David Hughes
David Hughes
And in fairness, it has to be pointed out that technology and materials in the former USSR were subject to outside manipulation due to politics etc. Had they access to the rest of the world like Germany had during that period things might be a lot different...
Regards, David
Regards, David
They could have built their camera bodies out of titanium. Then everyone would be all over them. The tolerances on their machining was all over the place, but I've seen enough very good ones to know they could do the job.
David Hughes
David Hughes
How true that is...
I've one of the plastic P&S Leicas made about 20 years ago by some Japanese firm and I often wonder what sort of rant I could have about it if it hadn't worked when I bought it off ebay. Of course, no one would believe me but there you are.
I've often wondered (back on topic) if a time line of political events and good or bad FED's etc would reveal anything but that would be mixing politics and engineering: something I've often condemned. But it is strange how lucky I've been with my ones.
Regards, David
The very best FSU equipment that I have, cameras and lenses, was made from 1953 through 1956.
Stalin died in 1953. Coincidence?
Stalin died in 1953. Coincidence?
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
No. Under Khrushchev there was a shift in industrial production from capital goods towards consumer goods. It lasted until the mid-1960s. This is also why in the late 1950s and early 1960s there was the most interesting period in Soviet camera development.
The reason why J-3s are better before 1956-or-so is because around that time they offloaded production from KMZ to other factories, such as Zagorsk, to better meet the increasing demand and free up capacity at KMZ (who went on during that time to design the Drug, the Iskra and other high-end cameras, as well as SLRs). The other factories were not as experienced yet, and it seems that they didn't get the hang of it to the extent that KMZ did in the mid-1950s. It's not really a comparison of years rather than a comparison of J-3s from different factories.
Last edited:
I have a 1956 KMZ and a 1956 ZOMZ. The ZOMZ has issues: focus slop is to the point where you pick a target at 5m, focus, then focus to each extreme, back to 5m, get a a reading different by >0.25m. Filled the helical with vacuum pump grease. The '53, '55, and '56 KMZ J-3's are every bit as good as my two wartime Sonnars.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Thank you both; that's very interesting.
So we have several threads coming together during the fifties with new production lines being set up and, perhaps, old ones being abandoned(?). This may well have caused standards to wobble or simply not be understood at first. And the other factor is that the old factory could have been full of skilled craftsmen who made things to a high standard and the new used modern mass production methods. Done properly both work but there's more room for error in the latter and output is measured by bean counters not engineering inspectors. Add pressure to achieve targets and the result will be a mess, especially if the targets are set by the politicians.
If tolerances were slackened and parts then matched by being measured and then used in sets things would be OK until someone cannibalised something for parts. Perhaps many years later.
Another thing I'd love to have the time and money to check is a story I heard about workers from the Ukraine being used during the war in Germany (POW's or slave labour). If they returned home in the late 40's they'd bring with them German engineering standards. These standards might survive for a while and then get abandoned under political pressure, or be abandoned when the factory stopped producing the old fashioned way.
So nothing new there. (Compare the way a Lee-Enfield rifle was made to today's, of instance... )
BTW, my 1950 IIIc has problems with it's chrome, worse than the FED, fwiw.
Regards, David
So we have several threads coming together during the fifties with new production lines being set up and, perhaps, old ones being abandoned(?). This may well have caused standards to wobble or simply not be understood at first. And the other factor is that the old factory could have been full of skilled craftsmen who made things to a high standard and the new used modern mass production methods. Done properly both work but there's more room for error in the latter and output is measured by bean counters not engineering inspectors. Add pressure to achieve targets and the result will be a mess, especially if the targets are set by the politicians.
If tolerances were slackened and parts then matched by being measured and then used in sets things would be OK until someone cannibalised something for parts. Perhaps many years later.
Another thing I'd love to have the time and money to check is a story I heard about workers from the Ukraine being used during the war in Germany (POW's or slave labour). If they returned home in the late 40's they'd bring with them German engineering standards. These standards might survive for a while and then get abandoned under political pressure, or be abandoned when the factory stopped producing the old fashioned way.
So nothing new there. (Compare the way a Lee-Enfield rifle was made to today's, of instance... )
BTW, my 1950 IIIc has problems with it's chrome, worse than the FED, fwiw.
Regards, David
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
It is rather unlikely that slave labourers received any education on engineering standards - the Germans were operating their "extermination through labour" genocide on the Soviet POWs, and few of them will have handled tools beyond shovels and pick-axes, if any. Besides, the Soviets considered all slave labourers collaborators, so that the survivors were usually sent to Siberian camps after the war.
ZorkiKat
ЗоркийК&
Leica from that period are now often found with tarnished beamsplitter halfmirrors; FED or Zorki of the same age on the other hand are often found with intact halfmirrors and snappy rangefinders.
Canons and Nikons from that era too were not too advanced in terms of parts, assembly, or finish quality compared to FED and Zorki.
greyelm
Malcolm
When the FSU cameras were imported into the UK the importers Technical & Optical Equipment (London) Ltd gave them a workshop inspection http://cameras.alfredklomp.com/toe/
I would be interested to find out if this was in-depth enough to score them as true QC passes. If this is the case then UK sourced FSU cameras should not suffer so much from the lack of factory QC often mentioned in this forum.
I would be interested to find out if this was in-depth enough to score them as true QC passes. If this is the case then UK sourced FSU cameras should not suffer so much from the lack of factory QC often mentioned in this forum.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
I'd say why would you be so mad about it if you could not care to develop them for so long time.
but possibly your mileage varies.
First lesson would be, anyway: If you use FSU hope for the best and be prepared for the worst.
but possibly your mileage varies.
First lesson would be, anyway: If you use FSU hope for the best and be prepared for the worst.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
about your expectations on cameras:
Do you buy an x-teen years old car with unknown history and dubious reputation without a test ride, and go to a six thousand miles trip right away when you receive it?
what makes you think cameras should be more failproof?
Do you buy an x-teen years old car with unknown history and dubious reputation without a test ride, and go to a six thousand miles trip right away when you receive it?
what makes you think cameras should be more failproof?
JayGannon
Well-known
I went on a 2000 mile trip in a bargain basement Landcruiser 80 just after buying it.. worked flawlessly all the way =)
But yes I understand the point.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
then you ARE one lucky SOB 
I have a Kiev. The shutter was not firing at slow speeds . It works good now. I needed to repair the 85mm jupiter that came with it as well.
I take these cameras as "project cameras". I get a lot of fun out of them but not from the photography point of view
I have a Kiev. The shutter was not firing at slow speeds . It works good now. I needed to repair the 85mm jupiter that came with it as well.
I take these cameras as "project cameras". I get a lot of fun out of them but not from the photography point of view
Wahoo
Washing on Siegfried Line
I have a Kiev.I take these cameras as "project cameras". I get a lot of fun out of them but not from the photography point of view
Funny that, I thought that what cameras (including Kiev's 4AN's) were made for, to take photos.
Here are a couple of 4AN ones . . .
Not brilliant but, I've seen worse (can't remember where though .
)
Sometimes it's just nice to restore a hopeless wreck of a camera or lens so that it will work again.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
This could have rather strange facets, though. I remember when we were at my wife's village that we translated some documents for a Ukrainian former forced labourer. He had been working at a BMW aircraft engine plant and later at a gardener's shop, both near Munich. The documents showed that while he was in Germany (for a total of almost four years), his respective "employers" had to pay social security benefits to a state insurance company, in his case the AOK (which is one of the oldest German social insurance companies). If he went to Germany now, these four years would count towards his social security.
I think this kind of thing is possible only in Germany: planning to exterminate people through work, and then putting them into the social system because, after all, they're working. So I wouldn't rule it out at all that some of them did receive technical training as well.
I'm closing this thread now.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.