PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Post by PeterW on Jun 6, 2008 17:04:40 GMT -5
I used to work on a Mac, in fact three steadily updated models, all monochrome. But that was when you couldn't get Quark for a PC - a looong time ago. And SCSI, which they all had, was a nice firm connecting system but much slower than USB2. I liked using the MAC OS, but a PC handles all the graphics I need to use very well, and extra hard drives, cards and whatever I need - even the computers themselves - are cheap compared with a Mac.
Got an old I-Mac somewhere. Nice machine, but I don't use it because it can't handle the later OS and it won't take enough memory for what I want.
PeterW
|
|
PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Post by PeterW on Jun 4, 2008 15:02:13 GMT -5
Sid: Oh dear ... just about says it all.
I'll bet you exclaimed, "Oops, I didn't really mean to reverse over my camera."
Glad the camera itself survived OK.
I've never been inside an electronic AF lens, and after looking at the circuit board and all the chips I don't think I want to! You can't actually see all the litttle electronic charges running around struttin' their stuff - or not as the case may be. I wouldn't know where to start looking for faults.
I had to call "HELP!" to John this evening when my computer kept crashing after I downloaded an update to one of the applications. It took him about 3 minutes to find the problem and half a minute to fix it. As far as I was able to gather I'd put something in the wrong part of the system registry. I didn't know I'd put anything anywhere, I thought the install wizard did it all for me, but it seems wizards, like Homer, are known to nod at times.
I can't really say that electronics make my head spin ... I just sit there, a living anachronism, and the world spins round me.
PeterW
|
|
PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Post by PeterW on Jun 3, 2008 19:49:30 GMT -5
Hi Ron,
I had to do a quick double-take when I first read your posting. I thought for a moment that your main Mamiya site was down. Whew!!
I never visited your Collecting Mamiya forum because I don't collect Mamiyas, but it's really tough if you've lost the list of members for good, not to mention useful archives.
I'm very surprised to learn that Conforums allowed guest posting without either them or the forum owners being able to moderate and approve new members - if that is what happened. Surely they weren't naive enough not to realise that they would get bombarded with automatically generated spam, spyware, viruses and just about any other nasty. What on earth happened to their firewalls and spam and spyware filters? Puzzling.
I think the only thing you can do is to kiss Conforums goodbye and start again on Proboards. I would imagine that a sizeable number of your members will visit your main site to find out what's happened - at least, the active ones will, and they're the members you want on your new forum. I suspect a prominent notice on your main site about a "new" forum, plus of course a link, will bring a lot of them over. I hope it will.
Best of luck!
PeterW
Edited for a PS: When, and if, Conforums manage to salvage your Mamiya forum my own inclination would be to treat what's on there with a jaundiced eye, just in case the low-life scrags managed to embed some time-bombed nasties which can be very difficult to detect and eradicate before they become active.
All right, I know I'm a cynical, suspicious old bugger, but I knocked around west and east (communist) Europe as a ferreting industrial journalist for a fair few years, and it's a regretable survival attitude that life taught me.
PW
|
|
PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Post by PeterW on May 30, 2008 18:25:05 GMT -5
Intersting postings on the Lubitel amd its predecessors. As has been said, it was copied from the Voigtländer Brillant (please note, as Reiska correctly wrote, there is no second 'i' in Brillant, at least not in German though in some UK adverts the word was spelled Brilliant with a second i).
I have read in one or two places on the internet, in various forums as I recall, that the Russians took the machinery for making the Lubitel, or Komsomolet, from Germany. I don't think this can be correct as the Russians never had control of Braunschweig, where the the Brillant was made. They didn't get that far west.
As Reiska pointed out, German patents were made public property after the war. But strictly speaking this was only for the victorious Allied countries, which included Russia. In other countries, and inside Germany itself, pre-war German patents were still valid until they expired. Not that this mattered a lot to the the Soviet Union, which was never noted for strict regard of patent law.
The Russians undoubtedly had access to the patent drawings for the Brillant, but whether or not there were copies of the manufacturing drawings in eastern Germany I don't know. I would tend to doubt it unless, possibly, Voigtländer contracted out to a company in the eastern part of Germany for the moulded Bakelite bodies, but I have no information on this one way or the other.
I'm inclined to think the Russians worked from patent drawings plus handling and measuring actual cameras. They didn't do too badly at this with their FED Leica clones before and during the war.
The position was slightly different with the Super Ikonta and Moskva. Super Ikontas were made in the ex-Contessa Nettel factory in Stuttgart, once again well inside western Germany, though once again I've read, quite wrongly, that the Russians took the manufacturing machines for this.
But copies of detailed manufacturing drawings were held at Zeiss Ikon headquarters in Dresden. This was too badly damaged by bombing to continue making cameras, but nearly all the machine tools and jigs for Zeiss Ikon cameras were made by Zeiss Ikon's machine tool factory which was outside the main city of Dresden, and wasn't very badly damaged. It was still very much inside eastern Germany, and may well have had other copies of the manufacturing drawings. So though the Russians didn't get the actual machines they probably got the manufacturing drawings and the tooling for the Super Ikonta, which was the next best thing.
PeterW
|
|
PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Post by PeterW on May 30, 2008 6:45:04 GMT -5
Alex, Glad to be of any help. I don't think you need to darken them, or you might get veiled highlights. They could possibly do with a shade more contrast for posting on screen. I took the liberty of copying one of the pics, adjusted the contrast just a little, cropped it a little to get rid of some of the blank sky and lift the horizon, and gave it about 30% Unsharp Mask. IMHO it suits a screen image better though maybe it just suits the settings on my monitor better. Hope it doesn't look overcooked on some monitors. What do you think? Original. Slightly more contrast, cropped and about 30% Unsharp Mask. PeterW
|
|
PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Post by PeterW on May 29, 2008 19:03:11 GMT -5
Bob, I had a similar situation a couple of days ago with a Canon lens I wanted to open to get rid of some dust. No holes for a lens wrench, so I tried the rubber bung method, but my aged wrists just hadn't got enough strength to push hard enough and twist at the same time. And, as they say in the advert, I thought of you.
I was about to drill some wrench holes, but struck by a sudden flash of inspiration (he says) I put the rubber bung down on some smooth concrete (the back doorstep) where it would get a good grip, stood the lens on top and twisted with both hands while I used my weight (what little of it there is) to exert pressure.
Worked a treat!
I've also found that as they come from the store rubber bungs and door stops often have a light coating of releasing agent from the moulding process. This stops them getting a good frictional grip, but it comes off easily if you wipe it over with lighter fuel (naptha).
Worth a try?
PeterW
|
|
PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Post by PeterW on May 29, 2008 18:34:29 GMT -5
Yes, Alex, the pictures appeared OK. Sorry I haven't made any comments on them, or some other pics recently, but I was a little busy taking the pics of folder shutter release linkages. I'll try to make up for it here.
I assume you want a critique rather than just a 'great shots' type of comment? Here's mine anyway, for what it's worth.
Pic 1. I like this one, I've always had a liking for pics of derelict buildings. They have a sort of 'past glories' air about them. I assume this is part of the downtown area that's being redeveloped?
Pic 2. Nicely taken, but sorry it doesn't have a great deal of interest for me as a picture.
Pic 3. I like this better, It holds my attention more because of the contrast (pictorially, not tonally) between the riverside area and the developed area of the Advertiser buildings, and the way the railway (sorry, railroad) tracks come in from the left to divide them.
Pic 4. Good diagonal composition, but I would have preferred less blank sky, and the pole further away from the centre of the pic.
Pic 5. Again, I assume this is part of the downtown area being redeveloped. It brings home a deserted feeling about what must once have been quite a busy junction.
Pic 6. I like this. I think I would have liked it a lot more if you could have got a lower viewpoint (maybe crouched down?) to get more foreground and less blank sky. As it is, the horizon almost divides the picture in half with nothing in the top half. What would have really made it is if you could have got a train coming in from the left to add interest to the area with the rather large clump of trees.
Pic 7. So many shades of grey here that it really calls out for colour. I've taken lots of pics like this in black and white, and always been a little disappointed that they weren't in colour.
Pic 8. I like this. Riverside scenes are another of my favourites. Critique? I think I would also have taken another pic from further over to the right, a little nearer the tracks, and again from a lower viewpoint, so that the tracks lead more into the picture. Once again I would like to have seen a train coming into the picture from the right, but in similar circumstances I've waited ages and ages for a train - and then, of course, one comes along just after I've taken the pic and started to move on.
Pic 9. I like the S-bend composition in this pic, but I'm a little puzzled as to what it is. Is it an overflow culvert to take away excess water and prevent flooding the banks when the river gets too high?
Pic 10. Nicely taken, and the 'Bus Lane' wording adds interest to what might otherwise have been an empty foreground. I would have liked to see a vehicle of some coming into the picture along the road from right to left to add to the feeling of movement given by the slightly diagonal composition.
Reading through what I've written it sounds as if I've been a bit harsh. I didn't intend to be, just one man's honest opinion of the pictures. Other people no doubt have other ideas.
I like the tone range you get with Kodak TX400. Do you develop the negs yourself? I think I've used TX400 only a couple of times, my favourite medium speed B&W film is Ilford HP5, mainly because I know it, and I know I can push develop it up to two stops in ID11 (or D76) if the light isn't too good. I often use a light to medium yellow filter with HP5. Have you tried one with TX400? I find it helps the contrast on dull days even though you lose a stop in film speed. The AE1's program will automatically take this filter factor into account.
Two questions: First, is the river the Alabama or have I got my geography up the Swanee again as usual? Second, are the skies always cloudless in Alabama, or was it just an overcast day? A few clouds could have made a lot of difference.
Oh yes, one more question: Why did you carry a 50mm lens when the 35-70 covers 50mm? Since I first got Canon's 35-70 short zoom it's been my most-used Canon lens. I can't remember the last time I had the standard lens on the camera, unless it was for some indoor shots when I needed the extra stop and half speed.
Keep shooting!
PeterW
|
|
PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Post by PeterW on May 28, 2008 9:17:14 GMT -5
Hi all, Following on from the Voigtländer folder shutter release here are a couple of other types you might come across. I know not everyone here uses a medium format folder, but I hope some of you find them interesting andpossibly helpful. Medium format folders give lovely sized negs, and with only 12, or sometimes 8, shots per roll they help to make you think a little more before you take each picture. The first three pics show the release mechanism on an Ensign Selfix 16-20. When you press the button on the top plate a tube inside the body casing slides downwards on a rod held at A and A. The tube has a very light return spring and sometimes gets stiff on the rod. The bottom part of the body casing is a plate which you can take off to get the rod and tube out and free things. A finger on the tube pushes on a pivoted arm mounted at B on the door base. The pivot can also get stiff, but it comes off easily after you take out the screw. Don't lose the small return spring. This picture from the front shows the arm pivot and small return spring, and also the curved end to the trigger on the Epsilon shutter The curved end of the shutter trigger isn't always as smooth as it might be. Smoothing and burnishing it can make the release smoother. This Adox Golf uses another popular type of release mechanism, a rocking arm on the door. You can see where corrosion on the body casing has made the sliding plate from the release button stiff. Unfortunately most sliding plates like this run under rivets, and don't come out easily for cleaning. Continued dosing with lighter fluid generally frees them, and you can use a drop of light oil afterwards. The rocking arm on the Adox uses a fixed pivot with a small return spring at the back, and a screw pivot at the front. This makes it easy to take out and clean. Once again, don't lose the small return spring. Other makes use a fixed pivot each end. Sometimes you can take one pivot off, sometimes they are riveted. You can also see the lead-in on the rocking arm which helps to make sure the trigger on the shutter doesn't catch against it when you open the camera, and finishes the correct side. These types of release linkages, or variations of them, together with the Voigtlänader linkage I posted earlier, cover most of the types you're likely to come across. Attention to getting them smooth and free can make all the difference to the pleasure of using the camera, as well as helping you to get shake-free shots. To attend to them properly you have to remove the lens and shutter and push the bellows back out of the way. Take care not to lose any spacer shims behind the shutter or the camera won't focus properly. Good luck if you tackle a folder's release linkage. It isn't difficult work, and very satisfying when you get a smooth, easy release. Andrew: I use Photoshop (an old version, several issues out of date) to put the text on the pictures. I think you can also do it with Paint Shop and other image editing programs. PeterW
|
|
PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Post by PeterW on May 26, 2008 6:17:12 GMT -5
Hi Andrew, Our collecting interests do seem very similar. Thanks for posting your views on Voigtländer folders. I don't have any argument with left-hand shutter releases in general, provided they are on the front of the camera or on the top plate. I'm quite at home with the Exaktas for example. The Voigtländer release I find awkward to use is the one on the earlier 6x9 folders where it was a trigger on the front drop-down door. It doesn't "fall naturally to hand" to use a phrase beloved by some camera reviewers, at least for me it doesn't.
I haven't finished taking the pics of shutter releases on folders. I find, looking through some of the folders I have, that there are quite a few variations, each of which has its own peculiarities, but I hope to finish the pics sometime this week. As you're probably aware, I enjoy rescuing and restoring sadly neglected examples. I find it quite a challenge sometimes, but at least it keeps me out of mischief!
The list of Compur serial dates is the same as the one I have. It's a help in dating cameras, but you have to remember that makers often held stocks of Compurs, and lenses, in hand and, particularly on lower volume production, the shutter or lens date may be a couple of years earlier than the camera's manufacture date.
Here's the list of Voigtländer lems serial numbers which I got from Neill Wright. I'm posting it infull, complete with his notes. It's quite long, so aplogies to those for whom it doesn't have much interest.
I suggest if anyone wants it they copy it and print it before it disappears off the bottom of the thread.
"This section is based on the lens section of the Voigtländer Verein's "Checklist of Voigtländer Cameras and Equipment" with thanks, and especial acknowledgment to their Secretary Dr C. Haupt for permission to quote from his Table of Lens serial number dates, which extend the official ones in the Gravierungs Buchen. The original Checklist was produced about 1975, and has been successively extended, especially after a very valuable visit to Carl Zeiss, Oberkochen in 1977, to whom thanks are due. Since then almost uniquely, a second listing of Voigtländer lenses has appeared in Udo Afalter's excellently illustrated book, "Voigtländer Kameras und Objektive" publ. Lindemanns Verlag, 1998, ISBN 3-89506-137-9 so that a comparison is possible of what seem to be independant studies. The information on the serial numbers has been extended with data supplied to the Voigtländer Verein by Mr J. Halfweg, with information on an intermediate period partly from Verein experience and partly from dating using Compur shutter numbers to date lenses. This last is obviously less definite than the other data, although there were some key figures in the original registers held in Oberkochen. Voigtländer SERIAL NUMBERS This data is based on the "Objektiv Gravierungs Buchen" in the archive at Carl Zeiss Oberkochen, for 1885 to 1929. Some additional notes are included, and those in italics are from other sources of unknown validity. Eder gives a useful list of the introduction dates of new big sizes in Voigtländer Petzvals. Note that while the metal camera began with low serial numbers, the very early part of the engraved number series is uncertain and the lenses sold separately may possibly not be in sequence with those sold fixed to the "metal camera". The numbers subsequently are in one series with few exceptions, and initially represent lenses made as singles or in very small groups of items, and were listed virtually day by day. Year Lens serial no. Notes 05/1840 First Petzval Portrait produced. In the first lenses it was accepted practice to unscrew the front cell, fit a stop and replace the cell (Eder). Later loose or curtain stops were used. 184? 1796 Marked "Voigtländer & Sohn in Wien" 1849 A request was made to Braunschweig for permission to open a factory, and purchase of a site, and permission granted in 02/09/1852. This was initiated by P.W.Voigtländer. The management there was by his son, Friedrich Voigtländer. The optical trade in Vienna began to shrink from then on. 1852/1853 Production of lenses at Braunschweig begins. It has been suggested that at No 4,000 production switched to Braunschweig and ended at Vienna. (1852) (4033) 1854 4 - 5000 From about 1852-62 they are engraved "aus Wien und Braunschweig" 1856 Introduction of the 5in dia. Portrait lens at 450 talers. (Dietzler, competitor, offered a 6in version). 1859 All portrait lenses are now fitted with the Waterhouse type stops.(Eder) 1860 Introduction of two versions of a 6in portrait lens, differing as long and short focal lengths.(14.3kg weight, 420 talers.)(Eder) 1861 Eder gives 22/02/1862 as the day of a special holiday to celebrate the 10,000th lens being produced, at Brunswick. Eder gives production as roughly 2,000 per year to then. 1862 10,000 Now "aus Braunschweig" but still mainly Petzvals.To here, they made some 10,000/22years=454 lenses in an average year. Actually the engraving "Wien/ Braunswcheig" continued at least up to No30,46x, and it was the "und" which was omitted. This was the occasion for P.W.Voigtländer being knighted.(Eder gives 1866) 1864 Introduction of an 8in dia. portrait lens in answer to a lens of 7in by Busch of Rathenow. Anton Friedrich was manager of the Vienna branch and it was sold (normal price 1,000 talers) to Ludwig Angerer, but used for display on a Voigtländer stand in Berlin in 1865. It was Serial No16,000. 1868 Death of the head (?Friedrich?) of the old factory in Vienna, after 120 years production. Production there ends.Note also the timing of the Waldstein glass plant history. 1876 Voigtländer dies and Friedrich R. von Voigtländer takes over. 1878 Sale of an improved Petzval design (Frerk). This may be the f2.3. 1884 27449 Portrait, landscape, Euryscope and Wide Angle 1885 30,000 Note that 29,000/45years= only some 645 lenses in an average year. 1886 31,000 Eder reports the first nameless Euryscop was brought to him in Vienna then. 1887 32,000 Now the major production was of the Euryscope 33,704 Marked "Voigtländer & Sohn Braunschweig" so Wien finally is omitted at about Serial Number 30-33,000 1888 34,000 Also Daguerre (Petzval?) and Landscape, Jena glass introduced. 1889 36,000 Note that "Victorias" were separately numbered - ?Possibly these were especially large items e.g. for 10x12in plates as some very large Pertvals have been reported. One account mentions one at a serial number below 1,000 from Braunschweig rather than Vienna. 1890 38,000 - 39496 In the 1880's production seems to be about 1,750 lenses per year. B. Coe lists a Voigtländer 4-blade shutter from that year. 1891 40,000 Dr. Rudolph of Zeiss calculated the Anastigmat, and Voigtländer were licencees for the new designs. 1892 41,911 1893 43,685 Collinear design patented 1894 45,431 Production now includes Collinear and Anastigmat 1895 46,454 (Anastigmat production will end here) 1896 47,771 There was now major Collinear production 1897 49,084 1898 54,168 New items were the TeleObjektiv and Cooke triplet It was in 1898 that F.W.Voigtländer concluded that as he had no direct successor (he had 4 daughters), he must turn the sole-owner concern into a limited liability company under the name Voigtländer & Sohn AG with himself as Managing Director and Dr Kaempher and Dr Miethe as Directors. Dr Miethe left in 1899 to work in Berlin, leaving Dr Hans Harting to lead the firm until he retired in 1909. He lead the firm to new products such as microscopes, binoculars, and telescopes as well as rifle and gun sights. 1899 54,896 Collinear sort lens ("omitted 55-61,000") [Some of the omitted lenses in fact occur in the Voigtländer Collection, so possibly this block was reserved for prototypes. But it does include the Triple Anastigmat below and just could be used for these lenses made under license. Others seem to occur from Voigtländer New York as explained above.] About 1900 the business became a limited company. 1900 65,691 Triple Anastigmat (Cooke ??) Heliar lens produced. 1901 68,193 1902 70,682 1903 72,638 Lenses now include the Heliar and Apo Collinear 1904 75,479 Lenses now include the Dynar By now the employees numbered some 300 workers +35 seniors and sales staff.1905 79,288 The manufacture of popular cameras was begun here.1906 83,477 The firm now moved to Campestrasse to a new 4 storey building. 1907 88,057 (The list omits 90,000 - 95,000) 1908 97,999 100,000 is a Heliar. This was held in the museum at Brunswick for many years, and was later offered for sale in the UK. "Cameras" listed inc. Karpf, Kodak, Koilos, Delta, Compound, and Polyscop. 1909 101,649 Retirement of Dr Harting. 1910 105,778 Heliar/ Unicum also Radiar, Collinear, Stereo 1911 110,347 1912 113,569 Inc. Helomar 1913 118,634 - 125,975 (Numbers 122,001 - 123,000 were for America in 1913. 1914 126,001 1915 132,726 The firm now moved production to a new site and buildings at Braunschweig- Gliesmarode, the offices staying at Campestrasse. The plant was very busy during the War and employees increased to 1,000 + 150 office staff.1916 137,682 1917 139,108 1918 142,853 1919 144,419 1920 154,426 1921 160,008 (It is interesting that No166,57x was fitted in a 1918 dialset Compur No337,26x.)1922 172,136 1923 194,086 The employees had decreased to 600 + 100 by now and business was very difficult, and the firms finances in a poor state.1924 216,948 1925 227,929 f3.5 Heliar,Trinastigmat, Avus, Triare, Fokars, Vorsatz Linsen These were ssued over the years 1923- Death of F.R. von Voigtländer, aged 79. He had no male heir, and was the last of 4 generations of Voigtländers in the firm. Two sons predeceased him. He made a great reputation soon after he took over with the launch of the more rapid Euryscope lenses and later the Kollinears. In 1925 he sold the firm to Schering and in 1925 they ended all production of non-photographic items. By 01/01/1927, Schering had obtained 99% of the shares, and they amalgamated the interests they had in Wubben (albums, of Berlin) and Dresdener Trockenplattefabfrik Richard Jahr AG to produce Voigtländer & Sohn AG. There was a steady switch to mass production of all items to assist film sales with cheap cameras. 1926 248,505 Skopar, Voigtar, TeleDynar, Heliostigmat 1927 279,710 1928 365,562 Perkeo 6x9cm with Voigtar 1929 537,338 Photar (A Heliar No520,91x was noted in a Compur No475,01x of1922.) 1930 Bessa camera produced. 1933 A Skopar No671174 was noted in a rimset Compur No2,125,57x, of 1933. 1934 Skopars Nos 803,22x and 815,37x were noted in rimset Compurs No2,538,55x and2,565,42x. (c.1934) 1934 A Heliar No88047x was noted in a Rimset Compur No2,659,34x. 1935 A Heliar No1,026,69x was noted in a rimset Compur No3,038,80x (c.1935) Voigtländer formed a joint company with Gevaert of Antwerp to deal in their products, especially films. This was to last to 1945. 1934 1,000,000 included. Note a Heliar No1,052,264 was noted in a Compur Rapid No 5,107,90x, which should be a 1938 shutter number which suggests some lenses were held in stock for a while. There is evidence that there are missing numbers about here as the maker caught up with unnumbered lenses made earlier. The gap is thought to be at about No1.15-2.03million, corresponding to some 900,000 lens numbers. It seems to be well established as a feature among Voigtländer collectors.1937 2,000,000 included 1939-1940 It seems that No2,500,000 was probably made about the beginning of WW2. 1942 A Heliar No2,718,53x was noted in a rimset Compur No3,038,80x There seem to be missing numbers here, possibly used on Baby Bessa cameras or wartime productions, at about 2,600,000. It is assumed that postwar production recommenced at about No2,700,000. 1945 2,700,000 1947 3,000,000 included. Collecting experience suggests that either No3,000,000 was made later, possibly about 1949, or that old numbers were retained and made up then.1949 Color Skopar produced. 1950 Ultron and Nokton produced. Ultrons are from about No3,16x,xxx for Prominent. Lenses from June 1951 will be in SynchroCompur shutters. From 1952, most of these will lack serial numbers on the outside of the shutters. An Ultron No3,465,25x was noted on a Vitessa at shutter No7,524,xxx c1952, but another at No3,311,24x was in a Compur Rapid with a much older number, nominally from 1940. There do seem to be anomalies.1951(Jun)3,220,000 1952(Jan)3,300,500 1953(Jan)3,461,400 1954(Jan)3,600,000 1955(Jan)3,731,000 1956(Jan)4,001,000 Lens No4,000,000 was a Nokton and the parts were made in late 1955, but the lens was assembled and officially numbered in 06/01/1956 to celebrate the 200th year of the foundation of the firm in Vienna. 1956 4,000,000 included. It was in 1956 that Schering sold their interest in Voigtländer to Carl Zeiss Oberkochen. 1957(Jan)4,303,000 1958(Jan)4,514,000 Bessamatic produced and in 1959, the Zoomar lens. 1959(Jan)4,802,000 1960(Jan)5,033,000 1960 5,000,000 included 1961(Jan)5,473,000 1962(Jan)5,900,000 1963(jan)6,219,000 1964(Jan)6,423,000 1965(Jan)6,664,222. 1971 9,999,999-10,000,150 These were a special batch of Heliar lenses made in Summer 1971. Initially production was of very small batches or singles. This changed in the early 20th century and by 1927, batches of 2,000 Skopars or Voigtars were normal - or 1,000 Stereflektoscops. This is one of the few occasions when camera names occur in the lens register. Much of the data for the years 1945-1965 was supplied to the V.V. by Mr J. Halfweg."
Hope you find it useful.
PeterW
|
|
PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Post by PeterW on May 22, 2008 20:15:05 GMT -5
Hi Javier,
I've followed this thread with some interest as your Bessa 66 comes in my favourite collecting area of German cameras from about 1920 to about 1950.
Having said that, I haven't got a Bessa 66 but I have a number of other Voigtländers including two 6x9 Bessas, though none of them has a Heliar lens so I can't comment on that from first hand. I have, however, seen some very sharp pictures from Heliars although the pre-war uncoated versions were low on contrast which often makes them seem less sharp when compared to a later coated Tessar type lens using later glass incorporating 'rare earth' minerals.
Sad to say that Voigtländers have never been my favourite German camera. In my fairly limited experience of them, but backed up by other collectors, the quality control on the body build was patchy.
As for the shutter release via a small lever on the opening front, I shall never understand why Voigtländer stayed with that on folders as long as they did. If they'd put the viewfinder on the other side of the camera so that the release was right-handed it might not have been too bad, but on the left of the camera it's one of the most awkward releases I've come across.
Added to that it's got a notorious reputation for getting stiff and jerky over the years. Mainly this is because of the sliding plate on the drop-down front. This plate is attached directly to the release trigger, and is held to the inside of the front by two rivets. It's also got the added complication that the release trigger folds into the camera when you close the front. After some years this sliding plate can become stiff and jerky.
Here are Neill Wright's comments in his Lens Collectors Vade Mecum. He's talking about Voigtar lenses, but his comment on the release mechanism applies whatever lens is fitted:
"The faster ones such as f3.5 on the Bessa 66 may have been less sharp (from considerable user experience in the 1950's) but the real problem there may have been shake, as the side release on the Bessa 66 was not as ideal as it looked, with too many linkages for perfection and a tendency to add shake rather than avoid it!"
It is possible to get the release linkage reasonably smooth, at least on the 6x9 folders. I've done a couple of them, and I'm halfway through freeing another one. I'll take a couple of pictures in a few days and post them here.
There's another point which sometimes makes the release jerky, and sometimes accounts for a lot of free play in the action. It can apply not just to Voigtländers but to quite a few folding cameras with body releases. That's the angle at which the finger on the release bar meets the trigger on the Compur, and the gap betwen the two.
I've come across several where the finger is slightly twisted so that it doesn't meet the trigger on the Compur squarely, and I've found others where the gap between the finger and the trigger is so wide that the release has too much free play before the shutter fires. If the release mechanism is at all stiff either lack of squareness or too much free play can give a very jerky action.
The position of the shutter is usually locked by a small screw which fits in a slot or hole on the mounting plate, so the only way of adjusting the action of the trigger is by judicious bending.
Here you have to be very careful. Giving the finger a slight twist with pliers to make it meet the trigger squarely isn't too bad, though it's best to use two pairs of pliers, one low down on the finger and one higher up to apply the twist.
The part which requires a lot of care is bending the finger to take up the free play. If you bend it too much you might find, when you open the camera, that the finger finds itself on the wrong side of the shutter trigger. You'll also notice that the finger has a slight 'lead-in' to try to avoid this. It's a question of trial and error - not too little but not too much. Again, I'll take a picture, probably some time next week, and post it to show what I mean.
As I said, I haven't got as Bessa 6x6, but one point you mention puzzles me a little. If I read you correctly, the release mechanism also operates the film counter (?). If that's so, it's another Voigtländer peculiarity. Why didn't they link the film counter to the film wind-on??
BTW, as well as being able to date most Compur shutters by the serial number, most Voigtländer lenses (but not all Voigtars) also carried a serial number. I have a list of these serial numbers and the dates, also courtesy of Neill Wright, and if anyone would like it I'll post it so they can copy it and print it out.
PeterW
|
|