FED-5. Review of the film camera from the reader Radozhiva

FED-5 review specifically for Radozhiva prepared Rodion Eshmakov.

Appearance of the FED-5 camera with the Jupiter-8 lens

Appearance of the camera FED-5 with a lens "Jupiter 8»

The FED-5 series of cameras is a mass and affordable (cost ~ 75 rubles) rangefinder cameras with interchangeable lenses, produced in the USSR (in Kharkov) from the mid 70s until the beginning of the 90s. This review presents the FED-5 model (without additional characters) with a Jupiter-8 lens (instead of the standard Industar-61 L / D).

Camera Specifications:
Type: single-lens rangefinder camera;
Format: small, film type 135 (24 * 36 mm frame);
Viewfinder: paired with an optical range finder (base - 43 mm);
Exposure metering: manual aperture setting and excerpts, selenium non-conjugate exposure meter with shutter speed calculator;
Shutter Type: Slit Shutter, excerpts from 1/500 to 1 s, excerpt "IN";
Lens mount: M39, 28.8 mm working length;
Features: mechanism of diopter correction + -2 Dptr, self-timer (9-15 s).
Camera Instruction: download

Camera Design FED-5

Now that you have remembered and climbed into the closet behind the old dusty rangefinder, a small reminder:
First cock the shutter, then change the shutter speed! Failure to comply with this rule is an instant camera breakdown.

The camera is a typical rangefinder camera, although it has a number of features that greatly simplify the application. The first one is a removable back cover. It seems wild, but the first Soviet cameras did not have it, instead, only the lower part of the case could be removed. Filling the film with such a camera and its removal is the very quest in which I would not want to participate, and FED-5 just does not insist.

FED-5 with the back cover and lens removed

FED-5 with the back cover and lens removed

Inside the FED-5, you can see the shutter curtains, the film feeder and the pressure table on the lid. Everything is done as austerely as possible, but with high quality.

When purchasing a camera, special attention should be paid specifically to the curtains, looking at the clearance with the cocked and lowered shutter - especially when cocked. During storage, the impregnating material is poured and the curtains, even with external integrity, begin to shine through and spoil the film. Even large bald spots are easy to patch with elastic glue and then tinted in black.

The table is smooth, spring-loaded. No film scratching was noticed.

Rear view of the FED-5 camera

Rear view of the FED-5 camera

On the back of the camera you can see a ring around the sight - this is a diopter correction mechanism that greatly facilitates the lives of people with poor eyesight. On very, very many Soviet cameras, it is not (including on the "improved" model - FED-5C). Correction is possible in the range from -2 to +2 Dptr by simply turning the ringlet.

Also located nearby is a sync contact for external flash. I never worked with her, therefore, to get acquainted with the possibilities of using flash lamps, I recommend reading the wonderful native instruction for the camera.

Top panel FED-5 camera

Top panel FED-5 camera

The upper panel of the camera contains a cocking and shutter release mechanism, a calculator and a light meter scale, shutter speed heads (cock the shutter!) And rewind, mount for external flash, frame counter.

To cock the shutter, it is necessary to smoothly pull out and fully rotate the trigger lever, which can be locked in the retracted or folded (marching) state.

The shutter speed head can be used only and only after the shutter is cocked, moreover, it has a free play from 1/30 to 1/60, then its stroke becomes tighter in the range from 1/60 to 1 s due to the need to cock the moderator. Between 1/30 and 1 second, the shutter speed head does not rotate.

The correct exposure aperture-aperture allows you to determine the selenium element of the camera. His testimonies are displayed on a pointer galvanometer on the top of the camera, equipped with a scale of 1 to 11 conventional units. To determine the exposure pair, you must first combine the sensitivity of the film with the risk on the small shiny ring of the exposure calculator, then select the number indicated by the galvanometer arrow with the external ring of the calculator. Thus, a set of exposure lenses for apertures from 2.8 to 16 will be obtained - it remains only to watch with what number the desired aperture value is combined.

An important feature of a selenium exposure meter is its instability in relation to light, especially UV: the camera must absolutely not be stored in a lit place without a case. The selenium exposure meter degrades remarkably quickly and becomes unable to give adequate readings (read - to supply the required voltage / current to the galvanometer).

It is also worth remembering that exposure metering with the selenium element is integral (i.e., the overall illumination of the frame is measured) - in the presence of strong differences in brightness, you need to make a correction.

The frame counter on the camera resets automatically after removing the back cover. It has several positions up to mark 1 - frames that are usually illuminated during film installation. Three symbols next to the counter allow you to set the type of film (daylight or for artificial lighting) - just so as not to forget.

FED-5 is very good in that it is easy to maintain. For example, changing the lens may necessitate a readjustment of the rangefinder. For FED-4, 5 cameras, this makes it very easy: just pry off the spring-loaded panel with the inscription "FED-5" and tighten the adjustment screw with a thin screwdriver. If this is not enough, you can tighten the eccentric of the small eye of the range finder. I am very grateful to the designers of this camera for such an opportunity: the very Kiev-3 or Zorkiy-4 would have to be disassembled almost completely, which not every amateur photographer would dare to do. The availability of the rangefinder adjustment allowed me to install the beautiful Jupiter-8 of 1955 on the camera, taken from some faulty "Vigilant".

With a correctly configured range finder, for focusing, it is enough just to combine a double image in the viewfinder in an orange window in the center of the field of view. And that’s all! Focusing is very simple and fairly accurate - in fact, a well-tuned range finder allows you to achieve much better focus accuracy than JVI many SLR cameras (especially the slightly-blind zeniths and digital cameras with a pentaser).

Thus, the FED-5 is not only very affordable, but also convenient (in comparison with the conventional “Sharp-4”) camera: it has everything you need for shooting - a shutter with a sufficient shutter speed range (Zenith has the longest - 1/30 !), a light meter (although not a TTL, but still, nevertheless!), a configurable rangefinder “on the knee” and, of course, a very popular mount for M39 optics. FED-5 is compatible with a huge number of lenses: Industar (-10 50 / 3.5, -22 50 / 3.5, -26m 50 / 2.8, -50 50 / 3.5, -61 50 / 2.8), FED (50/2, 50 / 3.5, 28 / 3.5, 100 / 5.6 (6.3)), Jupiter (-3 50 / 1.5, -8 50/2, -9 85/2, -11 135/4, -12 35 / 2.8), Orion-15 28/6, Russar MR-2 20 / 5.6. Do not forget the rangefinder optics Carl Zeiss and Leica. This means that optics in the FR range from 20 to 135 mm with aperture up to F / 1.5! The only negative - the use of wide-angle or telephoto optics requires the use of an additional viewfinder (universal turret, for example).

I acquired my FED with the aim of shooting from time to time on one of my favorite lenses - Jupiter-8, which I can not fully use on my digital camera. From it I will bring in conclusion a few shots on a cheap Fujifilm C200 film, which was developed and digitized in a photo lab.

Conclusions

FED-5 is a camera that is very easy to learn and, moreover, very convenient (from among Soviet cameras), endowed with everything you need for shooting. It is easy to find in working condition, easy to check, easy to prepare for shooting, easy to find inexpensive optics. All this makes the FED-5 the very camera with which you can begin acquaintance with the “vintage” analog photo.

You will find more reviews from readers of Radozhiva here.

Add a comment:

 

 

Comments: 85, on the topic: FED-5. Review of the film camera from the reader Radozhiva

  • B. R. P.

    An interesting idea is to review the film camera. Thanks.

  • Sergei

    Good review.
    The old horse does not spoil the furrow)))

  • Alexander

    Tell me, what kind of glue can patch the curtains? FED-5V uncovered just a couple of weeks ago, but the images turned out to be corrupted, about 30% of the frame was illuminated. The same DCSs are not taken for repair, they said that they would only use FED and FED-2 as the highest quality.

    • anonym

      Polyurethane, rubber ...

    • Victor Drozd

      Alexander, If the shutter curtains are perforated, then all the frames you have taken will be exposed. If, as you write, 30% means a malfunction in another ... it happens, from a long pause in work, improper conditions of maintenance (storage) of the FA, solidification occurs, or complete drying of the lubricant, which has a negative effect on the very course of the shutter curtains during the actuation ... In short, you need to make the correct diagnosis.

      • Alexander

        Victor, it’s a leaky curtain with cocked shutter. The shape of the flare coincides with the shape of the hole, the shape of the hole was determined by looking through the curtains at the lantern.

      • Alexander

        and I’ll specify 30% of the area of ​​each frame, and not the number of frames

  • Alexey

    Pictures from the 60s ...

    • Andrei

      Well, what kind of technique, such and pictures.

  • NE

    The viewfinder, I remember, was still dark in my FED-5V ... But the cases are cool for FEDs. Brown, made of genuine leather. For fujiks, they do something similar, but they stand like a lens and do not provide for the entire camera to be packed.

    • NE

      However, probably all cases for Soviet cameras were made of genuine leather. Even a soft case for FED-Micron

      • Dmitriy

        Not at all. Even the same FED-5 of later releases had black hard dermatin covers.

      • anonym

        The older the camera, the better and more beautiful leather case he had. Cameras of the late 40s and up to probably the sixties were with the very best trunks. The leather in them was VERY high quality, thick, with embossing, volumetric execution of parts of the wardrobe trunk, additional lining layers of leather inside so that the shape remains unchanged, with an abundance of chrome-plated metal overlays and with a beautiful and practical interior decoration with high-quality suede in very beautiful colors! Awesome trunks were. And they went as standard to each camera. Now we can only dream of such a thing ... (Rare and VERY expensive cameras currently have trunks of a similar quality, and that's not all! And they are still VERY expensive and are sold as an option.)

  • Oleg

    Thank you very informative

  • Sergei

    Thanks for the review! A photograph is a captured moment, and a camera is a keeper of such moments, with its own character. In this review, I again saw his wonderful character and special thanks to Jupiter! :)

  • Dmitriy

    With regard to optics, there is a serious remark: tube lenses of the i-22 or i-50 type on the FED-5 can NOT be used. They cling to the latch button and draw a furrow along the body. I would advise Rodion to check first, and then write.
    And second: relatively leyches - you will screw them on, but you will not ensure the accuracy of the rangefinder, because the rangefinder cam has a different stroke for Soviet lenses and for German ones. who does not believe - ask on the "Rangefinder" - popularly explain.

    • Rodion

      Thanks for the information.

  • ñ

    disagree with the author about "easy"
    it’s easy with a shift of 8, but fades (and especially exposure meters) are intimate and require minimal knowledge before buying.

    • Rodion

      Do you take a lot without the minimum knowledge of the notorious bare shift take something?)

      • ñ

        a lot, taking into account the message of the article "acquaintance". And after such an acquaintance, you can think about a normal technique.

      • BB

        And then what? - everything is in pictograms - both at the focusing distance and on the exposure scale - the sun, a cloud, etc., the diaphragm - so that is generally set 'according to the film sensitivity (at least on my “Change 8m” it was like that. taking into account the huge depth of field, and DD film (especially b / w), you still need to try to mess up the frame. The only drawback of the camera is the ability to re-expose the frame without rewinding the film (that's why I took it as a rule “clicked the frame, and immediately rewound”). noticeably higher than the cheap '90s' soap boxes Great camera for beginners.

        • Michael

          A terrible device, even if you omit the jambs of my copy. True, after him the eye became well trained, either according to the distance estimate or the choice of the expo-pair. It was, of course, difficult to mess up the frame - you can always stretch the frame when printing, but I didn't have really good frames from it - only by squeezing out Zenith from Batey began to get really successful photos with good sharpness and always with a normal negative density

          • BB

            I shot a little on Smena - the first 3-4 films, then they entrusted me with the parent Kiev-4. But there was no more than 10% of these films of a frank marriage (in terms of the density of negative and sharpness). Then, later, a few more b / w films were filmed, when there was a color

    • First Substation

      1995, grade 5, photo business. Everyone has shift-8, only for some reason I have a FED-3 batin. Nothing intimate at all, only the superiority of having a rangefinder. Of course there was no light meter and the teacher gave us all the exposure lenses.

  • Michael

    I saw the title and immediately realized who the author was)) Thank you

    • Rodion

      Well, like yes, it really says there)

      • Michael

        It is written a little lower)

  • Alexey

    Thanks for the review. All my childhood was shot by my father on FED-5.

  • zengarden

    Good visibility, warm lamp :) once I shot kilometers of film on my father's FED-2 with an I-26m lens.
    It’s just not clear why you need to change the shutter speed only with the cocked shutter; Or is it a feature of the FED-5?

    • Rodion

      Because changing the shutter speed when the shutter is not cocked breaks hopelessly changing the shutter speeds on FED-3 - FED-5 cameras. Just at the second FED, it seemed that it was not even important.
      The cameras Kiev, Zorkiy also have this bug. The Zeniths do not have it.

      • Dmitriy

        This does not break the shutter, it's just that the design does not allow you to set the shutter speed correctly - you don't know what you are setting with the shutter uncocked. Moreover, in the earliest FED-3s with practically the same shutter, the shutter speed head allowed setting the shutter speed before and after cocking, it just turned out to be not very convenient - you will not get to the desired value due to the small distances between the values, and this design was abandoned.
        This is not a "bug" at all, but a design feature. This time.
        And second: Did you even hold a rangefinder in your hands, Rodion, before writing this? On any rangefinder Kiev, setting the shutter speed is permissible both before and after platoon. As for the Vigilants, the shutter speed before platoon can be set on Zorky-S, Zorky-2s, Zorky-5, Zorky-6.

        Maybe we will not write about what we do not understand at all?

      • Dmitriy

        You can break the shutter speed setting mechanism only if you have a lot of dope in your head, if you start twisting the shutter speed head through force and twist the anchor moderator. But this can be done sooner on Zorkiy-4 than on FED-5; on FED, everything is easier and more reliable done.
        By the way, to adjust the Zorky rangefinder, you just need to unscrew one screw on the front panel, if we are talking about Zorkom-4, for example, or Zorkom-6. Here in Kiev, yes, there you need to disassemble half of the camera, but to get into the mechanism of the rangefinder Kiev without much experience in repairing cameras means simply ruining the device. Believe me, I have been repairing old cameras for more than 10 years.

        • Rodion

          Thanks for the valuable comments))) If you corrected the shortcomings and omissions in a lighter tone, it would be a little more constructive. Or go to the Rangefinder.
          I held different cameras in my hands (almost all of the above), but among the serviceable ones for which the rule just works - Zorkiy-4, FEDs> 4. Kiev, too, was and is, but half-functioning.
          Yes, I’m not sure about the old cameras, I’ve not been repairing them for 10 years. However, the written harm is not harmful to anyone and only teaches greater caution in dealing with ancient devices.

          • koba

            And can I once again draw the attention of readers to the tone of some messages. I still cannot understand why, when correcting some mistakes, those who correct or see shortcomings or mistakes, Saruz switch to an offensive tone, or come very close to them? Is it really impossible to move on to constructive criticism or help? Is it really difficult to say that I'm sorry, but here you have a mistake, but this and that would be correct ... Suppose a person made a mistake, from ignorance or by accident, or wrote Nikkor series E instead of Nikon Series E, is it possible to just correct the error, respond in a favorable manner without swearing? Personally, it never even occurs to me to write in such a tone, but very often I see it here, unfortunately ...

            • Victor Drozd

              Koba, photographers, for the most part, the people are rude and often illiterate. Hence - all the problems in communication.

              • Arkady Shapoval

                In Western forums, just the users are very polite, it is very nice to read any of their controversy. Most likely it is not a matter of a person’s belonging to photography or working as a photographer.

              • koba

                I don’t know about literacy, but I’m not saying anything about the words with which they sometimes spoke about the reviews of Arkady himself. A person works, gives the results of this work openly, for free, there are practically few sites (and there are not many sites in Russian!), Where real reviews of old lenses, new ones too, and cameras are collected and continue to be collected, and now someone will find where- then the inaccuracy or the way even a mistake and all, at once to the death penalty. It is also sometimes surprising that some readers “pay” attention to photos in reviews with comments like “the photo is not so hot”! Should reviewers always publish masterpieces here? These are mostly reviews of the technical aspects of lenses or cameras? Well, Arkady gives his subjective opinion. And he was so obviously tired of the absence of a simple “Thank you” for this, that recently, as I noticed, he stopped publishing his subjective opinion at all ... Now imagine that there is no such site, yes, the world will not collapse, but ... but ...

              • Arkady Shapoval

                C'mon, I publish reviews just as I have free time. All the errors in my reviews I immediately correct, if only the commenter could find it :).
                Rodion, on the other hand, makes his reviews with a completely different approach and a different paradigm. In reviews, you should always "remember" one single rule - "Anonymous is always right"

            • Sasha Sanek

              Yes, that anonym in the previous article is inadequate simply. I could not pass by some little things.

            • anonym

              Catarct or glaucoma? Please reread. I did not use swearing, but specified it in an interrogative tone. If you and Sansanych have a suspicious character, then I can do nothing. In fact, he could not get past my text and “wound up” with half a turn and began to insult me.

        • Rodion

          If you have a surplus of knowledge and experience, why not present it in a form popular and accessible to a wide range of people? What should you do it? Then amateurs in the field of rangefinder cameras like me would not have written any, as you say, lies and nonsense.
          No one will read the “rangefinder” club for the sake of “figuring out how this thing from the closet works” - nothing is more disgusting than smoking forums (and especially photo forums). Not every camera has original instructions on the net, sometimes they are not very transparent.

  • anonym

    Thanks for the review Rodion! As a child, I learned to shoot on this particular camera, and on b / w Svema film. Straight nostalgia ... In the photo Neskuchny garden?)))

    • Rodion

      Yes, my beloved Neskuchny.

  • anonym

    So, it is unnecessary, as an amateur, to write articles about rangefinders. No one will read comments over time, and the review with gross errors will remain. Or am I wrong.

  • Ksenia

    thanks for the review !!! I have a FED-55, took note of a couple of things))

  • Boris

    Interestingly, and in what format was the film scanned? If there was a scan processing after the photolab, how flexible are the files in processing?

  • Stanislas

    Thank you so much Rodion!
    My dad has filmed all my childhood on this camera.
    Himself, as an amateur, began with this camera. By the way, she is still working and in good condition.
    I really liked the photos in the review. So warm, lamp and soulful.
    Eh, nostalgia ...

  • Konstantin

    I don’t know, someone might like film style, but the photos from the example look like a cheap smart + vintage filter in any editor.

    Some colors are oversaturated, some are lost. Detailing of the porridge level.

    Yes, in the form of a historical exhibit it’s cool, but to shoot it?

    • Rodion

      What to expect from the cheapest color film?

      • Konstantin

        And you can ask - how much is cheap? I found about $ 4 on the Internet, right? And how much is dear?

        I wonder how much it will cost to take, for example, a walk with a child, where from 150-200 shots, it successfully turns out to catch only 20-30?

        • Michael

          A normal Kodak Portra costs 600-700 eternal woods - that's 36 frames. Then multiply by the required amount) It's just that nobody scribbles on the film, but they try to verify the frames. So the success rate is usually higher.

        • Volodymyr

          200 frames? what for? who will watch this bunch of duplicates

    • Peter Sh.

      This is a feature of scanning film negatives.
      For normal quality, expensive drum scanners are needed (it seems so they are called). Not all labs can allow them.
      If you print it as it should, with the amplifier, the quality will be completely different.

      • Alex

        The drum scanner, well, perfectly, perfectly. Ale nadlishkovo. The slide module for the flatbed scanner needs to be secured, if properly adjusted, on the contrary and more accurately read the information slide. (Epson V600, V550, skinny). You can buy an okremiy scanner for swims on a flea market without problems і, navіt, inexpensively. Here the right author will take a look: it’s important that you want to see the cheapest spills, prices, and the results of the process.

        • Peter Sh.

          In general, the old Nikon film scanners (Coolscan seems) the quality is not much worse than the drum. And much better than the same Epson V800. Yes, and they are now like a tablet, probably.

    • Photo Dad

      What are you talking about? It's like comparing a car to a bicycle. Why do people ride a bike if there are cars? In a car it is more comfortable, faster, easier ... But a bicycle is needed primarily for the soul and pleasure. I usually shoot with a modern Sonya, but for the soul, in artistic impulses, I shoot on film. And I have three devices for this, and all three are vintage manuals. And I often shoot on black and white film. Film photography does not require quality in the modern sense. And to compare with a figure is not at all correct ...

  • Peter Sh.

    Rodion, why don’t you take up the medium format?
    I myself, but there is no catastrophic time. And you, waeren, will succeed.
    Something like this FED, inexpensive.
    Yes, in the parks at sunset it is better to take pictures, do not forget.)

  • Maksim

    200 frames with walks with children? Buy sob_ video camera. More corridor.

    • Arkady Shapoval

      In fact, 200 frames these days is very, very small. Especially if you shoot a session with children

      • Michael

        It is visible to everyone in different ways. I have a maximum of 80 frames per day, I can see the film past)

  • Hermann

    Thank you, Rodion, for the review, this is awesome and, as you can see, we all have many pleasant memories! I immediately remembered my father’s FED with a telescopic lens; it looks like a Lake. And yes, the film was inserted through them, it was terribly inconvenient, but it turned out! After this, loading through the rear hinged lid is simply the top of ergonomics! Go on, Rodion, it works great!

  • Vladimir

    I draw your attention to the accuracy, because I myself actively use the rangefinder FED 5 and Kiev 4a. All Soviet-made m39s have a bug - this is not the correspondence of one objective to another. That is, the rangefinder is set up correctly (this is a separate and rather complicated device), the aiming distance is appropriate, but the lens itself is not correctly adjusted. And then the regulation is either on frosted glass or with an autocollimator. In short, there may be a big problem. In addition, FED5 is very dark relative to Kiev and foreigners (viewfinder). In Kiev, everything is simpler because the focusing mechanism and the rangefinder are integrated in the camera body.
    But overall I liked the review обзор

  • Vladimir

    I will also add to the account of optics. M39 comes from the USSR and, for example, Leukovskaya is not interchangeable. Only with good alignment can they be installed. At the expense of shirikov and 50-ok, on rangefinders they are of better quality and are less prone to various distortions (if you believe foreign sites) due to small working sections. But with lenses more than 85x, the complexity of operation is, the greater the focal length, the larger the rangefinder base should be for aiming accuracy ... But that's another story.
    By the way, author, please indicate in the review of the variation of the fad 5 of 3 pieces, the differences are not large, but there are.

  • Adon

    Zo review, thanks, but something does not pull me to start acquaintance with the "vintage" film technique. On a kraynyak I would try something like Minolta 7000, which you can take for 500 UAH for olkh.

    • B. R. P.

      If there is Minoltov optics, then yes.

  • Dmitriy

    the review has a lot of subjective, but the film is now an amateur thing, so some liberties are permissible. couple of comments from personal experience
    1. repair of blinds with glue. if the curtains began to crumble, this is unlikely to make the camera reliable. putty in one place, but the rubber coating has dried up everywhere and during operation can crumble at any time and in any other place.
    2. In the title picture, a fad without a light meter, and a model with a light meter is described.
    3. From personal experience, vigilant 4 and vigilant 6 were much better than feds (all), vigilant had the main advantage - a gorgeous bright viewfinder. Vigilant 6 has an ultra-precise rangefinder (due to its long, like Kiev 4 bases) plus a compact body and an equally bright viewfinder. with a tube industar 50 (they didn't go to a fed 5 at all), a sharp-sighted 6 could be carried in a pants pocket.
    4. practical advice: if you charge the camera in the dark, you can get 36-38 frames on a standard film (39 frames).
    5. to use the full potential of rangefinders, it is better to use an external Sverdlovsk exposure meter 4. selenium photocells are capricious and insensitive, and Sverdlovsk allows you to determine the correct exposure in almost any light.

    • Rodion

      Point 2 is a blatant lie. In the photo, the title is the one fed-5, which I shot. And he has a light meter - turn the focus on the gray window to the left of the rangefinder. The FED-5 and FED-5S are generally equipped with an exronometer, but the FED-5V is a simplified model without an exposure meter.

    • Dmitriy

      As a person who gave a dozen years of his life to repair, I want to fix it according to claim 3.
      The only plus of the 4th Zorkiy is the magnification of the viewfinder, which, however, is leveled by the short base of the rangefinder and the diopter lever that constantly gets lost.
      And in terms of the reliability of the FED, especially the third models, it is a cut above. That there is only a "jump" of the bolt head, and this is precisely a design flaw. I also can't say anything good about the trigger platoon on models 4-5-6 from KMZ, the design of the FED is more thoughtful.
      The compactness of "Zorky-6"? Excuse me, do you confuse it with the 5th, which has a thinner body?
      The brightness of the viewfinder largely depends on the storage / operating conditions, dampness, humidity lead to darkening of the beam splitting layer of the main prism.
      And about the sock in your pocket. For several years he wore a set of FED-3 (hammerless) + I-22 “drowned man” in it.

Add a comment

Copyright © Radojuva.com. Blog author - Photographer in Kiev Arkady Shapoval. 2009-2022

English-version of this article https://radojuva.com/en/2018/10/fed-5/comment-page-1/

Version en español de este artículo https://radojuva.com/es/2018/10/fed-5/comment-page-1/