The wrong way round, as usual...

[Nomad Z]

What does this have to with some sweeping generalisation about the motivations of those who use FSU lenses on Leica bodies?

Anyway, I was always under the impression that the FSU kit that punches above its weight is the glass and not the bodies. My J-3 at f4 gives my Elmar at f4 a good run for its money, but my FED 1 and Zorki 4 are nowhere near my IIIf or M2.

 

[David Hughes]

Oh dear, what have I started?

I was thinking about those people who come to us on these forums because they want to get into film, with a CRF and are a bit strapped for cash. So it's first cameras and lenses for film. The outfit I suggested would turn out brilliant pictures (thanks to the lens) but wouldn't cost a fortune (thanks to the cheap FED 2). I'd simply prefer it to the reverse which is usually a Leica body (dear) with an ex-USSR lens (cheap) but only because the rationale of it would be saving my hard earned cash. Roger will understand when I say that I'm still working on getting 240 pennies to the pound but I've been retired for over 20 years now and have to.

I'm assuming that - once the bug bits - he or she (our newcomer) will progress down that slippery slope and end up with one of everything in mint condition and a few digressions along the way. So the Summitar I suggested would end up on a IIIC or IIIx depending on taste and the FED 2 would acquire an Industar 61 etc etc.

IOW a start up query rather than a died in the wool collectors discussing minutiae.

Honestly! You'd think this was a digital forum at times... ;-)

Regards, David

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I found the Canon and Leica bodies to be more reliable than my FSU bodies. I have a J-3 on my Canon 7 and Canon P now. I also have one on my Zorki 3M. Between the cameras, I much prefer the Canon P and Canon 7 over the Zorki 3M. I use the Canons over my Barnack Leica's. The Zorki 3M has been CLA'd by Oleg when bought.

So if someone wanted to buy Leica thread mount camera, The price of the Canon P is ~$200, and the Canon 7 is even less. Given the price of film, it makes sense to go for a reliable body.

 

[ath]

I started with a Zorki 4 and a Jupiter 8. Despite several CLA attempts by me the Zorki had too fast slow speeds (-1 stop), the times in general were not that reliable, the body needed attention to be light tight and the film was not guided properly. Don't get me started on the viewfinder and the faint RF patch...
I bought the Zorki to find out if I like RF's and had to realize that I cannot come a conclusion with this camera.

Then I bought an M2 and entered a totally different world.

The end of the tale is that I really like the J8 and it is most of the time on my Leica.

 

[David Hughes]

Comments on the view-finders made me look (again) at them both. Comparing all the screw thread cameras from FED, Leica and Zorki, I'll say that I regard them as curiosities and not workers. The Contax or Kiev VF being superior from that era. (OK they are all fun to use from time to time but this thread wasn't meant to be about fun but about cheap and sensible body/lens combinations for a newcomer.)

BTW, my M2 would be greatly improved if it had the adjustment to the eyepiece that the FED 2 has. I can use the FED with or without my glasses and with either eye. I can't do that with the Leica.

Then I realised that my Leica has been completely overhauled etc at a cost that would buy me 25 or 30 FED's and my (£10) FED is untouched but looked after. I am now wondering if I should get it done as there's a bit of dust and dirt in the VF. Worse still, I thought the M2 was OK until the slow speeds started to play up (as they do) but when I got it back I realised just how bad it had become over the years.

As an aside I'll add that I've never come across the perfect camera for me. I've a lot in the collection that score 9 out of 10 on my list of desirable features but would they score that on your list?

Regards, David

 

[kievman]

Here we go again........... more comparisons between fiats and mercedes, which to be perfectly honest is rediculous!!!!!! FSU gear lens etc even when new was never as well made or reliable as Gernan or Japanese gear. Then again FSU gear was never as EXPENSIVE as German or Japanese gear either!!!!!!!!!!!!!.
FSU gear like the fiat cars my friends used to own, when they worked were great cars and FSU cameras ARE THE SAME. That said I have put hundreds of rolls thru some of my Kievs and Zorkis with great results in the form of very sharp and well exposed negatives. Sure I have run into problems with some of my FSU gear, light leaks etc but I have also heard of the same problems with German gear too! The big difference between my FSU gear and the german gear (a M6.72) I have owned, IS the price of my M6 -$1200.00. I have bought and still own many Kievs Zorkis Horizons Iskras (and most still work fine without CLA's BTW) and I still have plenty of money left over for what that M6 cost me!!!!!!!!!!! Plus I have gotten much more pleasure out of my FSU gear then I would of ever got from one leica body...... .. Kievman

 

[David Hughes]

Interesting, I think I agree with almost everything said.

I'd be interested to learn how many people in, say, Britain and the USA bought new USSR made gear in the 30's, 40's, 50's and even 60's. Mostly because comments about reliability etc should be based on new equipment and not second or third hand stuff. And anything bought at an auction should be excluded...

Also, the fact that my stuff dates from the 30's and 40's (and 1951 & 1953, just 2 bodies) and is still going strong suggests they are better than people think. Comparing a FED 1 with a Leica II after both have been serviced suggests very little difference to me.

If I ever get a spare week with nothing to do I'd like to fire up cameras in pairs with slide film in them and take dozens of test shots; that would be FED 1 and Industar-10 against Leica II and Elmar, then repeat with the Summar and f/2 FED lens. Then repeat with a Kiev (?4a)and Contax II and so on. Then repeat with B&W films etc.

I make that a lot of expense and work and doubt if I'll ever do it.

Regards, David

 

[Ray Settanta]

The OP said:"I often wonder why they don't buy a FED 2 (cheap) body and a 50's Summitar which would seem to give the best of both worlds: I just hope I don't have to spell it all out."

Well, I can't speak for anyone but myself. In my case, I have a "few" FSU cameras and lenses and a lesser amount of Leica gear. While I enjoy using the FSU gear, especially the Kiev3, my Leica bodies just have a better feel and are more reliable. On the other hand, an FSU lens is simpler than a camera body and many of mine are quite good while being considerably cheaper than Leica. So I use the Leica bodies with an FSU lens much more than the reverse.
If I were starting out today, I would want a Leica M2 and an FSU lens.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I'd be interested to learn how many people in, say, Britain and the USA bought new USSR made gear in the 30's, 40's, 50's and even 60's.

Dear David,

Well, 60s, anyway. It generally came with a guarantee in those days, even second-hand (though I bought a little new as well).

And much it still had that hacksaw-though-ballbearings feel, rather than knife-through-butter. Kievs were often better than Zorkiis, provided you could stand the ergonomics, but even they were patchy. Mechanically, the lenses were often pretty good but their actual performance was extremely variable.

It was cheap. It worked. Part of the latter was due to the fact (mostly) hadn't been 'repaired' by amateurs, and the lubricants (mostly) hadn't dried up. 'Blueprinted' FSU gear (as it is when you get a good one back from a good repairer) can be very good -- but most of it wasn't 'blueprinted'.

Cheers,

R.

 

[David Hughes]

It would be interesting to know how the second-hand stuff got here. I've noticed some from Berlin and thereabouts traded in the late forties and know of one or two that came back from the USSR in the 40's (some sitting in my collection and used from time to time). Also I've seen the odd advert in early 50's magazines and wondered if it was second-hand now that Leica stuff was available again/then.

I doubt if we'll ever know. My main worry is people judging it from the current auction stuff.

By the way, my family's firm imported stuff from thereabouts in the mid 60's and onwards and it was good if old fashioned* and cheap. And it stunk of the awful lubricants used. The main problems were on paper as each country seemed to have an allocated quota. But they were excellent for parts and assistance.

As a Civil Servant I often dealt with my opposite number in Moscow and can still remember the bureaucracy; they liked all the i's dotted and the t's crossed. You could, however, rely on them once they'd said OK... That's a lot more than I could say for many this side of the iron curtain. Many struck us as plain old fashioned bl**dy minded.

Regards, David

*F'instance all the screw slots lined up.

 

[reagan]

"I keep reading threads here and there along the lines of "I have just bough a Leica xxx and wonder what FSU lens to go with it as I am broke/married/etc". I often wonder why they don't buy a FED 2 (cheap) body and a 50's Summitar which would seem to give the best of both worlds: I just hope I don't have to spell it all out."

Late re:, but yep, I went this very route/slope of body first and I'm not sure why.
(a) camera bodies are advertised as having "interchangeable lens" capabilities. I've never seen a lens with "interchangeable body" as one of it's upsides, but it is.
(b) our light tight boxes also need good, working, accurate-as-possible shutter mechanisms or your lens money is wasted.

If I had [first] spent more money on better LTM lenses, I might have wound up at the same place I am now; multiple bodies, multiple lenses. I don't know.

I didn't wind up with a lot of bodies or lenses. But had I gone looking at lenses first, no doubt, once the "good glass" was secured, several bodies would have been purchased in search of "the One." FSU and older Leica bodies have shutters that need worked over and the FSU's often suffer from light leaks that need attended to. The best lens on the planet is a hood ornament for your light tight box if said box isn't light tight or if it's shutter drags, caps, flutters or ?? etc.

It's an interesting discussion. Maybe it's a process who's end can be reached by two different avenues - body priority or lens priority - as long as you wind up with a good working, fun-to-hold, satisfactory capable combo of your liking. But from the beginning, it would be rather hard to predict which is the better use of time & $$.

I'll more than likely start eyeing M's more seriously eventually. Maybe I'll go the lens first route on that adventure. 😎 Thanks for the thoughts, David!

EDIT: P.S. ~

"Comparing a FED 1 with a Leica II after both have been serviced suggests very little difference to me."

-- I too have gone shooting, loaded film in 2 Zorki.1 bodies & 2 Leica.3's, swapped lenses from one to the next as film ran out, and couldn't tell the difference.

 

[pschauss]

What led me to buy my first Leica, a IIIa, was that I could never quite get rid of the shutter fade on my Zorkii's. I also found the mechanics to of the of the Leica to be so much smoother than the Zorkii that I could now take hand-held shots at speeds as low as 1/25, something that I could never do with my FSU cameras.

 

[pakeha]

Late re:, but yep, I went this very route/slope of body first and I'm not sure why.
(a) camera bodies are advertised as having "interchangeable lens" capabilities. I've never seen a lens with "interchangeable body" as one of it's upsides, but it is.
(b) our light tight boxes also need good, working, accurate-as-possible shutter mechanisms or your lens money is wasted.

If I had [first] spent more money on better LTM lenses, I might have wound up at the same place I am now; multiple bodies, multiple lenses. I don't know.

I didn't wind up with a lot of bodies or lenses. But had I gone looking at lenses first, no doubt, once the "good glass" was secured, several bodies would have been purchased in search of "the One." FSU and older Leica bodies have shutters that need worked over and the FSU's often suffer from light leaks that need attended to. The best lens on the planet is a hood ornament for your light tight box if said box isn't light tight or if it's shutter drags, caps, flutters or ?? etc.

It's an interesting discussion. Maybe it's a process who's end can be reached by two different avenues - body priority or lens priority - as long as you wind up with a good working, fun-to-hold, satisfactory capable combo of your liking. But from the beginning, it would be rather hard to predict which is the better use of time & $$.

Quote of the thread
regards
CW