Leica clone attempt - what do I actually have?

[blackwave]

Hello! On a whim I picked up a brass "Leica" which I knew wasn't a Leica, but I thought it'd be fun nonetheless. I'm curious, though.. what FSU camera do I actually have, and does anyone actually shoot these when they're badged as Leicas?

On another note, what sort of ballpark price is fair for something like this if I decide not to keep it? I've been trying to keep my gear to a minimum and this isn't helping my cause!

Thanks for the info RFF'ers!

Chris

 

[huntjump]

I can't help you on price, but found this

http://www.photoethnography.com/ClassicCameras/Shanghai58.html

 

[Blind_spark]

My guess would be a Zorki, judging by the black trim around the leatherette that I don't think the Feds ever had. As to what model of Zorki, I wouldn't know; there seems to be a lot of overlap in models/variations.

http://fedka.com/catalog/index.php?cPath=22

My first LTM camera was a rebadged Zorki. The curtains were awful and required a lot of patching. Other than that it worked well enough, the "Elmar-ed" Industar was OK. Real Leicas eventually followed. =)

 

[peterm1]

I had one and shot it now and then. They are mechanically clunky compared to the real thing but fun and if you find a good one with a decent lens (mine had more bubbles in the elements than a bottle of coke) they can take nice images. An interesting thing about this one is that they have changed the shape of the raised rectangular section surrounding the middle VF / RF window to look more like some early Leicas. (Feds and Zorkis are usually both distinctive and different.) But it has the characteristic lens cam follower that is quite unlike the Leica one as are the collar surrounding the shutter button and the aperture setting mechanism on the lens. Use it - it should be fun to own a "luxus" gold camera.

 

[johannielscom]

After dechroming these cameras are often put back together by non-skilled Russians who re-engraved them. They were sold at antique shows and fleamarkets as the real thing.

Sometimes they do nit even work. When they do and are fine-tuned they produce images close to Leica quality, althuogh the camera mechanics are less smooth. The lens is an Industar-22, have a look in Flickr to see results, these can be very sharp!

It's a crap shoot really.

 

[Penny Lane]

It's probably a Zorki 1c, 1951 - 1953 (see here: http://www.sovietcams.com/index.php?-737528618). These do feel less sophisticated than Leicas, however, they can get very close when set up correctly. Also, the Industar-22 (which is a Tessar type lens IIRC) should be fine. Otherwise, there's a multitude of upgrades available, such as the Jupiter-8 which is a lovely lens.

If it works - use & enjoy it. If it doesn't - find someone to service it and then enjoy it

 

[wolves3012]

I agree with Penny Lane, you have what is definitely a Zorki 1 and probably a 1c. How many screws are along the back of the top plate rim? If there are three, you may have one of the earlier ones (the 'b') with a softer body and you should be careful not to squeeze the body - they can be deformed. The lens in an Industar 22 and is coated - the minimum aperture is f/16 not the marked f/18, so that scale is slightly inaccurate.

Assuming the plot wasn't assembled from a pile of leftover bits or several donors AND assuming it's been put together properly, with correct setting up and shimming of the lens and lens-mount, it should take pretty sharp photos. Unfortunately, the necessary skill and care is often not evident on the Leica "knock-offs". Try it out, you may be surprised. If it's not usable, there are those who can make it so. In comparison to the real-deal Leica, a Zorki is not as refined and smooth (mechanically) but the end results can be as good.

 

[Leigh Youdale]

I had a "gold plated" one based on a FED II. Pity about the way the gold tarnished!
Worth about $50 on resale if you're lucky. Mine worked, sort of, but what it actually did for me was to convince me to buy a Leica IIIf which did need a CLA but it was a very pleasurable experience using it and it took good photos. Only real problem (for me) was the squinty 50's viewfinder. I had two of them for several years but eventually got the M6 as it was easier to use and my object was to get the image, not collect old cameras.
I'd say don't waste your money - no matter what you spend on it it's still a cheap Russian copy that is unlikely to give much satisfaction in use. Bite the bullet and get a IIIf.

 

[wolves3012]

An interesting thing about this one is that they have changed the shape of the raised rectangular section surrounding the middle VF / RF window to look more like some early Leicas.

I'm not convinced it's been changed at all, it looks "standard Zorki 1" to me. I thought the Leica II had the rounded bulge around the RF adjuster screw?

 

[Mr_Flibble]

It's a crap shoot really.

Agreed, of the 5 Zorki I's I have/had. 3 were leica-fied and those three worked very poorly, or not at all. If they did work, they usually fell apart after 1 roll of film. They made someone some very cheap doorstops & paperweights.
I still have the two unmodified ones and those work wel enough. Not as smooth as a proper Leica, but they definitely get the job done

 

[blackwave]

This camera seems to be functional at least. I shot a roll but neglected to lock the lens once it was extended, and so everything is out of whack. The good news, though, is that all the exposures were consistent and the frames were evenly spaced. I'll give it another shot now that I know what to do with the lens

Thanks for the help with the model. I looked closer at those Zorki 1's and that seems to be the right one.

 

[David Hughes]

Wasn't that aperture ring on the lens that was the Contax Tessar copy and not the Elmar copy? Both f/3.5 but slightly different versions of 50mm...

EDIT: A lot of people will tell you that the FED and Zorki cameras are cheap copies of the Leica ('though I wonder how many know which Leica it copied). It's true that they don't cost much but many of us see them as a respectable camera in their own right. Once checked and adjusted etc by any camera technician they become things of beauty and pleasure. And, they have one or two advantages over the original; f'instance the take-up spools design was improved, the range-finder windows coloured for extra contrast and the lenses were coated.

The designers in the old USSR also had the the Contax experience and design to feed into the cameras and so you get the best features from both of them; a good example being the Jupiter-8 f/2 lens being made to fit the FEDs and so on. Most of these features are of historic interest, as I doubt if many load their own cassettes and appreciate the better FED version of the Contax design but the point is they are a camera in their own right. And that expertise led to the FED 2 which many praise.

As I see it the FED/Zorki relationship to the old Leica is rather like the Minolta CLE's to the Leica CL: meaning it took off from it and had a life of its own.

Lastly, many will tell you that the cameras are crude but that's a harsh judgement on a camera made 60 or more years ago. If it was an expensive Leica they'd spend hundreds getting it right but won't spend a fraction of that on a FED or Zorki. Worse still, a lot of people think they can be serviced etc at home sitting at the kitchen table and using the bread knife instead of a screwdriver or two. The result is a lot of botched cameras but the blame is put on the makers and not the bodgers.

I've FEDs and Zorkis in the collection that have been looked after and neglected ones and, after having a little money spent on them, they can hold their own with the original Leicas. And I know what it cost to have the Leicas worked on too. So this isn't a guess but based on reality and using them all.

As for adjusting the lenses, this is only needed to make them usable on other makes of camera, or to repair the bodges done by people who think lenses are easy to check and service without any equipment. This can happen to almost any make of camera but only the ex USSR ones seem to get blamed on the makers, even 60 years after leaving the factory.

Many other on this forum will tell you what pleasant cameras they are to use and own.

BTW, you can get a good deal of information about using them here: http://www.fortunecity.com/marina/marine/569/rusrngfdrs/fed1zorki1.html

Regards, David

PS One day I will type to the end of a sentence without being logged out. I dream of it.

 

[wolves3012]

Wasn't that aperture ring on the lens that was the Contax Tessar copy and not the Elmar copy? Both f/3.5 but slightly different versions of 50mm...

None of the collapsible FSUs was an Elmar copy. Often said that they were but incorrect. The Elmar has its iris behind the first element, the FSUs placed it behind the second. All are "Tessar" in the optical design. The "copy" thing is oft-repeated but it's like saying model A of car is a copy of model B - because they each have four wheels, a four-cylinder engine etc. In truth they're designed by similar CAD software with similar constraints and the end result looks pretty similar and is made with the same technology. Styling is a "fad" so they look similar too - that doesn't make them a "clone/copy/knock-off" though.

EDIT: A lot of people will tell you that the FED and Zorki cameras are cheap copies of the Leica ('though I wonder how many know which Leica it copied). It's true that they don't cost much but many of us see them as a respectable camera in their own right. Once checked and adjusted etc by any camera technician they become things of beauty and pleasure. And, they have one or two advantages over the original; f'instance the take-up spools design was improved, the range-finder windows coloured for extra contrast and the lenses were coated.

The designers in the old USSR also had the the Contax experience and design to feed into the cameras and so you get the best features from both of them; a good example being the Jupiter-8 f/2 lens being made to fit the FEDs and so on. Most of these features are of historic interest, as I doubt if many load their own cassettes and appreciate the better FED version of the Contax design but the point is they are a camera in their own right. And that expertise led to the FED 2 which many praise.

As I see it the FED/Zorki relationship to the old Leica is rather like the Minolta CLE's to the Leica CL: meaning it took off from it and had a life of its own.

Lastly, many will tell you that the cameras are crude but that's a harsh judgement on a camera made 60 or more years ago. If it was an expensive Leica they'd spend hundreds getting it right but won't spend a fraction of that on a FED or Zorki. Worse still, a lot of people think they can be serviced etc at home sitting at the kitchen table and using the bread knife instead of a screwdriver or two. The result is a lot of botched cameras but the blame is put on the makers and not the bodgers.

I've FEDs and Zorkis in the collection that have been looked after and neglected ones and, after having a little money spent on them, they can hold their own with the original Leicas. And I know what it cost to have the Leicas worked on too. So this isn't a guess but based on reality and using them all.

As for adjusting the lenses, this is only needed to make them usable on other makes of camera, or to repair the bodges done by people who think lenses are easy to check and service without any equipment. This can happen to almost any make of camera but only the ex USSR ones seem to get blamed on the makers, even 60 years after leaving the factory.

Many other on this forum will tell you what pleasant cameras they are to use and own.

BTW, you can get a good deal of information about using them here: http://www.fortunecity.com/marina/marine/569/rusrngfdrs/fed1zorki1.html

Regards, David

+1 on all of that!

PS One day I will type to the end of a sentence without being logged out. I dream of it.

Have you tried ticking the "remember me" box when you log in?