Disheartening

[JohnTF]

Exceedingly well said.

Kind of you to say, but even in my long post, I forgot, as a Clevelander, to mention I have the "Siberian" model which has those oversized controls and the big knob on the lens cap so necessary if you stick around here, or visit Siberia. ;-)

I hear the collectors already referring to them as the "Pre Global Warming" models and asking a premium. ;-)

At the camera auction, they had so many items, they were selling FSU cameras by the pairs so that they could get through the auction in 8 hours, and though some were mismatched, a good eye (not mine) would have spotted some interesting pieces.

Regards, John

 

[Sonnar Brian]

> PS: IMO, a Leica LTM is *not* more handsome than this:


I tried to spruce this one up a little.

 

[davelrods]

Yes, I don't think they want to work on Russian cameras. I think the only service for them is with guys who specialize with them and have learned how to make them pay out.

 

[chris00nj]

They are cheap junk. What do you expect from an economy where people were not rewarded for their individual efforts and there was no competition?

If I got a FSU camera I'd almost feel like I'm validating their economic system.

The idea that some poor slob was sloppily putting the camera together for pittance doesn't appeal to me, the way the idea that a Leica or Japanese equivalent was handcrafted with some pride.

Screwmount Leicas and their Japanese equivalents are quite cheap these days. Just upgrade.

 

[jmg1911]

Some years ago I bought a Chinese copy of a fine German target air rifle. It cost less than a fifth of the German piece. Upon examination of its innards, I was tempted to send it back. Many of the interior parts were already starting to rust and some of them looked as if they had been chewed into shape by rats. One contour had been outlined with drilled holes and the excess broken off! Thing is, it shot as well as its German inspiration and still does after (I think) 18 years.

 

[JohnTF]

I think Richard knows I like FSU camera, I got a whole slew of them and like to use them.

Nicca/ Tower cameras were never sold cheap in the 1980s/90s in Canada , the only real deal I foolishly turned down was a newish Yashica/Nicca YF with the f1.8 lens and owners manual and original box for 100 CDN dollars in 1989.
Live and learn.

Funny how those deals stick in your head. ;-) You always regret the cameras you didn't buy. ;-)

Regards, John

 

[mfunnell]

They are cheap junk.

Most of them are now cheap, although "cheap" is relative. I imagine that when they were new, and in their home market, they cost a fair amount relative to wages. And some seem quite thoroughly "fit for purpose". I have a Zorki 6 with collapsible Industar 50 that does nice service as my glove-box camera. It doesn't get much use, but it's solid as a rock, takes the punishment (of heat, cold and bouncing around) yet still takes a decent photo on the infrequent occasions that it's "the camera I have with me". So it's still giving decent service, despite the time and distance it has travelled since it was made.

And I have an early Zorki 4 with J8 which seems quite decently made (though I haven't looked at the innards) and which is quite a nice user camera and lets me takes photos I like. Really, I should use it more.

And while I'm no great fan of the system that produced these FSU cameras (hell, I grew up in an Australian military family, and served in our military myself) I find the cameras are a reminder that real people lived under that system and did "normal people things" just like the rest of us. I'm sure there's many a family that treasures the photos taken with these cameras, just as any family would.

...Mike

 

[projectbluebird]

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.

If it takes decent photos, what's the problem? You even say it looks nice, who cares if it is junk inside?

I've got a voigtlander Vito B from the '50's that I picked up for $3 at a thrift store. At some point it was dropped; the focus mount was jarred loose, and the entire body was torqued off square. Using only my pocket multi-tool I was able to fix the loose bits, and borrowing a friend's shop vise (mostly) fixed the squareness.

It looks like hell, but it takes sharp pictures.

Chase the rainbow, take pictures, stop obsessing over trivial details and have fun!

 

[Paul T.]

They are cheap junk. What do you expect from an economy where people were not rewarded for their individual efforts and there was no competition?

If I got a FSU camera I'd almost feel like I'm validating their economic system.

The idea that some poor slob was sloppily putting the camera together for pittance doesn't appeal to me

Speaking about early FSU cameras, that's quite simply wrong. In the 40s and 50s, Soviet workers were, in some respects, the best there were. They got the job done, and didn't keep tinkering with designs. I know how evil Stalin was, but in most siginificant respects, Soviet engineering was better than German engineering in the 40s; which is why the T-34 and PPSH were superior to their German or British equivalents.

In terms of the amount of work that goes into a Kneb II, the camera is a jewel. The photos mine takes, with a 1952 J-3, are just as good, in some ways better, than those I take with my Leicas.

 

[jarski]

In the 40s and 50s, Soviet workers were, in some respects, the best there were. They got the job done, and didn't keep tinkering with designs.

gues things that were done under hardest state terror and during war years, what ever you did, you better do it well or got yourself free one way ticket to Gulag or front line.

by 80s drinking Vodka at factories and offices had increased to so common and open that it was a national disease. common cause of early death especially among men.

 

[brachal]

One thing people tend to overlook when they start griping about FSU cameras is the extraordinary volume of cameras produced. There were more Fed-2's produced in 15 years than all Barnack Lecias ever made. Over a million cameras, I believe, and that isn't including parallel Kiev, Zorki, Zenit, and everything else production. The Soviet camera industry had a completely different goal than its Western counterparts. Sure, there are trade offs, but they are effective cameras.

 

[chris00nj]

Speaking about early FSU cameras, that's quite simply wrong. In the 40s and 50s, Soviet workers were, in some respects, the best there were. They got the job done, and didn't keep tinkering with designs. I know how evil Stalin was, but in most siginificant respects, Soviet engineering was better than German engineering in the 40s; which is why the T-34 and PPSH were superior to their German or British equivalents.

In terms of the amount of work that goes into a Kneb II, the camera is a jewel. The photos mine takes, with a 1952 J-3, are just as good, in some ways better, than those I take with my Leicas.

Well, the T-34 wasn't superior to the German Tiger tanks individually. The T-34 was the better product, because mass-producing a mid-quality, easy to use & fix tank was a superior strategy to winning the front. However, if the two tanks were going one-on-one and I had to be in one... I'd pick the Tiger.

That's the way I feel about the cameras. The FSU cameras may have done a decent job in putting cameras in the hands of millions of Soviet citizens at a low cost, then they did their job. However, I'm really only going to have one camera in my hands at a time, so why make it an FSU for $50 when you can get a Barnack Leica for $200.

 

[wolves3012]

Well, the T-34 wasn't superior to the German Tiger tanks individually. The T-34 was the better product, because mass-producing a mid-quality, easy to use & fix tank was a superior strategy to winning the front. However, if the two tanks were going one-on-one and I had to be in one... I'd pick the Tiger.

It's generally accepted that the T34 was one of the best tanks of WWII and had several big advances over things like Tigers, like sloping armour. The main thing was, though, they didn't get frozen up. The Tiger was a heavy tank (60-odd tonnes) and had severe limitations (like not being able to demolish buildings in case there was a cellar and not being able to cross bridges due to their weight). They were also VERY unreliable. The T-34, on the other hand, was usable early in the mornings. I wouldn't pick the Tiger on a cold morning - sitting duck! It was rare for Panzer divisions to travel for a day without at least one breaking down and they were always outnumbered and less agile.

 

[Dave Wilkinson]

Well, the T-34 wasn't superior to the German Tiger tanks individually. The T-34 was the better product, because mass-producing a mid-quality, easy to use & fix tank was a superior strategy to winning the front. However, if the two tanks were going one-on-one and I had to be in one... I'd pick the Tiger. ]- Looking at your age, - at the side of your post, I have to admire your knowledge and experience, that allows you to make these assertions! 😉
Dave.

 

[Jack Ketch]

The Tigers had to be kept idling, wasting a LOT of petrol, because once they stopped in cold weather, they often couldn't be started again at all. This is a matter of historical record, easily researched from period accounts.

Of course, many of the Tiger's mechanical problems came from poor components and assembly, produced from sub-standard parts made by slave and prisoner labor. Thanks, Herr Porsche.

It's also a matter of historical record that the Leitz management did everything in their power to rescue their Jewish employees and help them relocate or escape concentration camps.

.

 

[brachal]

Comparing the Tiger tank with its Soviet contemporary, the Fed-1, we can see that while the Fed has a collapsible 50mm "standard" lens, the Tiger is armed with a long 88mm cannon -- portrait length. The edge goes to the Tiger.
Of course, the Fed and its Industar collapsible can be easily carried in a coat pocket. The Tiger, on the other hand, is so wide that the outer road wheels must be removed and a special track fitted before the tank can be transported by rail. As has been noted above, the Tiger is too heavy for most European road bridges ... not a problem for the lightweight Fed-1. Advantage Fed.
Both systems make use of magnified sights for accurate focusing/target acquisition. Neither gets the advantage.
So it comes down to armor, and the Tiger wins easily with 100mm of frontal steel plate. For all of their admirable qualities, early Feds are entirely unarmored and easily penetrated by most anti-tank weapons.

 

[paul beard]

This reply wins the thread 🙂

Comparing the Tiger tank with its Soviet contemporary, the Fed-1, we can see that while the Fed has a collapsible 50mm "standard" lens, the Tiger is armed with a long 88mm cannon -- portrait length. The edge goes to the Tiger.
Of course, the Fed and its Industar collapsible can be easily carried in a coat pocket. The Tiger, on the other hand, is so wide that the outer road wheels must be removed and a special track fitted before the tank can be transported by rail. As has been noted above, the Tiger is too heavy for most European road bridges ... not a problem for the lightweight Fed-1. Advantage Fed.
Both systems make use of magnified sights for accurate focusing/target acquisition. Neither gets the advantage.
So it comes down to armor, and the Tiger wins easily with 100mm of frontal steel plate. For all of their admirable qualities, early Feds are entirely unarmored and easily penetrated by most anti-tank weapons.

 

[Roger Hicks]

...by 80s drinking Vodka at factories and offices had increased to so common and open that it was a national disease. common cause of early death especially among men.

You are presumably aware of the historically inevitable stage between communism and socialism.

Alcoholism.

Tashi delek,

R.

 

[mooge]

what a jump...

prapse T-34s and PPShs are a bad anaolgy... those are Soviet designs, Feds, Kievs and Zorkis are based off German designs. but isn't the PPSh based off the bergemann? anyways...

alot of old cameras look like crap when you open 'em up. I cracked open a Leicaflex recently- I found a tangle of wires and levers, grease-smeared gears... a mess.
and by the blessing of German engineering, it's horribly complicated to dismantle and fix- if you can!

Simple is good!

and enjoy those cameras!

Dragunov.

 

[chris00nj]

Thanks, I like history. We seem to never learn from it. No Simple Victory is a great book that talks all about the often-ignored Eastern front.

Generally, I think if someone younger is interested in rangefinders, they're not going to be the mindless drone that worships American Idol and Gucci.