Size vs. Quality

J

JayRmichigan

Newbie
Local time
11:34 AM
Joined
May 11, 2009
Messages
6
I've been getting pretty sick of carrying around a big heavy SLR whenever I want to take pictures, so I've been looking into buying a small compact Rangefinder and the FSU's intrigue me, especially the early Zorkis and Feds that came with the collapsable Industar 22. I like their look, and the fact that I could probably stick one in my back pocket, but how does the quality hold up on them? Do they still take decent pictures? And with your wealth of knowledge, which camera would you recommend for someone who's looking for a compact FSU but still wants a decent, usable camera?

Thanks!
 
If you are coming from big heavy SLRs and depend on the in camera meter, as I do, consider that virtually none of the cameras you are asking about have meters built in. I am terrible at guesstimating an exposure so have to carry a handheld meter. OTH you may not find being meterless a problem.

Bob
 
A Zorki 6 without the case is fairljy small, but I dont think as small as a Zorki 1 oe 2 or early fed for that matter. I cant speak for the quality on the early fed or zorkis but, THe build qaulity on my later Zorki 4s and 6s are very good. and the viewfinders I know are much better than the early feds and zorkis. A Zorki 6 with a colapsable 50mm would be a very compact package indeed. - Michael
 
If size is your main criterion, the FED or Zorki 1 is the best choice and the collapsible lenses do take a nice picture. A lot depends on what features you need - take a look at the sticky on selecting an FSU. Not many models had meters and a lot of the ones with are no longer working.
 
Just several days ago I took 3 cameras to my bag - Bessa R with Jupiter 8, Soligor SR300-X with Rokkor 35-70/3.5 (this is Minolta X-300 clone) and Kiev 4a with Jupiter 8. Well... my bag was heavy.. really.. Took out Soligor - it was heavy, changed to Bessa - still heavy.. Changed to Kiev - it became much lighter! ;-)
So, these cameras are not that light at all. Pure metal bodies. Even full size fixed lens RFs are not that light (at least what I had).
For light RF body consider Bessa R.
 
I think blazejs has another valid point in the weight department. If you do a quick check on the net you will find that that a Zorki weights about 750g and an Industar 22 about 105g for a total of 855g. On a similar search a Nikon D60 with battery is about 522g and the 18-55 lens about 265g for a total of about 787g. The Fed is about 100g lighter than the Zorki but still slightly heavier than the D60 and kit lens. I don't think you will be saving too much in the weight department over the Nikon you now have. You may also add a couple of extra lense to your FSU kit to round it out in the future. You may get a more compact kit with the FSU.

Bob
 
Just some thoughts. I'm quite new at this, yet I have a good many Russian cameras now. They rapidly become a disease. I think the search for the "perfect" one is a treasure hunt that never ends. Unless you are caught up in the hunt like the rest of us and really just want the best camera for the money you are probably foolish to mess with these 50 year old cameras. They are crude, take only marginal pictures for the most part, like you've observed, don't have light meters, and generally are an end in themselves, with true photography lost somewhere along the way.

Here is what I think is the best route for a quality rangefinder camera, a Bessa R series. I have the R4 since I use mostly short to normal lenses. The camera is reasonably inexpensive, I got mine with a lens from a seller in these forums for about the price of a fairly extensive Russian camera hunt. The Bessa is everything you could ever hope for in an affordable rangefinder camera, wonderfully made, light weight, has great lenses and access to the best lenses made, has probably the best viewfinder in history. In short, if it had Leica written on it, it would be a hands down rangefinder winner. It is all together as good a camera as most of the Leica's out there from everything I read.
 
Compact these early Fed and Zorki's are. Lightweight not so much. If you decide to get one, pick one up from a more reputable dealer. Less likely to have any hang-ups.

With a collapsible lens I'm sure they could fit in a back pocket, depends on the size of pocket though. I'd be afraid to sit down while storing one of those, I'll be pulling broken glass and metal out of me all afternoon.
 
davelrods said:
They are crude, take only marginal pictures for the most part,
Click to expand...

I take exception to this, I'm afraid. If they didn't take decent to good pictures, I would never bother. Maybe my taste is lacking but there are quite a few of us who use these rugged old things for what they were made for and worry a lot less than someone whose rig cost them more than a month's shelter.

The OP would do well to look the XA or some of the other Olympus RFs, if size and weight considerations are that important.
 
Paul

I was wondering when someone would take exception, and I would have to agree that these cameras and lenses are capable of very decent results regardless of what they cost.

Bob
 
They are crude, take only marginal pictures for the most part
Click to expand...

Plenty of pictures from a FED-2 have been bought to hang on walls or printed on magazine covers. Including some of mine.

For a quite a while it was the only camera I owned.

In short, rubbish. :) Not saying it's what the OP needs, as he might benefit from something lighter.
 
I'll back the XA although both of mine were a little fragile and not for casual throwing into a jacket pocket; especially when walking the dog. (I had my first from new and can still remember the repair bill that followed a simple knock.) The XA2 is not a RF but pretty damm good and dirt cheap. And there's the Ricoh 500 (RF) and small Rolleis etc.

A Fed 1 would be the smallest but one weighs about 1¼ lb and the lens hood can be fiddly to carry and fit. Plus it needs a meter. Then there's that brilliant little Leica CL with the almost perfect 40mm lens and TTL CW metering...

The XA2's weigh about 7 oz and there's a lot of AF cameras about that work well. The Olympus mju-II f'instance and even the APS Kodak T550 (50p usually) and the Canon P&S's with smart AF are brilliant most of the time and have a zoom lens. None of these are RF's but very easy to carry and use.

Regards, David
 
The last few years my carry-around camera has been a Bess L with a 15mm f/4.5 Heliar. Before that I spent a decade or more with a Leica CL and a 40mm Summicron.
 
paul beard said:
I take exception to this, I'm afraid. If they didn't take decent to good pictures, I would never bother. Maybe my taste is lacking but there are quite a few of us who use these rugged old things for what they were made for and worry a lot less than someone whose rig cost them more than a month's shelter.
Click to expand...

Paul, you're too polite :)

FSU cameras and lenses, especially when properly adjusted and serviced, are capable of creating stunning images. Look here for examples.

They are also fun to use.
 
davelrods said:
Just some thoughts. I'm quite new at this, yet I have a good many Russian cameras now. They rapidly become a disease. I think the search for the "perfect" one is a treasure hunt that never ends. Unless you are caught up in the hunt like the rest of us and really just want the best camera for the money you are probably foolish to mess with these 50 year old cameras. They are crude, take only marginal pictures for the most part, like you've observed, don't have light meters, and generally are an end in themselves, with true photography lost somewhere along the way.

Here is what I think is the best route for a quality rangefinder camera, a Bessa R series. I have the R4 since I use mostly short to normal lenses. The camera is reasonably inexpensive, I got mine with a lens from a seller in these forums for about the price of a fairly extensive Russian camera hunt. The Bessa is everything you could ever hope for in an affordable rangefinder camera, wonderfully made, light weight, has great lenses and access to the best lenses made, has probably the best viewfinder in history. In short, if it had Leica written on it, it would be a hands down rangefinder winner. It is all together as good a camera as most of the Leica's out there from everything I read.
Click to expand...
I can sympathise with your sentiments in some ways but I'm wondering why you have "a good many russian cameras" if they only take "marginal" pictures? I forget where the quote is from but didn't someone once say the simplest camera exceeded the capability of the best photographer (or something close to that)?

My experience is a little different from yours, perhaps. I've taken hundreds and hundreds of pictures with FSUs and, so far, I've had ONE frame that was spoiled due to "camera error" rather than "operator error".

I bought my first FSU a couple of years ago, on a whim, because I liked the look of it. I loaded a roll of slide film (a pretty severe test of shutter accuracy etc) and gave it a run. When the slides came back I was, frankly, amazed at how good they were. This is from someone who had, previously, laughed at my father's primitive-but-cheap Kiev, although I'd always acknowledged the picture quality. I'd come from a background of "the SLR rules" photography and always thought the Japanese were unbeatable.

If you get only marginal pictures from your FSUs, perhaps you need to look at your approach or perhaps you just need to get them serviced and set up properly.

As for a Bessa, I'm sure it's a fine camera but it's still only a light-tight box with a shutter. The lens takes the picture, with a little help from the photographer. The box just adds convenience and perhaps a few features that aren't, strictly, necessary. I'm wondering how a 70 year-old Bessa will fare...my NKVD is still fit for purpose at that age, albeit with new curtains and a new half-mirror (both still easily available). It's likely to be working when film isn't around and I'm not either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom