David Hughes
David Hughes
Edit: Article of 1941 traced - post no 24 below...
I've a collection of old photographic magazines from the 20's, 30's and 40's to go with the old cameras etc. I recently found this in the letters column of one of them:
"As a user of the FED during the past four years, I claim to know something about it and fully endorse the remarks made in the [recent] article. The camera has been tried out under all circumstances, and it quite definitely is, in my opinion, quite up to the standards of the Leica II. In fact, at apertures like f/12.5 and f/18 the Fed is definitely superior to any of the Leitz objectives. Incidentally, at f/6.3 it is quite on a par with the famous Elmar lens.
Rather strangely when I first saw the camera I was under the impression that it was of German origin, produced for Russian use. However, I sent it to the Leitz people for cleaning, and they promptly disowned it!"
Alas I've not got the November 1941 article but am now looking for it; it was from "Miniature Camera Magazine". And I have trimmed the letter down to just quote verbatim about the FED, btw.
It looks as though nothing ever changes.
Regards, David
I've a collection of old photographic magazines from the 20's, 30's and 40's to go with the old cameras etc. I recently found this in the letters column of one of them:
"As a user of the FED during the past four years, I claim to know something about it and fully endorse the remarks made in the [recent] article. The camera has been tried out under all circumstances, and it quite definitely is, in my opinion, quite up to the standards of the Leica II. In fact, at apertures like f/12.5 and f/18 the Fed is definitely superior to any of the Leitz objectives. Incidentally, at f/6.3 it is quite on a par with the famous Elmar lens.
Rather strangely when I first saw the camera I was under the impression that it was of German origin, produced for Russian use. However, I sent it to the Leitz people for cleaning, and they promptly disowned it!"
Alas I've not got the November 1941 article but am now looking for it; it was from "Miniature Camera Magazine". And I have trimmed the letter down to just quote verbatim about the FED, btw.
It looks as though nothing ever changes.
Regards, David
Last edited:
Valkir1987
Well-known
What a nice discovery you did! I wonder how the Fed could get there at that time.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
"However, I sent it to the Leitz people for cleaning, and they promptly disowned it!"
Haha, love that one
Haha, love that one
ZorkiKat
ЗоркийК&
I've opened more than a few prewar FED. I agree with what the writer from 1942 said. The insides are indeed very well made. Though the parts do have a hand-finished appearance, their fit is superior to those of later postwar FED. One recent restoration, a 1937 FED, has the feel of my Leica III from the same era. The shutter fires as smoothly. The knobs have the same feel. Only the lens mount is different, and Leitz lenses will not fit.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi, Yes, I wondered about that: both for the reviewed camera and the letter writer's one.
If I ever find the original article I'll probably find out...
Regards, David
BillBingham2
Registered User
Like any growing country I'm sure they were looking for good press. I bet the best cameras were given to visiting dignitaries, next level down exported in small quantity, but enough to say they exported great cameras, the rest to the masses of the collective.
Perhaps this is a good question for KGB? That company that advertises here in the states on TV, just text your question and they reply with an answer, for a fee.
B2 (;->
Perhaps this is a good question for KGB? That company that advertises here in the states on TV, just text your question and they reply with an answer, for a fee.
B2 (;->
ZorkiKat
ЗоркийК&
Why could it be hard to believe that at least one time, FED was indeed able to make cameras as good as the Leica? I have perhaps more than a dozen prewar FED-1. Five of them from the 1935-1938. They were not 'exported' until I got them from eBay. These represent random samplings of FED cameras from that time. And that these 'random' samples turned out quite good should say something about how these FED were.
All of them needed work, since 60 years can do a lot to things like cloth shutters, whether they're in a FED or in a Leica. After cleaning and shutter repair, these prewar FED handled as great as any of my Leica III. Comparable to a Leica II in every respect except lens compatibility. And these prewar FED were superior in make tto the post war 1940s CanonJ, and about at par with the Canon IIB.
Last edited:
David Hughes
David Hughes
What I always find amazing in discussions about quality (and not politics) is the way people never mention modern cameras, which seem to be designed to work for a while and then get thrown away. Repairs don't seem to come into it, nowadays: especially for the electronics. At least FED, Zorki, Praktica, Leica etc can be repaired by any competent engineer/technician.
Regards, David
Regards, David
Valkir1987
Well-known
I fully agree with you, I opened many Fed's as well and found out that they where indeed well made.
A bit offtopic...
Some dealers or retailers even disrecommend to repair your electronics nowadays. because: this is what I had with our stereo (the cd player was broken) "its to expensive to ship it back to the manufacturer and have it repaired" "you can buy a new one for the same price"
There is one repair shop left for electronics here. I took it there and guess what? They just repaired it within an hour for a fair price, replaced the lens and it worked again!
Alas the camera repair shop here refused to work on my first Fed. the Good thing was that it started the hobby!
David Hughes
David Hughes
Whenever I get a repair done I try to speak to the technician and the message I get about electronics is that the expense of taking the camera to pieces and then finding that an electronic component is damaged or dead but connot be replaced or repaired, means they don't want to touch them. I can understand this.
But once I pointed out that minor corrosion or even tarnishing of electronic connections can easily be cured (for a while) and the technician agreed but pointed out that you cannot guarantee it. And, of course, lots of people refuse to pay for a couple of hours work that doesn't result in a cure...
And, another aside, one pointed out that the problem with FED's and Zorkis is that the insides were good, the outsides looked bad and the lenses were either exact, precise copies of Zeiss ones or else early ones had genuine Zeiss optics in them. But he said that the main problem was the flange to film distance that could vary with each camera and cause problems...
Regards, David
But once I pointed out that minor corrosion or even tarnishing of electronic connections can easily be cured (for a while) and the technician agreed but pointed out that you cannot guarantee it. And, of course, lots of people refuse to pay for a couple of hours work that doesn't result in a cure...
And, another aside, one pointed out that the problem with FED's and Zorkis is that the insides were good, the outsides looked bad and the lenses were either exact, precise copies of Zeiss ones or else early ones had genuine Zeiss optics in them. But he said that the main problem was the flange to film distance that could vary with each camera and cause problems...
Regards, David
ZorkiKat
ЗоркийК&
Film to flange distances were not standardised. The typical owner of the FED (considering the time and conditions then in the USSR)) was likely to use only the lens which came with the camera. The first versions of the FED-1 instruction manual even warned against removing lenses, and never mentioned changing or using accessory lenses at all.
Adjustments can be done to the lens working distance to allow full interchanges, but only when needed. The instruction booklets and repair manuals said that this was necessary if other lenses were to be used with the camera. This wasn't really a defect or a quality control issue. This was just being practical.
The added extra features of the later models can be the root cause for many of the problems associated with Soviet cameras. Adding things like slow speeds or winding levers on a design meant to run at 1/20 to 1/500, cocked with knobs without doing much more can make the mechanism more frail or error prone.
For instance, placing the slow speed gears directly on the speed regulator disc (instead of a catch pin linked to a timing device located at the base of the shutter crate) of a Leica II style shutter IS the main reason why shifting speeds without cocking kills FED or Zorki shutters.
Or the somewhat clumsy advance levers. Most of these are actually nothing more than spring-loaded devices imposed on a winding shaft designed to work with knobs. That is why some levers on these cameras turn heavily or roughly. Or with some cameras, two short strokes are recommended instead of one big one, to ensure full shutter cocking.
These are perhaps two reasons why the near exact Barnack clones FED-1 or Zorki 1 or the FED-2 are the best and most reliable of the Soviet Leica derivatives.
Last edited:
David Hughes
David Hughes
Well, I don't think anyone would argue about the FED and Zorki 1's and 2's. And I'd add that the Zeiss optics on a Leica I, II or III would be the answer to a lot of people's dreams a good few years ago. BTW, I must have been very lucky with my first FED 1 as I rate the lens as high as any Leica one up to the Summitar.
Thinking about it I don't think I've ever seen an English version of the FED 1 instruction book, other than home made ones on ebay etc. Nor for that matter, have I ever seen a 35mm or 85/90mm lens from the FSU in the style of the 39mm screw thread Leicas but only the Jupiter versions, which are much younger.
Judging by repairs to my Leicas I'd say that the rough wind-ons have a lot to do with lubrication of the shaft/bearings etc drying out.
Regards, David
outfitter
Well-known
I have a rare Fed 28mm 4.5 lens for the Fed 1 and a 100mm 6.3 lens (there was an even rarer 100mm made before the 6.3). These and a 50mm macro lens. the Fed 50mm 3.5 and 50mm 2.0 were, I think, all the lenses made for the Fed 1 before the war.
fanshaw
Well-known
I agree with both these points.
Many of the complaints about 'poor quality control' just reflect the fact that the Soviet factories lacked the tooling to make high precision components and the final product had to be brought up to specification by paper shims. These have often been misplaced over the years.
It reflects poorly on the abilities of the designers in the Soviet camera industry that after around 50 years of work, their achievement was to transform the original Fed into the Fed-5.
pauls52
Established
I believe that the FED accessory lenses were first offered in 1938 and none were offered after the war (I think some other minor accessories may have first become available in 1937).
This bit is largely speculation but the original 3 prototypes produced in 1932 were copies of the original Leica without the rangefinder. I'm not up on Leica history but if the Soviets didn't copy a non-standardised model, the thought certainly would have been that if a non-standardised film to flange distance had been good enough for the Germans (at sme point), it was good enough for them and obviously, it didn't become a problem until 1938. By the time that the first production model was released in 1934, the FED had grown a rangefinder and become a Leica ll clone but without the added production refinements.
Whilst the standard lenses were based on the Tessar formula, as were the Elmars, the Soviets would have to be given some credit for the performance of their lenses as the combinations of available optical glass would have been different and new computatons would have been required. This is supported by both available literature and the placement of the lens iris differently to the Elmar (of all Tessars, Elmar is the odd one out - Zeiss patent issues?). The lens barrel of course is almost an exact copy.
Rgards,
Paul
David Hughes
David Hughes
Many thanks, that's another loose end tidied up. I shalln't bother to search ebay for them. ;-)
Regards, David
David Hughes
David Hughes
That's an interesting point that you've made and I think a good deal of credit should also be given to them as the old USSR was to a certain extent blockaded and so kept out of the loop. I well remember the comments made by East Gemans about problems they had with the most simple items that they had to design from scratch and make themselves, rather than just buy in.
Regards, David
ZorkiKat
ЗоркийК&
One more non-standard feature found amongst prewar FED is the non-standard lens cam movement. This matter appears not to be discussed much. The early Industar-10 collapsible lenses were built differently from the later postwar Industar-10. Aside from having a finer thread mount, the distance at which the lens cam travels from 1 metre to infinity is different from the cam travel of Leitz lenses. The prewar FED's lens' cam will travel at a shorter distance than those of Leitz lenses.
As such a properly adjusted prewar FED rangefinder that suits its prewar lens would not be able to couple and focus properly with a Leitz or postwar Soviet LTM lens. Assuming that these lenses can mount on the original FED lens mount with a metric pitch.
Even with other prewar FED Industar 10, focus and mounting compatibility is never guaranteed. Aside from adjusting the mount to the needed flange distance (after determining the lens' actual working distance), the rangefinder has to be recalibrated too.
Prewar FED cameras' rangefinders can be adjusted to work with modern or Leitz lenses with standard focus cam movements. The mount can be replaced and shimmed to the 28,8 mm standard. The rangefinder is adjusted to couple with the lens properly at infinity, as well as 1 metre by adjusting the rangefinder's follower cam tip.
A couple of my postwar FED (type 1f) have the similar, non-standard lens cam movement, with their respecitve matching lenses, although the lens mount thread had the English (M39X1inch) pitch. Yet the other type 1fs I have - similar in every respect- have Leitz-compatible lens cam movements, their serial numbers only about 250 digits apart.
Regarding the Elmar: one story says that the diaphragm was placed after the first lens element to resolve vignetting problems. Only the 5cm Elmar has this configuration. The 3,5/9/10,5/13,5 cm Elmars (also Tessar types) had their diaphragms placed in the usual position- i.e., between the middle and rear groups. So patent may not be an issue after all.
Last edited:
David Hughes
David Hughes
Thanks ZorkiKat that rang a bell. I had a problem with an Elmar (1931 or '32) that I tried out in a FED 1 (as it had film in it) and it worked but wouldn't go into a Leica. Eventually Malcolm Taylor sorted it out and said that it had been repaired at sometime and the thread cleaned to M39 x 1.0 instead of the correct 0.75mm. I think he commented at the time that there was a hybrid thread that suited both. Anyway, mine was converted back and works nicely on the model II and the M's with the adapter.
Regards, David
Regards, David
pauls52
Established
Of course you are right about the other Elmars being "normal" but the f/3.5 5cm was designed first and would have influenced the FED designers. For some reason, they were not impressed by Leitz theory and pursued a more conventional Tessar design. That may have been for no other reason than that the Zeiss design was better documented than the Leitz modifiations.
You could be correct about the patents and vignettng. However, my understanding is that the Elmar started out as a 5 element design called the Elmax (in fact originally, Leitz Anastigmat) as compared to the conventional 4 element Tessar. I recall somebody postulating that this was for patent reasons but indeed it could have been for better performance. I suspect, and I am only guessing, that the position of the iris in the 5cm Elmar was influenced by the change from Elmax (I don't know where in the lens block it sat). I have heard, perhaps not authoratively, that the positioning of the iris in the 5cm Elmar is sub-optimal because it is more out of focus and therefore the circles of confusion are larger but this is getting out of my knowledge base. Indeed perhaps, vignetting may appear less. Whatever the pros and cons of its design, nobody can argue that the outcome is not a fine lens.
Regards,
Paul