He Who Buys a Fed Buys Junk!

[paulfish4570]

yes, that's an industar 50. i have the rigid version that i use on my bessa r. i use a j-8 more often because it is easier to manipulate with the viewfinder at my eye. here are 2 shots with my i-50:

the i-50 did require a CLA. it was the first i had ever tried, and it did the job. it is a simple lens, but quite capable ...

 

[Dave Wilkinson]

yes, that's an industar 50. i have the rigid version that i use on my bessa r. i use a j-8 more often because it is easier to manipulate with the viewfinder at my eye. here are 2 shots with my i-50:

the i-50 did require a CLA. it was the first i had ever tried, and it did the job. it is a simple lens, but quite capable ...

Luke 9-48-"...Whoever receives this child receives me, and whoever receives me, receives him who sent me..."

.....Nice shots - especially the second!, but you lost me with that last bit of text....what relevance does it have to the subject?

 

[ZorkiKat]

Luke 9-48-"...Whoever receives this child receives me, and whoever receives me, receives him who sent me..."

.....Nice shots - especially the second!, but you lost me with that last bit of text....what relevance does it have to the subject?

I believe the part you quoted was paulfish's signature.

 

[paulfish4570]

you are correct zk. i try to change a bit of scripture for my signature every day. i used that bit to teach sunday school yesterday for two young couples expecting their first children ...

 

[ZorkiKat]

Yes, I've done it and then said that. So?

There is nothing on this Earth that can outdo a superlative Leica-M optic in terms of the gorgeous complexity of rendition. Nothing. This is just a fact of optical life. Ask Sepiareverb; he knows this even better than I do...

Uhm, wouldn't a larger negative have the potential to produce better enlargements anytime over a smaller negative? I know, I know, you mentioned the 'bigger negative' fallacy.

How is this a fallacy? It's not just about optics you know. There are also factors like magnification and grain. If the 'larger negative' is a fallacy, how can it be explained that a contact print from a 4X5 negative shot through an average Tessar looks better than a postcard-sized enlargement from a 35mm negative shot through say, a Summicron?

Magnification literally stretches the negative and in doing so stretches things like tonal values. Then there is also the matter of COC's which get less finer the more the enlargement scale is increased.

If there were any fallacy here, saying that "big negatives" don't do anything or that M lenses can do everything would be topping the list.

I've also made enlargements from 35mm and 6X6 negatives. Bigger negatives always did better. Even a 6X6 neg shot with a triplet lens looked better than a typical 35mm neg shot with one of the premium lenses.

 

[rxmd]

Uhm, wouldn't a larger negative have the potential to produce better enlargements anytime over a smaller negative? I know, I know, you mentioned the 'bigger negative' fallacy.

How is this a fallacy?

It becomes a fallacy when one does not define clearly what one is talking about when mentioning quality. On the tonality it is trivial to show mathematically that negative area and enlargement ratio is key, simply by virtue of halide crystals per square mm of film and resulting amount of tonality levels at different ratio of enlargements. Likewise, contrast is distance- and consequently enlargement ratio-dependent. In resolution, it really depends on the individual lenses to see whather the advantage of an individual lens is greater than the factor 2.5 or so that is entailed in the format. Sharpness is largely a function of contrast and resolution. In short, if 6x9 is easy to beat, it's mainly because folding mechanisms have inherent precision problems; a good negative from a 6x9 view camera (or rangefinder) will be very hard to beat in terms of technical indicators.

Whether one likes the overall appearance is another question; if somebody is emotionally invested in elusive quasimetaphysical arcanities like Leica glow, you can put them in front of an 8x10" enlargement and they will still say that the Leica print is objectively sharper, has better tonality etc.

I remember having almost exactly the same discussion with Magus years ago shortly before he quit. The core of the discussion was that one can discuss quite endlessly as long as one does not define what metric of "quality" one is really talking about; and as soon as one does, one will find easily that in some areas the advantage of a larger negative indeed is difficult to compensate by a better lens etc. (tonality being a case, if defined by the number of grayscales available per area), while in others it may be more even. This is not the point, however; some people are emotionally invested in their gear, and in that case objectiveness isn't really the goal of the discussion.

EDIT: The discussion mentioned was this thread, but it has become close to unreadable because one of the posters chose to have his posts deleted, so that responses quoting his words were apparently deleted as well.

 

[40oz]

Yes, I've done it and then said that. So?

There is nothing on this Earth that can outdo a superlative Leica-M optic in terms of the gorgeous complexity of rendition. Nothing. This is just a fact of optical life. Ask Sepiareverb; he knows this even better than I do...

I gather than you are concerned with aesthetics rather than technical merits. And that isn't worth arguing about because people either see what you see or they don't. I'm not sure calling personal preferences "fact" is appropriate, but whatever. Even people who like Leica lenses have preferences within (and without) the Leica line.

I would tend to agree with you in general, but personally have found I like a lot of lenses but cannot really assign a heirarchy to my favorites. It's more like "I like this one and that one better than those two lenses over there." Some of my favorites weren't even made in Germany 🙂

And I haven't spent a lot of time exploring larger formats, so for all I know I'd love even more some lenses I've not even heard of.

 

[outfitter]

You paid 25 bucks for a soviet camera and expected it to work like a Leica?

You paid 25 bucks for a camera that is probably older than you are and it expected it to work. Old Soviet lubes were like roofing tar (the marine mammal oils in old Leicas didn't age too well either). Wouldn't be surprised if the curtain material was old used black fabric from babushka skirts.

Try running an old Leica around your local repair jockeys and see what happens. That's why the handful of classic Leica repair mavens are so much in demand.

 

[picker77]

Wish the OP could try side by side my nice M2 and my Fed 3b that Yuri CLA'd for me a couple of years ago. The Fed winds every bit as smoothly and fires 95% as quietly as the M2, which is a pretty nice little camera. Sure, it cost me $100 for the CLA and new shutter curtains, plus maybe $40 for the camera to start with (which was 'NIB' and looked it). But for the $150 or so total I'm out it was the best practical value in a rangefinder I've ever enjoyed. It's a long term keeper.

As far as I'm concerned, Fedka absolutely rules in the Russki camera world. Sounds like the OP is learning that the hard way. When Yuri's guys get through with it, it would be a shame if the OP sells it without ever having run a roll through it. If he tries it first I'm pretty sure he'll have a pleasant surprise in store.

 

[pakeha]

Yes, as I mentioned pages ago before you came to enlighten us. 🙄

The assertion was made that their heavy good production was done under the auspices of the USSR and to similar standards. If you know any history, you know there is a lot of truth to this.

Or something. Go educate someone else, and read a thread before you pipe up.

Yep i read the thread - it goes like this.
OP buys a cheap 60 yr old camera or two. They do not work. OP is a reasonable guy ,but he needs a rant. Fair enough, but the OP comes from a place of personal fiscal responsibility and individual choice.
OP`S rant has very wide coverage outside of his recent experience.
Then all the jocks come in off the pitch and we go from a fed2 problem on to cover cars, tractors and general industry.there was even a post mentioning corupt business/government- Enron shares anyone😉 Somehow Cuba escaped the wrath.

Call me cocky/arrogant please, but i aint a hyprocrite.

The FSU section here is actually a wellcoming, positve ,helpful and often humurous place [sorta like life should be].
It is also perused by people from all the countries mentioned throughout the thread - including some of the e-bay sellors.
We should let them decide who they are and their history- not Wikipedia

This entire thread should have ended with the succinct 40oz post on page 3.
And i really hope steve has a better run.

FYI, the Yugo was derived from a Fiat-an Italian company, hardly under the auspices of the Soviet Union.
regards. CW

 

[ZorkiKat]

It becomes a fallacy when one does not define clearly what one is talking about when mentioning quality.

Philip, that would indeed be the case: 6X9 negative from a camera like the Agfa Clack or a rickety old folder would indeed enlarge with less quality than average 35mm negative at the same output print sizes. That's what my question failed to qualify.

But if all other things are equal, with parallelism and structural failure issues (so inherent of folders, which even the new Bessa is not immune from), optics and emulsions being constant, "the large negative, better enlargement" dictum should be universally true.

Some people have taken the old Leica slogan "Kleine negative- großes Bild" too seriously..🙂

But if one were considering even a smaller 6X6 negative from a TLR or a Kiev/Hasselblad, a 35mm Leica negative will have less potential.

 

[40oz]

"the large negative, better enlargement"

only addresses technical issues. It doesn't consider aesthetic considerations that many, many people have with lens choice. Some lenses just make prettier pictures regardless of what technical tests may say. That's why some people insist that their 35mm lenses trump medium format for [key word] "pleasing pictures."

I was at an exhibit where 6x6 prints were shown next to smaller 8x10 prints from 35mm film from the same artist. The shots were of green leafy bushes and trees, small aspens and whatnot. Yes, the large prints from 6x6 were more detailed enlarged to the same degree, and the larger images "looked better," but the smaller 8x10ish 35mm prints were what they were, and didn't really give up anything. One just stepped closer to look at them, instinctively. And they had some aesthetic that the larger prints seemed to lack. Maybe it was composition, maybe it was intangible lens signature.

But it was a silly display, I thought. If one made the 35mm prints the same size as the 6x6 prints, there might be an obvious technical quality difference, but since they were both enlarged to the same degree, there was little quality difference. One was left to judge on purely aesthetic issues, and I found it was a wash at best.

One walked away knowing the curator was trying to show the benefits of medium format, but what I saw was simply larger prints. I don't think I was alone. The emotional difference was moot. Especially since the particular shots sampled did not lend themselves to emotion, they were merely "pretty" shots of leafy trees and bushes.

Yes, technically MF wins. But when we start to consider the content of the shot, I think it really depends on how it's used more than what size the film/sensor is.

 

[dotur]

Yes, as I mentioned pages ago before you came to enlighten us. 🙄

The assertion was made that their [Yugoslavian] heavy good production was done under the auspices of the USSR and to similar standards. If you know any history, you know there is a lot of truth to this.

I would not be so sure about that... especially not after 1948.
Anyhow, there was no significant production of cameras in former Yugoslavia (though some West German King Regula cameras were assembled in Ghetaldus factory in Zagreb, and some Altix cameras Zrak factory in Sarajevo).
And well known EFKE films (Fotokemika, Zagreb and later Samobor) are in fact ADOX.


www.ivanlozica.com

 

[Gregoryniss]

I've only had great results with a Zorki 4 ($40 for the body and an Industar 61 L/D) and a Jupiter 3 lens. Bought off of Ebay from a seller in Ukraine. All shutter speeds are acurate and has never failed me.

 

[Armoured]

Yugoslavia was not a member of the Warsaw Pact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Pact

 

[jan normandale]

this is a great thread! I hope it never ends it's "that" good!

 

[ZorkiKat]

The Zorki (a FED descendant) in her hand looks more like a gem than junk 🙂

 

[pakeha]

Yugoslavia was not a member of the Warsaw Pact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Pact

You are correct. I`m wrong , cheers.

 

[Armoured]

You are correct. I`m wrong , cheers.

No need to apologise, I struggle with my flaming pedantry.

 

[Steve M.]

Got my Fed 2 back from Yuri at FEDKA. The shutter was replaced and the camera was CLA'D. The viewfinder is nice & clear, and the shutter sounds good, for what that's worth, but the rangefinder is slanted now, and the lens that once focused perfectly now goes past infinity. So I'm batting 100% on the Feds. It's off to fleabay for this one, and once I'm able to sell the remaining one I'll be rid of these things forever. I wonder how someone can ship out a CLA'D camera w/ these problems, but nothing surprises me anymore.

This is the god's honest truth, if I had simply bought an M3 and sent it out for a CLA in the beginning, it would have been cheaper and a lot less eventful than fooling around w/ these things in a misguided attempt to save a few bucks. I feel good about getting near the end of the Fed problems though.