Is it really all our fault?

[Armoured]

Child labour

Child labour

I do agree and look at the link you'll get between "child labour" and "FED" & "Zorki" if you do a search. Seems lucky 14year olds in the West get apprenticeships and unlucky 15year olds in the USSR were merely exploited whilst being expected to pick up a trade in the factory.

Well, this was at the back of my mind when I was typing the first post. My reaction to Fricke's* article was that the factory was the victim of a lot of anti-Soviet feeling, probably misplaced in this instance. And a lot of people in the west would be happy to get board and lodgings from 15 up to the age of 20 whilst serving a proper apprenticeship.

The perspective one takes on this is important: the time during which the FED factory was founded and after the war were, understatement of the year, not the best times to be children and especially orphans in the USSR (and Ukraine in particular). Due to WWI, the revolution, the civil war, collectivization, the purges, WWII - well, there were a lot of orphans. Read about Holodomor - a lot of adults would likely have been willing to work at FED.

That doesn't mean the cameras are perfect, but 'child labour' is just lack of perspective. Nobody on farms in North America would have thought 14 or 15 young to work at the time, particularly in a role learning a trade.

 

[Armoured]

Premises mostly accurate

Premises mostly accurate

How many people actually visited the Soviet Union when it existed? I did.

How many have any reason to know much about the Soviet Union? My (British) great-grandmother joined the Party in 1917 and was indeed arrested for sedition during the Great War. She was cremated in the 1960s with the Red Flag over her coffin: the local Party Secretary read the eulogy. Her father was a very rich man; she was a rebel.

Premise I: "They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work." An old Soviet Union joke. Most communist industry was dire, with poor QC. Cameras were no exception. When Zorkiis, Kievs, Zenits etc. were available new in the UK from the 50s to the 80s and even 90s, no-one pretended QC was great. Including the importers.

Premise II: A cheap camera, 40-60 years on, probably never serviced, cannot be expected to work well. On the other hand, the worst stuff has often been junked, so what survives is probably the better stuff.

Premise III: Some of us bought Soviet cameras in the 60s and 70s because they were cheap. We were not always impressed: we accepted that it was the luck of the draw (QC).

Premise IV: Many apologists for Soviet cameras are quite young, without direct experience of new Soviet gear or the Soviet Union.

Sure, if it was (a) assembled right in the first place and (b) maintained well, or (c) rebuilt to spec, Soviet gear can be very good. It's just that this is far from invariably the case.

Cheers,

R.

Premise I: I don't disagree, but would note that the quality control went down as production in numbers went up. Also worth keeping in mind that in the earlier period, the FEDs/Kiev rangefinders were expensive pieces of gear.

Premise II: largely true. From what I can see, though, the latter period had worse quality control and mass production.

I'd add Premise V: the strongest indictment was that by the 70s/80s, Western (largely Japanese) camera production and design had moved on. We're discussing mostly rangefinders; look at the Soviet SLRs of the period and they are simply not in the same league as almost any Japanese, let alone the higher-end Nikons. By this time, apart from Leicas, almost the only rangefinders available were Japanese compacts - which are surprisingly high quality in almost every respect. On top of that, they were inexpensive.

Older gear is likely to need work. It's amazing any of this stuff works. Soviet gear even more so.

 

[Frontman]

I love tinkering with things, and FSU cameras are among the few photo-related items that mechanically-inclined people can service reasonably well on their own. The quality of the Soviet cameras is about the same as one would find on 50's era Japanese tin toys, not very good, but they are still fun, nonetheless.

So far my experience is only related to the early FED 1 and Zorki 1 cameras. Mechanically they are not the match of my Leicas, but they still take great pictures. I have a couple of old FED and Industar lenses which work so well that I often use them on my Leicas.

So far I have replaced shutter curtains in 2 cameras, as well as a bad gear in another, and all cameras are now working perfectly well. I am not a camera technician, I bought my tools at the 100 yen shop (literally paying 100 yen (or $1) for a screwdriver set.

I plan to pick up another FSU camera or 2 next week, they are too fun to tinker with, and, as I mentioned, the are capable of taking great photographs.

 

[fanshaw]

Older gear is likely to need work. It's amazing any of this stuff works. Soviet gear even more so.

It is not amazing at all. The reason that Soviet made cameras still work is that they are simple mechanical constructions made mainly of metal components screwed together by hand. They sometimes need lubrication and cleaning after years of use, but their construction makes this a DIY option. This is perhaps their main attraction today. I can't imagine why anyone who simply wanted a tool for taking pictures would choose one if they could afford a modern camera.

 

[ruben]

How many people actually visited the Soviet Union when it existed? I did.

How many have any reason to know much about the Soviet Union? My (British) great-grandmother joined the Party in 1917 and was indeed arrested for sedition during the Great War. She was cremated in the 1960s with the Red Flag over her coffin: the local Party Secretary read the eulogy. Her father was a very rich man; she was a rebel.

Premise I: "They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work." An old Soviet Union joke. Most communist industry was dire, with poor QC. Cameras were no exception. When Zorkiis, Kievs, Zenits etc. were available new in the UK from the 50s to the 80s and even 90s, no-one pretended QC was great. Including the importers.

Premise II: A cheap camera, 40-60 years on, probably never serviced, cannot be expected to work well. On the other hand, the worst stuff has often been junked, so what survives is probably the better stuff.

Premise III: Some of us bought Soviet cameras in the 60s and 70s because they were cheap. We were not always impressed: we accepted that it was the luck of the draw (QC).

Premise IV: Many apologists for Soviet cameras are quite young, without direct experience of new Soviet gear or the Soviet Union.

Sure, if it was (a) assembled right in the first place and (b) maintained well, or (c) rebuilt to spec, Soviet gear can be very good. It's just that this is far from invariably the case.

Cheers,

R.

Roger, my respected friend,

Having had a personal trip to the USSR, is no doubt a great advantage over the folk who has not. But this advantage is not good enough to understand the full development of the October Revolution.

Thus for example I had like you to have a time machine good enough to transport you to the very beginings of the Bolshevik leadership, when they were exiliated for years in Central and Western Europe, and more precisely when they were discussing to depht what would they do if the first socialist revolution in the world takes place in their own country, which they reckognized very well as being a peasants' and very backward country, with a very small proletariat - although extremely minded and counscious of the need to overthrow the Czar regime.

How many countries have been able to launch a photographic industry ? Just a small handfull, and even countries much more industrially developed than the USSR at the time never dared to. Take Canada for example, or Australia, or Israel. None of these countries, which the Bolsheviks would have been very glad to start their revolution at their level of development by 1917, developed a photographic industry.

Furthermore, other countries highly industrialized like the UK and France, did produce some optics, but retreated in the long run.

Now apropo the discussions between the US and China about the devaluation of the Chinese currency, I happened to go across a Chinese claim that the disblance in exports could be turned in favour of the US, or at least reduced, if the US would agree to export to China higher technological products. I mention this only as a slight indication that if China today is dennied high technology products, the USSR was not only absolutely blockaded, but 14 countries sent an interventionist army to turn down the Bolshevik regime - no to speak about commercial simple products blockade.

So if the Soviets were able to launch any sort of camera industry, despite the great imperfections, from the historical point of view I would consider it rather an achievement,

I do agree with the Quality Control critics. But this was true for all Soviet industries and reflected the degree by which the workers came to hate the Soviet regime - what finally brought to ist downfall.

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[payasam]

You've raised a fundamental issue, David. People who wouldn't take a screwdriver to a $200 Leica are quite happy to try to "fix" a Zorki, because if it's jacked in the process they lose only $30.

Directly related is my resolve to shoot someone the next time I hear that vodka ration "joke" which wasn't funny even to begin with.

Let's face it. There are those who accept all cameras on their merits: and there are those who cannot accept a camera made in the USSR on any terms. It's like tapping a knee with a rubber hammer.

 

[David Hughes]

It is not amazing at all. The reason that Soviet made cameras still work is that they are simple mechanical constructions made mainly of metal components screwed together by hand. They sometimes need lubrication and cleaning after years of use, but their construction makes this a DIY option. This is perhaps their main attraction today. I can't imagine why anyone who simply wanted a tool for taking pictures would choose one if they could afford a modern camera.

Yes, I think they were very lucky to have factories run by engineers. The worst ones were run by accountants or lawyers. Although designers are coming up to take 2nd place, soon, IMO.

Regards, David

 

[moretto]

You've raised a fundamental issue, David. People who wouldn't take a screwdriver to a $200 Leica are quite happy to try to "fix" a Zorki, because if it's jacked in the process they lose only $30.

Absolutely true! I'm starting with myself. I would never temper with Leica. Too afraid, too unsure. But same thing with MY Zorki... (I have one MY Zorki that was inherited and means to me like family jewelry.) I dare to tinker with stuff I bought for a few euros, but found a reliable service for MY Zorki. And I'm sure that it will keep working perfectly as it did for the past 43 years (!! yes 43..not a typing error).
So I guess not all, but most of it is our fault.

 

[robbeiflex]

I dare to tinker with stuff I bought for a few euros, but found a reliable service for MY Zorki.

I agree. I attempted to fix a Zorki 4K and when I found it would cost money to finish the job I left it in pieces. Now that I've found a Zorki 4 from 1957 in good condition and want to hold onto it, can you recommend someone in Europe for a CLA?

Thanks,
Rob

 

[moretto]

I agree. I attempted to fix a Zorki 4K and when I found it would cost money to finish the job I left it in pieces. Now that I've found a Zorki 4 from 1957 in good condition and want to hold onto it, can you recommend someone in Europe for a CLA?

Thanks,
Rob

Well, there is a Russian service, which is recommended here on forums, and I guess it is good and reliable.
http://www.okvintagecamera.com/

But I recently found out that there is a service in Zagreb, Croatia, that suits my needs perfectly because it is in my country, and for more or less same price I have a valid guarantee if something goes wrong. Unfortunately, the page is in Croatian language, and there is no online pricelist, and I'm not sure if they are dealing with foreign customers.
However, I have phoned them, and for the shutter curtains replacement, complete CLA and waranty, they told me it will cost 400 kuna, which is roughly about 75$. (It would be about 58$ at Oleg's, but for me the shipping to Russia is 40-50$ more)
http://www.fotoelektronikservis.hr/

As You are in the EU, I bet that there is something in Germany, but is yet to be found out. 😉)

edit: the best I could find out in Germany is this list:
http://www.4photos.de/camera-diy/kamerareparatur.html

None of them listed Zorki, and virtually none of them has an English page (same as the one in Zagreb 😉), but is worth contacting them..I guess.

 

[robbeiflex]

As You are in the EU, I bet that there is something in Germany, but is yet to be found out. 😉)

edit: the best I could find out in Germany is this list:
http://www.4photos.de/camera-diy/kamerareparatur.html

Good point, German is not my strong point but I'll look into it, thanks! I prefer anywhere in Shengen (i.e. within the EU duty-free) zone for shipping simplicity. I speak Hungarian, so I'll check there too. To be honest I'm not in a hurry but when I do finally get around to it I'll post the details somewhere on RFF. In the mean time if anyone reads this and knows of a place please post it. 😉

 

[Armoured]

Camera/optical industry = Military?

Camera/optical industry = Military?

How many countries have been able to launch a photographic industry ? Just a small handfull, and even countries much more industrially developed than the USSR at the time never dared to. Take Canada for example, or Australia, or Israel. None of these countries, which the Bolsheviks would have been very glad to start their revolution at their level of development by 1917, developed a photographic industry.

Furthermore, other countries highly industrialized like the UK and France, did produce some optics, but retreated in the long run.
...
So if the Soviets were able to launch any sort of camera industry, despite the great imperfections, from the historical point of view I would consider it rather an achievement,

While no doubt an achievement, I'd note that there seems to be a pretty big historical correlation between countries that were quite militarized during the run-up to WWII in particular and development of a photographic or at least optics industry.

And looking at the history of at least the photographic/optics industry of two countries (Russia both before the revolution/Soviet Union thereafter and Japan), the optical industries were to a large degree linked to military production - possibly first and foremost. In the FSU, virtually all of the "OMZ" (optical-mechanical factories) had a lot of military production - reflected in the Kiev factory's name and history as "Arsenal." Nikon, if I remember correctly, reprofiled its production after the war to civilian production.

I presume this was because the first consumer of high-quality optics was the military, and the tools and techniques also happened to be applicable to producing lenses for cameras.

See the history of Arsenal here (and note classified as being in the arms industry):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiev_Arsenal

I think the Arax site has a link to a video extolling Arsenal's production of targeting systems.

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon

I don't know as much about the military connections of the German optical/photographic industry, but undoubtedly there - the "T" coating was a military secret for a period, and Zeiss optics used throughout the military.

Likewise in the US, Bausch and Lomb had a deep military connection, with 70% of production going to the military during WWI. Probably similar connections with the optical industry there.

Even in the case of Canada, the famous Leica plant (Elcan) in Midland, Ontario, apart from producing some very nice glass and cameras for Leica, seems to have possibly even been a military business at heart. Notably, its eventual sale and reprofiling to Hughes Aircraft and now Raytheon. (I note they still list the Midland location as Raytheon Canada (ELCAN), or Elcan Optical Technologies Division, http://www.raytheon.ca/locations/loc_midland.html )

So, is it that some advanced industrial economies did not 'dare to' produce cameras/optics, or that those countries with big military industries tended to produce optics? Separate question has to be why some countries kept producing cameras.

I suppose one could then get into the question of why some other big countries with notable militaries, like France and UK, did not. I don't know the answer - but parting note is a reference to Angenieux of France, now part of Thales, whose home page (www.angenieux.com) leads off with the tagline "From cinema to defence and space industry." (And the cynic would say the Brits just buy it from the Americans, but I'm NOT saying that)

 

[David Hughes]

While no doubt an achievement, I'd note that there seems to be a pretty big historical correlation between countries that were quite militarized during the run-up to WWII in particular and development of a photographic or at least optics industry.

And looking at the history of at least the photographic/optics industry of two countries (Russia both before the revolution/Soviet Union thereafter and Japan), the optical industries were to a large degree linked to military production - possibly first and foremost...

I think you'll find that FED started it and was originally an orphanage with training school turning out electric drills. The Zorki factory took over later on when the FED factory was destroyed.

Usually when wars occur everyone gets involved; as a child I can remember aircraft wings on the backs of lorries being delivered to small workshops in South London for repair. (Well, S London nowadays, I thought we lived in Surrey at the time.) And, of course, in wars the military are very demanding and pay high prices.

Regards, David

 

[Armoured]

There were some before the FED...

There were some before the FED...

I think you'll find that FED started it and was originally an orphanage with training school turning out electric drills. The Zorki factory took over later on when the FED factory was destroyed.

We think of it as beginning with the FED, but LOMZ/GOMZ existed before the first world war, and produced lenses/shutters for the Fotokor and others (as early as 1930? and I'm sure there were earlier cameras as well). I also don't recall where the glass for the original FED was produced.

Fed is interesting, though as case where the factory itself did not seem to be identified as military - but rather part of the NKVD structure? (On the other hand, what wasn't?)

Agreed, all got involved in the war. But the overlap between factories that (esp in Soviet Union) are clearly identified as military, or whose primary production area was military - although to a degree dual use - is significant. That said, I don't mean to say that production was all for military, just that there is a clear relationship - probably driven by the optical engineering and production.

 

[David Hughes]

Fed is interesting, though as case where the factory itself did not seem to be identified as military - but rather part of the NKVD structure? (On the other hand, what wasn't?)

Hi, I don't see it that way. It might be nearer the truth to say that they were both part of the same dept in the pre-Stalin Soviet Govt. The same thing happens in a lot of countries, Prisons, Hospitals, Schools and Safety Inspectors often all come under some common heading.

In many ways it's a shame that FED was worried about the problems of the orphans and proposed the solution when in charge of the NKVD/KGB or whatever. And, of course, after he died the next orphanage was named after him. So there's a connection but not a very sinister one.

Trouble is, a lot of military and photographic places got into the act later on as things were rationalised etc. I see the start of FED and then Zorki's production of the Leica II copies as very innocent, even commendable. Others see it as part of some huge plan started by Stalin for world domination but I think Stalin wanted his country to be Westernised and set about it in his usual way which only a very few apologists would commend. He wouldn't be the first politician to let power go to his head, we see it a lot nowadays, too.

Regards, David

 

[Armoured]

Hi, I don't see it that way. It might be nearer the truth to say that they were both part of the same dept in the pre-Stalin Soviet Govt. The same thing happens in a lot of countries, Prisons, Hospitals, Schools and Safety Inspectors often all come under some common heading.

In many ways it's a shame that FED was worried about the problems of the orphans and proposed the solution when in charge of the NKVD/KGB or whatever. And, of course, after he died the next orphanage was named after him. So there's a connection but not a very sinister one.

Trouble is, a lot of military and photographic places got into the act later on as things were rationalised etc. I see the start of FED and then Zorki's production of the Leica II copies as very innocent, even commendable.

Well, having recently travelled to Magadan where the entire Far East was the Gulag in the form of a "Trust" (company) under the NKVD, and barely even recognised as a 'territory', and most emphatically not innocent, my perspective may be compromised.

But quite apart from Felix Edmundovich, the founder of the Fed factory/enterprise (Makarenko?) seems to have had largely idealistic goals in a circumstance where there were (as I've noted) far too many orphans going hungry and something needed to be done. And the Fed factory sourced its glass, I believe, from the Leningrad optical complex, which did have military roots.

My point, at any rate, was that there is a very significant overlap between the camera industries in lots of countries and factories - especially optical - whose 'core' production was military (how core is debatable). This may be one plausible answer or part of a plausible answer to the (rhetorical) question of why some countries developed optical/camera industries more than others of approximately equal industrial/technical capacity.

That's not inherently a value judgment about the origins having to do with military, just an artifact of history.

 

[oftheherd]

Using very old cameras, that you yourself has cleaned, reapaired, adjusted and lubricated is, no doubt highly time consuming a craft.

If you have never entered this gate, another question will stand and it is if you have both the required patience, and the instinctive skill for the job.

There are several folks at RFF who to different degrees are knowledgeable of the matter, and others that are even knowledgeable of the lens optics - so for them is very natural to speak about "an easy fix" (FOR THEM !), but you should not get confused, unless you get upon youself learning the craft, in whose case, at the beging will be hard.

There is another required skill and it is to grasp the written expalanation in the net. Here, good, well illustrated basic explanations are the exception.

At the end, fixing old cameras is not for everyone, but everyone can try and feel how it feels.

Lastly I would like to say that shooting with very old cameras that work as a delight in the smooth displacement of its gears, its low sound and also with accuracy - all this is is a very expensive luxury, not a cheap bridge to avoid paying for the cost of new cameras. Because you have to consider not just the cheapy cost of the camera, but also the time of appricentship, the failures you have had in the way, the instruments, the cleaning and lubricting materials (usually the most expensive in the market) and most than anything else the hours and hours it takes to convert onesef into an expert.


Cheers,
Ruben

All sounds quite true. But many newer people on the forums may not realize your advice is from someone who did in fact spend time learning repair, at least on the Kiev. Your reports of the Kiev were one of the main reasons I took the leap. I had always thought that if I got an FSU, I wanted a Kiev, but was reluctant to jump in. After reading your posts I got a Kiev 4am and a bevy of FSU lenses. I am one of the lucky ones. All I have had to do so far is replace(actually put in) the "yak yarn."

I am happy with my Kiev. Thanks Ruben.

 

[payasam]

You made your point clearly, Armoured. Not your fault that it turned into something else altogether.

I recall reading that the Bismarck, then the battleship with the most powerful rifles, had Zeiss range-finders.

 

[David Hughes]

Well, having recently travelled to Magadan where the entire Far East was the Gulag in the form of a "Trust" (company) under the NKVD, and barely even recognised as a 'territory', and most emphatically not innocent, my perspective may be compromised.

But quite apart from Felix Edmundovich, the founder of the Fed factory/enterprise (Makarenko?) seems to have had largely idealistic goals in a circumstance where there were (as I've noted) far too many orphans going hungry and something needed to be done. And the Fed factory sourced its glass, I believe, from the Leningrad optical complex, which did have military roots.

My point, at any rate, was that there is a very significant overlap between the camera industries in lots of countries and factories - especially optical - whose 'core' production was military (how core is debatable). This may be one plausible answer or part of a plausible answer to the (rhetorical) question of why some countries developed optical/camera industries more than others of approximately equal industrial/technical capacity.

That's not inherently a value judgment about the origins having to do with military, just an artifact of history.

Hi, I think we agree and probably the military input improved things a lot as the factory would then be on the priority list for materials and machinery.

But really my original point was that we seem to be judging cameras (FED and Zorki 1's and 2's mainly) made in the 50's by what we know and/or think today, with added bias caused by the sales techniques; "FED 5 Leica" seems a typical trick used on auction sites; the prices charged and paid - half our fault - and the dreadful repairs which are attributed to poor QC 60 years ago.

I have always maintained that old cameras should be seen for what they are and judged when put into proper working order. FEDs and Zorkis seem to start with an unfair handicap and Leicas with a considerable advantage.

Anyway, my apologies if I seem to have attacked any one, I was mostly just trying to set the record straight: no more.

BTW, in the UK, at first photography, radio and aviation were dismissed by the military as of no practical use... Officially, but unofficially a lot was going on.

Regards, David

 

[pakeha]

Hi, I think we agree and probably the military input improved things a lot as the factory would then be on the priority list for materials and machinery.

But really my original point was that we seem to be judging cameras (FED and Zorki 1's and 2's mainly) made in the 50's by what we know and/or think today, with added bias caused by the sales techniques; "FED 5 Leica" seems a typical trick used on auction sites; the prices charged and paid - half our fault - and the dreadful repairs which are attributed to poor QC 60 years ago.

I have always maintained that old cameras should be seen for what they are and judged when put into proper working order. FEDs and Zorkis seem to start with an unfair handicap and Leicas with a considerable advantage.

Anyway, my apologies if I seem to have attacked any one, I was mostly just trying to set the record straight: no more.

BTW, in the UK, at first photography, radio and aviation were dismissed by the military as of no practical use... Officially, but unofficially a lot was going on.

Regards, David

Does not read as though you were attacking anyone David, as payasam noted you have raised a really good point and received, sane , reasoned replies.
This has been a good `counter' to that other thread that contains the word `junk'.
regards
CW