What would be other nations' analogous cameras to the Russian RFs?

[Roger Hicks]

Bill, you outlined it pretty well but there are some subtler nuances. Yes, the common Kievs and initial FED/Zorki models were faithful copies of their German prototypes.

Dear Eugene,

Another point is that most (not all) Russian changes in detail and design were genuine improvements -- I'd rather have a Zorkii 4K, made right, than an original Zorkii -- and would have made for better cameras had they been built right. Likewise there were some good, original designs (and some bad ones -- the Leningrad with its uneven film spacing and crystallising, fracture-prone chassis). Unfortunately, the general standard of execution, i.e. quality control, generally fell faster than the improvements and innovations in design were able to raise the standard.

Cheers,

R.

 

[bmattock]

Bill, you outlined it pretty well but there are some subtler nuances. Yes, the common Kievs and initial FED/Zorki models were faithful copies of their German prototypes.

But, is FED-2 a Leica copy, with its removable back, original RF assembly, its own exterior design? Is Kiev-5, a camera most unlike original Contax, still a copy? Are Zorki 3 through 6? Are Droug, Leningrad copies of anything?

One could argue that most of them still have shutters derived from German originals, but in the same vein majority of classic cameras in existence would be counted as Leica copy. Which is true of course, since most 35mm cameras are Leica derivations of varying kinship anyway but it feels like really stretching the meaning of "copy".

I agree, and you bring up a good point with the Droog and Leningrad cameras.

I suppose one might start by defining a Leica 'clone' as opposed to a 'copy' as:

* a camera that both resembles and exchanges lenses with a Leica II or III style camera.

Then, a bit farther down the evolutionary branch, we have copies:

1) Copies that work like and echange lenses with Leica.

2) Copies that look like but do not exchange lenses with Leica.

And finally what I would term 'work-alikes', which are:

Cameras that perform the functions of the Leica, but do not look like them or exchange lenses with them.

 

[varjag]

Scott, you certainly appear to know about Soviet rifles more than I do, so your points are taken Yes they are not indestructible (as all things made by man), and may lack finesse, but they're not fussy, do the job fairly well and you can rely on it. Soviet cameras however, are very unlike that. I fortunately not overly clumsy so could fix my cameras, and there been extended periods when they worked just fine, but I couldn't really ever relax and forget about mechanical part.

Also, in case of Kievs, the point Roger made about Contax design being quite complex is very true. It was working with original Contax, but still with quirks. Most of them moved along to Kiev, and then few more were added over that. One has to remember that many Soviet cameras were rooted in designs dating before the WWII. War effort really driven production technology and fine mechanics design ahead, and it was showing in M series, post-war Contax, later Nikons etc. There were attempts to make up-to-date camera designs in USSR as well, but were usually axed after prototyping or short production run, usually because of prohibitive cost, or impossibility to reserve necessary materials.

 

[varjag]

Unfortunately, the general standard of execution, i.e. quality control, generally fell faster than the improvements and innovations in design were able to raise the standard.

Very true Roger, and perhaps the eclipse of it was Almaz SLR. The attempt to create own SLR system camera (interchangeable screens, prisms, backs, provision for motor), I *think* the project could have a chance in 1960s but in 1980s it was just not getting anywhere despite all efforts. Only so much one can do with extremely unmotivated workers and general atmosphere of negligence.