He Who Buys a Fed Buys Junk!

Roger Hicks said:
Well, photography is so 1840.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Well my daughter and I are lusting after a Petzval lens so guilty as charged. I use digital extensively for product shots (just more practical) and recently had a digital portrait of my wife in German Vogue (but the lens was pre digital) but I personally favor film. And no I do not consider the M9 the waive of the future and doubt it will ever be more than a blip on the pro radar.
 
outfitter said:
Well my daughter and I are lusting after a Petzval lens so guilty as charged. I use digital extensively for product shots (just more practical) and recently had a digital portrait of my wife in German Vogue (but the lens was pre digital) but I personally favor film. And no I do not consider the M9 the waive of the future and doubt it will ever be more than a blip on the pro radar.
Click to expand...

Um... And?

This is the same argument as 'Eat Sh*t. Ten Billion Flies Can't Be Wrong'.

Is the M9 the wave of the future? Probably not. But we're not all surfers looking for the next wave. I do know a couple of professionals other than myself who earn money with M9s, and quite a few more who use M-series for personal work and pleasure. Mere popularity, even among professionas, is not always a guide to quality, and still less is it a guide to what will suit any individual photographer.

Besides, you're getting awfully specific here. "I prefer film," plus the clear implication than an M9 is somehow not a 'real' digital camera like (say) a Canon or Nikon (or indeed Hasselblad). This sounds to me like hardening of the categories.

Finally, how familiar are you with radar? A blip can be quite important...

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Um... And?



Besides, you're getting awfully specific here. "I prefer film," plus the clear implication than an M9 is somehow not a 'real' digital camera like (say) a Canon or Nikon (or indeed Hasselblad). This sounds to me like hardening of the categories.


R.
Click to expand...

I think I have metaphored myself into a corner. I certainly didn't mean to revive the RF vs SLR debate - much less film vs digital or Leica vs the rest of the world. As an aside, back in the day I exclusively used leica equipment and they were the finest RF cameras and lenses I have ever used bar none. I no longer use a RF camera enough to justify the investment.

Retracing my steps to get back to the point: FSU RF cameras are cheap fun and reliable enough for most non-critical uses and probably would do in a pinch for even critical use.
 
outfitter said:
I think I have metaphored myself into a corner. I certainly didn't mean to revive the RF vs SLR debate - much less film vs digital or Leica vs the rest of the world. As an aside, back in the day I exclusively used leica equipment and they were the finest RF cameras and lenses I have ever used bar none. I no longer use a RF camera enough to justify the investment.

Retracing my steps to get back to the point: FSU RF cameras are cheap fun and reliable enough for most non-critical uses and probably would do in a pinch for even critical use.
Click to expand...

I love the idea of metaphoring yourself into a corner - thanks!

As for the second para, sure, I agree.

Cheers,

R.
 
Not reliable? Within their context the 2 feds I have are the most reliable cameras I own. I have never had batteries go bad preventing me from taking a shot. I have never had a flash card die. Not one sensor failure ... ever. Never a mirror problem either. I use these outside where the loss of a camera to immersion in water or a fall down the rocks is no loss when you have 80 $ tops invested in a camera. they just sit patiently waiting to be grabbed up and used despite cold, moisture, or vibration. Do they need adjusting or tinkering with ? Yes any mechanical device will. I have certainly had mirror and shutter problems on my Leicas. But I have had far more failures with modern electronic cameras under the same conditions. The feds have their niche and work well in it. Besides who would want to use one camera for everything. Life would be too dull. Want total reliability ? Do they still make those cardboard film in a box cameras. I never had one of those fail.
 
I've just spent UK £330 on my (1959) Leica M2; that included new blinds from Leica and replacing the flange the filter screws into as it was bashed and bent following a knock. A lot of other adjustments were also made. I've had no problems with the anonymous Chinese lens hood, btw...

Would those experts at telling you everything about makers from just one camera care to expand on this in terms of QC, build quality etc?
 
I'll take a crack at it...

I'll take a crack at it...

David Hughes said:
Would those experts at telling you everything about makers from just one camera care to expand on this in terms of QC, build quality etc?
Click to expand...

Okay, let's see, using statistics...sample size of one...unknown sample variance...unknown distribution...hmmm.

According to my calcs, we can't say for certain whether either you or your camera actually exist.

But there appears to be a significantly statistical probability that there are 400 million of your lens hood.
 
It's more a matter of the seller from whom one buys a camera. My Zorki 1C worked perfectly, but my present FED-2 came with two defects.

Equipment from the Soviet Union should not be singled out: the same principle applies to Leicas also. The M2 I bought two years ago, from a man who has a generally good reputation here and who is named on a web site as a seller of refurbished M3/M3 cameras, turned out to be a nightmare of bad workmanship and worse misrepresentation.
 
Just got my first FED-2 and while it's old it is not junk. Worked fine right out of the box from Ukraine. It's absurd to expect something that is over 50 years old to still be working perfectly. I think it's a testament to the manufacturers that my camera works as well as it does.

I've posted a few shots I've taken with it here: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1304089#post1304089 or you can see my set on flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/christopherpaulscott/sets/72157623702189869/
 
chrispscott said:
Just got my first FED-2 and while it's old it is not junk. Worked fine right out of the box from Ukraine. It's absurd to expect something that is over 50 years old to still be working perfectly. I think it's a testament to the manufacturers that my camera works as well as it does.

I've posted a few shots I've taken with it here: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1304089#post1304089 or you can see my set on flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/christopherpaulscott/sets/72157623702189869/
Click to expand...


Wait until you are fifty and use that line with your physician. ;-)

ps-- I think my Avatar is about 80, and seems to work well, as do some folks over 50.

Regards, John
 
Last edited:
chrispscott said:
I think it's a testament to the manufacturers that my camera works as well as it does.
Click to expand...
Very true. My two FED's have problems. One, my FED-NKVD 1c has no take-up spool (woe is me). Two, my FED 2 has a dodgy shutter speed of 1/60 (easily fixed... don't use 1/60). I know that both these 'issues' are minor. My thinking/attitude towards these 'issues'..? "Oh well... the cameras are still usable".

I also know that those 'issues' won't stop me from buying another FED-NKVD, should one wander my way. :D

I'd like to see some of todays digital lumps of plastic still being usable, as well as being in use, in 50 years time.. given the fact that they have a "shutter lifespan".

I'll overlook the inevitable possibility of file format changes for the "50 year old digital camera challenge". :)
 
350D_user said:
...
I'd like to see some of todays digital lumps of plastic still being usable, as well as being in use, in 50 years time... :)
Click to expand...

The interesting point to me is that in 50 years time they may well be repairable but at a price and people will say more or less what they say about FED's etc about them. And I expect there will be a few 50 year old digital cameras that people will happily pay to have repaired in the same way that they'll happily pay to repair a Leica nowadays. And the two groups will be at war with each other in some forum...

And those that understand statistics or engineering* will be trying to explain things and being ignored.

Regards, David

* I can think of acceptable engineering practices that turn out very good quality goods but which mean that parts need to be carefully ordered and not swopped from one camera to another. Trying to explain it would probably make things worse. It's like "swopped" above which this machine thinks should be "swapped" but I think both are correcty.
 
David Hughes said:
The interesting point to me is that in 50 years time they may well be repairable but at a price and people will say more or less what they say about FED's etc about them. And I expect there will be a few 50 year old digital cameras that people will happily pay to have repaired in the same way that they'll happily pay to repair a Leica nowadays.
Click to expand...
In 50 years time, when we are (possibly) not even using silicon chips any more, the cost of repairing a current digital would be ridiculous. You might have to pay for a factory to be built to replicate that obsolete chip, which no-one would do and few could afford. Unless someone decides to keep stock of these things they'll not be available, in a practical sense. Most current circuitry isn't economically repairable already, just the whole board gets swapped out - if it's available.

Everything ever made is repairable, in a sense. Whether it's practical is another matter and I suspect that 50 years from now the technology will have moved so far on that today's digitals will be well and truly dead. A mechanical camera is still more repairable and once again the parts source will be the problem. Mechanical cameras do lend themselves more to "bodging" a fix though and that's likely to remain so.
 
Hi,
I was thinking that in 50 years time there will be home chip kits and a few people making them for fun. In the same way that there are people these days with proper workshops with lathes, milling machines etc, etc in garages.

If I wanted a part made for a Leica nowadays I might just find someone in the local model railway club who could turn out a dozen. In the same way that somewhere there's someone still making parts for old fashioned wind-up watches, even the ones with keys. And shooting muzzle loaders that take black powder only, and casting the shots etc. What it would cost doesn't bear thinking about but that's often the last thing people think about when driven to get something old restored or working.

Most of us on the forum are using elderly cameras for the hell of it; my pre-war stuff turns out excellent prints but life would be a lot easier with a film or digital P&S but just not so much fun.

Regards, David
 
In 50 years time I am so old that I will be dead. True, mechanical cameras might be repairable then, however finding some film might be an issue.... one thing that not will be an issue is reading a 2010 file format.

However I live now and can enjoy my zorki 5 and my kiev 88........
 
ully said:
I have bought two Feds they both work fine. I have had bad Minoltas, bad Yashicas , etc.
Click to expand...


Well, I can't say this about Yashicas, but I have had more terminally screwed up Minoltas than FEDs. I've had several Hi-Matics that broke down for good before I could get one roll of film out of them. I had two that broke down during testing, before any film even went into them. One was a new camera. I don't have this problem with any other brand. It's probably just coincidence, but I am beginning to think that the Hi-Matics have heard what I had to say about them and are taking it personally.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom