Talk:FED (camera)

Soviet Union Mid‑importance

	Soviet Union portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Brands

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Split?

This article is a mess. It mixes company information, information on various models of camera (all muddled together under "the" FED, and highly arcane details of interest only for collectors. I propose a complete rewrite and a split into two articles: FED (company) and FED (camera).Toothswung (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, agreed: go ahead. -- Hoary (talk) 02:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While you're at it, how about mentioning the 3D cameras that FED made, the Ctepeo M and the BOY. (Ctepeo is Cyrillic for Stereo.) Jack C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.172.225 (talk) 13:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Biased?

These phrases: "correct focusing with German lenses on Russian bodies and vice-versa is not guaranteed" and "Quality control on the Russian cameras was notoriously poor" are a bit strong.

I was made aware of these problems, and then cross tested a lot of Soviet lenses including a Jupiter-8 on my Leica III, and my Cosina made "Voigtlander" Bessa R, and found no problems. (The Jupiter-8 is a masterpiece of constrast and color rendition.)

Quality control was a problem, but there exist a lot of working models that will very likely out-last the main FSU competition: the Cosina RFs. Leicas are in a different class, but then hype built by Cosina sales is putting the Bessas in the Leica cost bracket. Cosina is problematic for sure, suffering from what I call the "Sigma enigma," which I see as a tendency to produce excellent equipment, absolute garbage, and excellent quality but poorly conceived equipment (such as Sigma's APS-sized point and shoot). I am presently trying to sort out RF issues in the absence of the Cosina and Leica sales hype that dominates Rangefinderforum.com--and hence these research direction opinions expressed here.--John Bessa (talk) 15:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the "fake Leica" was very off-putting. This is an article about the FED cameras, not about the "fake Leica" cameras. Comparing the two is fine, but using prejudiced phrasing shouldn't be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:470:D:684:215:C5FF:FE02:A275 (talk) 17:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting what you say, but some Fed cameras were notoriously unreliable. The Ctepeo M and BOY for example. My Ctepeo M broke after just one film! (The Ctepeo M and BOY aren't listed on this page anyway.) Jack C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.172.225 (talk) 13:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on FED (camera). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080723190721/http://www.fed.com.ua/history.php to http://www.fed.com.ua/history.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]