Nicht immer nur Kaviar ... (English Version)

[willeica]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

17 minutes ago, pgk said:

What a fabulous list of cameras to have been able to supply!

That shop later moved into the main O'Connell Street in Dublin, but by the time I came to photography it was Japanese cameras that held sway. Looking at the list of makers on the bill head and also the date, the supply of most of those cameras would have been difficult for the next 5 years, apart from Kodak, but even that company was having cameras made in Germany at that time.

My father was a civil servant at that time and he never could have dreamed of owning anything like a Leica. We bought him a Bolex 8mm camera when he retired in 1981, though. 

William

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[wlaidlaw]

I find it interesting that although Ireland had been independent since 1921, they still retained the weird British habit of a sticking a 2 pence stamp over which the seller signed the receipt. I can remember when each bank cheque had a 2d stamp embossed on it, which was paid in advance to the treasury, when you "bought" a new cheque book. My family's company had a cheque printing machine for payment of those employees who preferred not to be paid weekly in cash, those paid monthly and general trade use. After the cheque was written, it had to be embossed with a 2d embossment by an embossing machine attached to the side of cheque writer with a sealed counter on it. Once a month, that embossing machine's counter had to be taken to the post office along with its account book and if say 130 cheques had been issued that month, as read off the counter, you would have to pay £1/1/8d to the treasury via the Post Office and that was noted and stamped in the accompanying account book. 

Wilson

[willeica]

1 hour ago, wlaidlaw said:

I find it interesting that although Ireland had been independent since 1921, they still retained the weird British habit of a sticking a 2 pence stamp over which the seller signed the receipt. I can remember when each bank cheque had a 2d stamp embossed on it, which was paid in advance to the treasury, when you "bought" a new cheque book. My family's company had a cheque printing machine for payment of those employees who preferred not to be paid weekly in cash, those paid monthly and general trade use. After the cheque was written, it had to be embossed with a 2d embossment by an embossing machine attached to the side of cheque writer with a sealed counter on it. Once a month, that embossing machine's counter had to be taken to the post office along with its account book and if say 130 cheques had been issued that month, as read off the counter, you would have to pay £1/1/8d to the treasury via the Post Office and that was noted and stamped in the accompanying account book. 

Wilson

I was going to mention that the stamp was for 'authenticating' the transaction, but that practice has long since ceased. There was a lot more in common than that in 1940, Wilson, largely long since gone. Unwinding 800 years was difficult to do in 18 or19 years. We now have a different currency, some different measurements eg kms v miles, separate laws, although some British Statutes prior to independence still have effect, but the numbers effective have greatly decreased in my lifetime and divergence in laws will increase because of the recent, ahem, you know what, better not mention it. We also still speak English after a fashion, a bit like our friends in the US, divided by a Sea/Ocean and a common language etc

William 

[Guest]

Am 22.4.2021 um 10:57 schrieb UliWer:

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

Using Nikon rangefinder cameras and M - Leicas at the same time I imagine is a challenge.
Much more so being a war photographer. 
Have a look at this, starting 00:57 

 

Edited April 26, 2021 by tri

[pippy]

Spurred-on by a comment made in another thread I was reminded of this oddity which I picked up in 2016;

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 the Contax II of which it is a copy the Kiev II to Kiev 4 family of cameras was never offered in black finish......and I have a pair of them.

Some souls somewhere obviously find it profitable to take these things apart and, to a greater-to-lesser extent depending on how much effort they put in to their work, produce some very attractively refinished cameras. The ones I have are at the upper-end (attention to detail-wise) as they have had all knobs / switches / base-plate locks etc. treated whereas the more commonly-seen lower-end examples have had merely the top / base-plate / front trim painted.

The lens on this camera is also a bit of a strange fish. According to the SovietCams site this version of Jupiter 8M was produced specifically for the Bulgarian market(!) and only in 1981. It is very similar in appearance and construction to the Helios 103 (which, to a large extent, replaced the model) but whereas the Helios has a maximum aperture of f1.8 this, being a Jupiter, is still an f2.

I think the whole thing - including filter, hood and case, cost me under £40 shipped. It even works perfectly!

Philip.

EDIT : I had forgotten when I typed the post but it even came inside its original box - just visible in the left rear of the pic - and with the original receipt!

Edited April 27, 2021 by pippy

[tranquilo67]

Hi,

As there are some Russian already here there is my 4 digits Fed (1b) from mid 1935.

In my opinion, this was the closest the Russian "copies" got to the original Leica II. You can see the frame around the finder window is not aligned with the top of the finder housing, as well as the diaphragm control lever in the lens is very much like the original Elmar and not like later Russian collapsible lenses, the vulcanite, shutter button with outer screw fro remote (instead of internal) etc.

Take care,

Augusto

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!

[Pyrogallol]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My 1939 Fed 1d. Working ok, I put a film through it recently. The lens was very hazy when I got it, but I found that the whole front block of the lens will unscrew exposing the diaphragm and I was able to clean the haze from the glass surfaces either side of the diaphragm, which seemed to be where the haze had settled, something to do with oil on the blades?

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!

 

[Pyrogallol]

Copies of some darkroom prints from my Fed.

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!

[pippy]

5 hours ago, tranquilo67 said:

...As there are some Russian already here there is my 4 digits Fed (1b) from mid 1935...

Nice condition!

I don't have a 4-digit Fed but here's my own late 1935 1b (PEO 190) #15176 in the fairly uncommon grey-green vulcanite covering option;

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 have a few pre-WWII FEDs paired with the appropriate lenses and none of the lens-mounts align in the same orientation when used on another body. Purely as a guess it might be that each lens/mount was tailored to a particular camera but if anyone knows better I'd like to hear the true story.

Philip.

Edited April 28, 2021 by pippy

[pippy]

...and just to round out the evening - and touching on a couple of points mentioned by Augusto in post #206 - here's my '49 Zorki 1 (#20166). Although the very earliest cameras - up to serial #10,000 or thereabouts - had an Industar-22 with an Elmar-type aperture tab the usual fare from late '49 onward had this ring-style arrangement right up until the end of Zorki 1 production; some 835,000 units all-told. The 50mm f3.5 lenses of the FED 1 cameras, OTOH, always retained the Elmar-style tab.

This camera also features an internally-threaded shutter release and the lens-mount orientation was by now pretty much standardised with the infinity-lock at the 9 o'clock position;

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!

Philip.

[Pyrogallol]

8 hours ago, pippy said:

Nice condition!

I don't have a 4-digit Fed but here's my own late 1935 1b (PEO 190) #15176 in the fairly uncommon grey-green vulcanite covering option;

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 have a few pre-WWII FEDs paired with the appropriate lenses and none of the lens-mounts align in the same orientation when used on another body. Purely as a guess it might be that each lens/mount was tailored to a particular camera but if anyone knows better I'd like to hear the true story.

Philip.

From what I have read the prewar Feds were like the pre-standardised Leicas in that each one was matched to its own lens. My Fed has a shorter than “standard” registration which is close enough to my non-standard uncoupled Elmar which I can use on the Fed, with scale focussing.

[tranquilo67]

2 hours ago, Pyrogallol said:

From what I have read the prewar Feds were like the pre-standardised Leicas in that each one was matched to its own lens. My Fed has a shorter than “standard” registration which is close enough to my non-standard uncoupled Elmar which I can use on the Fed, with scale focussing.

Yes, I'd say they were non-standard even for the Russian standards. My sample is more a matter of collection than a user (even when I've got it CLA'd by local Leica technician). In my opinion, and from the point of view of quality and usability, Kiev rangefinders were much better than the Feds (always speaking about early samples where the push for production figures was not so hard) but, of course, the history around those Kiev is completely different.

Here my Kiev II from 1952 (also recently serviced by the former Contax technician).

Take care,

Augusto

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!

[Pyrogallol]

On 4/22/2021 at 7:54 AM, 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!

 

Back to the question of focussing a Contax lens on a Nikon S rangefinder body. I have taken a few pictures with that combination since the discussion. Attached is a copy of a darkroom print made yesterday using my Nikon S2 with a Zeiss Contax 85mm f2 Sonnar, 1949, 500th at f8, focussed on the nearest chrome pulpit rail, at a distance of about 2-3 meters. I cannot see any significant error in the focussing. I took another picture at f2 at about 1 meter and again it looked close enough in focus, I have not printed it as the negative was a bit thin.

[willeica]

Stewartry advertisement from the Montgomery firm c1947, courtesy of a friend living in Ayrshire. As well as lenses, they also advertised adapters for using Contax lenses on Leicas, close up equipment and holders for filters of various kinds. I wonder if any members here have come across any of these items?  The firm obviously took great pride in its work.

 

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!

William

Edited May 5, 2021 by willeica

[wlaidlaw]

Here is another bit of publicity for the Montgomery Man. Co. of Glasgow. 

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!

[willeica]

Staying with Scotland and straying across the Irish Sea to Belfast is this Challenge Falling Plate Magazine Camera from the Scottish firm Lizars which seems to have been sold in their Belfast outlet. I would reckon that it is about 115 years old. It takes up to 10 glass plates in metal holders which are pushed forward by a spring when a lever is operated after exposure on the side of the camera. The exposed plate then falls to the bottom of the camera and the next unexposed plate is pushed forward for exposure.  The inside of the front door is a wonderful place as you can see the effects of using the various knobs and levers on the front of the camera. The lever on the top marked D ( for 'diameter' ?) has 3 positions 1, 2 and 3 for various aperture settings and 'C' for closed.The middle lever marked F with 8, 18, 10 and 4 settings may be for a filter of some kind as all it does is rotate a glass lens of some kind in front of the taking lens. The lever beside it is marked 'I' and 'T' for 'Instant' and 'Time'. The little knob at the bottom is for shutter speed with 'R' and 'S'  for 'Rapid' and 'Slow' with intermediate speeds possible. It seems that the proud owner of such a camera would have been on a strong learning curve, with a lot of trial and error, in order to meet the requirements of achieving the desired exposure. It would make using a Leica I Model A a comparatively simple process. I would love to hear from anyone who has experience of this or any similar falling plate camera.

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!

The camera contained one exposed and developed glass plate and a crop from that is below. I intend to scan this when I can. The scene looks like it is not in Britain or Ireland.

William

Edited May 5, 2021 by willeica

[nf3996]

21 hours ago, willeica said:

The camera contained one exposed and developed glass plate and a crop from that is below. I intend to scan this when I can. The scene looks like it is not in Britain or Ireland.

Based on the crop above, this could be in Britain - I see Union Jacks beside the first-floor windows. Between those windows is what looks like a pair of portraits and some dates. King George V and Queen Mary, maybe; 1914 and 1918/1919 perhaps, or 1910 and 1935. Maybe this is a house decorated for WWI peace celebrations in 1918/1919, or King George V's Silver Jubilee in 1935?

Alan

Edited May 6, 2021 by nf3996
Spelling mistake; and forgot I was looking at a negative image.

[wlaidlaw]

Here is William's shot inverted. I think it probably is in the UK. This was a typical style of suburban villa built on the outskirts of larger cities in the UK, as people wanted to move away from the bustle, smells and pollution of inner cities. Also local train and tram services to the suburbs improved at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries. I remember as a child in the early 50's, that people would decorate their houses with flags and bunting on any excuse: King's then Queen's birthday, British Empire Day etc and especially for occasions like a coronation or jubilee. Seeing the ER GR to the left and right of the central group of union flags, I suspect the occasion is the coronation of George VI, May 12, 1937 and his wife Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon , who later was called the Queen Mother. George Rex and Elizabeth Regina. 

Wilson but just call me Sherlock 

 

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!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[willeica]

42 minutes ago, wlaidlaw said:

Here is William's shot inverted. I think it probably is in the UK. This was a typical style of suburban villa built on the outskirts of larger cities in the UK, as people wanted to move away from the bustle, smells and pollution of inner cities. Also local train and tram services to the suburbs improved at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries. I remember as a child in the early 50's, that people would decorate their houses with flags and bunting on any excuse: King's then Queen's birthday, British Empire Day etc and especially for occasions like a coronation or jubilee. Seeing the ER GR to the left and right of the central group of union flags, I suspect the occasion is the coronation of George VI, May 12, 1937 and his wife Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon , who later was called the Queen Mother. George Rex and Elizabeth Regina. 

Wilson but just call me Sherlock 

 

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!

Thanks for the quick inversion, Wilson. I will do a scan tomorrow of the full frame and will post it here. 
 

William 

[willeica]

9 hours ago, nf3996 said:

or King George V's Silver Jubilee in 1935?

Spot on, Alan, and Wilson was not too far away as well. It was for the Silver Jubilee of King George V which fell on 6th May 1935. Today is also 6th May. My post of the negative was from the wrong side. I have done my best with the image below to bring out the detail and the dates 1910 and 1935 are clearly visible. And, yes, it is in the United Kingdom somewhere. I am allowing for the possibility that the camera might have still been in Northern Ireland at that time. It seems to have been originally sold in Belfast going by the plate on the top of the camera.

 

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!

William