|
Post by conan on Dec 1, 2016 21:05:17 GMT -5
Hansz, I think you have become this sites dating genealogist for Zeiss lenses and cameras. I tend to date things according to Internet sources and McKeown’s which tends to list available dates rather than actual manufacturing dates. No problems with locating most serial numbers – Zeiss were not as bad as Nikon on some of their newer lenses and bodies. Where does Zeiss hide the serial numbers on their Contina models? I have a Contina IIa (527/24?) perhaps they used invisible ink on those. The Super BC (why is it an ‘S’?) is P48109 and the Pro Tessar lens 3820577 The IV is L44377 and the good old Tessar is 3792713 Conan, It is a Super BC, although a rare one, being black. The Contaflex S is in fact a Super BC (both have the same Bestellnummer - 10.1273) and are among the latest Contaflexes made. Black was fashionable then, and so most S's are black. But it should be noted on the body front. As you have a Pro-Tessar mounted I couldn't see it, but merely assumed:-) Within the Zeiss Historica Society there is a certain interest in the Tessar 2,8/50 of these cameras as we are looking for pinpointing a date for the Tessar to be recalculated (once more:-). It is assumed that it was contemporaneous with the Super BC to S switch. For more information visit holoceen.nl. (although the site still lacks a lot of function...) About the 527/24 Contina II: most postwar viewfinder models had their production number stamped in the leatherette on the back. You have to look closely to see it (and beware of the O vs Q possibility). As most cameras were sold with an everready case, this number can be obliterated by the push-marks of the closure. Sorry no S on the front and no front lens -so cannot help with the Tessar. The Super B has a Tessar No 3432524 and probably very erroneously I believed this contained the revised Tessar formulation. Obviously feet and metre markings would have been for the intended market but can you tell me why some Contaflex models focus clockwise to infinity and other focus anti clockwise? The only Zeiss camera worthy of the name Super BS (Bullnutse) would be when they stuck the word ‘Pro’ on the black Icarex which was silly and a little insulting to potential buyers. Not much different from the Nikon name litigation when they decided German buyers couldn’t distinguish between the Zeiss Ikon logo and name Contarex on the camera front and Nikon using Nikon on the front, the ‘Nippon Kogaku’ badge on the camera top, ‘Made in Japan’ stamped in the bottom and ‘F’ on the prism.
|
|
|
Post by conan on Dec 1, 2016 1:14:41 GMT -5
Conan, nice catch! Can you provide me with the body and lens serial numbers? Th Super BC (or rather an S) has its number stamped underneath and the IV you have to open the back to see it. Thanks, Hans Hansz, I think you have become this sites dating genealogist for Zeiss lenses and cameras. I tend to date things according to Internet sources and McKeown’s which tends to list available dates rather than actual manufacturing dates. No problems with locating most serial numbers – Zeiss were not as bad as Nikon on some of their newer lenses and bodies. Where does Zeiss hide the serial numbers on their Contina models? I have a Contina IIa (527/24?) perhaps they used invisible ink on those. The Super BC (why is it an ‘S’?) is P48109 and the Pro Tessar lens 3820577 The IV is L44377 and the good old Tessar is 3792713
|
|
|
Post by conan on Dec 1, 2016 1:13:01 GMT -5
Hi Conan, yes, I have a Contaflex Super with three lenses (Pro-Tessars) which was in working condition last time I looked at it. I'm afraid that I don't shoot much film at the moment. I keep meaning to but never get around to it. I should put some photos up of my kit because I have some interchangeable film magazines for this camera. Rachel, like us when we get older they need some basic exercise - otherwise those shutters and diaphragms will gum up. I am sure Hansz will help – just send him the cameras and he will probably return them in 5 or 10 years. How did you get on with the interchangeable magazines? – I have never heard a good word about them being easy to change or without light leaks.
|
|
|
Post by conan on Nov 30, 2016 2:54:14 GMT -5
$20 or about 14 euros - took a chance
This cannot be happening – I just got another pair of Contaflex’s. This was at a market auction and my inspection was limited to looking in the box from a distance. At least I could see the chrome wasn’t pitted and the black paint was well intact. 1 a Contaflex IV with a working meter in Chrome with a 50/2.8 Tessar. Cosmetic condition about 8.5. Meter is actually working and so are all the shutter speeds. Also came with a genuine ZI UV filter and genuine Lens Hood 2 a Contaflex Super BC in black with a Pro Tessar 35/3.2. Cosmetic condition about 9.5. Everything works including the TTL meter and all the speeds etc. Came with a ZI 60mm UV filter So at $10 a piece or 7 euros they were probably worth the trouble. These will not get film - they will take their place in year order against the other SLRs on display. I think Rachel make a post many moons ago as a previous Contaflex user but she had bagged them up and they were probably gathering dust.
|
|
|
Post by conan on Nov 27, 2016 1:08:19 GMT -5
Conan wrote: On a serious note do you have any production numbers for the Contarex? Production numbers of the Contarex according Hans-Jurgen Kuc 2001: Contarex I: 32.000 Contarex Special: 5.000 Contarex P: 1.500 Contarex S: 13.400 Contarex SE: 3.100 Hologon: 1.400 Makes a grand total of 56.400. Relative to the total number of Nikon F, a 15 to 1 ratio is a good guess... (Still I like the Contarex more, well, not the camera, but its lenses are soooo good...) Hans Hanz thanks for that. Interestingly one set of figures I have is within a few hundred units of what you quoted. Of interest is the number of Contarex’s built after 1972 or shall we say assembled from existing parts as special orders in 1973 and 1974. Some figures quote about a hundred, other up to 300 - either way these would be fairly rare.
|
|
|
Post by conan on Nov 27, 2016 1:06:00 GMT -5
Just bought another contax RTS, after a bit of restoration it will be ready for display. It came with the real time winder and a soligor 28-200 zoom that will be replaced by a zeiss distagon 35mm . On the soligor, while rather fancy when new, these lenses have fallen from grace as nobody wants them anymore.( as is with allmost all old MF zooms) Not a fan of these or its Yashica cousins. I have yet to see one that is fully functional. Reminds me of the old saying “Nice body, shame about the face” – in the case of these its “Nice lens, shame about the body” Shall we say a sign of the times that these lenses are considered worthless but then again 35mm SLRs went through a considerable dip with the introduction of digital. Perhaps in a few years people will discover some wonderful new use for these older pieces of glass and bemoan the fact they could have picked them up for peanuts a few years earlier.
|
|
|
Post by conan on Nov 23, 2016 6:19:08 GMT -5
Conan, i really wished i could be more positive about rollei, but (for me) they just spell trouble. One positive thing i can say about rollei is in the seventies i had a rollei SLX after a while it developed a problem with the secondary shutter. I brought it back to the shop for repair and within a week or three the SLX was returned to me repaired and with a note from rollei in wich they apologised for one of their products failing. There was no charge and even mailing and transportation costs from Germany were taken care of by rollei. now i very much doubt if they would do the same with their lesser cameras... I am glad you got some service out of them – was this normal or were you a working professional they needed to keep appeased? I was in the ‘trade’ so it wasn’t a repair situation – it was a replacement. I can at least remember when Rollei made some great TLRs and I had a couple of Ts (souped up Rolleicords) and 3 or 4 F models none of which ever let me down – although of course these were the pinnacle of TLR engineering (and price)
|
|
|
Post by conan on Nov 23, 2016 5:15:56 GMT -5
Some time ago I sold all my Nikon gear - That’s criminal. I suppose you blew the money on wine, women, gambling and an Icarex - or you really went downhill and wasted it on a Canon or Minolta. On a serious note do you have any production numbers for the Contarex? I am editing some material and the production numbers for the Contarex are very rubbery. The Bullseye numbers seem fine with the production numbers for the letter variants – but after that its all over the place. I have seen total numbers of 66,000 and others in the low forties. One Japanese site claims the Nikon F outsold it 15 to 1 on the basis of 862,000 for the F.
|
|
|
Post by conan on Nov 23, 2016 5:13:41 GMT -5
Togheter with some other photo stuff a rollei 35 TE came in to my possesion. it's a nice companion for my 35 S. Some people,seem to think these little cameras rock! and i would like to love 'em as well, but there's just to much wrong with them so they will never leave my display cabinet. The main thing wrong is they are viewfinder only so you have to guess focussing distance, with the S at 2.8 there's little space for error, so unless you've got all the time in the world and your subject won't move only then there's a chance of getting sharp pictures. offcoarse i could use the hyperfocal trick if there's enough light but then what's the use of wide apperture lenses on top of that i don't like photograps that are (semi)-sharp front to back. Another thing is these rolleis are rather vulnarable, these are the only two i've got that actually work (safe for the light meter on the S) I've seen more broken ones than working examples. Still they fetch good prices on the second hand market and with more than 2.000.000 examples produced they must have some appeal to some people.I for one only like them for their quirky looks or should i say their original design? Totally agree about these Rollei’s. I think you made a post a few months ago about your bad experiences with them. I had 2 in the mid-seventies and both were exchanged under warranty and I eventually gave the second one away (probably to someone I didn’t like) I recently acquired a good looking B35 for $10 (About 7 euros?) just to put on the shelf next to an Olympus XA to show the smaller 35mm point and shoots. It’s going to stay on the shelf because I will not waste any film because although it appears to functions I damn sure it won’t when it sees a roll of film.
|
|
|
Post by conan on Nov 19, 2016 13:38:12 GMT -5
If i had the money i'd probably buy it, but for now my aim is to one day get a SP as they are more usable than the early S types. An SP is on my list when I win some money and judging by the price of them I need to win quite a few dollars. Some years ago I had the pleasure of using an M3 and SP for several months’ side by side and both had their particular strengths. I liked the SP a little more possibly because it felt so much like a Nikon F which of course is no surprise given the heritage of the F.
|
|
|
Post by conan on Nov 19, 2016 13:34:26 GMT -5
Yesterday, I visited a local second hand shop, and found, to my surprise, they had some photographic gear. I bought a Beauty Lightomatic III, a rangefinder camera, with built in meter. The rangefinder is clear, and the shutter works on all speeds except B. This is because the delayed action mechanism has been removed. The flash synchronisation has been locked on X, and the selector removed. This camera has a distinct resemblance to the first model Canonet They both have 45mm f1.9 lenses, the meter cells look very similar, and the outer diameter of the lens assembly is the same. The Beauty has no auto mode, however. The Beauty's lens is a Biokor-S, reputedly made by Tomoika, who were Yashica's lens manufacturer. John, Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I have a couple of these and to me they represent (along with some other makes) the beginning of the end of the 50s designs when German and Japanese cameras had at least some individuality and some basic styling and minor styling quirks. The Canonet represents the bland 60s when the viewfinder/rangefinders became boxes along the lines of the Argus C3 bricks – a soulless square block with a lens stuck on the front.
Unfortunately for Beauty and other smaller manufacturers and the German makers they became casualties of the ensuing marketing war between Canon, Minolta, Konica and others.
|
|
|
Post by conan on Nov 11, 2016 3:21:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by conan on Nov 10, 2016 2:50:55 GMT -5
Says conan: According to McKeown's 11th, the Retina Reflex IV (Type 051) was made 1964-66. An unknown quantity of the Retina Reflex IV (Type 051/N) was hand assembled at Kodak A.G. in 1977. Hence I think my original assertion... ... was correct. But let's just agree to disagree. With great respect implying that the Retina IV was a 1964-1979 product is inaccurate and misleading on a site devoted to Camera Collecting. A year or so with conflicting release dates and end of manufacturing dates might be OK but adding 12 years is at best confusing. When a manufacturer goes through the spares and parts bins 12 years after discontinuing a product and assembles a not for sale model for only staff cannot be considered a manufacturing continuation. The Retina IV (Type 051) was a 1964 to 1967 camera, even Kodak in their 1968 and 1969 US price lists state the camera is a ‘no longer manufactured’ model. The 051/N model of 1979 (total 300) was put together from old parts and was only given to Kodak employees – it was never a retail product. It had different numbering and different pressings in the leatherette. Kodak did the same again in 1979 with the Retina IIIC (Type 028)– a 1958-1961 model with a limited run of 120 – again not for retail – assembled from old existing parts and only for Kodak Employees. Kodak was not the only company to do this. The Contarex Super and Super Electronic was a 1970 – 1972 camera yet Zeiss assembled some from existing components in 1993 and 1994 and these were available to the public as a special order but this is not considered a 1990-1994 camera.
|
|
|
Post by conan on Nov 10, 2016 2:42:41 GMT -5
Just call me the Camera Pimp Daddy! Randy I confess to being a traditionalist and like cameras in their original livery and not pimped up. In 50 years time people will be searching the net (or whatever has replaced it) arguing about how many purple or pink cameras a manufacturer actually made. I have seen a lime green Exakta, a white Mamiya and a pink Minolta over the past few months -Yuk!
|
|
|
Post by conan on Nov 6, 2016 15:59:51 GMT -5
Q is for Quite enough Quiet time cuing for a Q. R is for the Retina Reflex, an interesting SLR offered by Kodak. The most interesting feature of this camera series (Retina Reflex 1957-58, Retina Reflex S 1959-60, Retina Reflex III 1961-64 and Retina Reflex IV 1964-77) is that it used a Synchro-Compur between-the-lens shutter. The "S" version shown was the second production Retina SLR and its lenses also fit the rangefinder Retina S camera. Note that the rear lens element remained fixed in the camera; only the front elements were interchangable. Lenses were made by Schneider and by Rodenstock. In addition to the Schneider 35, 50 and 135 mm lenses illustrated, lenses (actually lens front elements) in 28, 30, 85, 200 and 250 mm focal lengths were offered. The interchangeable lens front elements were bayonet-mounted to the camera body in conventional fashion. Clearly, no focal plane shutter is evident when the back is opened. The film-advance/shutter-cocking lever is on the bottom of the camera and is meant to be operated by the right thumb. The Retina Reflex IV lasted until 1967 Actually one of the most interesting things about the last Retina Reflex was that in gave an early indication of the serious problems in the West German camera industry which Zeiss blithely ignored. Zeiss had a big investment in Deckel and were fully aware that Kodak was seriously cutting back on their orders for shutters which meant that the Retina Reflex and the Retinettes and Retinas were probably due to be phased out. Kodak had in fact developed conventional focal plane shutter prototypes but decided that Japanese competition made them unviable so Kodak would pursue their basic 126 camera mass market strategy. If the largest manufacturer of photographic products in the World could not turn a profit on precision camera manufactured in West Germany – then who could? Of course Kodak had it both ways with the dominance of 35mm and then 126 - as the largest manufacturer of film and processing products - they were on a winner.
|
|