N THE 1960s some writers in parts of the photographic press damned Russian cameras with faint praise using phrases like ‘A little on the agricultural side, but probably reasonable value for the money’. They were also fond of implying, if not saying outright, that the quality wasn’t anywhere near the standard of top West German or Japanese cameras, conveniently ignoring the fact that you could buy, for example, about three and a half Russians for the price of a Japanese camera of similar specification. Whether or not they took any Russian cameras apart to examine the construction quality, or whether they were perpetuating what earlier writers had said, is another matter.
     True, the build quality of Russian cameras as they left the factory often left a lot to be desired, probably because of ridiculously high quotas, But a lot writers failed to mention that Technical and Optical Equipment, the UK importers, had a number of technicians, including some from the factories in Russia, who checked every camera before it went out to a dealer and, if necessary, took it apart and screwed it together again properly.
     Then Amateur Photographer tested some Russian cameras by actually using them and was possibly, even probably surprised to find that it wasn’t a case of never mind the quality feel the price, the lenses gave exceptionally good quality results by anyone’s standards. So they should do. The four-element Industar was a copy of the pre-war Leitz Elmar and the six-element Helios was a copy of a pre-war Zeiss lens, but both had more modern rare earth glass. This probably persuaded their testers to take a closer than usual look at the rest of the camera and, though they had some criticisms, they were very fair and came to the conclusion that Russian cameras were indeed exceptional value for money.
     Then, either because of a trade agreement or subsidising by the Russian government to get Western currency, the price of Russian cameras came down, and they were even more exceptional value. Technical and Optical Equipment flooded the country with them. Many dealers offered ‘our price’ discounts on the already low prices, and the cameras sold by the thousand. Amateur photographers without a lot of money to spend realised that they were on to good thing.
     Because there are now thousands around on the secondhand market, and because of the low original price, you can at the moment pick them up very cheaply, but I’m not complaining. I like them, and I get excellent results from mine. The one thing you have to remember is that with a lift and twist shutter speed setting you must to set the shutter speed after you wind on, not before, or there’s a danger you’ll jam it and damage the mechanism.

ZORKIS were made by KMZ, Krasnogorsk Mekanicheski Zavod, or Krasnogorsk Mechanical Factory, in a suburb of Moscow called, naturally enough, Krasnogorsk. The earliest one I’ve got is a Zorki S, or Zorkii C, as near as I can get, in Cyrillic. It is, I believe, a genuine Russian home-market one and came to me in a rather roundabout manner. It was made in 1956, and all the markings on it are in Cyrillic script. I got it from a French journalist who got it from either a Russian or Polish journalist (I can’t remember which) in French Indo-China before it was Vietnam.
     The Zorki C is very similar to earlier Zorkis except that it has a taller top plate. This, in the eyes of some people makes it less desirable aesthetically, but I don’t

Zorki C with f/3.5 Industar lens, a copy of the Elmar.

dislike its looks. The earlier Zorkis were pretty fair copies of the pre-World War 2 Leica II. No, they never had the quality of a Leica, but when you compare what you have to pay for a Leica with what you get a Zorki for, they’re excellent value. My Zorki C is a lovely camera to use. It’s in excellent condition, and the only problem when I got it was a jammed shutter because of a broken piece of film stuck in the film plane. I cleared that and did a lube job on the shutter bearings, and it works as quietly and as sweetly as you like. Indeed, it almost, and I did say almost, rivals my Leicas for smooth shutter operation, though it’s noisier.
     The lens is a 50mm f/3.5 Industar (NHAYCTAP, as near as I can get, in Cyrillic). This I can only describe as a first class lens. In definition it’s equal to the 1930s Leitz Elmar from which it was copied, but the Russians were by 1956 using much later improved glass, and the contrast is truly biting by comparison. Drawbacks? Only one I can think of, the bottom loading is just as fiddling as that on a screw-thread Leica, and the aperture ring on the front of the lens is just as fiddling to adjust as that on an Elmar. To load it without problems you have to get the length of the film leader just about right, and leave just two perforations sticking out of the cassette or the film is likely to catch and jam. See my Camera Chit-Chat page.
The superficial closeness of the Zorki (and the early FEDs) to a Leica with a screw-mount lens has inevitably lead to a lot of fakes.
      There seems to be a minor industry in Russia and Poland re-engraving Zorkis and FEDs with the Leitz name and the lens with the name Elmar. There used to be stories that these were first made for KGB agents in Germany and other western countries who didn’t want to be seen with a Russian camera, but I’ve never believed that. An organisation as thorough as the KGB would have bought their agents genuine western cameras.      Quite often the fake cameras are made to look like rare models of Leica, the Luftwaffe models and so on. Some of them are very well done, and the people that do it defend themselves by saying they aren’t making fakes, they’re making replicas, just as people make replica antique furniture. I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt, but the same can’t always be said of all the people who sell them. Nowadays these replicas are well known to collectors, few of whom are deceived though possibly some tourists may be now that eastern Europe is more open to tourism. I imagine stallholders in Russia and Poland are just

Zorki 4 with knob wind and Jupiter 8 lens.

as inventive in their sales pitch as those in other countries.
      There are external differences that give the replicas away, such as the rangefinder and viewfinder windows, and the serial numbers often belong legitimately to Leicas of a different model. But the big giveaway if you’re offered one is to take the lens off and look at the rangefinder coupling. On the Zorkis and FEDs it’s a plain rocking cam. On Leicas it’s a small wheel. I haven’t heard of a replica maker going far enough to change the cam for a wheel but I suppose it’s always possible. If you’re buying on Ebay you can’t examine the camera, but nearly all east European sellers are careful to describe them as Russian Leica Replicas. If you’re in doubt, e-mail the seller and ask questions. They don’t want complaints to Ebay and lots of negative feedback.
     The Zorki 4, and its close brother the Zorki 4K had an extended top plate to include the shutter release button. The only difference between the two is that the 4K has a much more convenient lever wind. I've got two of each model, and they're very nice cameras to use, and very quiet for street shooting. Both are listed with an Industar lens as standard equipment, but so far as I know all the Zorki 4s and 4Ks imported into the UK by Technical and Optical equipment were fitted with the black 50mm F/2 Jupiter lens. This was based on the Zeiss Sonnar, and on all four of mine is a first class lens even at full aperture. The coincident image rangefinder built in with the viewfinder is clear and positive to use, and there's a small lever under the rewind knob as a diopter adjustment.
     The only real drawback with these cameeras is that after a while KMZ decided to save some money and instead of engraving the shutter speeds they printed them. Talk about spoiling the ship for a ha'porth of tar, on almost all the examples I've seen, with the exception of one of mine which hasn't seen a lot of use, the printing starts to wear off and reading the speeds becomes increasingly more difficult

THE only Fed I've got is a 1985 Fed 4. It's a quite large and heavy camera, and I've heard it called the poor man's Leica M3. Well, I suppose it's got a passing resemblence to the M3, but that's about all. Nevertheless it's a nice camera in its own right and I quite like using it but, in common with the Zorki 4s the Russians never saw fit to provide it with strap lugs. I don't like using an ever-ready case even though, again in common with most Russian cameras, the case is a nice leather one, so it means I've either got to carry it

Fed 4 - poor man's Leica M3? No way, it just  has a passing resemblance.

in my hand all the time or put it back in the camera bag between shots. Silly little penny-pinching omissions like this can put you off using a camera as often as you might do.
      It's got an uncoupled match-needle selenium meter built into the top plate, and though as I've said elesewhere I'm not a great lover of built in meters except TTL, this one works well and seems to be quite accurate. Maybe it was because I had to carry the camera instead of having it hanging round my neck, which made it easier to use the meter as a hand held meter ought to be used except that it had a camera built on it, but I found I was using it and leaving the hand meter in my camera bag.
     The viewfinder isn't as large as that on the Zorki 4, and the rangefnider spot's smaller, but it's bright and clear. I thought at first that it hadn't got a dipoter adjustment, but then I found that it isn't a lever. You turn the knurled righ round the viewfinder eyepiece to adjust it. Neat, but you have to take your eye away to use it. The shutter button is recessed down on a dropped part of the top plate, and while this keeps the camera neat and saves tripping shutter by accicent, it's not in such a convenient position to use. My finger doesn't go to it automatically. One thing I don't like about it is that there isn't a rewind crank, nor even a rewind knob. You have to rewwind by pushing round a knurled thumbwheel set below the top plate. Because you're moving it only about a third of turn at a time it takes for ever to rewind a 36 exposure reel, and if you shoot a couple of films one after the other your thumb, or finger, can get quite sore. The whole back lifts off after you turn a couple of catches at the bottom, in the same way as on a Kiev, a Zorki 4 or several Zeiss Ikon cameras, which makes loading a film easy, and the take up spool is fixed so it doesn't fall out when you open the camera.
     It's fitted with a 39mm metric thread interchangeable Industar N-61 lens, 52mm, with the rather usual maximum aperture of F/2.6. I don't know the origina or construction of this lens, but it's a nice enough performer though not quite up to the standard of the Jupiter 8. All in all I prefer the Zorki 4.

ALTHOUGH the Russians produced copies of top quality cameras such as the Leica, Contax and Hassselblad, they didn’t, surprisingly, produce a copy or equivalent of the Rolleiflex. Intead, for a twin lens reflex they chose a very down market German TLR to copy, the Voigtländer Brillant. That wasn’t a true TLR as the viewing lens didn’t focus, nor did the copy, the Komsomol, which wasn’t a very well made copy anyway.
     However, they soon redesigned and upgraded the Komsomol with a better lens and shutter, and coupled the taking and viewing lenses by external gearing to give a proper TLR that was a very much better camera.
     This was the

The upgraded Lubitel 2 from the mid 1950s. An excellent and cheap introduction to medium format.

original Lubitel. It was made until about 1950, then there seems to have been a fairly long gap until the mid 1950s before it was upgraded to the Lubitel 2 with flash synch, delayed action on the shutter and a cover for the red film counter window at the back. This is the version most often seen, at least in the UK, and the one I have. When it was launched gave excellent value for money at around £7 15s (£7.75). The camera mags gave it good reviews, and hundreds if not thousands were sold in the

An advert for the original Lubitel   from the early 1950s

UK until the early 1980s. You can pick them up now for about £5, which isn’t a bad depreciation rate for a 50 year old cheap camera.
     One thing you have to be very careful about, they were made from a brittle Bakelite type of plastic, and they won’t stand dropping or heavy knocks. I was given a boken one some time ago as a spares camera though so far I haven’t needed any spares. It had been screwed rather too tightly on to a tripod, and when the owner gave it thump with his hand to start undoing it the camera came away leaving its base still firmly fixed to the tripod. Be warned.
     I was rather surprised and very pleased with the quality of pictures the Lubitel 2 produced. The 7.5 cm T-22 lens, even at its full aperture of f/4.5 gave crisp 6x6 negatives with, using a new film, excellent colour balance. When stopped down to f/5.6 it was bitingly sharp. I say with a new film because I’ve put four Lubitel pictures on my Gallery 2000-2005 page but these were taken on a nine-year-old out of date Fujicolor film I found forgotten at the back of adrawer. I included them as a tribute both to the sharpness of trhe Lubitel’s lens and the lasting qualities of Fujicolour.
     Shortcomings apart from the brittle body? Yes, at that price there are bound to be some. The shutter doesn’t have slow speeds, but it starts at a useful 1/15 sec and runs up to 1/250, which covers most outdoor situations. The viewing screen is very clear and brilliant because most of it just that, a brillianr reflecting viewfinder with only a fairly small circle of ground glass in the middle for focusing. There’s a pop-up magnifier which helps a lot, and for near distances is almost essential, but for further distances without the magnifier I found the circle too small, and usually focused by scale. You focus by turning the gearing on the outer rim of the viewing lens which couples it to the taking lens.
     There’s a compartment on the side of the body to hold two filters, but they didn’t come with the camera they were an extra, and I haven’t seen a secondhand Lubitel with them. If you’re looking for any they’re 27mm push-on. If you keep them in the compartment you’ll also need to carry a screwdriver, or a pocket knife with a screwdriver blade, because the slot in the screw holding the compartment cover is far too thin for a coin. Be careful when you undo the screw. It’s got a spring underneath it, and if you’re not careful it will pop right out and fly off into the wide blue yonder. There’s no need to take it out, after two or three turns you can lift the cover against the spring and swing it to one side.

FROM the 1960s through to the early 1990s the Russian Lomo factory in Leningrad produced a whole range of fairly simple plastic bodied 35mm cameras under the name Smena. Two of these were imported into the UK by Technical and Optical Equipment. The Smena 8 was named the Cosmic 35 and was imported from 1969 to 1971. It was followed by the Smena Symbol, renamed the Cosmic Symbol, from 1971 to about 1993, even though I don’t think T&OE were still going by then.
     Very few collectors are interested in Cosmics and rather look down on them, which is a pity because the ones I have, cheap and cheerful though they may be, are well made for their ridiculously low price and are capable of producing excellent results.
     The Cosmic 35 with its black body and grey top plate is quite chunky and not particularly good ergonomically. Film wind is by a large plastic knurled wheel set in the top plate. This isn’t all that easy to grip, especially if the film is a little tight. Film winding is pretty basic; the take-up spool just pulls the film out of the cassette and across

Poor ergonomics and cheaply made, but it takes good pictures

the film plane. There is a single small sprocket, but this only works the exposure counter (shades of the Argus A). The rewind knob is small and again not to easy to use even though it lifts up to give you a better grip. Film release is by a button on the top plate. It’s quite convenient but it has a sharp serrated top and the serrations are far too sharp as you will realise because have to push it down and turn it to release the clutch on the winding knob for rewinding.
     The shutter has to be cocked separately, and the cocking lever is unfortunately placed. It’s all too easy to impede its fly-back movement with your right fingers when you hold the camera. It has, however, got delayed action. The shutter speeds run from 1/15 to 1/250 sec, set by a chromium plated ring round the shutter. It’s synchronised for flash and though the sync isn’t marked I found it works well enough with a small electronic flash. The lens is a T-45, f/4 40mm with stops down to f/22 set by a somewhat shielded small ring inside the front of the lens mount. Focusing from 3ft to infinity is by the front cell. You have to be careful when you take off the back because it isn’t hinged, and it’s very easy to drop it, and the take up spool, in the mud, as I found out.
     Having listed all its bad points, what are its good points? Basically that it takes damn good pictures. Judging by reflections, the lens seems to be a simple triplet and can hold its own against many Western or Japanese triplets. Because they were imported for only a couple of years or so Cosmic 35s are quite scarce on the UK secondhand market though when they do turn up they usually fetch only three or four pounds. Even with its poor ergonomics, you get good value for that.
     The Cosmic Symbol uses the same, or very similar, lens but it’s a totally different animal. Its styling with a chunky rectangular shape and bevelled rear corners is much more modern and easier to hold. Film wind is by a lever that also cocks the shutter so you can’t make double exposures. Rewind is by a crank handle, much easier to use that the knob of the Cosmic 35. Film transport is by the usual double sprocket with a rewind clutch button on the bottom of the camera.
     The shutter release is a large plastic lever set in the side of the lens mount. Normally I’m not a lover of this type of release but on the Cosmic Symbols I’ve picked up for peanuts it works very smoothly. Flash sync,

Cosmic symbols can be picked up for next to  nothing. Amazing value for the excellent results.

which I’ve tried with a small electronic flash, is via a hot shoe on the top of the camera. The back is hinged, and the take-up spool doesn’t lift out, so there’s no danger of dropping either of them when you open the back.
     It gets its name Symbol because, as well as having the shutter speeds and f stops from f/4 to f/16 marked, the lens mount is smothered in symbols to help the snapshotter who hasn’t got a clue what speeds and f stops are all about.
     It’s probably these symbols that make more experienced photographers and collectors look down on the camera, but actually they’re one of the best symbol systems for snapshotters that I’ve come across.
     The aperture setting ring (still small and set inside the lens mount) has two marks on it. One points to the f stops and the other points to the film speed which is marked in ASA numbers from 16 to 250. If you don’t want to worry about stops you just set the ring to point at the speed of film you’re using and then go to the shutter. This has click stop settings at various symbols from bright sunlight to dull and rainy. They correspond to shutter speeds from 1/250 to 1/15 sec which are marked under the shutter. I tried the symbol settings against an accurate meter and for general readings they were within a stop or a stop and a half. With the latitude of today’s colour print films and the automatic exposure correction of automatic mass printing machines, any reasonably sensible snapshotter ought to get decently exposed pictures every time. There are even symbols on the front cell focusing: 4ft 6in for head and shoulders, 12 ft for groups and infinity for landscapes. With the depth of field given by a 40 mm lens, the snapshotter should again get decent results.
     The black plastic body is hard wearing but the inset plates carrying the name and the LOMO logo are silver painted mild steel which, on all except one of the examples I’ve got, show signs of rust spots which won’t clean off without also taking off the printed logo.
     During the 22 or so years it was imported into the UK thousands of Cosmic Symbols were sold. You won’t find one in a dealers, but they turn up in boot fairs and charity shops where they seldom fetch more than £1, if that; £2 at the very most for a pristine example. That’s the most I paid for one, complete with a real leather case, as new and in its box. The neck strap hadn’t even been fastened. I got several more for 50p each. All working and ready to go.
     It’s a pity the Cosmic Symbols were pushed out by cheaply sold small digital cameras and cell phones with digital cameras built in. They’re an ideal camera for a beginner, and take much better pictures than most people think.

THIS little half-frame camera is a very cheap and cheerful affair. It was made some time in the 1960s by Beilomo, and although it's got the name CHAJKA on the front in Latin characters, and says 'Made in USSR' in English on the back, I've never come across one in a UK shop, which of course doesn't mean there were none imported, it just means I never saw any. Most books that refer to it Anglicise the spelling of the name into Chaika and I gather it's pronounced Chay-ee-ka.
     I spotted it in a camera shop window on one of my trips to

Cheap and cheerful, but it took nice pictures till the wind-on broke.

Eastern Europe in the 1960s or early 1970s but I can't now remember which country it was, possibly Jugoslavia or Romania. The price ticket was in one of those currencies that at that time ran at several thousand to the GB pound and had become rather meaningless, like trying to picture the length of someone's back yard in millimetres. I hadn't seen one before so I went in to have a look. The shop owner said he didn't speak any English, and I didn't speak any of whatever language he was using, but we both spoke a smattering of German so we managed to get along. I asked to see the camera, pronoucing it 'Chayka', but he corrected me to Chay-ee-ka when he handed it to me. The wind-on lever and shutter release felt rather like a clockwork tin toy, but it had an Industar 69 28mm lens on the front which I knew was usually a good lens. I've since gathered that the difference between the Chaika I and Chaika II is the the model II has a detachable lens, but I haven't seen any other focal length lenses for it. The thread is, I thnk, 39mm metric but there isn't room to screw in any other 39mm lens I've got. They would hit the shutter before they seated home.
     I looked at the price ticket and frowned and asked how much in Western money? I always carried some US Dollars, GP Pounds and West German Marks because I knew that people in Eastern Europe were keen to get Western Currency because then they could buy imported Western goods on the black market, or grey market because everyone knew it went on, if they had the right currency. I gathered it was some sort of system called avalising, but I can't find the word in a dictionary.
     He asked "Yankee Dollar?". We settled for three dollars including a couple of rolls of Russian film. He packed it in its box (which I've since lost) and as I was leaving he said with a smile, in good English, "It's Russian rubbish, you know. Just a toy. I hope it lasts the two films". Now why didn't he let me know in the first place that he spoke English?
      Well. it did last the two films and a couple more after that, and took very sharp pictures, but then the wind lever went slack and I haven't bothered to find out what's broken. Or Bera II as near as I can print in Cyrillic characters. That was much better made and still works fine. It's the same as the one imported into the UK later as the Kiev 30 except that the Kiev is finished in black and the Vega is in silver. There were other Russian cameras in the shop, and a few from East Germany, but they were expensive. I could buy them cheaper back home. I don't remember seeing any Japanese cameras. The Russian films didn't turn out very well, grainy and poor contrast. I would have preferred Orwo but I didn't see any on the shelves. I gather Russian film is much better now but I haven't tried any.