View Full Version : PKKA Fed
Range Loser
02-05-2006, 11:05
Hi, there was a thread a few weeks ago about a PKKA Fed on ebay. I bought it and am pleased with the camera, but still don't know much about the camera, or if it's genuine. Not too bothered about whether it's authentic or not, but would be interested if anyone had any further info about cameras used by the Red Army. It has some patina on the paintwork, but if it is old it has not been used much, though it doesn't look like a recent makeover either.
Thanks in advance for any replies.
All the best..
laptoprob
02-05-2006, 11:17
Welcome Range Loser! Original name... :-)
photo's of the camera perhaps?
cheers, Rob.
IIRC the camera was simply a repainted Zorki, not a Red Army original.
Show us some pics and I'm sure someone can tell you a lot of details about the Zorki or FED that it is. :)
Range Loser
02-05-2006, 13:06
HI,
Thanks for the interest, here are a couple of photos.
Andy.
I remain wholly certain that the camera is a fake. The accessory shoe is an obvious give away, for early FEDs lacked such a feature. The shutter speed dial looks prewar, but the lens is indisputably not: it bears the Krasnogorsk "tombstone" logo, introduced c.1949-50. That was why the e-bay pictures made sure you couldn't see the front of the lens. The seller must have known that the camera was not genuine.
I believe the Soviet armed forces used ordinary civilian cameras, although apparently some Zorki 3s were produced in olive green.
I know little about anything and less about FEDs. IMO, it's sort of shaky at best to learn very much about a camera body based on the lens... lenses get changed/lost. Many bodies haven't seen their original lenses in years. Jocko, when did FEDs add the accesory shoe? Guesstimate? Just curious. Think I've read that NKVD models had them in 1935(ish)? Any before that? Okay, now I'm rambling.
But anyway, Range Loser, I had to post just to say that is a very neat looking camera. I hope it turns out to be a good performer as well. I like my Zorki.1s for their size and smooth operation. Fake or not wouldn't deter me from enjoying such a unique FED. Congrats. Hope you'll post here any info you might gather. And good luck!
Evgeny S
02-05-2006, 22:19
Regarding the signs of this camera I suppose it's a fake, because:
1. FEDs (and all Soviet cameras on the whole) were never produced in the black finish.
2. There were never such signs as "FED Komandirsky" on the FEDs.
3. Real "Commander's FED" has additional 1/1000 sec. speed and is VERY rare.
I think this is the real repainted "common" FED with "new" signs and with lens from Zorki. If you didn't bought it as collectible, you can freely make pictures with it. But I'd like to give an advice to check the rangefinder first. The lenses for early FEDs selected individually, and your lens is not original from this FED.
Hallo g.o.k!
I quite agree about the lens.... but the trouble is, if we believe the serial number, this is the 29th FED ever made. Unfortunately we know that FED No.29 was a copy of the Leica 1a - the original rangefinderless Leica. The first "ordinary" Feds, produced in January 1934, were numbered from 31 upwards.
Now, as Evgeny rightly notes, if the camera was genuine, it would not accept a postwar Leica screw lens - or at very least be unlikely to focus properly. According to Princelle, accessory shoes appeared from No. 8000-9000.
I agree it looks striking, but I personally dislike repainted cameras and love FED 1s! As a result I really object to innocent buyers being sold expensive fakes which are frequently unsound and sure to disappoint. The good news is that the number suggests that the "re-maker" actually knew about FEDs - in which case, we might call it a homage, not a fake. Hopefully Range Loser has a sound working camera, which should be good to use. That will be the real test. :)
Range Loser
02-06-2006, 01:25
Hi, Thanks for all your advice folks, I guessed it was probably a "homage", but that doesn't worry me, I still think it's a great camera. It wasn't advertised as definitely genuine, and only cost £37. I'll let you know how it fares when I've put a film through it.
Andy..
I concur with the opinions above.
For the reference, RKKA was renamed to Soviet Army (SA) in 1943, so no genuine item made past that year can bear RKKA markings.
Hi, Thanks for all your advice folks, I guessed it was probably a "homage", but that doesn't worry me, I still think it's a great camera. It wasn't advertised as definitely genuine, and only cost £37. I'll let you know how it fares when I've put a film through it.
Andy..
£37.00 is great! I thought it had gone for lots more! They are lovely cameras and you'll have terrific fun - loading may take a bit of getting used to, but is not half as bad as you think before you try ;)
ZorkiKat
02-06-2006, 04:12
I remain wholly certain that the camera is a fake. The accessory shoe is an obvious give away, for early FEDs lacked such a feature. The shutter speed dial looks prewar, but the lens is indisputably not: it bears the Krasnogorsk "tombstone" logo, introduced c.1949-50. That was why the e-bay pictures made sure you couldn't see the front of the lens. The seller must have known that the camera was not genuine.
I believe the Soviet armed forces used ordinary civilian cameras, although apparently some Zorki 3s were produced in olive green.
Jocko
Its a nice re-finished FED.
The lens alone is not an accurate indicator if the lens is fake or not. The lens is removable and can be changed. A really old FED could have been modified to accomodate a later Industar-22- this would prove that it had been in use.
All but the earliest FED had accessory shoes. The number on the camera may suggest that it belonged to the earliest production; however it could also mean that a set of serial numbers were alloted to a special batch production.
The raised platform under the speed dial is also angled. The early FED (including many with accessory shoes) had this oval shaped- or sometimes known in some circles as 'toilet/lavatory seat' style. The camera in question shows features found in many middle to late 1940's FED cameras. The shutter button with cocentric grooves was the style which preceeded the flared mushroom shaped collar. At GBP 37, the camera may be a reproduction indeed- reengraved for the low S/N and "Komandirski" logo.
Jay
Jay
ZorkiKat
02-06-2006, 04:26
Hi, there was a thread a few weeks ago about a PKKA Fed on ebay. I bought it and am pleased with the camera, but still don't know much about the camera, or if it's genuine. Not too bothered about whether it's authentic or not, but would be interested if anyone had any further info about cameras used by the Red Army. It has some patina on the paintwork, but if it is old it has not been used much, though it doesn't look like a recent makeover either.
Thanks in advance for any replies.
All the best..
I was watching a photography documentary series "The Adventure of Photography"- and in the 'war photography' episode, a Soviet Army photographer was featured. The photographer, Yevgeni Khaldej, , was the one who made the photo of a Red Army Soldier hoisting the Soviet Flag over the burnt out Reichstag. In his interviews, he was shown with a Leica. Maybe he had shot with one during the war?
Jay
I believe Khaldei (as most high-profile Soviet photogs) used Leica. FEDs were far more common though among the lesser mortals.
Jay, I completely agree - If you refer to the original thread, you'll see that I also identified the camera as a mid-late 40s FED.
However, the original e-bay seller stated that the camera had been bought from a London dealer in 1992, as if that suggested some sort of authenticity. In fact, at that time the British market was awash with fakes, complete with spurious provenances and imaginative paint-jobs. Jessops photographica was full of them - and I strongly suspect that's where this one came from.
I simply think these cameras - and Soviet photography - deserve more respect than repackaging as "commie kitsch". For me the FED 1 is a unique product of an era of hope and unthinkable horror. It needs no myths or fakery. It is history in the hand.
Ian
claidemore
02-06-2006, 07:13
In Anthony Beevors book 'Stalindrad', there is a photograph of General Rokossovsky made on Nov 19, 1942, at the start of Operation Ring which surrounded the German 6th Army. In that photo another photographer is in a trench taking a shot of Rokossovsky posing. He is using a 'chrome' finished FED or Leica, (most likely a FED).
Why a FED? Because using a German camera would have been construed as unpatriotic, and bad things happened to you if you were unpatriotic. I suppose if it was a Leica he could of cursed it every few minutes as a worthless piece of Fascist trash. :)
Anyways, that particular camera was definately chrome finished.
Interesting thread, guys. Fedka has on his sight an article I enjoy, "The Dzerzhinsky Commune: Birth of the Soviet 35mm Camera Industry (http://www.fedka.com/Useful_info/Commune_by_Fricke/commune_A.htm)" I'm sure most have seen. It has in it a picture of a 1934 FED ("Fig. 14") and speaks of "difficulty finding a suitable finish." Apparently, someone at FED had a can of black spray paint. ;) Below is the pic. Wonder if this is the effect the "homage creator" of Range Loser's FED was going for. If so, IMHO, he did good. :cool:
http://www.fedka.com/Useful_info/Commune_by_Fricke/Pictures_Screen/f14_s.jpg
ZorkiKat
02-07-2006, 07:25
1
I simply think these cameras - and Soviet photography - deserve more respect than repackaging as "commie kitsch". For me the FED 1 is a unique product of an era of hope and unthinkable horror. It needs no myths or fakery. It is history in the hand.
Ian
That's how I see it too! The refinishing and 'Leitzification' and 'Nazification' are doing all these grand dames a great shame....I have a 'retirement home' for the babushki FED and Zorki...I will welcome them anytime :D
Jay
The chrome finished trench photographer's FED that is mentioned above is really not surprising at all, from what I've read, many war journalists went to the front with their own equipment... short a few exceptions. Journalists working for major papers were issued leicas, that were imported before the war. During that time though, there was little distinction made between real, and copy leicas, they were all commonly referred to as "leicas" (real leica was called "german leica") Also, a fed made during that time would come with a Fed 50/2 lens.
g.o.k. - Mea culpa, absolutely right. I'd forgotten about the black ones. Now I',m starting to think it's real! :D To be honest, it was just the badge that irked me. I write about history as part of my work - and the history of Soviet art and photography has been real passion for 20 years. So - from one side I have a fanatical desire to find "truth" and on the other - well, I can't see the Soviet star without thinking of the unbelievable suffering and sacrifices of the war years. So I tend to over-react to "fakes". And the earlier ones, as I think Princelle notes, were often very good indeed.
Jay - no-one has done more than you to encourage the appreciation and use of these fabulous cameras, and I'd like to thank you for all the help you've unknowingly given me! Thank you! :D
Range Loser - with a Fed 1 you're Range Winner! Use that baby! :D
"g.o.k. - Mea culpa, absolutely right. I'd forgotten about the black ones. Now I',m starting to think it's real! :D To be honest, it was just the badge that irked me."Geez - Hey, I'm a long way from knowing anything about this stuff. My thinking is simply this - if they made just ONE, even one made by a couple of engineers experimenting on a Sunday afternoon, that ONE is somewhere and could surface. If they made a short trial production run and then decided to not go there, there are several more that are somewhere and could surface. It sounds like black never made it to full run production even if they made an experimental handful, but there might possibly be a rare few around... 10 in existence? 20? who knows? But they'd have to be somewhere, waiting for some RFF.FSU gearhead to find 'em! ha!
This knob or that knob is really not a perfect indicator of age either IMHO. Knobs get stripped/beat up and changed out. To a shooter wanting to shoot, "If it fits, put it on and take pictures" regardless of whether it's original equipment. Or.... if some guys at the factory are wanting to put together an experiment, they might just "...grab some of those knobs over there - yeah, close enough" and bolt it up. So it kind of boils down to just the body itself. And that's a tough one, espcecially if there's the possiblity that it could be some one in a million oddball experimental short-run trial prototype.
Is it real? Thank God, that's up to Range Loser to find out! ha! Hard to judge accurately from pictures, but interesting to me is (just looking at the body) the paint looks old; ya know, just a little on the dull side that comes after years. On the other hand, it looks too darn perfect to be old - no wear or rub marks to speak of that are noticible. Even in and out of a case over so many years starts to work on the finish.
Personally, I think Range Loser should be embarassed to carry it around. So... for small fee, I'd take it off his hands and dispose of it properly. And we'd not hold it against him.... ;)
And P.S. Jocko: I write about history as part of my work - and the history of Soviet art and photography has been real passion for 20 years. So - from one side I have a fanatical desire to find "truth" and on the other - well, I can't see the Soviet star without thinking of the unbelievable suffering and sacrifices of the war years. So I tend to over-react to "fakes". And the earlier ones, as I think Princelle notes, were often very good indeed.I can relate since I write about history as part of my work, too. So the history part of these curious little rascals is a big attraction to me as well. I love this stuff and think this thread is a real kick. (Thanks Loser!) The fact that the FSUs are somewhat plagued by the lack and loss of record keeping in the past I guess just makes the hunt for truth a little more fun... to me anyway.
Cheers all!
Evgeny S
02-08-2006, 01:10
In Anthony Beevors book 'Stalindrad', there is a photograph of General Rokossovsky made on Nov 19, 1942, at the start of Operation Ring which surrounded the German 6th Army. In that photo another photographer is in a trench taking a shot of Rokossovsky posing. He is using a 'chrome' finished FED or Leica, (most likely a FED).
Why a FED? Because using a German camera would have been construed as unpatriotic, and bad things happened to you if you were unpatriotic. I suppose if it was a Leica he could of cursed it every few minutes as a worthless piece of Fascist trash. :)
Anyways, that particular camera was definately chrome finished.
Incorrect consideration. According to the article in Russian photographic magazine "Foto-Video", dedicated to the cameras used during the WWII by Soviet military reporters, the majority of the cameras used were Leicas, especially Leica IIIa (which has got her own name "Annyshka"). FEDs were less spread among reporters, because main newspapers supplied them with foreign equipment (Leicas and Contaxes), which was imported by USSR and was totally spread among newspapers and journals ("granted" to them). It was impossible to buy foreign cameras in the stores.
By the way in the end of the war, reporters used for shooting the captured German cameras.
So the word "unpatriotic" didn't rely to the usage of the photographic equipment.
Leicas and Contaxes were used by reporters of central papers, but FEDs were far more common in the trenches (I think the article referred by Evgeny mentions that too).
It was indeed possible to buy Leica at a store in USSR before the war, but the price was a bit steep for odrinary folk.
By the way in the end of the war, reporters used for shooting the captured German cameras."Captured" as in "from the military" or from the German civilian/shopkeeper/industry that was no doubt plundered? (Or, all the above?)
"Captured" as in "from the military" or from the German civilian/shopkeeper/industry that was no doubt plundered? (Or, all the above?)
To the victor, the spoils of war.... :)
"Captured" as in "from the military" or from the German civilian/shopkeeper/industry that was no doubt plundered? (Or, all the above?)
Sounds about right! But it worked both ways. A friend of mine "found" a Leica in the western desert...
Interestingly, Amateur Photographer ran a test on a FED-S in 1945. It's been a long time since I saw the article, but from what I recall, they said that several readers had recently obtained these cameras - presumably from German "owners"...
All of above. However, until the winter of 1945 there was no land warfare on German soil.
"...until the winter of 1945 there was no land warfare on German soil."Right, guess my question wasn't too clear. The end of the war collapse was the time frame I was wondering about. I would think that "quick exits" would cause a lot of things to be left behind.
Right, guess my question wasn't too clear. The end of the war collapse was the time frame I was wondering about. I would think that "quick exits" would cause a lot of things to be left behind.
Lots of dead bodies, too. Easy pickings for those who killed them. Sounds harsh, and I wouldn't lower myself to such practises (really!), but looting and cleaning out the dead was common. Hey, only a few years before WW2, and still in some parts of the world, war is a means of acquiring wealth and possessions. Why would we "modern" people be any different?
The famous picture by Yevgeni Khaldey where a Soviet soldier places the Hammer and Sickle on the Reichstag is notorious. The original neg showed one of the men having more than 1 watch around his wrist. The official photo showed no such thing. Khaldey retouched it.
"Khaldey retouched it."Heartbreaking and haunting, heh? Thankfully, the spoils can't talk; to us, anyway. I'm sure that photo said more to Khaldey than to us.
My father was a WW2 veteran of the Pacific battles. Army, Company Commander, five landings and wounded - recuperating in S.F. at war's end. Brought back a Japanese rifle. He never seemed to look at it as a prize, though. Instead it seemed to me it was an item he... respected... quietly.
Looting admittedly happened, but it wasn't the only way the cameras were acquired. Sometimes starving Germans were willing to part with their gear for food, not even a huge amount of it.
It is impossible to tell now though the ways a particual 'spoil of war' was acquired.
He never seemed to look at it as a prize, though. Instead it seemed to me it was an item he... respected... quietly.
So interesting. Maybe I can add a little more, regarding my friend and the Leica. I met Bob when I was a 21-year old postgrad and he was a first year student aged 65. In any just world he'd have been the college principal - he was a man of immense wisdom and compassion, who'd spent much of his life in India.
Discovering my enthusiasm for photography, he mentioned that he had a Leica "during the war". I'd seen a reproduction of a British government flier, requesting owners of Leicas and Contaxes hand them in for military use, so I simply couldn't see how he had got one.
He quietly explained that "the former owner had no more use for it". My initial thought was that had taken it from a POW - inconceivable, given the man I knew. Actually - of course - the "former owner" was dead. Bob's attitude was exactly that of g.o.k's Father; there was no suggestion of triumph, but rather of respect and continuity, perhaps of having shared an experience.
Even if we ignore simple loot, all armies scavenged from the [living and] dead, seeking intelligence information or reusable equipment. I doubt it was generally done in malice - there is actually a comic British poster on the subject, which - by trying to make light of the subject - suggests most soldiers found it hard to bear. Given the bitterness of the war in the East things were undoubtedly harsher, but few good men are untouched by bad times and we - in the main - have not had to face such desperate situations.
"Even if we ignore simple loot, all armies scavenged from the [living and] dead, seeking intelligence information or reusable equipment. I doubt it was generally done in malice ..."In no way did I intend to imply any judgement at all on collecting the spoils. I hope no one thought so. Indeed, as RML states above, part of the battle is, "To the victor, the spoils of war" and has been so since Joshua fit the battle of Jericho and the walls come a'tumblin' down and will always be.
Great story about your friend Jocko. I'd love to have quizzed him a little. But then, I love old men, always have. No, not old men like me... old men like your friend and my dad... that generation. Those are the good guys. There could be a dozen green-eyed redheaded cheerleaders standing here and a couple of old geezers with their VFW caps on over there... and I'd go strike up a convesation with the vets, every time. I'm just drawn to 'em.
It might be interesting to start a thread where members could share a little history of or tidbits of interest about their individual cameras, (since the gear can't speak for itself except in rub marks, dings, the purring of tiny gears and the occasional "schlap!" or "snick!" of a winking shutter.) Gotta be some good stories out there. I read one last night. (Thanks Jim!)
Oh g.o.k! There was absolutely no way I meant to suggest that you implied such actions were motivated by "malice". I was just speaking in the abstract and trying to express support for what you had written. In fact, I was really thinking of myself, because when I met Bob I knew literally everything and enjoyed the sublime moral rectitude attained only by a self-important kid with a certificate in abject pointlessness!
And I so agree with you. Knowing Bob, I discovered that amazing generation. I also found that great truth you so clearly describe; when you seek men of wisdom, kindness and compassion, chances are they're a vet. Those fellows Know.
Incidentally, in perhaps one of the worst-judged GAS attacks in history, Bob sold his Leica in 1945, in a state of some excitement en-route back to India. He used the proceeds to buy something unique and wonderful - a ballpoint pen. Regrets? You bet!
And as for stories - one of my recurrent fantasies is that I could look through the viewfinders of my FEDs and see every photograph they've taken and know the photographer's feelings and thoughts... for me that's part of the joy of old cameras. We may not know the previous owners, but somehow that living lump of metal and glass makes us part of a chain....
Yeah, enjoying history and a good story, it's really [to me] an unfortunate side of buying FSU gear from the "quick-sell brokers" at the Bay. They have no idea where the camera came from or anything about it. I'm just a curious enough chap to wonder, "Whose fingerprint is this on the VF of my newly acquired Zorki.3? How'd that ding get there? Was he/she on vacation with the family? Or on leave from the military? He traded it for what? An ink pen? The grease is really gunky. Whose closet has it been in for the last 30 years?"
For the most part, Average Joe buys a camera to record life events. So who was Joe and what did he want to record? Enquiring minds want to know. ;)
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.