How many of these do you have?

<p>http://www.ebay.de/itm/Geheimdienst-Kamera-/300799428050</p>

<p>I don't have any, doubt I ever will. But it certainly is manual and I think it fits the local concept of classic.</p>

<p>But can you still get batteries for it? :)</p>

<p>Clockwork, no batteries. But I think getting the right film and spools would be dreadful hard.<br>

Nothing "espionage" about it, just a normal stereo aerial mapping camera. Just happens to be pre-war Nazi Germany era.</p>

<p>John, not at all a mapping camera. Wrong lenses, mapping cameras want lenses with very low distortion. Wrong format, too small. Wrong mount, mapping cameras aren't hand-held, they are mounted securely.</p>

<p>Not a stereo camera for aerial use. The taking lenses are much to close together to get useful separation in shots taken at low altitude. The RAF and, later, NATO forces used several different two lens aerial cameras to measure bombing accuracy. The bombardier released the bombs and a flash bomb that ignited at highish altitude with a somewhat random delay. The camera ran continuously, firing its shutters alternately, and usually got a frame with good flash illumination.</p>

<p>Its just a hand-held stereo camera for unknown use. Probably not an aerial camera. Real aerial cameras' lenses are collimated to the camera and locked securely in place.</p>

<p>I haven't looked recently, so could be mistaken, but I think that 220 film is still available.</p>

<p>Nope. Don't have one of those. I did once have a Sept (clockwork motorized 35 mm still and cine combo with special cassettes which I also had, and provision to become a projector which I didn't), but foolishly sold it. I do have a Kodak Motormatic, though. Does that count?</p>

Having had a Sept counts.

<p>Is that 350 euros or 350000 euros? From the tone of the advert probably the latter. I am a bit sceptical about the aerial spying business. Here is an article about WWII Luftwaffe aerial cameras which were much the same as everyone else's - massive chunky things :</p>

<p>http://www.airrecce.co.uk/cameras/Luftwaffe_ww2_cameras.html</p>

<p>My guess is some special use camera, maybe a one-off, or possibly a prototype. But to play devil's advocate for a second, aerial reconnaissance before the war was a delicate business. If a nation were to be caught making maps of someone else's country it was likely to be interpreted (and rightly so) as a hostile act. Before WWII Britain used a third party, an Australian called Sydney Cotton. to do their clandestine aerial photography over Germany. Full story here :</p>

<p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_Cotton</p>

<p>But note that standard RAF F24 cameras were used though well concealed in a concealed in a civil aircraft. A Leica is also mentioned so clearly there was some use for smaller cameras. It is not impossible that the Germans did something of the kind so they could plan the best routes for their upcoming blitzkreig. But I agree with Dan, it still looks a bit lightweight for an aerial camera.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Sure, going to withdraw the cash now...</p>

<i>"it still looks a bit lightweight for an aerial camera."</i><br><br>Not for a handheld aerial camera.<br><br>Still, the story on the auction page is 'somewhat doubtful'. The asking price is ludicrous.

<p>I remain unconvinced that the camera is designed for aerial use. Just look at that flap which covers the lenses. Can you imagine what will happen to that in a 200 mph slipstream?</p>

<p>QG, you're right, it isn't as substantial as, say, an Agiflite but it is even smaller format if the listing isn't badly confused. And you're right about the price too.</p>

<p>The folding hand grip is sort of right for an aerial camera even though the little aerial cameras I've seen had grips that were fixed in place. </p>

<p>It says "Negativ Rollfilm 220 für ca. 40 Bilder im Format 6 x 4,5 cm.". 220 negative film for around 40 shots in 6x4.5 cm. 220 film was introduced in 1965. The seller may have meant 120 film, in which case 40 645 shots is impossible. Or perhaps he meant 70 mm film. IIRC, the Volk Handkammer, which looks much more robust than the geheimdienst kamer, shot 7x9 on 70 mm film. .</p>

<p>The two film chambers aren't symmetrical. Film wind mechanism isn't obvious. In some of the USAF cameras I've seen the grip (one of the grips, actually) moved to advance film and cock the shutter. </p>

<p>Lenses, including the viewing lens, are all in shutter. This is very very odd, makes it seem very artisanal. Artisanal is a euphemism for home made. On the other hand, some very serious aerial cameras, such as the F135s I've dismantled, embodied ideas that real camera manufacturers would never have used.</p>

"Home made" is what it appeared to me too. Could be, if it is a prototype. Or could have been "home restored".<br>As it is, it is a mystery. The description doesn't help at all. The only thing in it all that could perhaps be corroborated is what lenses the thing has, if only the pictures were a bit better.<br>Pay 350,000 Euros ($ 450,000) for this thing? Nothing need be said about that. (How about the 300 Euros shipping costs? As if 350,000 would not be enough to cover those as well.)

<p>QG is right ... something is very fishy here. The only way ANY camera is worth that much money is if it is a prototype, or if it belonged to someone very important - especially so as a war relic, since those buyers generally care less if it works or not. My German isn't nearly good enough to see if they mentioned the owner, but that camera looks way too beat up to be an important prototype.</p>

<p>It's been restored too, most likely. See how (relatively) clean the wood grips are? Polyurethane finishes weren't invented until later, and it's extremely unlikely that a lacquer finish would stand up to the amount of abuse that the rest of the camera got. Plus there's the fact that as a dedicated aerial camera, it probably shouldn't be showing that level of abuse anyway; that level of wear is pretty consistent with the GI issue Graphlexes I've seen, and makes me think that it's spent a lot more time being hauled around in a pack than in a storage compartment on a plane.</p>

<p>I don't know exactly what's up, but there are enough flags to tell me that it isn't worth nearly what he says it is.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It says "Negativ Rollfilm 220 für ca. 40 Bilder im Format 6 x 4,5 cm.". 220 negative film for around 40 shots in 6x4.5 cm. 220 film was introduced in 1965.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Aha - the plot thickens! Apparently on the inside the camera is inscribed: "Konstruiert <em>name</em> 1973" (Built by <em>name</em>, 1973). According to the seller this was done by the previous owner to 'secure' the camera, that is to disguise it's pre-war and top secret origin, which made possession illegal. Of course the seller finds this perfectly understandable!</p>

<p>He estimates the actual year of production as 1932-36, because according to him the lenses are of that vintage. The lack of any details like brand, model name, or serial number is explained by the need not to let such top secret information fall in the hands of the enemy in case a plane is downed with the camera.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>My German isn't nearly good enough to see if they mentioned the owner</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Rest assured, the seller's German is hardly better than his English. Half the description is just gibberish, but allegedly the previous owner is an ex-secret service agent later turned rocket scientist for the Russians. It's all very hush-hush.</p>

<p>According to the seller, the camera is mounted on the outside of the plane and takes photos straight down. Due to the stereoscopic nature of the images, information not only about latitude and longitude, but also about the height of topographical features can be gained from the images. This was invaluable for strategic decisions about troop movements and battles prior to and during WW2.</p>

<p>The flap-thingy is meant to ensure that the enemy can't see light reflected off the camera glass when the whole thing is closed. The seller refused to show more detailed pictures of the mechanism to prevent you from copying the design. If the seller deigns to answer any of your questions, this makes you a bearer of secret information, which must not be passed on to third parties.</p>

<p>I am beginning to wonder how Germany could loose the war despite owning this ingenious apparatus! Oh, I forgot, if it was only built in 1973 by some Gyro Gearloose in a shed using pre-war lenses, that could explain the course history took!</p>

So: looks terrible. Probably doesn't work. And for the honour of being allowed to pay 300,000 euros, you may not know anything about it.<br>Oh, and pay those 300 Euros extra in shipping costs.<br>But if you don't forget that you read this between now and five seconds from now... well... i can't tell you what, but you know...<br><br>And to think that there are people who think eBay is a terrible place. So much fun, for free!

<p>My 2 cents,<br>

<br />I think someone got their time lines, alternative history & steam punk bits mixed up. </p>

<p>Yes its prior to WW2.<br>

Zeiss later made aerial photo systems for the Nazis but these had like a 1m focal length and used film 7"wide. Resolution was 6 feet from 20,000 ft.<br>

Kodak also made systems similar to the German ones.</p>

<p>The real spy camera was the Minox.</p>

<p>Geheimdienst? Gesundheit!</p>

Was it made for overflights of the eastern U.S. seaports (Portsmuth Naval shipyard, Boston, Groton CT submarine base, Republic and Grumman on Long Island, New York) in the Hindenburg?

Maybe it wasn't made, but just fell from the sky?

<blockquote>

<p>Was it made for overflights of the eastern U.S. seaports (Portsmuth Naval shipyard, Boston, Groton CT submarine base, Republic and Grumman on Long Island, New York) in the Hindenburg?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The Hindenburg and its sister ship Graf Zeppelin were contracted by American Airlines to provide a regular scheduled passenger service from Frankfurt to New Jersey. The idea that a large airship full of passengers of various nationalities could cruise willy nilly up and down the US east coast to take photos of sensitive military installations is as ludicrous as the thought that Lufthansa could do the same thing today using one of its 747.</p>

<p>Just to give an example of how much control the US had over German airships at the time, it was the US embargo on Helium sales to Germany which forced the Hindenburg's owners to convert the ship from safe Helium to extremely hazardous Hydrogen, ultimately leading to the infamous Hindenburg Disaster.</p>

<p>What's all that French say?</p>

<p>The viewfinder hole seems to end in a lens with a shutter on the other side... A stereo camera with two shutters ok, but a third one? Na, doesn't add up. The pressure plate in the film chamber does not seem to be springy, even a folder from that time had a springy pressure plate.<br>

And... On the last 3 pictures: Isn't that at light meter boldly inserted behind a metal flap on a hinge? Anyone recognizes what type of light meter it is?</p>

 

Well what do you know...The auction ended without a single bid! Who would have thought.

<p>QG, his car auction hasn't ended yet. http://www.ebay.de/itm/Praga-Piccolo-1934-/300798593930</p>

<p>His little Linhof, however, has failed to get a bid in three tries. http://www.ebay.de/itm/Linhof-Prazisions-Camera-1911-/300799424043</p>