• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Good Russian Cameras?


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?
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 

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?
 

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
 

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.
 

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?
 
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?
Click to expand...
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?
 
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
Ko.Fe. said:
I don't think FSU SLR lenses are as good as FSU RF lenses.
Click to expand...
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.
 
ruilourosa said:
another thing, they can be had for very little money
Click to expand...

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.
 

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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register