Operation-wise, I don't see (is there something that I am missing?) how a Leica will "do it right" more than a copy. How is this so?
Viewing is the same. Focusing is the same. Loading is the same. Handling is the same. Same dimensions, same weight. Fits the hand, goes over the eye in pretty much 100% the same way. Assuming both cameras are properly working right, the results should be the same. Just my personal conclusion, which may not be universal. But this conclusion comes after years of using Leica and its copies alternately.
Indeed there may be build differences. I don't see any old FED coming apart simply because its build quality falls short by 10% of an equivalent Leica.
Some people will find it as important that their tools operate smoothly,and that is a valid point. But any 60 year camera won't likely be so unless it had been properly restored. Or at least it had been used with fair frequency through the years.
From a mechanical point of view, do you know that a Leica II and its FSU copies are about 95% similar in design and function? It is even likely that a late production Zorki-1 would outclass a Leica II in the durability and stability departments? The Zorki-1 used die cast bodies with die cast shutter crates, which are far more stable and won't distort, than the stamped chassis and folded assembly shutter crates of the Leica II.
