peter_naylor1

<p>Well, good luck to you, Don, or to whoever wins the Fleabay auction. I've now got two of those 1937 Kine Exaktas, both acquired via that same Fleabay route, one with an F2.8 Tessar and the other with an F2.8 Schneider Xenar. The shutters were still working just fine, but the reflex mirrors on both were beyond redemption and had to be replaced. Strange that Ihagee of Dresden could produce such an advanced but nevertheless bullet-proof FP shutter along with most everything else, but not a long-life mirror! (Pete In Perth)</p>

<p>Martin, I seem to recall reading somewhere that the Narciss suffered more from very poor quality, grainy Russian-made 16mm film than it did from camera design or any optical deficiencies. So when the UK Importers heard from KMZ that they were intending to drop it from their range of cameras, they pleaded its case for continued production but with better quality imported film. Presumably a film maker prepared to supply unperforated 16mm film was located, so Narciss production continued.</p>

<p ><strong>Hi, Jeffrey always nice to hear from anybody who’s just acquired a Kodak Duo 620 – and congratulations on joining our world-wide community! Shame that ‘fresh’ 620 reel film isn’t that easy to acquire these days, without forking out a fortune for it. The alternative of modifying 120 film by respooling it onto original 620 spools isn’t that easy either, but it can be done.</strong></p> <p ><strong> </strong></p> <p ><strong>I’m still scratching my head about your Duo 620 CRF’s ‘vital stats’, because it appears to be the very earliest one we’ve come across going by its body s/no of 306637K. Its Schneider Xenar lens s/no is also typically early. BTW, it’s also the only one we have on record with a ‘Compur’ shutter, rather than a ‘Compur Rapid’.</strong></p> <p ><strong> </strong></p> <p ><strong>Jeff, you really need to think about joining our Yahoo Duo 620 Group, the link for which is here:</strong></p> <p > </p> <p ><strong> <a href="https://au.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/duo620/photos/photostream">https://au.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/duo620/photos/photostream</a></strong></p> <p ><strong> </strong></p> <p ><strong>The Group is a ‘Restricted’ one, which means you’ll have to apply to the Group Moderator to join. However, that’s no big deal because I’m the Moderator! We had to go the ‘Restricted’ path because we began to get spammers joining, and clogging up our various files with their annoying crap.</strong></p> <p ><strong> </strong></p> <p ><strong>You’ll find a lot of interesting stuff in our files, such as scans of original sales brochures, ‘road tests’, price lists, adverts from around the world and so on. There are also helpful features on how to respool 120 onto 620. We also run databases for each of the three main Duo 620 models, so you can see from the Duo 620 CRF database that yours is clearly so far #1 date-wise. Once you’re joined, please add your camera’s details as the more details we have, the clearer the picture gets over dates, production figures etc.</strong></p> <p ><strong> </strong></p> <p ><strong>I’ve tried to email you a pdf document of the US-printed instruction booklet of the Duo 620 CRF, just in case you don’t already have it. It’s a bit on the large side pixel-wise at 5 MBs, but worth it for the detail. Unfortunately, your ISP keeps rejecting my emails to you. Do you have any alternative email address? </strong></p> <p ><strong> </strong></p> <p ><strong>One thing you’ll notice is that in regard to the shutter, it only mentions the ‘Compur Rapid’. So, does that mean your camera was maybe an early prototype? Hard to tell, because the earlier Duo 620 (Non-CRF) model was available with both Compur and Compur-Rapid shutters. With the CRF model clearly being intended as the ‘Top-Of-The-Range’ model when it came out in 1939, you’d have thought Kodak Germany would surely have gone for the Compur-Rapid shutter for it from Day One. However, hindsight is a wonderful thing and always 20/20 ……………….. !</strong></p> <p ><strong> </strong></p> <p ><strong>Lastly, I should mention that I was fortunate to acquire that original Duo 620 CRF IB on Ebay USA, in the rather strange circumstances that it came with a fairly basically configured earlier model non-CRF Duo Series 11. I didn’t really need another Duo like that, but an original IB for the CRF model was a real find. It actually took me several years after that, to get my mitts on a kosher camera in nice condition to go with the IB. (Pete In Perth)</strong></p>

<p>Interesting post, Darin! Fixed-lens 35mm cameras with wide-angle lenses are of interest for me too, so over the years I've acquired a couple of Ilford Advocates and a Walz Wide. None of these have a lens as fast as the F2 Zuiko fitted to your Olympus Wide S, of course. Your posted photos are excellent, and accordingly you have to wonder just why the Olympus Wide didn't sell better than it did. Maybe that complex 8-element 35mm F2 lens cost too much to produce, in a situation where projected purchasers were thought to be more likely to be using their wide-angle camera at around F5.6/F8?</p>

<p>Interesting to read the posts here about using the various OM SLRs. My story is that I started out with an OM20 (which I believe is the same as the US-market OM G), acquired at a local Perth pawnbroker's store in the late 90s complete with a standard F1.8 50mm Zuiko. My only previous SLR experience had been with an unmetered KMZ Zenit B with preset Helios F2 way back in the 70s, so to have now an SLR with inbuilt TTL metering and a full range of shutter speeds was quite a quantum leap.</p> <p>Unfortunately, I found the OM 20's electronic shutter not only ate batteries at an amazing rate, but its battery check warning gizmo lied prodigiously. So several times after I'd checked battery status and been told via its 'beep' that everything was OK before heading out into the great unknown for some wildlife shots, I found that the shutter seemed to be 'hanging' with settings at 1/125 sec sounding more like one full sec.</p> <p>A visit to our local camera repair guru put me wise that Olympus OM 20 battery check signals are like Politicians' Promises - ie, not to be believed. He recommended I get myself an OM1 camera body, because its mechanical shutter was far more reliable and didn't even need any battery other than for metering. I took his advice onboard. Luckily within a matter of weeks there was a nice-looking OM1n body for sale at another Perth pawnshop, for about $100. I bought it, transferring the F1.8 Zuiko from the OM20, and never looked back. What a great camera! I later not only acquired a second OM1 but also a pair of OM-mount Vivitar Series One zoom lenses, which were big and heavyweight but gave great results. Better still, not a single problem ever with dubious battery level warnings! PETER IN PERTH</p>

<p>John, I'd dead jealous of your Autorange 16-20 acquisition, only having a couple of the basic Selfix 16-20 models myself, although one has the same lens and shutter as yours. Regarding 'Bracing Skegness', I once made the mistake of staying for a weekend there at the Billy Butlin's Concentration Camp one April during a motoring holiday around Ye Olde Englande. I had been told by a well-meaning lady friend (originally from Skegness) that Butlin's reputation for endless bingo, fish and chips and flat beer was a thing of the past. No, it damn well wasn't, and 'Bracing' Skegness' turned out to be more like 'Arctic Winds Skegness', with a chilly blast coming in from the North Sea day and night. Our next stop (Scarborough) turned out to be far more to our liking. (Pete In Perth)</p><div></div>

<p>Steve, that's one rare camera you've acquired there. I don't know a great deal about the 'Arco 35' other than it never seems to have sold very well, which led to left-over Arco F2.4 lenses being sold off (with modified mounts, naturally) to the Miranda Camera Company c. 1955, as lesser-spec standard lenses for the Miranda T SLR. </p> <p>In some parts of the world you might have got the renowned Zunow F1.9 preset lens, or maybe the rebadged Ofunar version of same, but here in lowly Orstralia we got the 'Second Division' Arco F2.4 standard lens (sigh). So it's the lens fitted to my Miranda T. It looks to be a very nicely-made lens but in lacking that magic 'Zunow' name, loses out somewhat in the Keeping Up With The Jones's Stakes. (Pete In Perth)</p>

<p>Hi, John congratulations on that fine acquisition. I have an interest in AGI stuff too, and inter alia have all three of the Agiflexes with standard lenses, plus a 180mm F5.5 accessory lens plus the close-up gizmos. I also have a prewar Reflex Korelle. The US seller of the Korelle described it as 'non-functioning', but was honest enough to advise not to bother with getting the cable problem sorted out because it would inevitably just happen again. My understanding with the post-war Agiflexes is that they're much more reliable in that department, especially the Agiflex 3. However, their focal plane shutters invariably seem to need a service, don't they? (Pete In Perth)</p>

<p>Brad, the analogy between the compact Carbine military rifle and the Carbine camera is definitely there, although I thought it came about following the Boer Wars of the early 20th century. The Carbine rifle certainly came first, with Butcher & Sons introducing a range of compact folders in various film sizes, called 'Carbine No **' soon after. For example, I have a 1909-ish Butcher Carbine No 5 in quarter-plate size, that takes both reel film or plates. Butcher & Co seem to have been importers rather than manufacturers in those early days, as this camera is almost certainly a rebadged Huttig body from Germany, fitted with a British-sourced Aldix Oxys F5.65 lens and perhaps surprisingly, a French-made Koilos Improved pneumatic shutter.</p> <p>All that convenient badge engineering came to a rapid end in August 1914 when the Not-So-Great-War broke out in Europe. So Butcher & Sons and the other big London camera company Houghton & Sons joined forces in 1915, but military production soon took priority. After November 1918, camera production was resumed by both camera companies as separate entities (in name) but they were eventually to formally amalgamate as the 'Houghton-Butcher Mfg Co Ltd', which is the legend on the back of my Ensign Carbine No 7. The 'Ensign' name was one originated by Houghton's Ltd by the way, so my 'Ensign Carbine No 7' has a bit of both original companies' histories! (Pete In Perth) </p><div></div>

<p>Thanks, guys, for your encouraging comments! <strong><em>Rick</em></strong>, the photo was taken by the seller in England before he dispatched if 'Down Under', so it hadn't yet been given a healthy coat of Kiwi bootpolish. It certainly has now, though, and it looks really good - much better than in the photo I posted, <em><strong>John,</strong> </em>thanks for your encouragement over the 'user' aspect. <em><strong>Colin,</strong></em> I actually thought at first that I had a Carbine No 3 too, because that's what the identification sticker's legend at the base of the cardboard box says. However, the identification plate on the camera body says 'Carbine No 7'. So the cardboard box definitely isn't kosher, but it's in amazingly good nick for an 80-year old plus item, resplendent in matt black with orange trim by the way, not the more usual all-orange colour of Ensign Ltd in their boxes following their rebirth as a publicly-listed company in 1930.</p> <p>I can't help wondering just where the original 'Carbine No 7' box (plus instruction manual, for that matter) went too. 80-odd years down the line, I'm hardly likely to find out though, am I?. One thing I've learnt about classic camera collecting, is that if you're lucky enough to get an original box with the camera, the identification details somewhere on the box (usually on the base) almost NEVER agree with those on the camera body or lens. Why? Well, I suspect it was because sales staff just grabbed the nearest 'nearly right' box they could find in their storeroom or wherever, and to hell with historical correctness. A sale was a sale, was a sale, was a sale, after all - and nothing else mattered other than a forthcoming commission. So my 1938 AGFA Karat's very nice orange/blue box has the wrong identification details, as does my 1955 Zorki-1's olive green box and now my 1930 HMB/Ensign box appears similarly misidentified (sigh). </p> <p>Adrian Richmond and I email each other periodically over HBM/Ensign acquisitions and also British sports cars, about which he's very knowledgeable especially on Triumphs. My sports car days are well over, so my 5-litre open-top Cobra Replica is now just a memory. I shall certainly be in touch with him about the Carbine No 7 in due course, and thanks for those links.</p> <p>I took Ye Olde Lady along to our Perth Camera Collectors Society last night, despite some awful winter rain (no, it's not always sunny here in the Golden West!) and only one guy had ever seen such a lens /shutter combination on a Carbine No 7 before. However, they all agreed that it was well worth a reel of 120 B & W to see what it can do. In view of the spirit level for horizontal shots and rise-and-fall for elimination of tapering on buildings etc, I thought I'd try four of one type and four of the other. (Pete In A Still Wet And Windy Perth)</p>

<p>After at least a year of not acquiring any additions to my classic camera collection due to space limitations, I've broken my promise to myself and acquired a rare version of the Houghton-Butcher Ensign Carbine 'No 7' 6 X 9cm, 8-on-120 folder. All Carbine No 7's seem to be rarish, but this one is definitely a 'Hen's Teeth' version as it has a Deckel rim-Compur shutter along with a Ross Xpres F4.5 lens. Some other nice features are rapid-focussing, rise-and-fall and a small spirit level for horizontal panoramic shots. Everything on it still works fine, even the self-timer feature on the Compur shutter and the spirit level is still 'spirited'.</p> <p>I got it via a pal in the UK who was handling a deceased estate sale, who sent me the attached photo showing that its leatherette was typically scuffed. Since it arrived a few days back, I've given it the usual descuffing treatment with black boot polish and it now looks a million Dollars - or should that be Pounds? I shall be taking it along to tonight's monthly meeting of the WA Camera Collectors' Society, to see what our learned membership think about it, and what guidance they can offer about its date of manufacture. It can't be any later than 1930, because the Houghton-Butcher Mfg Co changed its name to 'Ensign Limited' in that year, and this one is clearly marked H-B Mfg Co. However! It also came with its original pristine black cardboard box, inside which was a small instruction card marked 'Ensign Limited'. So my little grey cells tell me it might just be a transitional model from 1930 itself, with the camera marked 'HBM Ltd' but the documentation 'Ensign Ltd'.</p> <p>With its bellows in excellent nick, the Compur shutter working perfectly on all speeds from 1 sec to 1/250 sec and the self-timer whirring away nicely, plus the aperture selection from F4.5 to F22 A-OK on the crystal-clear Ross Xpres lens, I can see myself trying out a reel of B & W 120 film on this venerable Old Lady From London, to see what she can do 85 years down the line. Wish me luck! (Pete In Perth)</p><div></div>

<p>Hi, Lex your mention of that magic name 'Bultaco' reminds me that I almost bought one around 1974. It was their latest 250cc 'Matador' dirt bike, and on paper seemed to be the Bees' Knees. However, our local Perth Bultaco dealer kept umming and aahing over whether to take my Honda 450cc road bike in part exchange. So I gave up on Senor Bulto's machine and visited another local dealer who handled CZ/Jawa bikes, and who had the latest CZ 250 Enduro dirt bike in stock. The CZ dealer offer me a good deal on my Honda 450 and I became the proud owner of a black frame CZ 250 Enduro, which was then touted as the fastest 250 dirt bike you could legally register for road useage, doing over 90 mph.</p> <p>I kept riding that CZ for almost 20 years, without any major mechanical problems. Meanwhile, reports were coming in via various dirt bike magazines that Senor Bulto's Matador was a real fizzer, with dodgy electrics and bits falling off regularly. So I increasingly felt happy over my choice to go Czech. In fact, when I finally sold it in 1992, I got exactly the same $750 I'd paid for it in 74. (Pete In Perth, OT Reminiscing)</p>

<p>Thanks to John B. for those kudos! One thing I forgot to mention in my earlier follow-up to Ken J.'s interesting post, was regarding just why the Orion/Miranda Camera Cos. (and therefore Soligor as their primary lens supplier) made lenses for their cameras with both types of lens mount. I mentioned for example, that my 1955-ish Miranda T has an F2.4 Arco 5cm lens with M44 screw-thread but I'm aware that faster contemporary F1.9 lenses from Zunow, Soligor and Ofuna came with the bayonet mount. Another early standard lens was the F2.8 5-element 5cm Soligor, which isn't much to look at compared to the more exotic F1.9 stuff but was one hell of a fine performer, right down to max F2.8. It too came with the M44 screwthread mount.</p> <p>Now I can understand even with my limited engineering knowledge, that the M44 screwthread mount would have been perceived to have been a stronger and safer mounting method for longer (and therefore heavier) focal length lenses compared to the bayonet system. However, those lenses I mentioned were all standard 5cm stuff, and not especially heavy. So a while back I discussed this with a friend who did have a proper engineering background including a spell in the early 50s as an apprentice with the Napier aero engine company of West London, manufacturers of the famed (or infamous, depending on point of view, especially for those who had to service it!) Napier Sabre 24-cyl 'H' formation liquid-cooled aero engine. He reckoned that it would have been purely a money matter, with a relatively straightforward M44 male screwthread mount being cheaper to produce than a 4-claw bayonet mount with its internal springs and precision tolerances. However, the bayonet mount would have won out on speed of fitment and disengagement, which was a big selling point for professional and serious amateur photogs alike, who needed to frequently swap around lenses as quickly as possible. </p> <p>Just going back a bit OT again regarding the Napier Sabre aero engine, by the mid-50s when its wartime unreliability issues had been thoroughly sorted out and it had been hooked up to a very advanced supercharging induction setup, test engines were reliably churning out over 5,000 BHP. Not bad for an engine with the common size of 37 litres, eh? Works out to about 140 BHP per litre. However, with the development of the jet engine highly complex internal combustion engines like the Sabre were being seen as expensive dinosaurs, so the Sabre was pensioned off to collect dust. Just like with Miranda lens mounts, it's often the bean-counters who win out over the engineers. (Pete In Perth)</p>

<p>Hi, Ken J., Rick D, and anybody else interested in Miranda SLRs - sorry to be a bit late in posting , but after buying a new Super-Duper Giant-Size monitor, I'm now finding I'm having lots of possibly migraine-related eyesight problems with zig-zag lines traversing across the screen after spending several minutes of viewing. (Sigh) Is this just me, or does anybody else of the Olde Farte Brigade experience this same problem?</p> <p>Getting back to the Miranda issue - and hopefully before those dreaded zig-zags reappear - my understanding is that their lenses appeared early on with both M44 and bayonet mounts. FWIW, my earliest Miranda is a 'T' likely from 1955, fitted with a screwthread M44 Arco 5cm F2.4 lens. The Miranda T body has both the M44 screwthread internal mount and the Miranda bayonet mount. From discussions with other early Miranda collectors, it seems that the faster standard lens options for the 'T' such as the Zunow, Soligor and Ofunar F1.9, all had the bayonet mount. (By the way, the Zunow and Ofunar lenses are thought to be identical, other than for naming). </p> <p>The reason for Mirandas having both M44 and bayonet mounts was a marketing adaptability thing, to enable them to use not only their own Miranda/Soligor lenses but also just about everybody else's via an appropriate adaptor. These slimline adaptors fitted had an M44 screwthread mount on one side, with the Leitz/Nikon/Contax/Exakta etc plumbing mount at the other. (Does that sound familiar to any of you Digital 4/3 people of today, out there?) These adaptors can fetch really big $$$'s today, BTW. The lens adaptability angle worked very well for Miranda in their early years, but once lenses got more complex with metering connections etc, things got difficult. <br> Generally I reckon early Miranda SLRs were both very well made and very cleverly designed, with the early 60's Automex Series quite outstanding. However, ownership of the Miranda Camera Company (and Soligor) passed across the Pacific to the Allied Impex Company of NY in the mid-60s, and things seem to have taken a downturn thereafter in both QA and design, although retail prices also came down. Around 1977 the relatively small Miranda Camera Co went down the gurgler after lots of warranty problems with their new 'DX-3' electronic-shuttered wonderkid model, and that was that. The Fat Lady had sang for good for Miranda (sigh), so even although you may find later Miranda-labelled stuff especially in the UK, it's actually rebadged Cosina gear by any other name.</p> <p>Time to sign off, as those damn flashing lights are starting to appear again ..............</p> <p>REGARDS FROM PETE N. IN A CHILLY BUT SUNNY PERTH</p>

<p>Congratulations, Andrew, on your clever DIY cure for the Selfix 420s problem. I've acquired quite a collection of Ensign stuff myself, and it's always amazed me how many silly little bits and bobs appear to have mysteriously fallen off them over the years. It's just as if screws, rivets and such weren't applied tightly enough at the factory. In most cases, I've managed to get things working (and therefore looking) OK again, by acquiring a similar junker camera to cannabalise for that elusive part, but it would have been better if Messrs Barnett, Ensign and Ross had just fitted things properly in the first place! <br> Of course, it's a different matter with those Epsilon shutters, which either work properly or they don't. I've spent a lot of money having entire replacement shutters fitted to some of the rarer models, such as an extremely early Selfix 12-20. How early? Well, it's been confirmed as the first one ever to leave the factory, so I reckoned it deserved a bit of dosh to get it right ................. (Pete In Perth)</p>