Jump to content

Confession: I like my Soviet Leica clones ;)


Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

(0) Preface

Confession: I like my Soviet Leica clones!

There, I’ve said it! You may start throwing eggs and rotten tomatoes at me right here and now - or you may defer until you have read this piece with a little tongue-in-cheek :)

Since this forum teems with true LTM experts (no irony here, I appreciate the knowledgeable and helpful members of this subforum), most of you may rightfully decide not to bother with these propaedeutic musings. No offence taken.

Fig. 1: ca. 1955 FED-1(G), ca. 1951 KMZ Zorki-1b, 1932 Leica II(D), 1953 Leica IIIf(RD), harmoniously side by side.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!



Although this whole post is is a bit off topic, I take the liberty to post in LUF, because even the Leica company museum in Wetzlar proudly exhibits an astonishing array of Leica clones, understandably, in order to underpin the desireability of the original.
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

(I) Introduction

This is more of a testimonial than a review. Owning a sufficient number of genuine Leicas dating from 1932 through 2017, why on earth did I decide to acquire slightly beaten, slightly overpriced, distinguishedly ill-reputed (in Leicaland) cold war rip-offs of a prewar original?

Just for the heck of it (which always is a nice argument stopper)?

Mostly, I was eager to see for myself, whether all the engineering horror stories of ill-fitting parts, crunching helicoids, grossly misaligned lens elements, broken gears etc. were true, and the rather poor reputation fully justified, or whether most of this was due to snobbery on the side of us Leicaistes having to rationalize shelling out such huge sums of money for our collectible originals.

Another rationale is that I was intrigued by the peculiar history of the early Russian & Soviet camera industry (a little bit on that later) and also by the dire economic, technological and political circumstances under which these cameras were manufactured, and to what length the engineers had to go to keep churning out working models in times of extremely restricted material supply and rather poor quality of commodities available. During some eras, qualification and/or motivation of the workforce may also have to be factored into the wide spread of achieved product quality.

This post is not about fake Leicas, as these cameras here never claimed to be anything other than a FED or a KMZ Zorki. However, in later days, especially after the fall of the iron curtain, these rather cheap cameras often had to serve as building material for more or less well-executed Leica forgeries, most noteably of ‚military‘ or ‚luxury‘ special editions.

Note: All cameras are depicted on an „as is“ basis, i.e. as I received them a few days ago. They need a little bit of diligent cleaning.

Fig. 2: „New“ version of the FED company logo, starting with the FED 1(F). Still engraved by hand (later models stamped).

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

After the first, and sadly, the second war, that Germany burdened the world with, her patents were rescinded or subjugated to complimentary utilization by the Allies. The Russians were not the only ones to make use of these Leica designs. In Great Britain, for example, Reid & Sigrist manufactured Leica clones that matched or even surpassed the build quality of the originals, whereas the Soviet effort purportedly often struggled with their consistency of manufacturing standards.

Fig. 3: Export version (bilingual) of the Zorki logo. Still engraved by hand (later subversions stamped)

 

The Russian clones were manufactured in huge numbers (e.g. more than 800,000 units of the Zorki I alone are said to have left the KMZ factory), thus by far surpassing the producton runs of the original Leicas. For this reason, only unusual transition versions or rare mint specimen can be deemed collectible. My motivation for the purchases was not with regard to collecting at all. I keep telling myself, that I am definitely not a collector, yet, strangely, a steady trickle of historic cameras seems to find it‘s way into our household.

My quest for an unbiased judgement of these Soviet cameras will, however, be inherently futile insofar as factory series tolerance spread, and lacking quality control supposedly led to huge sample variation in these cameras, much more than in prewar Germany. You would propably have to test a hundred of them to attain a truly valid verdict, which I am not prepared to do.

Life is short, after all.

Edited by schattenundlicht
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

(II) My Zorki Ib

 

Exhibited here is a ca. 1951 „Zorki“ (Зоркий is Russion for „sharp-sighted“), manufactured by former war-time supplier KMZ (Красногорский механический завод, Krasnogorski Mechanitscheski Zawod, meaning Mechanical Works of Krasnogorsk, the latter being a suburb of Moscow).

The KMZ-Zorki is a direct descendant of the FED, the very first pre-war Leica clone. The fascinating story of the birth of the Russian camera industry, which is interwoven with the political and social history of the times, is reviewed in a 1979 article by Oscar Fricke, based on a lecture at the LHSA meeting of 1977 (article reproduced here: http://www.fedka.com/Useful_info/Commune_by_Fricke/commune_A.htm).

It is said that famous painter turned photographer Alexander Rodchenko‘s praise of the Leica was instrumental in initiating a quest for Russian-made compact 35 mm cameras. His pictures are amazing to this day and I can encourage anyone to source one of his books.

Fig. 4: Frontal view of KMZ Zorki 1 b

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!




My specimen could be designated „I b - PM 1065“ by collectors in hindsight. The Zorki „I“ never was labled as such, as there was no possible ambiguity during its period of manufacturing (there simply was no other Zorki). Versions and sub-versions have been described, most comprehensively by Princelle in his "The Authentic Guide to Russian and Soviet Cameras", 2nd edition 2004). Details of different versions can be viewed at this nice website: http://www.sovietcams.com/index.php?1136145551. I will not go into minutiae of the model history, but the above designation characterizes the following aspects:
  • 1/500 sec fastest shutter speed (earliest FED/Zorkis retained 1/1000).
  • Later style threaded shutter release collar („I a“ had an unthreaded button that would not accept a cable release).
  • Later style top plate mouldings (comparable to „lavatory seat“ vs. „regular“ Leica II variants).
  • Coarser („grater-like“) structure of rewind and advance knobs for improved grip.
  • Lettering still hand-engraved (not stamped like later versions).
  • No indents on accessory shoe (unlike earlier versions).
  • Export version (dual lettering cyrrillic & latin). Lore has it that export versions were manufactured more diligently.
  • Three rear screws at top plate (from „I c“ onwards, a sturdier body was manufactured by injection moulding, necessitating only two screws for stability).

By the way, an easy giveaway to simple Leica forgeries based on Zorkis is the different alignment of the viewfinder window with respect to the top plate in all KMZ models (the rectangular window is flush with the top plate, whereas the original Leica II, Model D, features a recess above the viewfider window). This is much harder to fake than engravings, because it calls for a different top plate casting mould.

Fig. 5: Industar-22




The lens is a collapsible Industar-22 (50 mm f/3.5) which is basically a clone of the prewar Elmar. KMZ improved it incrementally over the years. This 1951 specimen is of the variant designated PT5765 and shows following aspects:

  • Lens is coated, as indicated by a red cyrrillic letter „P“ on the front ring (покрытый, pokrytyy, meaning coated).
  • Aperture can be set via comfortable ring (instead of the tiny fingernail lever that was typical of the early Industars and that exasperates me on my Elmars). The less fingerprints you‘ll get on your fromt element, the less you will have to clean it. And, yes, I do own a VOOLA ;)
  • Later style focusing knob (earlier was more ‚bell-push‘ like).
  • Front ring engravings seem to have varied wildly, even within the same build version.

Side note: Differences in model details along production runs were not unique to Wetzlar...

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

(III) My FED-1(G)

I will start with a quick quote from Oskar Fricke: „The Soviet Union's first 35 mm camera was the FED, first produced by the F. E. Dzerzhinsky Labour Commune in Kharkov, then the capital of the Ukraine. Initially a colony for the rehabilitation of youth, the commune had been created as a memorial to Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky, founder of the Soviet secret police. The person responsible for the unique path which the commune was to follow was its director, Anton Semyonovich Makarenko, who became famous, not in photography, but in Soviet education. […] When the production of FED Leica II (D) copies began in 1934, they marked a milestone in Soviet photography, becoming the first Soviet small-format camera to be mass-produced […]. Production of this model continued for over 20 years.“

Fig. 6: Frontal view of FED I (G)

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

My specimen could be designated „FED I(G) – PE 0320“ by collectors in hindsight. This is the last major version of this camera, being manufactured 1953-1955 (the entire FED I line was produced from 1934 until 1955). I will, again, not go into minutiae of the model history, but the above designation characterizes the following aspects:

  • The shutter release button sports the peculiar wide mushroom type collar.
  • The serial number is engraved on the back of the top plate‘s rim, not on the top plate itself.
  • The ФЭД logo is of the newer type. The logo still is engraved, later ones were stamped (much quicker and cheaper for mass production and not dependent on skilled labour), as was done by KMZ.
  • Newer shutter speeds: 1/25s, 1/50s, 1/100s, 1/250s, 1/500s + B

By the way, the nearly perfect alignment of the screwhead slits is a nice touch, that I would not have expected in such a mass-produced item (in manufacture, this usually is a sign of precise assembly and tight tolerances).

 

 

Fig. 7: Proof of engraving preceeding assembly ;)

Edited by schattenundlicht
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

(IV) Of comparing apples to oranges

Although technically based on the prewar Leica II (Model D), the date of manufacture of my Zorki Ib is closer to a Leica II/IIIf. Thus I included for comparison my II(D) from 1932 and my IIIf-RD from 1953.

The comparison will be inconclusive on so many levels:

  1. Cosmetic appearance of a 50+ year old camera will most propably depend more on the individual specimen‘s life history than on manufacturing quality.
  2. Technical functionality of a 50+ year old camera will most propably depend more on the individual specimen‘s service history than on engineering quality. The Leica was an expensive and esteemed camera from the very beginning up to present times, thus owners will have been far more likely to invest into CLA‘s along the way.
  3. Image quality of a 50+ year old camera (barring obvious defects) will not depend at all on the camera, which, as we all know, is just a (presumably) light tight film enclosure.
  4. Image quality of a 50+ year old lens will most propably depend more on the individual specimen‘s condition than on anything else (scratches, cleaning marks, cement separation, fungus, blade oil haze, decentering etc.).

Any comparison with regard to „quality“ will suffer furthermore from the well-known subjective interpretations of idiosyncratic properties (all the more so, if different lens design principles are involved). I will not be talking MTF graphs here.

So it‘s all a waste of time - but it‘s good fun, anyway...


Fig. 8: Even a 60+ year old Soviet rangefinder can focus properly. Zorki-1b RF close focus with the lens wide open. With forum compression, of course, one cannot tell, but it is quite sharp, compareable to a well-preserved Elmar

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!


  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

(V) Build Quality

A. Overall look & feel

  1. The Zorki feels very delicate and light. Even if I had not read about it, the vulnerability of the body shell would be rather obvious. A sensitive hand can feel the slight indentations in the camera body back, corresponing to the two press stud fasteners of the leather case. Although the leather case is very sturdy and thick, over the years the press studs on the outside have transmitted sufficient pressure from camera handling to slightly deform the body shell. Film loading and pressuring is not impaired in my camera, but there have been reports of deformed body shells causing functional problems.This problem was solved, when KMZ switched to injection-moulding, starting with the Zorki-1c.
  2. The FED ist the heaviest of my LTMs and it exudes the proverbial tank-like build. With closed eyes I can tell the difference by the coarser feel of all operating elements. Whereas original Leica LTMs equiped with the standard lens of their time either sported an 11 o‘clock (pre long term exposure era) or a 7 o‘clock Elmar, both Russian cameras seem to sport haphazard intermediate positions of their focus levers when locked at infinity.
  3. The II(D) is a joy to behold and a joy to hold. It feels compact and solid. The black lacquer finish is reminiscent of a classic piano and the bismuth inlayed engravings are masterpieces of prewar artisan‘s aptitude long lost (be it east or west). Photos not included, because I know that all of you own one, anyway ;)
  4. The IIIf(RD) is impeccable in build quality. It feels a bit more solid than the II(D) which may be due to the unibody mould of the top plate as compared to the assembled top plate of the earlier model.

Fig. 9: Zorki leather case with stud fasteners that have caused minor body shell deformation on the back over decades of usage

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

B. Finish

  1. The Zorki‘s chrome is a bit rougher than the IIIf‘s but it is much finer and shinier than the FED‘s. It is a bit more glossy than that of my chrome Leicas.
  2. The FED seems to have been produced at a time of difficulty with regard to sourcing high grade chromium or it‘s application. There is no flaking and no undue rub-off, but the overall finish is much coarser than in any of my other chrome cameras, regardless of make or model. The „vulcanite“ has a wavy texture and feels a bit rougher in comparison to the rest of my cameras.
  3. I have already been waxing lyrical in praise of the aesthetics of black/nickel Leicas, so enough of that.
  4. The IIIf exhibits a very homogenious, elegant velvety matted chrome finish, just like the early M cameras do.

C. Mechanical functions

  1. The operation of all dials and levers of the Zorki is surprisingly smooth across the whole range of movement. Focusing is smooth from 1 m to infinity, release is precise with just the right amount of tiny resistance and the shutter sound is subdued but clear, softer than on my Leica II(D).
  2. The focusing helicoid on the FED has discernible play or even slightly shakes. After cleaning, it runs still a bit coarsely. All operations (winding, rewinding, dial and release) need a little bit more force than on the other cameras, even after cleaning and lubricating. The exposure dial is slightly misaligned so that it comes to rest inbetween numbers. In one word, the camera feels a bit more ham-fisted, but it exudes a brave no-nonsense, take me anywhere attitude.
  3. The venerable II(D) exhibits precise mechanical funcion of all operations. The focusing helicoid exhibits the slightest grating at the far end of travel, even after a professional CLA.
  4. The IIIf is in near-mint mechanical condition. The only fault is an A/R lever which shows a bit loose travel during the first milimeters going from A to R which may lead to inadvertent intermediate lever positions (e.g. when carrying the camera in a bag) that, if undetected, may result in the shutter not opening propely during exposure, causing unexposed or partially exposed film. This is a bit of a nuisance, but once accounted for by regularly checking the lever position, it is just a typical LTM idiosyncracy which does not detract from the joy of using these cameras.

D. Viewfinder & rangefinder

I am well aware that differences here may be more likely due to the individual lifetime history of the camera specimen at hand, than to engineering or manufacuring. I just want to include this descripion, because at the outset, I was rather sceptical about the Russian manufacturers ability to faithfully reproduce this delicate optomechanical device.

  1. The Zorki has the clearest and brightest viewfinder and rangefinder of my LTMs. The RF patch is a rather bright yellow and the camera is very easy to focus.
  2. The VF and RF of the FED are clear and bright. The RF patch is a bit smaller and uncoloured which makes focusing less easy than on the Zorki. The distrust in focusing accuracy is rather due to the slightly rattling lens focusing helicoid.
  3. The VF on the Leica II(D) is bright and clear, the RF is very slightly subdued, but then, it is the oldest of the cameras on display here and the RF mirror has, to my knowledge, never been resilvered or replaced. The RF patch is uncoloured.
  4. The VF and RF on the IIIf are bright and clear. I must admit that, although at the time of introduction marketed as an improvement, I am not so happy with the close juxtaposition of the RF and VF eyepieces, which, as a wearer of prescription glasses, tends to irritate me. That‘s why I use my IIIf almost exclusively with the fantastic 1:1 SBOOI.
Edited by schattenundlicht
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

(VI) Image Quality

Well, shooting LTMs definitely is NOT about pixel peeping. It is about the fun, the pocketable form factor, the admiration of clockwork mechanics, the appreciation of history, the mindfulness of deceleration, the… (I could go on for miles)!

I have put only a few rolls of film through my Soviet cameras, mostly for testing basic function, rangefinder accuracy and shutter timing. This was not done for pseudoscientific purposes, but to decide, whether I have some viable „shooters“ at hand, or not.

Fig. 10: Unremarkeable and unprocessed test shot with Zorki-1b in our unkempt garden

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!


 

With these new purchases, I have only shot ISO 400 B/W film, thus I cannot comment on color aberation or micro-detail of the lenses. Furthermore, I am not overly interested in these properties, as with film, nowadays I exclusively use available light B/W. I did not test the isolated lenses on a digital camera, because I like to keep camera systems contemporaneous. This is a personal preference; I can easily appreciate other people‘s fascination of using old glass on modern gear.

Fig. 11: The FED lens will never claim bokeh glory, but you can take pictures with it


If I had to rank image quality among the LTMs described in this post (I have a much broader judgement base for my Leicas because I have been owning them for longer periods of time), it would be:

  1. Postwar Elmar on IIIf-RD
  2. Industar-22 on Zorki-1b
  3. Prewar Elmar on II(D)
  4. FED (Industar-10)

But, again, you cannot make valid comparisons from single vintage specimen, and I do not claim to do so.

Edited by schattenundlicht
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

(VII) Tentative Verdict

Although, in general, I have a strong dislike for plagiarism, I cannot help to feel sympathetic for these Russian / Soviet Leica clones and the people who manufactured them. The Russian effort at building a camera industry was on a breathtaking scale, yet hampered by constraints on source material, manufacturing technology and workforce skills (helped neither by the horrendous number of war casualties and widespread famine, nor by stalinist purges). With that in mind, FED, and especially KMZ did an amazing job at turning out a product that was viable not only for the domestic ‚communist masses‘, but was deemed good enough by the manufacturers and those in high political places, to be exported. Of course, one could argue, that being desperate for foreign currency was part of the decision to export. Yet, if all cameras churned out by KMZ had been duds, most propably there would not have been tens of thousands of them sold far abroad. That being said, the majority remained marked in cyrrillic script only, for domestic use.

The FED or KMZ Leica II clones never were true system cameras, one aspect that made up much of the original Leica‘s attraction for photographers. Although KMZ used a fully interchangeable 39 mm LTM thread (FED did not do so consistently in their earlier days), the scope and availability of focal lengths and lens designs was very limited, as was the range of available accessories, a discipline which Leitz had turned into an art form.

My quick and dirty „n=1“ comparison is, of course, not valid at all for all of the abovementioned reasons. However, the look & feel, smoothness of operation and imaging results of my KMZ Zorki-1b show that, on a good day, these Leica clones could be up on a functional level with the original, any remaining differences being rather irrelevant with regard to practical photography. These ill-reputed Leica clones can be fun to operate and are accompanied by a fascinating history of their own.

Fig. 12: And, by the way, I took a liking to this Zorki serial number :)

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

 

OK, so now start throwing those eggs and rotten tomatoes at me :ph34r:

Edited by schattenundlicht
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. I’ll come back to this when I have a spare afternoon to read it!

 

My first SLR was a Zenith and I have a few Russian rangefinders, Zorki & Kiev. They all work and the Jupiter lenses I’ve tried have been excellent performers.

 

I think these Russian cameras will become more collectible as examples of a USSR memorabilia more than just old cameras.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. I’ll come back to this when I have a spare afternoon to read it!

 

My first SLR was a Zenith and I have a few Russian rangefinders, Zorki & Kiev. They all work and the Jupiter lenses I’ve tried have been excellent performers.

 

I think these Russian cameras will become more collectible as examples of a USSR memorabilia more than just old cameras.

 

Why does not anyone buy them in good and working condition at 30,... 50 Euro?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice “testimonial” ! I have similar models of the Fed & Zorki I. The Fed was pretty rough when it reached me, needing shutter, RF, etc work, and the lens had been... mishandled. Eventually I had Youxin Ye give a try at it, and it has been quite usable since. More recently I picked up the Zorki from Russia via eBay, and it is in very good shape.

I don’t think the workmanship and results challenge any of the Japanese Barnack clones I have, but the Russian clones have their own charm.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does not anyone buy them in good and working condition at 30,... 50 Euro?

This is pure conjecture, but I think the main reason is that there are so many mistreated, corroded, fungus-infected or internaly broken specimen around, that a lot of people will not touch the whole range of cameras at all.

 

An alternative is buying from a dealer, which will incur a premium but increase the likelihood of getting a good one. It will still be less than one third or quarter of the price of a true Leica in comparable condition.

 

I personally would not swap a clone against one of my originals, but they are a nice addition and have an interesting history.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, please don‘t tempt me by opening up new vistas for procurement - the missus will kill me ;)

 

My missus bought me this for Christmas some years ago.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

She was also with me in St Petersburg when I bought a wonderful Jupiter 3 lens a couple of months ago.

 

Story here with sample shots from Jupiter, Zorki and Industar products.

 

http://macfilos.com/photo/2018/5/11/russian-lens-galaxy-from-sonnar-to-jupiter.

 

I have my fingers crossed for a Leica/Zenit link up. Any chance that this might be announced next Thursday with the opening of the World Cup in Russia and the opening of the Leitz Park Hotel in Wetzlar both happening on the same day?

 

William

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Addendum: Broken link in section (II)

 

It was only after the forum software's time limit for editing had expired, that I noted that the link to the article by Oscar Fricke, based on a lecture at the LHSA meeting of 1977, did not work, because my text-editor had included the sentence's punctuation marks into the link.

Now it should work:  http://www.fedka.com/Useful_info/Commune_by_Fricke/commune_A.htm

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

I also have three KMZ lenses bought mainly due to curiosity. I also had a Fed 3 as well as a Fed 5 (both bought in Moscow) that I gifted, one to my uncle another to a Friend.

 

My general outcome is ... well I use to keep on using their Leica counterparts (or Carl Zeiss). The only one that I see somehow different is the my 1955 Jupiter 9. I must admit it's a superb lens even when the barrel construction is not up to the quality of Leica.

 

I must say that I have another 1959 Jupiter 8 in Contax rangefinder mount that also a really good performer.

 

Regarding the cameras, I found them a bit clunky and sorry but I cannot have a camera with a "step of death" like the Fed 3 with the speeds dial. I do know that sooner or later I'll kill it.

 

As a summary personally, I perfectly understand the interest on these Soviet cameras and lenses and there are some really nice samples but, at the end, having the original stuff, at least in my case most of them are not much used.

 

Anyway, thank you for the detail and interesting information and best regards.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

I also have three KMZ lenses bought mainly due to curiosity. I also had a Fed 3 as well as a Fed 5 (both bought in Moscow) that I gifted, one to my uncle another to a Friend.

 

My general outcome is ... well I use to keep on using their Leica counterparts (or Carl Zeiss). The only one that I see somehow different is the my 1955 Jupiter 9. I must admit it's a superb lens even when the barrel construction is not up to the quality of Leica.

 

I must say that I have another 1959 Jupiter 8 in Contax rangefinder mount that also a really good performer.

 

Regarding the cameras, I found them a bit clunky and sorry but I cannot have a camera with a "step of death" like the Fed 3 with the speeds dial. I do know that sooner or later I'll kill it.

 

As a summary personally, I perfectly understand the interest on these Soviet cameras and lenses and there are some really nice samples but, at the end, having the original stuff, at least in my case most of them are not much used.

 

Anyway, thank you for the detail and interesting information and best regards.

The variable esteem that these cameras receive in general is, as has been pointed out, propably due to the extreme spread of manufacturing quality.

 

With regard to KMZ, there also may be a secular trend at work: Although it is plagued by the soft body shell, many specialists regard the Zorki I b as the mechanically smoothest and best KMZ camera ever, with mechanical tolerances and build quality of manufacture declining thereafter.

 

Blindfolded, I would be hard pressed to tell the difference to a contemporaneous Leica. The same goes for anonymized review of films.

 

Thus, my Zorki model might represent the „sweet spot“ of KMZ manufacture, augmented by the additional diligence reserved for export models, plus sheer luck of getting a good copy :)

 

My FED is a bit of a different story, but then this may only be sample variance...

Edited by schattenundlicht
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...