Is it really all our fault?

[Valkir1987]

OK, I have owned about 25 Zenits and Kievs, and they were all varying degrees of awful, all SLRs, but they did all work more or less.

I have never owned a used FSU camera, they were all new, all purchased around 1975, not the golden years I suppose.

I just wonder... why did you buy so many of them? 🙂

 

[wolves3012]

Hard to compare a Leica w/ a FSU camera. I've had trouble w/ Leicas as well. These are very old cameras after all. But a properly working Leica is a wonderful camera. A properly working Fed just isn't the same! Good luck finding a properly working one anyway.

I beg to differ. I have one Zorki 1 that I've stripped, cleaned and re-lubricated, that is noticeably quieter and very nearly as smooth as my IIIC Leica (also serviced). It was the first FSU I bought and it worked from the outset. I even risked a transparency film as the first roll and every frame was good. The CLA was needed after a while, I doubt it had been serviced in its life. Fit and finish are not up to Leica-standard, nor was the price! Usefulness as a picture-taking machine is as good as the Leica, nevertheless.

I'm done with them. They are badly made cameras and I have no confidence in the people who repair them. Why should I? My real life experience, not what I've read, has been 100% unsatisfactory. I don't want a camera that I have to constantly worry about or always adjust.

Again, once working properly and serviced as they should have been, there is no more need for constant adjustment than any other mechanical device. I've said this before and I'll repeat it. They were cheap to buy but no cheaper to service (labour costs, of course). The value does not justify service for most people, so they are mosty unserviced. No Leica, Contax or other premium brand will fare better for the same neglect.

Most repair people won't work on them. What does that tell you?

That tells me that they are not "economically repairable" and the parts are not easy to obtain. A $100 service on a $500 camera is worthwhile and preserves its value and usefulness. The same value service on a $50 camera is pointless from an economic view. See if you can get a modern digital P&S repaired. Does that tell you they're badly made?

 

[payasam]

"I just wonder... why did you buy so many of them?"

You can understand History only through a study of serial numbers, someone once said -- and then deleted most of the thread.

 

[Armoured]

Agree completely

Agree completely

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.

I agree here - old cameras will need service. And unfortunately, spending a lot of money on repairs is not justified - from a purely financial perspective anyway. I've only had one FSU camera go bad - and for $30 including the lens, I have no complaints; considering that was a later-model Zorki, I'm inclined to think the engineering and quality control got worse. But it's a small(ish) sample I'm working from.

I've a Kiev 88 that leaks light - but so do other camera brand backs if not maintained. With gaffer tape on the film back (while I wait for trap seals in the post), it produces stunning results. I understand this is an expected (required) service step for Hassy backs, but I think many won't spend the money to repair (maintain, really) the backs when the entire kit cost $200.

Now again, this is not to defend FSU production unthinkingly: there are poorly-built cameras out there, poorly maintained. But when you can pick these up for a pittance, you have to have some perspective.

And this unwillingness to repair the cameras surely effects perceptions of their quality.