For Wiggy Jones: Cosina Camera Flogger

[john_shaeffer1]

From the web:

 

"With the failure of the Exakta Real, the new West German Ihagee

decided if they could not beat the Japanese, they would contract the

manufacturing out to them. In 1970 the Exakta Twin TL was released.

It was the first Exakta to have a built in light meter, a feature

hardly mentioned in 1970. It used a different bayonet than the

original Exakta, or the Exakta Real. Adapters were available for the

older Exakta mount lenses. The camera had a fixed pentaprism finder

and a Copal shutter 1/1000 to 1 second. This camera, like the Real

and the RTL 1000 had two shutter releases, one on the front for use

of the automatic lenses of the older Exakta design, and one on the

top. The meter was a TTL CdS type.

 

The camera was manufactured by Cosina, who continue manufacturing

products marketed under historic German names. They currently make

and market the Voigtlander Bessa cameras and Voigtlander lenses in

Leica thread mount.

 

The Exakta Twin TL 42 was the same camera as the Exakta Twin TL,

except it was fitted with a 42mm Universal Thread lens mount."

 

So my dear Wiggy, the Cosina game has been played a long time and

they've been plopping their stuff out in just about any name with

virtually the same design for nigh onto 40 years now. They struck

the jackpot lately, though, I suppose. Their "tribute" rip offs of

old cameras is nothing new when a buck can be made and obviously

there are many bucks to be made from Photo.neters here. With an ally

like Stephen Gandy at Cameraquest.com, who flogs the stuff for money,

Cosina is well positioned (FINALLY!).

 

One other thing--the Twin TL 42 should be worth what, about $1000-

$6000, now? Like I said before, have a nice LIFE!

[jsbc]

Cool! I did not know the lowly Bessaflex has such a pedigree! The Exakta, no less.

 

No wonder Kobayashi-san wants to make a Topcon. I think he should have offered an Exakta-M42 adapter for owners of orphaned Exakta/Topcon mount lenses.

[frank granovski]

I'm a little scared to buy a Cosina. Maybe the Zeiss Icon might do it. For its price, I'm sure its shell is titanium.

[frank granovski]

Notice the double negative.

[john_shaeffer1]

Frank:

Zeiss Ikon cameras were made before the 1970's by Zeiss. The new Zeiss Ikon line, introduced at the 2004 Photokina show, is a rangefinder camera compatible with Leica M-mount, and built by Cosina in Japan :).

 

The rip offs are getting more lucrative, as attested by the pricing of the new Ikon. Kudos to Cosina--just think how long they struggled with all that Vivitar stuff--some of it was suprisingly good--so we knew there was hope :).

[frank granovski]

And you wonder why I keep heading for the junk shops. Maybe one day I'll find a CLE, or something older and better. I wasn't aware that Cosina made Vivitar products. The only Vivitar I have at the moment is the 285HV flash and a filter. Just one of each, though I will be getting a 2nd 285HV before they disappear.

[rick_waldroup3]

I don't care how many "names" Cosina rips off as long as they keep making affordable cameras that I can use, not look at. I own a couple of the Bessa rangefinder cameras and really do enjoy them, they enabale me to use many different kinds of lenses including Leica lenses. I will be looking at the Zeiss Ikon as well.

[kin_lau]

Cosina doesn't always "rip-off" classic nameplates. They've been a out-source manufacturer for a long time. Many OEM camera bodies and lenses are from Cosina and includes the Nikon FM10 and Olympus OM-2000. Some of the best M42 camera's of the 70's were made by Cosina (checkout the m42 mount camera page). I have a Vivitar 450/SLD that has a vertical-travel metal mechanical shutter, spot-meter and solid metal construction that's made by Cosina.

 

The new Zeiss Ikon and most of the lenses will be made by Cosina as well.

 

As for Vivitar, I believe most/all of their 35mm SLR's were made by Cosina, the lenses by a host of different contractors with most of the later ones being by Cosina but I don't believe their flashes were made by Cosina.

[mfophotos]

Okay, Wiggy and John -- you both are now required to shake your lenses at each other

from 20 paces and fire. I think you both have valid points. Certainly nobody is going to

confuse the egronomics of a nice Spotmatic with a Cosina. But having owned several

Cosina-made cameras, they have been reliable. Not bulletproof, mind you, but then that

is what my F2 is for. Any time we use cameras that are getting on in years, we should be

thankful that we are able to buy them for a fraction of what they cost many years ago, and

enjoy the moment. Trouble is, the lenses will often outlive the bodies, so I see Wiggy's

point of wanting to make use of great glass with some recent trouble-free bodies. At least

Cosina is making FILM cameras, and for that we should also be thankful!

[wigwam jones]

<p>

Fair enough, fair enough...</p>

<p>

Let me say this:</p>

<p>

<a href="http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/1987-1991/data/1990_t-60.html">Canon T60</a></p>

<p>

<center><img src="http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/1987-1991/l_product/1990_t-60.jpg" /></center></p>

<p>

My point was (and is) that the Cosina-made Bessaflex TM camera is not a piece of junk, it is a viable choice for those who want to make reliable use of their existing classic M42 lenses, and that I was neither foolish with my money nor unthinking when I selected the Bessaflex TM.</p>

<p>

That Cosina has been making a number of cameras for other manufacturers for some time means what, exactly? That other manufacturers trust them enough to put their own nametag on what Cosina makes, I guess.</p>

<blockquote><i>

So my dear Wiggy, the Cosina game has been played a long time and they've been plopping their stuff out in just about any name with virtually the same design for nigh onto 40 years now. They struck the jackpot lately, though, I suppose. Their "tribute" rip offs of old cameras is nothing new when a buck can be made and obviously there are many bucks to be made from Photo.neters here. With an ally like Stephen Gandy at Cameraquest.com, who flogs the stuff for money, Cosina is well positioned (FINALLY!).</blockquote></i>

<p>

I absolutely agree that Cosina is very clever. I disagree that their tribute to Topcon is a 'ripoff' as you term it. Kobayashi-san went to Tokyo Optical (who still exist as a company) and sought their permission to emulate the design - and got it. This is a ripoff? Are you fooled into thinking the Bessaflex TM is actually a Topcon? Is anyone? It is just shaped like a classic Topcon, and it is not designed to fool anyone into thinking it is one. This really seems to bother you, though, since you insist on putting the term 'ripoff' on this imitation. I suppose I could say that the Topcon is a poor ripoff of the Rectaflex, yes? After all, the Japanese SLRs were originally nothing but aped imitations of German and Italian SLRs and rangefinders and folding cameras, RIGHT?</p>

<p>

Oooh, Stephen Gandy sells cameras for money! Notify the press.</p>

<p>

I was well aware of Cosina's history - Cosina made the Voigtlander Bessa series of rangefinders and SLRs out of what was the Canon T60, which I have one of. I can put them side-by-side - they are an exact match. The Canon T60 is less well-made, but I still like it and it works great. Of course, it is Canon FD-mount.</p>

<p>

I have the Vivitar 420/SL - also made by Cosina, as mentioned in this thread. All steel, built like a tank. But it is less obviously an ancestor of the Bessaflex TM.</p>

<p>Anyway, I thought I would end my post by telling you what arrived in the mail for me yesterday from eBoy. A nice classic 80mm f2.8 Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar (red T). M42 mount. The aluminum body is a trifle shabby, but cleaned up ok, and the glass looks incredible - with an 8x loupe, I can't see anything wrong at all with this lens. And it looks JUST AWESOME mounted on my silver Topcon-ripoff Bessaflex TM. WHOO-HOO!</p>

<p>Best,</p>

<p>Wiggy</p>

[mfophotos]

Wiggy --show me a photo of your new combo! I have long considered a Bessaflex as a

new M42 camera. Lenses are dirt cheap.

[wigwam jones]

<p>

I will take a photo tonight and post it online. It looks the bomb. I mean, I am less interested in how a lens looks on my camera than in how it performs - but ooooh, this is pretty. I almost thought it was a Topcon Super-D (just kidding).</p>

<p>

Have you seen what I did to my poor Canon T60?</p>

<p>

Best,</p>

<p>

Wiggy</p>

<p><center><img src="http://www.cameramentor.com/images/big_lens_001.jpg"></center></p>

<p><center><img src="http://www.cameramentor.com/images/big_lens_005.jpg"></center></p>

<p><center><img src="http://www.cameramentor.com/images/big_lens_003.jpg"></center></p>

<p><center><img src="http://www.cameramentor.com/images/daffodils_05_small.jpg"></center></p>

[dan_fromm2]

Mmmm. Even making allowances for atrocities of digitization, double wubble likes fuzzy wuzzy. OTOH, the classic battle between the classic schools of f64 and Pictorialism never has ended.

 

Cheers,

 

Dan

[wigwam jones]

<p>I wouldn't say that, my friend. I like sharp and soft. I just don't feel locked into one style of photography...</p>

<center><p><img src="http://www.cameramentor.com/images/fiona_in_window_002.jpg"></center></p>

<p>You could shave with this one, it's so sharp. Canon FX SLR, Canon 135/f1:2.5 FL lens, Kodak Gold 100 f2.5 @ 1/30th, available light hand-held.</p>

[john_shaeffer1]

Cosina hasn't "saved" anything. They have managed to maintain or increase their profit margins on the same camera they have been producing for 40 years (note that the TWIN TL-42 is basically the same camera as the Bessaflex, and all the others they've cranked out as you so aptly demonstrated in the pics in your post to Mark). That is my point. I am not saying any camera is a piece of junk, especially the ones you are using. I see YOU the photographer, make nice photos. My original point is that you can get the same PICs with a $50 or < screw mount camera. But hey, if everybody realized that, Cosina would be making MP-3 players, Stephen Gandy would be flogging t-shirts on ebay AND WE WOULD STILL BE MAKING GREAT PHOTOS--because there are still great ORIGINAL cameras out there that do the same thing as the COSINA rip offs. RIPOFFS, RIPOFFS, RIPOFFS :).

[jsbc]

Just to keep the record straight, the Cosina Bessaflex built quality is quite OK. The FM3 is of course more solid (it also costs more), but the Bessaflex' built quality is much better than the FM10 iteration (which Galen Rowell loved).

 

Of course the meter is more reliable, and you can get accessories for it like the rapid winder. Anyhow, it is only slightly more expensive than the Canon Rebel, which is all plastic.

 

Then again, it is also more expensive than the Spotmatic, but I think it is absurd to say a new piece of equipment costs much more than a 40-yr old Pentax. The difference is even more marked when you compare a beatup M6 with a Leica M7. I don't blame Cosina for making a profit. It is not an obscene amount of profit they are making, after all, the camera costs as only the price of a CV reflectance meter plus a 50mm Viewfinder.In fact, the Bessaflex is 50% the price of a Bessa R2-C that I am contemplating.

 

Whether the buyer wants / cannot justify the premium is a matter for the buyer to decide. Not the manufacturer's fault. This is the reason why I stick with 2nd hand M42 lenses.

 

I think Cosina erred, however, when they left out a hot shot for looks.

[dan_fromm2]

Double wubble, on my monitor y'r fluffy cat comes across as very fuzzy. This may be another artifact of digitization, or perhaps our concepts of sharpness differ.

 

Cheers,

 

Dan

[wigwam jones]

John,

 

I'm glad you like my photos. That appears to be all we agree on.

 

I'll note only that no, I would not get the same shots with my < $50 M42 cameras - because the ones I have don't work - simple true statement.

 

And now we're done talking.

 

Best,

 

Wiggy

[wigwam jones]

Dan,

 

You're familiar with the concept of selective focus?

 

Puhleeze.

 

Wiggy<div></div>

[dan_fromm2]

Sorry, still fuzzy. Re selective focus, yeah, sure, that's why we shoot at large apertures, but its all soft. As I keep saying, lack of perceptible sharpness in the little digitized images posted here is usually a consequence of their being small and digitized. So calm down and accept that I can't see what you want me to.

 

Re puhleeze, you're welcome.

 

Cheers,

 

Dan

[wigwam jones]

Dan,

 

Forgive the harshness of my reply. Your initial message "Aw, Dubble-Wubble doesn't know how to focus a camera" or words to that effect when my intent was obviously to have an out-of-focus effect irritated me somewhat (your intent, I presume), so I posted a photo that I find quite sharp to indicate that I can focus when I want to, and I often want to - I'm not a member of any particular 'ism' when it comes to photography - specialisation is for insects.

 

Then I get that "Nope, still not in focus" thing - perhaps it is not in focus to you. Perhaps not to anyone but me. But since you began by being smarmy and insinuating I don't know how to focus or belong to some 'ism' that refuses to focus, I didn't feel obliged to be particularly polite - I felt you were just winding me up like our friend John likes to do.

 

Perhaps I misjudged. I dunno, Dan. When people talk baby-talk to you and are condescending as hell, how do YOU react? Dubble-Wubble indeed.

 

Best,

 

Wiggy

[dan_fromm2]

Ww, in the Philadelphia area, where I live, the Walt Whitman bridge, one of the major Delaware River crossings, is often referred to as the double wubble. Sorry you took "double wubble" for baby talk. I'll have to remember that local jargon travels poorly.

 

As for fuzziness, I keep giving you an out -- small digital images just can't be sharp -- and you keep not taking it. I can't understand why you won't. Your flower shot reminded me why I keep resisting buying a Rayxar or TV-Heligon, even though they're pretty and inexpensive.

 

Its no consolation to either of us that people here on photo.net WILL discuss seriously how sharp the little digital images posted here are or aren't even though they're all soft. Serious discussions of sharpness of soft images are manifestations of the general digital dumbing down that those of us who use aged gear and processes resist.

 

Cheers,

 

Dan

[fernando_mcsoto]

But aparently it is also possible to use M42 lenses with a modern Canon EOS (film AF or digital) and a very unexpensive adapter. Is this a better alternative option to a modern Bessaflex?

[wigwam jones]

I love the idea of using a digital camera body with my M42 lenses. Couple of problems, though:

 

1) The Canon Digital Rebel costs more than the Bessaflex. Still out of my budget, I'm afraid.

 

2) The Canon Digital Rebel was made for auto-focus - I am told that the viewfinder is not terribly conducive to manual focus. I could be wrong here, I'm depending on hear-say.

 

3) I still like to develop my own B&W film.

 

But I like the way things are going. I'd love to hear about a digital Bessaflex!

 

Best,

 

Wiggy

[fernando_mcsoto]

The camera has "A" for aperture priority. It is definetly based on the Nikon FM10 and the Pentax OM2000. Although it is fully flastic (the reason for me not to buy it) it has the advantage that with a mechanical adapter you can use both K-mount and M42 mount. I agree it is a marketing mistake to use the brand Voigtlander for such a cheap camera. They should use another name to make the difference with their own high quality products, may be just Cosina would be good.

 

 

In fact I am realising that there is no point on buying modern screw mount bodies for our old screw mount lenses, because with bayonet mount bodies with mechanic adapter (not optical) you can use screw mount lenses and bayonet mount lenses. Therefore with Leica M and Bessa M-mount bodies you can use M39 lenses and M lenses; with a K-mount body you can use M49 and K-mount; etc. From what I have found here: <http://medfmt.8k.com/bronmounts.html> (look at the end of page)you can use M42 lenses with a lot of modern bodies using mechanical adapters that have no optical effect. Unfortunately there is nothing for my FM3a.<div></div>