Good Russian Cameras?

brainmonster · Jun 14, 2020

Donald Qualls said:
If you're looking for fixed-lens RF cameras that are good and aren't cult-following Canonets, I very much like my Petri 7S (f/1.7 lens). The shutter is loud for a leaf shutter, but that's still not that loud (though there is a very distinctive clunk at the end of the advance stroke). The Kodak Signet 35 is also nice, with f/3.5 Ektar lens, if a little old school (knob advance, rather than lever, separately cocked shutter). The Petri has a selenium meter, but it's in the lens surround, so it meters through any filter you might mount; the Signet is meterless and 100% manual (and the shutter is so quiet you might have to check if it fired); it requires an adapter to use standard screw-in filters. Yashica Electro has a good reputation, too, but I don't seem to have one, so I can't say much more about it.

If I were spending money on travel specifically for photography, I'd agree that a Canon or Nikon RF (depending on your preference for L39 vs. Contax mount) is likely worth the money to get a more reliable camera than the FSU breed -- but for that, I'd probably take a couple M42 SLR bodies and my lenses for that mount, instead. I got my Kiev because I wanted to see if I liked interchanging lens RF cameras -- and the answer is, I do, very much, but now I have to either find a way to live with the quirks of the Kievs (frame spacing seems to be the big issue -- last roll I processed has one patch with about five frames in the space of three, otherwise it overlaps a millimeter or two three-four times in a roll), or to afford something else that uses Contax-mount lenses (so I don't have to start over buying glass).

I think I'd stick with the Canonet if I ever do pick up a rangefinder, even though I don't really like the aesthetic, they look really plain. Probably easier to get it fixed too, and it looks like you can find one with a CLA. But I'll probably hold off on a rangefinder for now unless I really find something that catches my eye, until I know I really like the whole manual camera thing. By the way, nice picture earlier with your Kiev. I imagine it must be hard to keep the rangefinder coupled with the focus? How often do you have to calibrate the rangefinder?

brainmonster · Jun 14, 2020

Huss said:
For the Kiev - yes - for the Fed and Zorki - no.

For the price differential? Well...

Don't get me wrong, the Leica is worth it but very very few techs touch the M5. Currently it is with DAG and hopefully he can fix it.

Are you talking about Fedka, who can CLA the Kievs? I imagine he could service feds and zorkis also. Anyway - still staying away from the soviet cameras if I can avoid it.

Auer · Jun 14, 2020

brainmonster said:
I was looking at something like that. They look like they are from the 60's/70's? They look like they are little bulkier than a Canonet though, but I can't really tell without seeing in person.

My poor wallet...

https://camerapedia.fandom.com/wiki/Voigtländer_Vito_CLR

Auer · Jun 14, 2020

Vito CLR, Fuji 160

bernard_L · Jun 14, 2020

Ko.Fe. said:
It doesn't matter which Leica, LTM or M, IIc or M9. FSU LTM lenses, if made under GOST regulations, should not focus accurate on Leica or any other RF. To make it focus correctly, they have to be collimated by shims. Plenty of FSU LTM are easy to modify. I did something like two dozens of them. I use 50 1.5 Jupiter-3 collimated between Leica and my FSU camera. Results are fine on both, wide open.

Is the procedure documented somewhere? Not sure I understand. Are you referring to an adjustment of the flange register distance? Or to a difference in base focal length (when the RF coupling moves the same as the optical assembly), 51.6 (Leica) 52.3 (FSU)? If the latter, far- and near adjustments of the RF are mutually exclusive; how can it be remedied by shimming?

Donald Qualls · Jun 14, 2020

brainmonster said:
I think I'd stick with the Canonet if I ever do pick up a rangefinder, even though I don't really like the aesthetic, they look really plain. Probably easier to get it fixed too, and it looks like you can find one with a CLA. But I'll probably hold off on a rangefinder for now unless I really find something that catches my eye, until I know I really like the whole manual camera thing. By the way, nice picture earlier with your Kiev. I imagine it must be hard to keep the rangefinder coupled with the focus? How often do you have to calibrate the rangefinder?

I've only had mine for a couple months, processed two rolls (one very expired Fuji Superia Xtra 400, one fresh Cinestill BWXX). I couldn't tell you about calibrating the RF, other than it's apparently an available adjustment under the top cover (should work the same as a Contax II/III).

I've got two Canonets (a 28 and a QL17 GIII). Not for sale. My Petri 7s is not for sale, either. It's the later version, f/1.8 lens.

Petri 7s, Fuji Superia Xtra 400

brainmonster · Jun 14, 2020

Donald Qualls said:
I've only had mine for a couple months, processed two rolls (one very expired Fuji Superia Xtra 400, one fresh Cinestill BWXX). I couldn't tell you about calibrating the RF, other than it's apparently an available adjustment under the top cover (should work the same as a Contax II/III).

I've got two Canonets (a 28 and a QL17 GIII). Not for sale. My Petri 7s is not for sale, either. It's the later version, f/1.8 lens.

View attachment 248374

Petri 7s, Fuji Superia Xtra 400

Don't worry, I don't want to buy you're canonets My wallet needs a rest for a bit, I still need to spend film on development and other things, I'll use when I get soon in the mail see if I like it. If you ask me, the Canonets look a little bit boring, but if they work, I suppose that's the most important thing. That image is super sharp by the way, nice shot.

Ko.Fe. · Jun 14, 2020

bernard_L said:
Is the procedure documented somewhere? Not sure I understand. Are you referring to an adjustment of the flange register distance? Or to a difference in base focal length (when the RF coupling moves the same as the optical assembly), 51.6 (Leica) 52.3 (FSU)? If the latter, far- and near adjustments of the RF are mutually exclusive; how can it be remedied by shimming?

On practice DoF is sufficient even with 50 1.5 lens on longer distances, once it is re-shimmed to focus correctly on one meter.
Focusing by focus distance scale also works after re-shimming.

Unscrew lens optical block, and make new shims. I do it from paper. Test with different amount of shims at minimum focus distance.
Keep combination of shims which will get lens in focus by RF. Lenses like Jupiter-12, Orion-15 might works well with original shim.
Industar collapsible are easy to shim. So is black Jupiter-8. Most complicated is Jupiter-3. New marks for focus ring screws and aperture ring shift needs to be done if shims were modified.
Some documents how to remove lens block from focus block of those lenses are available with Google search.
Shimming for focus document was also available via Google search. One person was very famous for it and even did it for others for sometime.
I skip rear element adjustment with FSU RF lenses. Just shims are enough.
I moved rear element at Canon 50 1.8 LTM once. With paper shim as well to have it in focus at digital M.
I have second copy of this lens now and it also needs focus adjustment for digital M.

brainmonster · Jun 14, 2020

Ko.Fe. said:
On practice DoF is sufficient even with 50 1.5 lens on longer distances, once it is re-shimmed to focus correctly on one meter.
Focusing by focus distance scale also works after re-shimming.

Unscrew lens optical block, and make new shims. I do it from paper. Test with different amount of shims at minimum focus distance.
Keep combination of shims which will get lens in focus by RF. Lenses like Jupiter-12, Orion-15 might works well with original shim.
Industar collapsible are easy to shim. So is black Jupiter-8. Most complicated is Jupiter-3. New marks for focus ring screws and aperture ring shift needs to be done if shims were modified.
Some documents how to remove lens block from focus block of those lenses are available with Google search.
Shimming for focus document was also available via Google search. One person was very famous for it and even did it for others for sometime.
I skip rear element adjustment with FSU RF lenses. Just shims are enough.
I moved rear element at Canon 50 1.8 LTM once. With paper shim as well to have it in focus at digital M.
I have second copy of this lens now and it also needs focus adjustment for digital M.

How is the quality control on russian lenses vs german made lenses? I've heard bad things about the helios 44-2, that many of them are bad copies. Any idea?

Kodachromeguy · Jun 14, 2020

brainmonster said:
How is the quality control on russian lenses vs german made lenses? I've heard bad things about the helios 44-2, that many of them are bad copies. Any idea?

Oh, come on, brain, you know the answer to this question. A bunch of responses above have already covered quality-control issues pertaining to FSU cameras. Why are you asking all these questions?

brainmonster · Jun 15, 2020

Kodachromeguy said:
Oh, come on, brain, you know the answer to this question. A bunch of responses above have already covered quality-control issues pertaining to FSU cameras. Why are you asking all these questions?

Because several people said that Russian lenses were good, and people on here are collating Russian lenses on Leica/Contax bodies to save money. Lenses seem easier to manufacture than the body, with less moving parts, so I just wanted to hear people's experiences.

Ko.Fe. · Jun 15, 2020

brainmonster said:
How is the quality control on russian lenses vs german made lenses? I've heard bad things about the helios 44-2, that many of them are bad copies. Any idea?

I don't think FSU SLR lenses are as good as FSU RF lenses. Too wide quality variations.
Some lenses are still made in Russia and sold via dealers acceptong returns.

ruilourosa · Jun 15, 2020

Prakticas are not russian... nor soviet...

quality control is an issue, as is time over cameras and lenses....

i had nothing but good experiences... even on some strange cameras as chaikas and sputniks... i really enjoy kiev 60 and some russian lenses that although i do not use much they are very good.

I tend not to use my zorky or my kiev 4 but they work well and lenses are very good regarding their age. I own some german and japanese cameras and lenses and although they can be better regarding precision and maybe reliability, i find most russian cameras a pleasure to use...

regarding russian lenses i find MF to be very good and some are better than their japanese or german counterparts....

as for east german cameras... i have some werras and a pentacon six... several practikas have passed my hands and most of them worked... some lenses are good other not so much, as with other brands or origins...
pentacon six has the smoothest shutter of the MF SLR world... and i really like my biometar and sonnar

another thing, they can be had for very little money

M-88 · Jun 15, 2020

Ko.Fe. said:
I don't think FSU SLR lenses are as good as FSU RF lenses.

Yes, this is a very good point. One can almost never go wrong with Soviet RF lenses thanks to the fact that most widespread models are copies of Zeiss glass. Can't say the same about SLR lenses though, apart from very few and quality is sloppy.

Donald Qualls · Jun 15, 2020

ruilourosa said:
another thing, they can be had for very little money

Which is largely the point of this for many of us -- cameras that do what we want that don't cost as much as a used car. The choices in interchanging lens RF cameras, for instance, are pretty much two generations of Leica (screw and M mount), two generations of Contax (same mount?), their Japanese work-alikes in the same mounts, Argus C series, Retina (II and III?) and a couple fairly obscure oddballs -- or the FSU Leica copies and Contax clones.

Of that lot, the Argus and the FSU cameras are affordable for ordinary folks and have enough "system" support in the form of lenses and accessories to be more than a collectible. Some will claim the same for the Retina -- but because those divide the optics (rear elements behind the shutter stay in the camera), they require at least the normal lens to be number matched to give good optical performance, and most are used as fixed-lens cameras because the other lenses are relatively scarce.

Dali · Jun 15, 2020

brainmonster said:
Because several people said that Russian lenses were good, and people on here are collating Russian lenses on Leica/Contax bodies to save money. Lenses seem easier to manufacture than the body, with less moving parts, so I just wanted to hear people's experiences.

I have the persistent feeling that you ask questions just to ask questions, not caring that much about the answers. If it weren't true, you would not ask so many obvious questions and come up with so little conclusions. Just browse the Web and you shall find after a few clicks hundreds of answers (alternative to Leica cameras and lenses, FSU gear, FSU QC, SLR vs RF, lenses and radioactivity, bla bla...).

So, I pull the plug with you as your threads usually go nowhere, a pure waste of bandwidth and time.

bernard_L · Jun 15, 2020

Ko.Fe. said:
On practice DoF is sufficient even with 50 1.5 lens on longer distances, once it is re-shimmed to focus correctly on one meter.
Focusing by focus distance scale also works after re-shimming.
(...)
Unscrew lens optical block, and make new shims. I do it from paper. Test with different amount of shims at minimum focus distance.
Keep combination of shims which will get lens in focus by RF. Lenses like Jupiter-12, Orion-15 might works well with original shim.
Industar collapsible are easy to shim. So is black Jupiter-8. Most complicated is Jupiter-3. New marks for focus ring screws and aperture ring shift needs to be done if shims were modified.
Some documents how to remove lens block from focus block of those lenses are available with Google search.
Shimming for focus document was also available via Google search.

If I understand well, a shim between the optical block and the focus block will take care of an improper register distance. And you state that differences in design focal length (Contax vs Leica) are not a problem, so that adjustment at close range is good for infinity as well.
You are correct, the shimming procedure is discussed in many places. I need to read and digest it all. Fort the moment, I just have FSU lenses and FSU bodies. Maybe someday a Canon P; maybe.
Thank you for your reply.

Ko.Fe. · Jun 15, 2020

M-88 said:
Yes, this is a very good point. One can almost never go wrong with Soviet RF lenses thanks to the fact that most widespread models are copies of Zeiss glass. Can't say the same about SLR lenses though, apart from very few and quality is sloppy.

FSU RF lenses are most often in better shape comparing to old Leitz lenses which are prone to fungus, separation and easy to scratch.
For SLRs where are so many better choices. Maybe it depends on preferences for some exotic choices like Exakta. But for Nikon and Canon I was able to find very well made and clean Vivitar, Tokina prime lenses.

Deleted member 88956 · Jun 16, 2020

brainmonster said:
Because several people said that Russian lenses were good, and people on here are collating Russian lenses on Leica/Contax bodies to save money. Lenses seem easier to manufacture than the body, with less moving parts, so I just wanted to hear people's experiences.

Soviet lenses can be excellent optically, just don't be disappointed if they aren't even close to average. This applies to all of them, unless a specific one came from a shop that knows how to get them adjusted properly, but that would come at a price above what most mass produced quality lenses sell today. But yes, with luck you can get an excellent Helios or most many others.

flavio81 · Jul 6, 2020

brainmonster said:
Because several people said that Russian lenses were good, and people on here are collating Russian lenses on Leica/Contax bodies to save money. Lenses seem easier to manufacture than the body, with less moving parts, so I just wanted to hear people's experiences.

SLR lenses like the 58/2 Helios or the 85/1.5 Helios have very beautiful rendering, which is a quality you come to appreciate after collecting loads of "sharp" lenses.

Wallendo · Jul 6, 2020

I personally feel safer with Russian SLR lenses. If there are issues with registration distance, the focusing mechanism for an SLR accounts for that. If a rangefinder lens is not properly configured, the user won't recognize the problem until the film is developed.

Donald Qualls · Jul 6, 2020

I'm pretty happy with my Russian (Contax mount) RF lenses.

Can't seem to embed the image, but link below to my album, image made with Jupiter-8 50mm f/2.

https://www.photrio.com/forum/media/leaves-and-hollow.63108/

Alan Johnson · Jul 7, 2020

I have a small collection of six FSU rangefinders and a set of 35, 50 and 135 lenses, which was not too expensive.
However a cost problem arises if it is wanted to use an FSU rangefinder for landscapes with a 28mm lens.
I don't think they made many of the 28mm Orion f 5.6 and the cost of it is way higher than the camera or other lenses mentioned..
IMO the Praktica is a better proposition for 28 -ish mm landscapes, but even so the cost of the 20mm Flektagons or the 80mm Pancolar is way higher.too.

Ian Brett Cooper · Aug 27, 2020

Ko.Fe. said:
...I borrowed one for home and find some radiation in some fruits sold in common food chain stores.

Lots of vegetables and fruits contain natural levels of radiation. Bananas and Brazil Nuts contain potassium which emits gamma rays. Also, anything that grows in soil can pick up some radium. See https://www.epa.gov/radtown/natural-radioactivity-food

AgX · Aug 27, 2020

Ian Brett Cooper said:
Lots of vegetables and fruits contain natural levels of radiation.

Everything living does so. Even you yourself.

Good Russian Cameras?

Deleted member 88956

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency