|
Post by conan on Dec 19, 2016 2:39:38 GMT -5
Conan - the camera looks like a rebadged Taron PR. Try unscrewing the lens name ring, to check if there is another underneath it. John thanks for your reply. I had already tried the front name/beauty ring, strangely the engraving is actually part of a larger ring which unscrews the front similar to a Canon where there is a large gap almost big enough for a circular selenium meter, in fact there are small holes in the mount which could take wiring. There are plenty of hints that Taron may have made some early Petri cameras. I agree there is a 99% certainty it is a rebadged/slightly reworked Taron and I have been doing a little research on Taron. This camera is a hybrid with a shutter marked Taron and the lens assembly similar to a later Taron with a Citizen shutter – go figure that out. It appears Tomioka were the lens maker and the design is very generic – almost as if Tomioka were building the whole lens and shutter assembly and just labelling for various manufacturers (or assemblers) Taron also did some rebadging for some American camera retailers however who Ermak were I cannot find out – perhaps some retailer invented the name for a house brand.
|
|
|
Post by conan on Dec 18, 2016 3:22:53 GMT -5
Market Buys and a Mystery Camera I had a reasonably successful day with 4 purchases. The first was a Ricoh 300 in very nice condition (photos to follow) for $10. I actually have one of these – this is for a relative. The thing works and the rangefinder patch is quite bright. The same seller had an OM10 and a T20 flashgun which he decided to throw in for $5. (if nothing else it would give me a lens and UV filter) 2 fresh SR44’s and the thing actually works and the manual adaptor from my display OM10 also works properly. The flashgun also works fine. Condition of the camera and lens is about 90% cosmetic. This is also going to a relative. Go figure why he wouldn’t haggle on the $10 Ricoh but just offered the OM10 for $5 -perhaps he thought the Ricoh looked more collectable or perhaps his pricing was based on camera weight?
Next was a rough Konilette from 1959 and a Luxor II for $15 and this is where it gets interesting. I had heard of the brand but I am a real sucker for mid-50’s cameras. McKeown’s does not even list the manufacturer (Ermak Ind.Co.,Ltd) or the Luxor model. Googling produced literally nothing except a photo.net post from 2006 from someone asking for information about the camera- a few suggested links provided nothing but the name. Even Collectiblend has a reference to it – but no photographs or suggested values. However, I did find a 5 year old UK sale link with a colour picture of the Luxor I and this triggered the cameras name memory because the model I had a garish painted colour scheme on the camera front. The camera is typical of the mid 50s with a 45mm 2.8 and coupled rangefinder – and also the typical weight range. The rangefinder is awful – OK they all degrade but if this was the Luxor standard it is no wonder they stopped making cameras. The only reasonable identification is that it has a Taron-XV shutter 1-300. It also has some Zeiss ‘bumps’ on the camera back. Anybody know anything about the camera or the manufacturer? It does bear some resemblance to the Taron PR and VR models – similar top plate design of the PR but different front plate, same sync post as the VR. Were the Luxor’s rebadged and slightly reworked Tarons -and who were Ermak? Not that I intend to sell it but EBay ads for cameras more than a couple of years old always seem to contain ‘rare’ and ‘collectible’ – and in this case without information from McKeown’s or Google I could really claim it as very rare.
|
|
|
Post by conan on Dec 18, 2016 3:10:28 GMT -5
Haha, Conan, but I think this status holds true for the most of us here! But, as you insist - close to Noordwijkerhout where we have our holiday resort (well, kind of:-): 20160511_203017 by Hans de Groot, on Flickr taken by my long time partner - this december we had our 30 years celebration - just because our firstborn was 3 months in the making:-) OK - I can see the Hipster camera - but where is a multi colored hipster styled neck strap? I think your partner should make a selection of red, white and blue ones to suit the black camera.
|
|
|
Post by conan on Dec 18, 2016 3:01:29 GMT -5
Hans: Perplexed by the question of what was and wasn't a Contina II or IIa, I recently researched this. I found several book references where an opinion was offered, but the most sensible answers came from looking at original instruction manuals for the II and the IIa. These highlight the differences are that the IIa has: • small slots in meter cell flap, • dual range meter with scoop cut from outer meter dial, which reveals a scale (green for flap closed, and black for flap open), • EV number scale in meter window, • lens mount front plate has very shallow horizontal grooves, and • smaller viewfinder window with no frame around. The II has: • no slots in meter cell flap (its just a cover), • single range meter, • no scale in meter window because its a match-needle system rather than a pointer, • lens mount front plate is smooth, and • larger viewfinder window with surrounding frame/trim. Apparently, the IIa was produced between 1954 and 1956, and had the "a" in its name to differentiate it from the earlier folding (524/24) camera also called the Contina II. The II was produced between 1956 and 1958 with some logic to Zeiss dropping the "a" from its name, because production of the 524/24 folding Contina II had ceased in 1953. I was happy with all this until I found the "Snabb" Contina manual ... which was the Swedish version of the camera (can't remember whether it was a II or a IIa). I decided not to look any further !!!!! John its not nit picking with Zeiss strange numbering systems and the 'a' can make a difference ie Contax II and Contax IIa. Hans and a great deal of internet reading will give you an idea of the bizarre numbering system of their TLR models. My Contina has the slot in the meter flap - so its a IIa?
|
|
|
Post by conan on Dec 18, 2016 2:55:59 GMT -5
Johnbear, I'm sure you're right about the window covering the scale. The earliest lenses I have with that are the Pentax-F which date from the early '80s. Of course some lens manufacturer could have used them earlier, but it would seem to be that era, around the 1980s, when they became more commonplace. Conan, it would appear to get interesting here. I was looking at your photo and comparing it to my lens. The auto-diaphragm lever (to the mid-left of the lens as we look at it0 in your photo is in the closed position i.e. the blades are at the f22 position - at least they are in my lens - and yet the scale is set to f2.8. When I set my lens to f2.8 the lever is at the very back of the slot. additionally the the lever that connects with the metering linkage is at the very front of its slot (i.e in the same position as yours) when it is set at f22 (rather than the 2.8 yours is set at). From what we have so far it would appear that the numbering on yours is the wrong way round, but everything else is the same, that is to say it would operate perfectly but when set at f22 the lens is actually operating at f2.8 (and so on through the scale - f16=f4, f11=f5.6 and f8=f8). Anyway, here are the photos referred to above - at least they would be if I hadn't used "quick reply". I'll post this as is then use "reply" to do the photos. Thanks for the photographs. Interesting about the stop down lever. I will have a good look at all my Topcon lenses tomorrow
|
|
|
Post by conan on Dec 17, 2016 3:18:44 GMT -5
Hans there had been a couple of EBay ads this week for Contina’s describing them as ‘Hipster’ cameras. There were also a couple of private site ads for Icarex’s describing them as modern ‘Hipster’ cameras.
I guess with your collection of these – it’s time to get a new photo showing your ‘Hipster’ status.
|
|
|
Post by conan on Dec 17, 2016 3:15:56 GMT -5
Q is for Canon FT QL John, Those little pieces of leather to protect the camera is something I have not seen before. An excellent idea which I will start to use now. Thank you, Mickey Split rings might be great for keys – on cameras – they are paint or chrome removal tools. There is nothing worse when someone advertises a camera with the admission ‘paint or chrome off or worn’ around the eyelets. Various manufacturers shipped plastic versions of these with many of their later cameras and I guess most people didn’t realise what they were and didn’t use them.
|
|
|
Post by conan on Dec 17, 2016 3:13:41 GMT -5
I have to agree with your comments about a solution in search of a problem. The Contax/Leica/Nikon cassettes were simpler. The SW had to be engineered to fit a range of cameras. Firstly, the standoff on the rewind crank had to be adjustable and the way the cassette sat also had to be adjustable so that it lined with the film gate. In view of the cost of these things I wonder how much bulk film you had to buy and use to make them cost effective. As usual Rick Drawbridge did it fine. I really like his write ups and use of the older ‘hidden gems’
|
|
|
Post by conan on Dec 17, 2016 3:12:02 GMT -5
Conan, Why must you be so rude and abusive with your posts? I think you owe Mr. Farrell an apology. This forum is supposed to be fun for all participants. If you need to vent your ego, please do it elsewhere! George I have no idea why you consider my post about the QL needs an apology. With the very greatest of respect your other comments are just plain wrong probably because of my posts correcting you on the production dates of those Retinas. You posted misleading information on a site about Camera Collecting and I corrected it – is that venting my ego?
|
|
|
Post by conan on Dec 17, 2016 3:10:24 GMT -5
Sometimes a picture is not worth a thousand words – this is about the 6th time Canons ‘QL’ has been used for ‘Q’ How about something a little more original Chinese copy of one of the Agfa’s? Agfa aficionados’ please help identify. Ah, but I have a Canon QL, and I don't have the Chinese copy. I also wasn't aware this was a serious competition. I didn’t know it was a competition. The point I was making was that ‘QL’ has been done to death and Q was used on other camera equipment. Photos are always nice if they are accompanied by some text, was this a camera you worked on (you have done rangefinders line ups before) or perhaps the camera had some significance to you. As regards the Quindao it looks suspiciously like some of the ‘Agfa Sensors’ which means if it was then odds on it was a 126 camera which really did have a Quick Load system
|
|
|
Post by conan on Dec 17, 2016 3:08:27 GMT -5
I have a couple of non-Topcon lenses. A wide angle and a 200mm. Neither of these has any similarity to the Topcon made lenses other than the mount. I would have to find them to check which way the f-stop (and focusing for that matter) runs. There always seems to be a law about brand lenses: if they weren't made by the company itself, then they were made by Cosina. I can't think of having seen a Topcon lens with a window covering the scale but then, to be honest I haven't really looked at what lenses have been available since I was using the SuperD in the 1970s. Well, I've not really been any help. What would be interesting, though would be to compare my lens fully with yours to see exactly how they compare e.g. Colour of lettering, typeface used etc. If I get round to it I post some more photos of my lens In regards to non-brand lenses there were many Japanese manufacturers that also made for the name brands. Cosina were probably better known for their bodies – and the incredible variety of ‘brand’ cameras based on their CT chassis. Topcon seems to have a problem with their mounts – the early ones with the Exakta mount but no coupling because Exakta used external coupling and then with their Uni? range. I have a Topcon IC Auto and the seller sent a ‘gift’ of a 35mm WA with it with a note saying be careful it probably does not fit later Topcon’s and its not an Exakta mount. I have 3 Topcon’s with the Exakta mount the RE2 and the later one with the mirror lock up. This later one is in superb condition and is marked US Navy. (Part of the US Navy contract) Probably used by an admiral because for a military camera it’s in superb condition Would like to see some photos of your lenses
|
|
|
Post by conan on Dec 16, 2016 5:19:50 GMT -5
Ah Shirley – some of us remember you Who remembers loading their own cassettes when bulk film was cheap and film loaders were par for the course. AND those different cassettes from re using standard ones and trapping bits of grit in the felt to make certain the film was scratched to the labyrinth styles from Contax, Leica and Nikon. Shirley Wellard made one helluver product -this cassette is adjustable in sitting length (to make certain it centres on the film gate) and self-opening by pressing the rewind lever down and twisting. Of course this only worked if the rewind lever was a lift to remove the cassette type. Leica/Contax/Nikon rewinds were fixed – but they had they own cassettes designs operated by the cameras turn to lock base keys. So the Shirley Wellard opened up a way for lesser mortals to enjoy labyrinth cassettes on many ‘normal’ (affordable) cameras. This thing is a work of art in its own right for those that appreciate good engineering and clever design that actually works. Goodness know what it would cost to manufacture today. Apparently it cost the equivalent of 2- 3 days’ wages when it was first released.
|
|
|
Post by conan on Dec 16, 2016 4:33:31 GMT -5
Q is for Canon FT QL Sometimes a picture is not worth a thousand words – this is about the 6th time Canons ‘QL’ has been used for ‘Q’ How about something a little more original Chinese copy of one of the Agfa’s? Agfa aficionados’ please help identify.
|
|
|
Post by conan on Dec 16, 2016 4:17:10 GMT -5
I was in a bit of rush posting this morning. I realise that I have got the lenses the wrong way round. Outwardly my 35/2.8 is as the lens on the left of your photo, as well ok at it. All the lenses I have have th e 2.8 (or whatever) as per the silver lens of your photos. I can't lay my hands on the 58/1.8 at the moment but I'm sure that is the same as the other three. Your black lens above appears to have a window over the distance scale. None of my lenses have this. It does have a window over the distance scale and I found a very oblique reference to this on a Topcon forum stating that the style of lenses was not made by Topcon – well whoever made them used Topcon name engravings and did a perfect copy of the other Topcor lenses. Now if these were Nikkor's we would be deluged with replies even telling us the name of the supervisor on duty that day at the factory and his wife and children’s names. Sadly some Topcon development history is still very clouded.
|
|
|
Post by conan on Dec 16, 2016 4:02:40 GMT -5
To use the English expression, the name ‘Reporter’ on a camera is as common as muck. McKeown’s has at least 12 different manufacturers using the name on still cameras – so obviously its not a name that was trademarked. It’s not a video camera – it’s a Super 8 film camera. The camera looks like a generic Japanese’s style model possibly from an American house brand.
|
|