David Hughes
David Hughes
I think you were really unlucky with this but you ought to return it with the lens and get it sorted out. You might then be delighted, as a lot of us are.
Putting it on ebay will merely annoy someone else and soon they will be having a moan about it...
FEDs are nice cameras once overhauled etc and are cheap to buy and repair. I've both a FED 2 and Leica M2 and can tell you which one's bills I prefer. For everyday photography, up to 8 x 10" there's little to chose between them. Probably the FED's are good to much larger sizes but I've not gone down that path yet.
Regards, David
Putting it on ebay will merely annoy someone else and soon they will be having a moan about it...
FEDs are nice cameras once overhauled etc and are cheap to buy and repair. I've both a FED 2 and Leica M2 and can tell you which one's bills I prefer. For everyday photography, up to 8 x 10" there's little to chose between them. Probably the FED's are good to much larger sizes but I've not gone down that path yet.
Regards, David
newspaperguy
Well-known
Gee, I feel so sad. 
The four FSU cameras - Zorki 1d, and a 1e,
Kiev II and an early 4 a - that I actually use,
all work just fine... and they have for years.
And, I have to add, the Zorkis work as well
as the genuine Barnacks that I've owned.
Imagine that. :angel:
The four FSU cameras - Zorki 1d, and a 1e,
Kiev II and an early 4 a - that I actually use,
all work just fine... and they have for years.
And, I have to add, the Zorkis work as well
as the genuine Barnacks that I've owned.
Imagine that. :angel:
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Even when they were new, quality control on FSU cameras was flaky. An acquaintance of mine, Mike Shushakov, used to be Photographer to the Supreme Soviet. In order to have a reasonable chance of getting ONE reliable Horizont, he ordered TEN. One of them wasn't too bad, but when I borrowed it, on his advice I doubled up on every shot to minimize the risk of stripy slides from the rotation mechanism hanging up.
Admittedly I've mostly been lucky with FSU cameras, having had ten or twenty over the years, and most of them have been reliable, sometimes needing simple repairs first. The Zorkii 4K and Kievs are my favourites. I actually came to them after Leicas (I started with a II and a IIIa in 1969 or so) and they were cheap fun -- much like folders. Then I decided I'd rather take pictures than piddle around with cameras, and stuck mostly with M-series Leicas plus a couple of Bessas when it came to 35mm. I've not used a Zorkii in 10 years or a Kiev in 20 -- and obviously, they were 10 or 20 years newer then.
Cheers,
R.
Admittedly I've mostly been lucky with FSU cameras, having had ten or twenty over the years, and most of them have been reliable, sometimes needing simple repairs first. The Zorkii 4K and Kievs are my favourites. I actually came to them after Leicas (I started with a II and a IIIa in 1969 or so) and they were cheap fun -- much like folders. Then I decided I'd rather take pictures than piddle around with cameras, and stuck mostly with M-series Leicas plus a couple of Bessas when it came to 35mm. I've not used a Zorkii in 10 years or a Kiev in 20 -- and obviously, they were 10 or 20 years newer then.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
BillBingham2
Registered User
Counter-jokes are best done in bars. Speaking of which I'll buy you a beer, hard cider or three next time I'm across the pond! Deal?!
B2 (;->
BillBingham2
Registered User
I had the same thing, though I went with a Nikon S2 and 50/1.4 rather than another M. I remember reading somewhere that a few FSU cameras were given away to dignitaries and put up for sale as exports. These were said to be the best of the best, well tested and well aligned. They made so many of the for general consumption that I'm sure tons have been lost over the years and some of the not so great ones make their way on to Evil Bay as they sell.
The folks who do CLA I believe do not have all the tools that you would expect a repair shop in the more established capitalist countries to have. They do the best they can but quality control processes like a check list of all major tests and problems probably isn't used.
B2 (;->
David Hughes
David Hughes
I'd love to know where you can buy an M and get it overhauled etc (including, say, a new set of blinds from Leica) for less than the price of a FED/Zorki and one of Oleg's services etc.
I reckon on paying hundreds of pounds for my Leicas and hundreds for servicing. I've 9 or 10 of each, with about 15 lens from each stable, and know the hard way. Some of the Leicas and some of the FSU's worked straight out of the box and some worked but felt and sounded wrong. As for the lenses, the worst was a Leica "Summar" with joint second place shared by a 90mm Leica lens and a 85mm FSU one. I've also had excellent lenses from both stables, exactly as bought.
But we are talking about very elderly cameras; neglect and age alone can cause problems. My Leica standard model had rusted parts which had to be replaced and solidified lubricants and my Fed 1 had a wrinkled blind. Both cost money to repair and neither camera's problems could be blamed on the makers.
This week I've just packed up the M2 for a complete overhaul and I am dreading the bill. (I don't do that with FEDs.) Soon I'll be packing a Zorki 1 (about the same vintage) for Oleg. In both cases past experience tells me I'll get back a camera that will be a joy to use.
Experience also tells me that losing a lens cap from either will be a totally different experience: cheap for the FED/Zorki replacement and expensive for the Leica replacement.
And really that's the main difference for most people.
Regards, David
Armoured
Well-known
Whatever makes you happy...
Whatever makes you happy...
I'm with the crowd that says if you can't deal with some upsets/bad luck, playing around with old cameras is silly. You can pick up an 80s-era SLR for cheaper that will likely work far better. 70s era Japanese rangefinders are pretty cheap and solid too. More ancient cameras will have more problems, and need to be fixed/cared for.
It is true that more reliability problems exist with FSU cameras. I've got about six, only one dog - and it's not that it's not fixable, but not really worth the effort. It cost $30 with a decent lens and a case. That's the only one with issues.
Do the math - I could pick up a dozen or more for the cost of a Bessa, let alone a 'real' Leica. (Must factor in cost for test rolls, which is probably the most frustrating in terms of time).
My Kiev 88 has not been without it's problems (light leaks, which I knew would likely be an issue going in). Hack fixes (e.g. gaffer's tape) have worked so far, proper fix in the post (which I'll do myself). But the one good-sized blow up I've done from the Kiev 88 is stunning. For a very modest outlay, impressive. Lost a few shots, though.
Bottom line: many of the FSU cameras are absurdly cheap for what they (appear to) offer, but hidden costs (time, hassle, randomness of issues) exist. The 'too good to be true' paradigm holds - they're not one-tenth (twentieth?) the cost of alternatives once hidden costs are factored in - but everyone places a different value on those hidden costs. (In other words, I might say it's five times cheaper, someone else says in the end it costs you money).
I come in somewhere in between - like fiddling with old cameras, not technically adept enough to do anything complex, can live with a few lost rolls/shots from time to time, not a lot of time to track stuff down or run back and forth to the post - but live in a place where there is lots of FSU stuff available; a surprising amount of it works!
Original poster comes out at one extreme: places high cost on hassle factor, also wants to save some money. Contradictory desires we all face. Simple as that. Should probably not be using old cameras, or if price is a big issue, focus on different niche. (Old nikon SLRs would be much easier, old minoltas or konicas much cheaper).
This is not a criticism: if doing things differently makes him happier, that's what he should do. Reasons for those decisions may not apply to many others, but perhaps to some.
One thing I don't understand: there seems to be a specific group that really want to use very expensive/highly rated lenses but cut corners on bodies. Perhaps understandable, but I don't get it.
Whatever makes you happy...
I'm with the crowd that says if you can't deal with some upsets/bad luck, playing around with old cameras is silly. You can pick up an 80s-era SLR for cheaper that will likely work far better. 70s era Japanese rangefinders are pretty cheap and solid too. More ancient cameras will have more problems, and need to be fixed/cared for.
It is true that more reliability problems exist with FSU cameras. I've got about six, only one dog - and it's not that it's not fixable, but not really worth the effort. It cost $30 with a decent lens and a case. That's the only one with issues.
Do the math - I could pick up a dozen or more for the cost of a Bessa, let alone a 'real' Leica. (Must factor in cost for test rolls, which is probably the most frustrating in terms of time).
My Kiev 88 has not been without it's problems (light leaks, which I knew would likely be an issue going in). Hack fixes (e.g. gaffer's tape) have worked so far, proper fix in the post (which I'll do myself). But the one good-sized blow up I've done from the Kiev 88 is stunning. For a very modest outlay, impressive. Lost a few shots, though.
Bottom line: many of the FSU cameras are absurdly cheap for what they (appear to) offer, but hidden costs (time, hassle, randomness of issues) exist. The 'too good to be true' paradigm holds - they're not one-tenth (twentieth?) the cost of alternatives once hidden costs are factored in - but everyone places a different value on those hidden costs. (In other words, I might say it's five times cheaper, someone else says in the end it costs you money).
I come in somewhere in between - like fiddling with old cameras, not technically adept enough to do anything complex, can live with a few lost rolls/shots from time to time, not a lot of time to track stuff down or run back and forth to the post - but live in a place where there is lots of FSU stuff available; a surprising amount of it works!
Original poster comes out at one extreme: places high cost on hassle factor, also wants to save some money. Contradictory desires we all face. Simple as that. Should probably not be using old cameras, or if price is a big issue, focus on different niche. (Old nikon SLRs would be much easier, old minoltas or konicas much cheaper).
This is not a criticism: if doing things differently makes him happier, that's what he should do. Reasons for those decisions may not apply to many others, but perhaps to some.
One thing I don't understand: there seems to be a specific group that really want to use very expensive/highly rated lenses but cut corners on bodies. Perhaps understandable, but I don't get it.
Well, not M's, but a Leica III and IIIa with lenses.
From Mom's Antiques, up the road from me.
$30 for the pair. Then sent them to Youxin Ye for a rebuild. Let's just say the pair with the CLA's and new beamsplitter were less expensive than the Zorki 3M from Oleg.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Well, not M's, but a Leica III and IIIa with lenses.
From Mom's Antiques, up the road from me.
$30 for the pair. Then sent them to Youxin Ye for a rebuild. Let's just say the pair with the CLA's and new beamsplitter were less expensive than the Zorki 3M from Oleg.
Dear Brian,
The 'Swiss Alpha Camera' (from the book)? Poor proofreading is not a new phenomenon...
Still no reply from Stefan about B+W, incidentally.
Cheers,
R.
"35mm Photo Technique" by H.S. Newcombe, First American Edition, 1948. I suspect that much was written just after WW-II. The author even mentions the "5cm F1.5 SUMMITAR" introduced in Germany during the war. The photographs in the book are wonderful.
I have a small collection of these books to go with the cameras.
I have a small collection of these books to go with the cameras.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Brian,
Thanks for the publication data. You might find the current 'Short Schrift' from the title page of http://www.rogerandfrances.com/ amusing. I have scores of pre-WW2 books, and quite a lot of pre-WW1. Lots more post-war!
Cheers,
R.
Thanks for the publication data. You might find the current 'Short Schrift' from the title page of http://www.rogerandfrances.com/ amusing. I have scores of pre-WW2 books, and quite a lot of pre-WW1. Lots more post-war!
Cheers,
R.
outfitter
Well-known
I shot two or three rolls of film perfectly with my Horizont, perhaps a half dozen partial rolls and now none (or to put it another way, it is a perfectly reliable paperweight). I have owned a 35mm and 120 Wideluxe that didn't die but weren't very reliable either. I don't think the Horizont is a good example one way or the other because the whole technology of clockwork swing lens panoramic cameras is problematic to start with - Soviet fit, finish and QC only makes things worse.
As regards, professional use your comments are so 1980. Most pros I know have shifted to digital for 35mm type work, reserving film (if at all) to MF and larger. For fun or advance amateur use no one is in anyway handicapped by a well serviced FSU camera.
Philly
-
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Sorry, which comments? I've just re-read the entire damn' thread and I never said a thing about professional use of 35mm except in the days of the Soviet Union.
As for 'handicapped', where did I say that either? I just said I'd rather take pictures than piddle around with cameras. Especially elderly, cheap cameras which weren't all that attractive 20-40 years ago, when I used to play with them, and are now 20-40 years older.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
David Hughes
David Hughes
Well, not M's, but a Leica III and IIIa with lenses.
From Mom's Antiques, up the road from me.
$30 for the pair. Then sent them to Youxin Ye for a rebuild. Let's just say the pair with the CLA's and new beamsplitter were less expensive than the Zorki 3M from Oleg.
Hi,
How many more have they got in stock? </;-)
Regards, David
outfitter
Well-known
Sorry I never meant to imply you made either statements. I merely noted that sticking with Leicas was so 1980 and I moved on to note the obvious about present technology and using FSU cameras for fun.
All the best
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Which is incidentally completely true. I've done a lot of interviews with former Soviet photographers now, mostly photojournalists, and they mostly agree that Soviet photoequipment was mainly for amateurs, while professionals used Leicas or Nikons like everybody else.
Of course they were exceptions, like the Horizont, which was flimsy, but somewhat without alternative (note that your guy still bother to order ten Horizonts instead of one Widelux). Or the medium-format folders, which saw a lot of use in photo studios and portraiture into the 1970s and 80s. And there are photographers who used Soviet equipment anyway, such as Vilhelms Mihailovskis who used two Zorkis with Russar 20mm lenses, also somewhat without alternatives in the early 80s.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
sig
Well-known
Maybe he meant 1960
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Well, photography is so 1840.
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.