The Prettiest Camera

Well, I've finally acquired one in as pristine condition as one could wish for; a 1950's

Super Paxette from the Nurnberg factory of Carl Braun. I have two others, one very tidy but

with shutter problems which I may one day attend to, and one in working condition but

definitely well-used. This one turned up in a collection of junk cameras, a $20 buy on our

local auction site, tucked inside a tidy tan case which, judging from the dust and cobwebs,

it appeared to have inhabited for the past twenty years. A rainy afternoon spent cleaning

and oiling, a drop or two of lighter fluid in the shutter, plenty of warmth and working to

get the old focus grease moving again, and it's now about as close to new as it will ever

be. But I just might send it away for a proper CLA when funds allow...

 

I think it's probably the prettiest camera I own. It has a jewel-like appearance, sitting

in front of me by the keyboard, and I put the film beside it in the pic to show how it's

diminutive size. But heft it and you're immediately aware that this is no lightweight; if

an Argus feels like a brick, this feels more like an ingot, as if it had been carved out

of solid metal. These cameras have a mixed reputation; with their interchangeable lenses in

a dedicated M39 thread and their kinky viewfinders, the "poor man's Leica" disparagement has

plagued them, over the years. Their build quality was a mixture of German precision and

surprisingly poor construction, the two-throw wind and cocking mechanism being particularly

cheap and prone to failure. The viewfinder is small and the rangefinder is practically

useless, though my ageing eyes may be a little to blame. The standard Steinheil Munchen

lens, a 50mm f1:2.8 Cassarit, is a perfectly adequate performer, by my standards, though

it's not up with the Zeiss counterparts of it's era. I append a pic which demonstrates a

certain mellowness typical of the optic.

 

It's not a particularly easy camera to use for a guy with large hands, though all the

movements are smooth and the Prontor shutter is quiet and precise. It's just so small ! I do

everything with my fingertips...

 

But it's beauty we're talking about, here. I love the finish of this camera, the precise

machining and fit of its components. I like the 'flying buttresses" which support the

shutter assembly, and the proportions of body to lens and shutter. It occurred to me, ages

ago, that it looks a little like the Photon Drive from Battlestar Galactica, as if it was

designed to project something out rather than to take something in. Anyway, for all it's

quirks, it gets my nomination for one of the Best Looking Rangefinders.

 

It will be interesting to see what you think....<div></div>

And a winter morning pic...<div></div>

Congrats Rick! That is one damn fine looking example!

 

Mike

It certainly is a beautiful camera. That's also quite a winter scene. A little different from the scenes we had in Toronto last winter.

I'd have to agree that is one fine looking Rangefinder. I've seen a complete set with all the lens once. They wanted a pretty penny then (400DM) and frankly it looked in sorry condition. I've seen a simpler version of this too with an extinction meter and fixed lens? I foreget if it had a RF or not! I'm surprised you got it so inexpensively. You've certainly cleaned it up nicely and the Chair meeting shows the lens is quite capable!

Nice looking camera, Rick. It looks solid and well made. Enjoy!

It is a beautiful design. It is the knobs that get me. That part, at least, reminds me of the Argus K and the forward

part of the lens looks a bit like the Argus C4. <p>

 

I have often wondered about the "brand x" lenses of the '50s. Lenses from Steinheil, Enna, Staeble, Meyer, Ludwig,

Jlitar, Isco, Steiner and others I can't remember. I figure they were on most "brand x" cameras so they didn't achieve

fame like a Zeiss lens but, really, they couldn't be "bad". Just wonder how many are outstanding but unknown. I

know Staeble are used in the printing industry so they couldn't be bad. <p>

 

Ok, my "pretty" camera is a King Regula IIId about as good as your Paxette. This one has interch. lens, Prontor to

1/300, RF, etc. The wind lever feels like it has a pen spring in it, it feels so flimsy. Most of it is aluminum.

Thankfully it has had little use or the strap lugs would have been messed up being soft metal. Lenses

were supposed to be either Enna or Isco on these according to the instructions. I figure Regula was trying to

compete with the Retina IIIS. Looks good. And, as Billy Crystal used to say in Fernandos' Hideaway "It is

better to look good than to feel good". <p>

 

<img src=http://members.aol.com/auctionfan/regula.jpg>

My Rolleiflex is really pretty. <a href="http://westfordcomp.com/classics/rolleiflex/january2007/oldandnew.html"> CLICK </a><p>

 

So is my Canon EF. <a href="http://westfordcomp.com/classics/canonef/index.htm"> CLICK </a><p>

 

My Altissa. <a href="http://westfordcomp.com/classics/altissa/index.html"> CLICK </a><p>

 

And of course <a href="http://westfordcomp.com/classics/dicktracy/index.html"> CLICK </a>

All of these are beautiful cameras. Rick, I saw a Super Paxette that I was going to bid on last week but the

price went higher than I cared to pay. It's certainly a gorgeous camera and for some reason compact cameras with

interchangeable lenses are very intriguing to me. Of course I've already featured my beautiful camera, the

Olympus 35-S f/1.8, a camera that I can gaze at for the longest time and never get tired of looking at. Gene's

Rolleiflex is a stunner! One day I'll have one...Joseph's Regula is also a good looking camera. I've seen those

but I didn't realize the lenses were interchangeable. Here's one that I think is another beautiful camera in its

own unique way. It's my AkaRelle with an interchangeable lens mount. It's a viewfinder camera rather than an RF

but it has guidelines in it for a 50mm, 75mm, and 90mm lens. It's pretty small as well--any smaller and it would

have to be classified as a miniature camera.<div></div>

Yeah, Gene, they're all beautiful. I always wanted a Dick Tracy camera, but they're rarer than hens' teeth, in my part of the world.. And Joseph, that King Regular is certainly pretty, and very like the later Paxettes. So many lovely cameras, so little time....I'll throw a pic of my 1st Runner Up into the ring, just for fun.<div></div>

Damn camera porn.

Rick, great looking camera.

 

I have too many nice looking cameras: Pentax spotmatic, Contax IIa, Leica M3, Nikon F3, Minota XD-11, Retina IIIC, Voigtlander Vitessa, Canon F-1. I just hope for enough lifetime to use them all.

Rick I agree - Paxettes are some of the prettiest cameras around and one of the smalles rangefinders I have ever seen after my Samoca super. Here is my page for it from some time ago:<p>

 

<a href=http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00LRhG>Braun Super Paxette II</a>

Andy - I have that Akarelle too, but my lens combo is the piece of #@$% color Isconar by Isco. I can only use it stopped down, otherwise it is not even worth wasting film on it.

I have a Paxette 1 - 1951, it's a beauty.<div></div>

Camera porn again, yes.

 

Certainly it’s a pretty camera. In fact I don’t ever see an ugly camera (maybe some body would like to discuss this asseveration in other post).

 

Nevertheless, and talking in practical terms, I prefer a beauty one with the ability for taking several lenses.<div></div>

I am currently trying to repair a Zeiss 522/24 (aka Contina, Ikonta 35) which is too shy to be photographed in its current state. The Synchro Compur shutter package really an example of fine workmanship whether it appears on this camera or the Agfa Solinette or Ansco Regent.

I think the Exakta is/was a mighty fine looking camera camera.

I have to agree with Gene on this one. The prettiest camera I own is a Rollie 2.8F, closely followed by my Super

Ikonta.

Mine would be simplicity in the form of a Leica III.

Mine would be simplicity in the orm of the Leica III Classic and compact.<div></div>

I have about a dozen Paxettes and a full set of coupled and uncoupled lenses. The SUPER III is quite the model. Much better view/rangfinder

 

Don't have a Paxette/Super the three I have of that model are just branded Braun and then on the back say "Super II" same camera rumor has it the Super II like mine were for export.

Well folks,<br><br>I'm partial to <a href="http://www.wilkes.net/~saabman84/Argus/Minox1.htm">the Minox

IIIS</a>. (Second photo down.) It's very compact, capable, and collectible!<br><br>Micah in NC

wow Rick, what a great looking camera, and I love the photo you took with it. I love all old cams, and the pictures that they produce are amazing.

Yes, they are. Old cameras can be such great beauties.

 

I have a Roeschlein Luxon 50mm/2.0 that originally was in Paxette mount and not RF couipled, but Brian changed it to LTM with RF coupling.