Nicht immer nur Kaviar ... (English Version)

[pfoto]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Am 14.3.2021 um 20:37 schrieb Ambro51:

Do Vintage Cameras appreciate in value?  No. As a rule, especially when you consider inflation.....the $400 Nikon F in 1969 Dollars is now the $100 Nikon F in 2021 Dollars.   Shocking, isn’t it?  Well, here’s maybe the leader of the pack in appreciation.  The 50 Cent Diana of 1969 is now the $40 Dollar Diana of 2021!  In many ways a very liberating camera to use, weighing only a few ounces.  It has scale focusing, instant (about 1/60) and bulb, three aperature settings and a Neck strap!   It’s a camera which “creates” an image instead of merely recording one.  Each one is a tad different, offering uncertain exact shutter speeds,  occasional light leaks, vignetting and best of all,  a uniquely Artistic single plastic lens.  Made with many different nameplates, by the Great Wall Plastics Factory  in good old Communist China. It really, in the World of Cameras, is something different.    So popular in fact, new editions are Still made!!!

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!

i got one in 1969, by sending 100 bazooka chewinggum wrapping paper and 25 schillings (1,50 dollars) to the austrian importer.

[zeitz]

5 hours ago, willeica said:

I remember all of that, including Le Mans in 1955 and Von Trips at Monza in 1961 etc , etc Then later on there were others eg Rindt, Peterson.

The LeMans accident was a Mercedes and not an F1 car.  The Von Trips accident was a Ferrari.  (Ferrari's total is actually seven if you count the races before Lotus entered the sport.) Rindt and Peterson were Lotus.  Just based on the number of F1 races Cooper was the most dangerous F1 car.  The Lotus 79 was by far the most innovative F1 car ever, nothing comes close.  When you consider the shear number of races done by Lotus sports cars, such as the Mk 7, Lotus was no more dangerous than any other race car manufacturer.

Even with today's regulations for cars and tracks we lost Jules Bianchi and we almost lost Romain Grosjean.  You are absolutely right that Jackie Stewart took the needed stand and saved the sport.

But my point is that a camera that requires two focusing mounts, one for standard lenses and one for all other lenses, is bizarre.  Unless one has physical problems with the left hand, why make the right hand do everything while trying to avoid blocking the rangefinder window?  At least when Nikon copied the Contax camera, they had enough sense to copy the Leica shutter.

[UliWer]

6 hours ago, Pyrogallol said:

I just bought a 35mm f3.5 Planar. I am using my Contax lenses on Nikon rangefinder bodies as I sold my two Contax bodies thinking that the Nikon’s are more reliable.

How are the results with the Nikon?

The Nikon has the same bayonet as the Contax but a different flange to film distance. There would have been no reason for Nikon offering some of their lenses with a special „C“ mark for the Contax if they were interchangeable. Amedeo Muscelli, who produces Leica adapters for Contax and Nikon also says you cannot use one for the other. It would be very interesting if one could use especially the wide angles for the Contax with other cameras - at the moment I see no way to do so. 

 

[zeitz]

59 minutes ago, UliWer said:

but a different flange to film distance

Uli, the difference is not the flange to film distance; they are both 34.85mm.  The pitch of the internal focusing mount also appears to be the same, per Henry Scherer Contax repairman.  While I have never seen a convincing/complete explanation of why Nikon and Contax lenses don't focus right on the other's body, my belief is that Nikon made some change to the rangefinder details that allow the Nikon standard lens to focus closer.  Some people link this to a difference in the true focal length of Nikon vs Zeiss standard lenses.  If you look closely at the distance scale marks on the two bodies (say the 4 ft mark which appears on both cameras with English scales), the scale lines are in slightly different locations.  For wide angle lenses, the rangefinder difference is insignificant.  But for telephoto lenses the difference can't be ignored.

[Pyrogallol]

5 hours ago, UliWer said:

How are the results with the Nikon?

The Nikon has the same bayonet as the Contax but a different flange to film distance. There would have been no reason for Nikon offering some of their lenses with a special „C“ mark for the Contax if they were interchangeable. Amedeo Muscelli, who produces Leica adapters for Contax and Nikon also says you cannot use one for the other. It would be very interesting if one could use especially the wide angles for the Contax with other cameras - at the moment I see no way to do so. 

 

I have read several learned descriptions of the difference between the Nikon and Contax focussing systems but in practical use I have not seen any problems so far. I understand that it becomes noticeable at wide apertures, close up and with longer lenses where there is less depth of field to cover the inaccuracy. But these two recent pictures (copies of A4 size darkroom prints) were taken with a Nikon S2 and 135mm Zeiss Contax Sonnar at f11, fairly close up at about 15 feet / 4 mtrs and they are acceptably sharp. The boat print is a bit darker than intended. The reeds pictures was focused on the reeds and the boat picture on the chrome pulpit rail. Maybe if I had used a wider aperture the difference might have shown up but then it is a prewar uncoated lens so the definition would have not been so good.

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!

 

Edited April 22, 2021 by Pyrogallol

[Pyrogallol]

1 hour ago, Pyrogallol said:

I have read several learned descriptions of the difference between the Nikon and Contax focussing systems but in practical use I have not seen any problems so far. I understand that it becomes noticeable at wide apertures, close up and with longer lenses where there is less depth of field to cover the inaccuracy. But these two recent pictures (copies of A4 size darkroom prints) were taken with a Nikon S2 and 135mm Zeiss Contax Sonnar at f11, fairly close up at about 15 feet / 4 mtrs and they are acceptably sharp. The boat print is a bit darker than intended. The reeds pictures was focused on the reeds and the boat picture on the chrome pulpit rail. Maybe if I had used a wider aperture the difference might have shown up but then it is a prewar uncoated lens so the definition would have not been so good.

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!

 

I just remembered one problem I have found with mounting Contax lenses on the Nikon.

with the internal mount used by the 50mm lenses the Contax lenses (and Russian Jupiter) will not turn quite far enough to click into place on the securing spring, the lens is a tight fit as you turn it and the little tab on the lens will not drop into the slot in the spring. It fits far enough to use but is not locked in place. I do not force it as I don’t want it to jam and be unable to remove it. Pictures show a 50mm Tessar lens on a Nikon S2.

there is no problem with the external mount used by wide angle or tele lenses.

Edited April 22, 2021 by Pyrogallol

[UliWer]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I fear there will be a perennial discussion about the differences between the Nikon S and Contax cameras and lenses.

Henry Scherer says:

"Both the Nikon and the Contax lens mounts were put onto camera bodies. Each body was put onto a precision granite measuring block, an empty Sonnar lens mount was put onto the camera, and a precision depth measurement micrometer was used to measure the infinity distance to the focal plane. ... The measurements showed that at infinity focus the Nikon S had a distance of 26.51 mm and the Contax was 26.82. The difference between these is 0.31 mm. This means that if you want to take a Sonnar lens that is adjusted to give good infinity focus on a Contax and use it on a Nikon and get good infinity focus the lens cartridge must be moved outward in the lens mount by a distance of 0.31mm. This 0.31 mm distance is enough to have a visible effect on the photos the camera produces if a Nikor is used on a Contax or a Sonnar is used on a Nikon without being adjusted."

http://zeisscamera.com/articles_cnrfdr.shtml

[UliWer]

Here a Nippon Kogaku 1:2.5 10.5 cm with a "C" indicating it is made for the Contax.

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!

[tranquilo67]

17 hours ago, Pyrogallol said:

I just bought a 35mm f3.5 Planar. I am using my Contax lenses on Nikon rangefinder bodies as I sold my two Contax bodies thinking that the Nikon’s are more reliable.

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!

They're nice!! Some time ago I was looking for a collapsible Tessar but, at the end, I gave up because every single sample I found had the glasses in terrible condition.

[sandro]

8 hours ago, Pyrogallol said:

I just remembered one problem I have found with mounting Contax lenses on the Nikon.

with the internal mount used by the 50mm lenses the Contax lenses (and Russian Jupiter) will not turn quite far enough to click into place on the securing spring, the lens is a tight fit as you turn it and the little tab on the lens will not drop into the slot in the spring. It fits far enough to use but is not locked in place. I do not force it as I don’t want it to jam and be unable to remove it. Pictures show a 50mm Tessar lens on a Nikon S2.

there is no problem with the external mount used by wide angle or tele lenses.

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!

I notice on the Nikon S2 the red R sign as indication to focus correctly infrared film was used. I would be interested to know from which year on that red R appears on the camera. I checked some images of Contax camera's but I didn't see an infrared indication there.

Lex

[Pyrogallol]

13 minutes ago, sandro said:

I notice on the Nikon S2 the red R sign as indication to focus correctly infrared film was used. I would be interested to know from which year on that red R appears on the camera. I checked some images of Contax camera's but I didn't see an infrared indication there.

Lex

As far as the Nikons are concerned I have looked at the illustrations in Rotoloni’s “The Complete Nikon Rangefinder System” book and cannot see the infrared R on pictures of the Nikon 1 or M, but the R is on my Nikon S and S2. The early Contax bodies I showed earlier do not have an R.

This is a bit surprising as infrared film was in use in the 1930s so you would have thought that the R would have been on the Nikons from the start and the Contax.

[sandro]

Thank you, interesting. Could you give me some years about when the R sign appears in Nikon camera's?

Lex

[Pyrogallol]

8 minutes ago, sandro said:

Thank you, interesting. Could you give me some years about when the R sign appears in Nikon camera's?

Lex

There is a reference here http://www.nicovandijk.net/rangefinder.htm to the R and it might have appeared sometime during the S camera series when the depth of field scale was changed to start from f1.4 instead of f2. The first 50mm f1.4 lens was introduced in October 1950, according to Rotoloni.

[wlaidlaw]

On 4/9/2021 at 5:33 PM, pgk said:

Lizars had a branch at this address from 1912 until after 1942.

Our family bought all their cameras from Lizars in Aberdeen from the early part of the century until my M4 was bought there on release day in July 1967. I still have a 1935 Model II, a 1934 Model III and a 1953 Contax IIa as well as the M4, all bought from Lizars in Aberdeen. I think there is still a Lizars in Aberdeen but nowadays only an optician. 

Now for something different - a giant Combat Graflex KE-4 70mm film rangefinder. I have the whole KS-6 kit with 2½ Wide Angle, 4" Standard and 8" Telephoto lenses. I got Alan Starkie to rebuild it all, having found a copy of the US Navy service manual for the camera. We had to have some parts 3D printed in titanium, so hopefully they will be more robust than the age embrittled aluminium and Zamac (zinc-aluminium diecasting alloy) parts. When you hold down the shutter release, it sounds like a large calibre auto cannon firing, with its massively powerful clockwork motor drive. Apparently careless disassembly of this mechanism could lead to lost fingers. 

Below is a picture of the Combat Graflex (also known as Gulliver's Contax, as Hubert Nerwin, one of the original Contax designers, was involved in productionising John Maurer's original concept. A regular Contax IIa is alongside to give scale. 

Wilson

 

 

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!

[UliWer]

On 4/21/2021 at 5:21 PM, willeica said:

My father's Super Baldina...

You remind me of my father's camera. He got it as a gift second hand, but was never happy with it. 

It still has a film in it, as I wanted to try if it still works, but I forgot about it, and too many Leicas were in its way. I should finish the film soon. It has a 1:2.8/5cm Tessar - which I found a rather weak lens (compared to the 1:3.5 version) on the Contax. Perhaps I will look at it less critically with the Super Baldina:

 

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!

 

Edited April 22, 2021 by UliWer

[willeica]

3 hours ago, wlaidlaw said:

Our family bought all their cameras from Lizars in Aberdeen from the early part of the century until my M4 was bought there on release day in July 1967. I still have a 1935 Model II, a 1934 Model III and a 1953 Contax IIa as well as the M4, all bought from Lizars in Aberdeen. I think there is still a Lizars in Aberdeen but nowadays only an optician. 

Now for something different - a giant Combat Graflex KE-4 70mm film rangefinder. I have the whole KS-6 kit with 2½ Wide Angle, 4" Standard and 8" Telephoto lenses. I got Alan Starkie to rebuild it all, having found a copy of the US Navy service manual for the camera. We had to have some parts 3D printed in titanium, so hopefully they will be more robust than the age embrittled aluminium and Zamac (zinc-aluminium diecasting alloy) parts. When you hold down the shutter release, it sounds like a large calibre auto cannon firing, with its massively powerful clockwork motor drive. Apparently careless disassembly of this mechanism could lead to lost fingers. 

Below is a picture of the Combat Graflex (also known as Gulliver's Contax, as Hubert Nerwin, one of the original Contax designers, was involved in productionising John Maurer's original concept. A regular Contax IIa is alongside to give scale. 

Wilson

 

 

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!

Little and large, Wilson. Gulliver’s Contax is right, but it also brings to mind the ‘Texas Leica’ . Speaking of Lizars, I have a Lizars of Belfast Falling Plate camera (1890-1910) on its way to me. The camera type interests me because J. M. Synge the Irish author and playwright famously bought one from an English tourist on the Aran Islands and he used it to record the local culture and lifestyle which was unknown on mainland Ireland. His was a Houghton model, I believe. 
 

51 minutes ago, UliWer said:

You remind me of my father's camera. He got it as a gift second hand, but was never happy with it. 

It still has a film in it, as I wanted to try if it still works, but I forgot about it, and too many Leicas were in its way. I should finish the film soon. It has a 1:2.8/5cm Tessar - which I found a rather weak lens (compared to the 1:3.5 version) on the Contax. Perhaps I will look at it less critically with the Super Baldina:

 

 

They are a nice enough camera, but probably unnecessarily complicated to operate for such a small camera. With a lot of earlier lenses f3.5 versions were better than the f2.8 or f2 versions. My father’s camera came with an f2.9 Meyer Gorling lens. My Welta Perfekta also has a lovely Meyer Gorling lens. We should not judge the German lenses of the 1930s by ‘reputation’. A lot of the lesser lenses easily match the Zeiss and Leitz offerings. I have another Super Baldina camera with a Schneider Kreuznach f2 Xenar and it does not produce better images than my father’s camera with its Meyer Gorling. I started a roll today with the Leitz Elmar. It will be interesting to see where that sits with the ‘competition’.

William 

[UliWer]

1 hour ago, willeica said:

They are a nice enough camera, but probably unnecessarily complicated to operate for such a small camera.

I think its biggest problem is having no double exposure lock. 

[alan mcfall]

My Nikon 85 f 1/5 with 'C' engraving for Contax.  Here mounted on an SP.  I appreciate from the information above that there may be some loss of sharpness when using at full open aperatures.

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!

[willeica]

11 hours ago, UliWer said:

I think its biggest problem is having no double exposure lock. 

That is true. I always wind on after making an exposure. This does not strain the shutter which is set separately. This is also an issue with Leica Compur Bs. I have a Welta Weltini II which avoids double exposures by virtue of having a system whereby you cannot trigger the Compur shutter without winding on. The winding sprockets charge the shutter button a bit like a Leica, but the shutter itself is Compur. In truth it is even more of a palaver to use than the Super Baldina and I need to run another roll through to see if I am mastering the camera. I am in awe of the photos which my father got with the Super Baldina back in the 1940s. Still there is a great feeling of satisfaction when you have mastered a ‘difficult little camera’.

William

PS I should add that the shutter button on the Welta goes down when the camera is folded, so you cannot accidentally make an exposure when the camera is in that state.

Edited April 23, 2021 by willeica

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[thomas_schertel]

Balda:

fom left: Balda Baldina, Beltica (Successor of Balda in the DDR), Baldina (West Germany)

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!

yours sincerely
Thomas