done with FSU RF's?

40oz said:
what amuses me are the people who somehow suggest that "yes, paying more for a leica is worth it," yet somehow reject the notion that the reason they never had a properly functioning FSU body is because they were never willing to pay what it cost.

.................. Buying a CLA'd Leica shows you learned something from the experience, but sadly, you still haven't quite figured out what.
Click to expand...

My good friend, I confess I went lost within your post. I would be just content if you could explain the meaning of the last sentence I quoted from you.

Cheers,
Ruben
 
Come on lads---it's supposed to be fun;)

By the way,in case my earlier reference to 'make do and mend' implies that I have any talent in the 'mending 'field,I must deny any such ability---worse luck.

Brian.
 
oops... sorry this had to get nasty (I meant the title to be retorical... like "that will never happen!")

No, I never said I would make money off CLA-ing my Leica (only that I wouldn't lose it all), no, I didn't say Leicas were mythically beyond all other cameras, no, I didn't say FSU lenses were crap (went out of my way to say how excellent my I-22 is... even on my Leica), no, I didn't say anything about shooting targets (though while real life photos from my J-8 are pleasing they are not really good enough to replace a modern all-purpose lens IMO, while in contrast I will put results from my I-22 against any lens, from any country). Regarding "learning my lesson," since I bought cameras from fedka last, what was the "real lesson" I should have learned? Since I am apparently too stupid to buy from the place that sells these perfectly tuned FSU copies that are every bit as good as Leicas (or the high quality japanese copies... I never said Leicas were better than similar Japanese copies from the same period, only that I *thought* parts for repairing Leicas and trained service people were much more available (how many people will actually even touch a FSU?); go to DAG's site and look at the genuine parts you can buy for Leicas, then point me to a site listing similar parts for a Tower RF etc.). *If* I had found a really mint FED I would have considered sending it to Oleg... and boy, that might have saved me $75... great.

I've worked on FSU and Japanese cameras... if you have also and don't recognize the differences in materials used and tolerances held and understand how these impact the reliability of a camera... well, I don't know if I can start to explain it to you, but believe me, it makes a difference (I am a mechanical engineer)... all metal is not the same...

As I said, I love FSU RF's as well, don't plan to stop using them, don't plan on stop collection and working on them... though I think the attraction is not one born out of logic... if you think that logic dictates that FSU are THE cameras that *should* be used over all others, well... let's agree to disagree... I do have Maizenberg and Princelle on my nightstand, NOT a Leica book.

'nuf said, let's just let it go and continue to shoot some photos, ok?
 
35mm film will be the last to go and when it becomes expensive more people will want to use it in an expensive precision camera. Leica rangefinders have a mystique somehow... just look how their RF prices have held compared to their R line. I guess it is a fetish... precision items just attract some of us... why are mechanical music boxes so magical and electronic music boxes nothing? Why do we find someone playing a real harp so romantic when on a CD you couldn't tell the difference if it was from a synthisizer? (of course not everyone has the same fetishes... )

Once film is gone (I'll be dead), then they will become just ornaments... but that is beyond my planning... I just want to shoot photos and enjoy my gear... fondling it between shots!

best!

>>Thirdly, comes the sad day when film becomes an expensive curiosity then interest in collecting useless ornaments will ensure that all prices drop, Leica or not. One could even argue that to buy something purely as an ornament might lead to a greater drop in high-end camera prices. Why buy an expensive curiosity when a cheaper one is available?
 
I certainly understand the sentiment. I've been there before with lots of other products, especially the computer stuff I use all day for my job. Sometimes a bargain is more trouble than it's worth.

I've been lucky with FSUs and haven't spent much money on them. Two of those purchases (a FED 5 with two lenses and a Zorki 6) were from here, so those were virtually a sure bet. My first FED 5 had a bad finder, but the next two (Fed-1 NKVD, Zenit E) were just as represented. I can't say they've been any more or less reliable than the other older cameras I use.

As for the snobbery aspect, I actually already had a Leica M3 before I even became interested in Soviet cameras. Ever since I was a kid in the 70's I've been fascinated with the whole "parallel world" of Eastern Bloc technology, so when I discovered them I was understandably helpless to resist. :)
 
Wow, it never ceases to amaze me how upset people can get when their camera preferences are challenged. A FED is not a Leica, and a Leica is not a FED. They were intended to do the same thing (make photos), but that's where the similarity ends. Leicas were produced in small numbers as a high-end camere; FEDs were mass-produced in their millions as a general consumer camera. To compare them, apples to apples, isn't really fair. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but FED2 production alone was vastly higher than all Barnack Leica production combined. Would a Leica be a "Leica" if they'd tried building 125,000 cameras a year? What would a FED-2 cost if only 200,000 (instead of 2,000,000ish) had ever been made?

A cared-for, tuned FSU camera is capable of great things; I think the nature of their production realities just means that it takes more work to get one to that stage, especially after all these decades, than it does with a Leica. I own, use, and enjoy both.

Finally, nice photo, Mark!
 
ruben said:
My good friend, I confess I went lost within your post. I would be just content if you could explain the meaning of the last sentence I quoted from you.

Cheers,
Ruben
Click to expand...


*The difference is the CLA, not the brand.*

Quite simply, buying a Leica with a recent CLA is a better idea than buying one that sells for cheap because it needs one. By the same token, a recently CLA'd FSU body will be a more satisfactory experience than buying a body that needs work. Buying a cheap FSU body off ebay is never going to result in the same satisfaction as buying a CLA'd Leica. If the vendor is unable to provide a CLA'd body that meets your satisfaction, the problem probably isn't in the original manufacture.

It's no different with any used good. For example, people rarely sell a car immediately after a complete overhaul. Those that do demand top dollar. So if one buys the cheapest used car they can find, they probably aren't going to enjoy the car as much as if they spent more money on one that had been brought up to as-new spec. And certainly not the same experience as if they bought new, regardless of brand. The fact that a used car restored to as-new spec typically costs as much or more than the new car, most people either buy new cars that need one thing or another, or a new car. Hence, older cars often get a bad rap for quality as if the problem was in the original production rather than the age and wear.
 
40oz said:
*The difference is the CLA, not the brand.*

Quite simply, buying a Leica with a recent CLA is a better idea than buying one that sells for cheap because it needs one. By the same token, a recently CLA'd FSU body will be a more satisfactory experience than buying a body that needs work. Buying a cheap FSU body off ebay is never going to result in the same satisfaction as buying a CLA'd Leica. If the vendor is unable to provide a CLA'd body that meets your satisfaction, the problem probably isn't in the original manufacture.

............
Click to expand...


Oh, definitely. You are right.

But at the same time you are touching the nerve center of the whole problem.

In order to align myself with most of the readers I would hold myself as an user of FEDs, a brand I own, I sent to CLA, and I got back uneven results.

Question: Who on the whole planet can be trusted to make a comprehensive and consistent CLA, bringing out the highest potential of a FED-2 including relatively deep silence ?

By comprehensive, as obvious, I mean dealing with all issues. By consistent -and this is not obviouos at all - I mean I will be getting a high quality service this month or next year.

Kindly notice that I am not making any issue about the price. On the contrary, the low prices offered by the known shops, is for me a guarantee of low service. A high price is not a guarantee of success, of course, as there is a commercial tactic of advertizing at high prize to indicate high quality.

Using old cameras as they were designed to function, is not a cheap commodity. Therefore when we are looking at that Fed ad for 50 bucks we should understand we are paying the first quota, as 40oz correctly says.

My cry is that I am not seeing around anybody offering a due service making our recently purchased Fed into the gem it could be converted to.

Now if I look at this situation from the other side I have to admit a hard truth: the market is the market - how many folks are out there ready to pay the real price of a real CLA making a Fed into a real camera ?

The answer to this question seems to be that there are not enough folks to maintain a single fixer worldwide working at high level quality and high corresponding price.

Now, let me share that there are single exceptional folks, some of which write me from time to time, asking for a high quality CLA service (not asking me to do the job, but to recommend). And I try to offer them creative solutions.

But these folks are the exception. Most of us are not ready to pay 200~250 bucks to have a real Fed lasting for years and working as a gem. This seems to be a fact. A hard fact.

Now I do not blame "us". This is a lot of money for a public that is basically under the high stress of low price/higher convenience. This is a socio-economic situation I will be the last to condemn.

But I will insist on what has been upsetting some folks for a long time: a) Kiev rangefinders at least (and I don't see any reason to make them an exceptional exception) bear a great potential if given the correct treatment.

b) FSU gear will specially suit the folk ready to use his screwdriver and learn.

Lastly kindly let me introduce a word of apologies and clarification for a die hard bitter discussion I had with Zorkikat concerning the Kievs. Zorkikat is a working pro photographer and I am an amateur one. By this I am not stating anything else beyond a highly important viewpoint that slipped my mind within the bitterness of the discussion:

Zorkikat was dealing among other issues with the capability of the Kievs to last under pro hard work. Since I never found myself in the need of shooting several rolls, day after day, with a Kiev - I can not give a factual testimony on their behalf. But his whole viewpoint was not noticed by me at the time - and I am sorry in the techical side, as well as in the human dimension for the measure in which I may have been unfair with him.

Cheers,
Ruben
 
Last edited by a moderator:
40oz said:
As far as anecdotal claims about FSU factory quality, I file those in the same place as anecdotal claims about US auto production . . . These anecdotal claims smack of prejudice and ignorance. . .
Click to expand...

So, with respect, does your response. Ask the importers, dealers and repairers who dealt with FSU cameras when the Soviet Union still existed. Soviet gear was common, and cheap, in the UK; and the cheapness was not solely the result of artificial currency valuations and state-controlled pricing.

Cheers,

R.
 
leicasniper said:
Is it worth the money to have a FED CLA'd? It has been to me. But, YMMV.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. People often confuse value to them with resale value. The resale value of my Land Rover is probably less than the cost of the new chassis (plus fitting) that I splashed out on a couple of years ago. But as I'm not planning on selling it, I don't care.

With the FSU stuff, though, there are a couple of other things worth remembering. One is that the really hopeless cases, the ones that couln't be fixed, are mostly gone by now. The other is that poor quality control can often be fixed under the guise of a 'CLA': the shims, lubricants, torque values, etc., that should have been there from new are added afterwards. Unless the parts were damaged during assembly, you then have a better-than-new camera.

The former importer of the FSU Minox 35 lookalike once told me that up to 40% of the cameras he bought were received with damaged meters. Instead of lining up the meter spindle with the hole on the top plate, the assembly workers would just force the top on, bending the spindle...

Cheers,

R.
 
Unfortunately, buying any old, used camera is a risk no matter who makes them. I recently bought 2 IIIa's and both have shutter issues even though the sellers described them as film tested. The speeds sound fine, but they're not exposing properly. Putting $200 for a CLA into a $250 camera doesn't make sense as I will lose a bundle when I sell it. I could have bought a LOT of Zorkis or Feds for that $250 (or $500 for the 2 cameras)! One of them would have been bound to be fine.

I sorta agree w/ the idea of buying from KEH as they will accept a return easily, but KEH has changed. I won't buy a camera from them anymore, just lenses. Too many cameras have come to me from them w/ VERY obvious problems, and I have had to spend a small fortune on shipping both ways. I don't think they even open the cameras to ck them out. One Canon EF-M camera I bought from them had a lot of gluey gunk on the shutter, very plain to see when you opened the back, and the shutter wouldn't even open. I sent it back, and now they have it relisted for double what I paid for it w/ a note that the shutters bumpers (bumpers?) are sticky and they are selling it as-is. The Zorki 4 that just came in had also obviously not been opened, as I discovered when checking the shutter firing that there was still a roll of film in it. When I wasn't able to fully wind the film back up, I opened the back and saw that someone had taped the leader end to the spool w/ tons of electrical tape, rather than slip it in the little notch.

Both of these cameras were inexpensive, but between paying shipping from them to me and them back to them and purchasing a battery for the EF-M I lost as much as the cameras cost. The Zorki I am just gong to see if I can get working myself. I won't even go into the KEH M5 that had a film advance that felt like grinding rocks, or the Contax G that would only expose half the pic frames, or the Nikon 85 1.8 that had a badly bent contact and wouldn't work half the time w/ my metering, etc.
 
Last edited:
I've owned a dozen or more vintage cameras, both Japanese, German and Soviet, and all but two needed some kind of work (at the very least light seals or mirror foam).

The two that didn't need any attention to produce good photos were a Canon F1N and a pre-war FED 1.

I'd say those two are opposite ends of the spectrum as far as design, age, build quality and target market (pro and consumer), but they both work.

Yeah, I've thought about getting a Leica III or a Canon rangefinder, but I don't NEED one, the little FED is doing the job just fine.
 
This thread really should not have been started. I mean anyone hanging out reading the post in the FSU Rf Forum should know that these cameras are for tinkerers. Thats the mystic & beauty of owning & repairing your own FSU camera. It becomes a part of you that can be appreciated. When my FED2 started giving problems with stuck shutter curtains I didn't go into a panic & say "Oh! I got to send this off to Oleg":eek: Or I'm through with fsu's. Heck no! With no experience what so ever, I asked questions & followed the stickies on how to tear that baby down & do a CLA on it & adjust the tension on the curtains. Now my Fed 2 means much to me because I did it. And it's sweet too brother. I have a Zorki 2c that is smooth as silk that I use with a 50/3.5 elmar & walking around with a good Leningrad 6 lightmeter I enjoy the whole fsu experience. Thats what it's all about to me. BTW my Zorki is a year older than I am so keep on posting your comments about poor quality of soviet cameras. Just the FACT that there are still good working examples around speaks for itself.
 
Roger Hicks said:
So, with respect, does your response. Ask the importers, dealers and repairers who dealt with FSU cameras when the Soviet Union still existed. Soviet gear was common, and cheap, in the UK; and the cheapness was not solely the result of artificial currency valuations and state-controlled pricing.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...


Really.

As long as you think it is OK to tell people what they should do, you should talk to an economist about topics like "supply and demand," "perceived value," "cognitive dissonance," and "Giffen goods."

During the Cold War, there was no end to the negative assertions made by politicians and others regarding the "God-less communists." It would really be surprising if pricing in the West did not reflect this negative environment. The fact that the Soviet industrial machine churned out thousands upon thousands of units certainly didn't help pricing. Given a supply that assured no shortage and a perception of diminished quality, pricing of Soviet exports would certainly be less than deserved.

A good's value commonly depends more on the customer's perception of the worth of the product than on its intrinsic value. That's why companies employ a marketing department. Claiming that a low price for a Soviet-sourced camera is a clear and accurate reflection of its intrinsic value is just ignorant. I'm sorry for being so blunt.
 
for some reason people keep claiming *I* have bought all my FSU cameras on the cheap, but in fact I have always bought high for "mint" "working" cameras from recommended sellers and dealers.

Yes, I like tinkering... so when I get back from vacation I will dig into my mint FED-2 and adjust the curtains so I get even exposure (didn't notice how bad it was when I posted my recent FSU photo earlier in the thread).
 
40oz said:
Really.

As long as you think it is OK to tell people what they should do, you should talk to an economist about topics like "supply and demand," "perceived value," "cognitive dissonance," and "Giffen goods."

During the Cold War, there was no end to the negative assertions made by politicians and others regarding the "God-less communists." It would really be surprising if pricing in the West did not reflect this negative environment. The fact that the Soviet industrial machine churned out thousands upon thousands of units certainly didn't help pricing. Given a supply that assured no shortage and a perception of diminished quality, pricing of Soviet exports would certainly be less than deserved.

A good's value commonly depends more on the customer's perception of the worth of the product than on its intrinsic value. That's why companies employ a marketing department. Claiming that a low price for a Soviet-sourced camera is a clear and accurate reflection of its intrinsic value is just ignorant. I'm sorry for being so blunt.
Click to expand...

Well, I'll be equally blunt.

The most efficient market, according to capitalist theory, is the best-informed market.

In the 1970s, Soviet cameras had been available in Europe for two decades -- and the real (and I think, the absolute) price had fallen. There was plenty of information on the cameras available.

What does this tell you about who is/was ignorant?

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Well, I'll be equally blunt.

The most efficient market, according to capitalist theory, is the best-informed market.

In the 1970s, Soviet cameras had been available in Europe for two decades -- and the real (and I think, the absolute) price had fallen. There was plenty of information on the cameras available.

What does this tell you about who is/was ignorant?

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

That's great. The "Efficient Market Hypothesis" is a fantastic concept, but is predicated on the idea that all participants are fully rational. Are you seriously suggesting that buyers of cameras are entirely rational?
 
40oz said:
That's great. The "Efficient Market Hypothesis" is a fantastic concept, but is predicated on the idea that all participants are fully rational. Are you seriously suggesting that buyers of cameras are entirely rational?
Click to expand...

No, but I am suggesting that if (let us say) a Kiev is half the price of a Contax, people may decide that they can find twice the money, whereas if it is a quarter of the price, the Kiev will sell a lot better.

And this is pretty much what happened. I forget the exact numbers, but the Kiev, when introduced in the UK (and presumably in the rest of the non-communist world as well), was proportionately surprisingly expensive, and didn't sell. Eventually the price came down and it sold quite well.

Because these cameras were common in the UK, and, I imagine, in the rest of western Europe as well, most photographers knew what to expect: above all, iffy quality control. Because they were cheap, people still bought them. Some got good 'uns; some didn't. There were enough in circulation that people did, in fact, tend to make fairly rational decisions about the likelihood of getting a good 'un, and placed their bets accordingly.

As a result of this, there were always a LOT of used Kievs and Zorkiis on the market, often the ones that the previous owner hadn't been happy with, and these were frequently silly-cheap, especially the lenses. This in turn affected the reputation and value of the new cameras.

In other words, I don't think for an instant that it was anti-commie propaganda that brought the prices down: it was sheer experience, and the market finding its own level. It's not often you see such a clear example of economic theory being born out in practice.

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
Roger Hicks said:
In other words, I don't think for an instant that it was anti-commie propaganda that brought the prices down: it was sheer experience, and the market finding its own level. It's not often you see such a clear example of economic theory being born out in practice.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

I am sure that this is right. The example of Zenit SLRs bears this out. They were always cheaper than the Practicas MTL3, which in turn were cheaper than the cheapest Japanese SLR. Having used all three, I would say that the prices relected their 'intrinsic values'. When Practica produced the B range with a competitive specification they were able to sell them at similar prices to cheaper Japanese cameras, despite any prejudice against Soviet bloc products.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom