself is a spectacular performer with Acros.
But the thing is you will spend more money in the long run keeping a Zorki working properly than if you were to get the Nicca III-S (III-s, or 3-S, don't ask me what the variations are between the three versions). And the Nicca III-S cameras were originally supplied with the Nikkor-H · C 50mm 1:2, a fine lens that while more expensive than FSU equivalents they are less expensive than Leica Summitars or Summicrons. It's not collapsible but uses standard size 40.5mm screw-in filters and hoods.
Beyond all that though is that a Zorki-1d or 1e with the I-22 collapsible is a good starter combination for your planned pocket compact style. You can always save for upgrading to something more reliable later on. That was my path to a Leica IIIf, but I still have my Zorki's.
PF
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Have you done work on any lens? Or at least looked at video with collapsible industar I have link provided.
I did dozens of lenses. FSU, Leitz, Canon, Cosina LTM and M. Nothing expensive, no special skills. Just time to kill. I ruined only one focus helicoid with insane thin threads, it was 40/2 Rokkor v3. Ordered spare one.
As for reliable FSU, you just wrote exactly I have mentioned. Dozen rolls, then on shelf and exposure check once in a while. FSU ltms were build exactly for it. Not as everyday, everywhere cameras. We didn't do it back in SU. We had one, two rolls over one year. Or we had to bring cameras for service. And anyone who was taking pictures regularly was trying to get non-FSU camera.
As for service now, nobody from known names is touching them. Not because they are cheap, but because you never know if it is going to work after service and for how long.
I ordered FED-2 from Oleg twice. Both times with uneven exposure and it was impossible to fix with just a retention.
It is not a big deal to rehaul Zorki-1. I did it several times. I did my family FED-2 as well, first time send it to Oleg to assemble it, second time all by myself. Curtains...
But my last FSU ltm attempt was with Zorki restored by one very reputable person in FSU region. It lasted few months with real, daily use and craped out uneven exposures. I had Leica IIf prior to it and not a single problem. Sold it only because I wanted Canadian M.
Malcolm M
Well-known
A copy & paste of an explanation I posted on a previous occasion this question came up....
The reason why FSU lenses might not focus properly on Leicas and Leica copies…
From the formula for those thin lenses of negligible cross section, so beloved of O Level physics examiners, 1/f=1/u+1/v (f= focal length, u & v lens to object and lens to image distances). It follows that a rangefinder can only be calibrated for one focal length. Now, whereas the Fed/Zorki cameras were based on the Leicas captured at Stalingrad, the lenses were copies of Zeiss designs from Jena in the Russian occupation zone. As I understand, Zeiss’s idea of what constituted a 5 cm standard lens differed slightly from Leica’s (I don’t know the exact figures) so the rangefinders are calibrated differently.
How much this variation actually matters, I’m not sure. I don’t see why shimming should be necessary- if FSU bodies have the same lens flange to film plane distance as Leicas, then everything should be correct at infinity focus. Shimming can only correct focus at one point. The only complete cure is to reprofile the cam on the lens (vastly more trouble than it can possibly be worth).
The bit about Stalingrad was tongue in cheek. I am well aware that the first FEDs date from the thirties. Leica standard lenses are at least nominally 50mm. I believe Zeiss's idea of 5cm was more like 52mm.
The reason why FSU lenses might not focus properly on Leicas and Leica copies…
From the formula for those thin lenses of negligible cross section, so beloved of O Level physics examiners, 1/f=1/u+1/v (f= focal length, u & v lens to object and lens to image distances). It follows that a rangefinder can only be calibrated for one focal length. Now, whereas the Fed/Zorki cameras were based on the Leicas captured at Stalingrad, the lenses were copies of Zeiss designs from Jena in the Russian occupation zone. As I understand, Zeiss’s idea of what constituted a 5 cm standard lens differed slightly from Leica’s (I don’t know the exact figures) so the rangefinders are calibrated differently.
How much this variation actually matters, I’m not sure. I don’t see why shimming should be necessary- if FSU bodies have the same lens flange to film plane distance as Leicas, then everything should be correct at infinity focus. Shimming can only correct focus at one point. The only complete cure is to reprofile the cam on the lens (vastly more trouble than it can possibly be worth).
The bit about Stalingrad was tongue in cheek. I am well aware that the first FEDs date from the thirties. Leica standard lenses are at least nominally 50mm. I believe Zeiss's idea of 5cm was more like 52mm.
das
Well-known
My M39 Konica 50mm f/3.5 Hexar has a 34mm filter thread. Easy enough to step up. I cannot say enough good things about it. Same lens as on the Konica I and the II rangefinders that use the f/3.5 lens. Have not used the Canon or Topcon collapsibles, but the Hexar is an outstanding coated optic for the time period, sharp at all apertures and great color rendition for the 1950s. Not many know about them -- as they were sold almost entirely if not exclusively in the Japanese home market.
Verified that the push-on filter for the Elmar will fit the Canon. Took me a while to find the filter- I keep it on a MIOJ Nikkor 3.5cm F3.5 in LTM. The Canon 5cm F3.5 has the aperture ring outside of the filter, so you can use the Push-On and set the F-Stop. My Canon 5cm F3.5 is an early, uncoated lens. It does not take 34mm filters, but my Nikon 34.5mm lens cap fits it well.
And now the Nikkor 3.5cm F3.5 has a new home in my little Leica bubble case. The 39mm screw in base is offset for the Infinity lock.
I have the Nikkor 5cm F3.5 Rigid, a truly odd lens. Focus to 18". I use it on the Nikon Z5. "First Prime of Nikon".
Last edited:
titrisol
Bottom Feeder
I have a Zorki4 thatis just a paperwight, and when I got a Leica IIIf I wanted to use the brillinat Jupiter 8 and asked the same question as the OP
after a few back and forths, I realized it was way too much more trouble that it's worth. So I bought a Canon LTM lens to complement the Elmar and I'm happy so far
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
Yep. Some of the first stuff I ever did on a camera - I was coming across lots of Soviet lenses that had totally seized up from dried lubricant, and a thorough clean and relubrication made them perfectly useable again.
And that's easy enough with a good set of screwdrivers (note the purposeful mention of a good set!), but actively shimming a lens to change its focusing point? That's a bit more involved than most people can deal with. By the time you're even playing with that, you're in maybe the 1% of camera users who are capable of such things. If you're doing it competently, you're in a smaller group - maybe 0.1% of camera users. Hell, maybe even 0.01%.
There's a lot of people out there who don't even know how to change the fuse in a plug, for god's sake. Asking them to shim a lens is like expecting a monkey to perform high-level calculus.
Well I did ask the Da Vinci AI model to compute the change required to the shim for a Soviet lens to focus correctly on a Leica and it got the value wrong, off by a factor of two. No calculus, just 9th grade Algebra. I tracked the error, to which the AI replied "I must have made a Typo".
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
"I am sorry, Dave. I will try to do better."