Ralph Morse Camera Kit

[jdrose]

<p>What is he using? I've never seen it before. Looks like some sort of reflex/rangefinder hybrid set-up</p>

<p>http://www.life.com/image/53376685/in-gallery/47141/babe-ruth-rare-and-unpublished</p>

[Rick_van_Nooij]

<p>Definitely a Contax with some kind of reflex housing mounted to it.</p>

[alex_lofquist]

<p>It looks like a Contax.</p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>It's mostly likely a "Panflex reflex housing":<br>

http://www.pacificrimcamera.com/pp/zeiss/contax/panflex.htm or<br>

http://www.pacificrimcamera.com/pp/zeiss/contax/115.htm (scroll down a bit).</p>

<p>Not sure about the lens, tho.</p>

<p>I hate to admit it (because it tells you my age), but when I was a kid, I lusted after a setup with that reflex adapter.</p>

<p>Tom M.</p>

[User_502260]

<p>Is that 115 the same lens, optically, as the 115 bellows macro for the Contarex?</p>

[chuck_foreman1]

Hard to see a lot of detail, but there were only certain lenses that worked with the Panflex Housing and if the date's right this is a pre-war copy so that should narrow it down quite a bit!

[t_nu_tamm]

<p>Few more pictures of this reflex housing: <a href="http://cameraquest.com/oly180.htm">http://cameraquest.com/oly180.htm</a>.<br>

The lens might be the prewar Olympia Sonnar 180/2,8?</p>

[lauren_macintosh]

<p>could also be Leica with the visor-flex unit</p>

[fred_c1]

<p>That's clearly a Contax II with Flektoskop, not Panflex. <a href="http://www.artfact.com/auction-lot/flektoskop-reflex-housing-no.-15484-carl-zeiss,-1-c-e5a7b2e286">http://www.artfact.com/auction-lot/flektoskop-reflex-housing-no.-15484-carl-zeiss,-1-c-e5a7b2e286</a></p>

 

[tom_mann1]

<p>Now that I look at the photos more closely, I'm not sure that it's either the Panflex or the Flektoskop. Look at the shape of the edge where the front exterior surface of the reflex adapter meets the side (exterior) surface in the three photos cited above. </p>

<p>In the photo of the Flektoskop, that line is relatively sharp, but broken. As you go from bottom to top, first the line moves closer to the camera, then there is a break, and above the break, it moves further away from the plane of the film.</p>

<p>In the photo of the Panflex, it's so rounded that it's hardly a line, but as you move up and down, it has no breaks like the Flektoskop does. As you follow that line from bottom to top, it is almost vertical, ie, the distance of the line to the plane of the film hardly changes.</p>

<p>In the photo that the OP cited, that line is is fairly sharp (like the Flektoskop), but it appears to not have a break (ie, like the Panflex).</p>

<p>Now, I'm not sure what the heck it is.</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

<p>PS - I attached a lightened version of the OP's image to allow the dark details to be more easily seen.</p><div></div>

[fred_c1]

<p>Tom, your monitor needs to be calibrated (or at least cleaned.) That break is obvious on the Morse housing and the photo from my link.</p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>Fred, I think the "break" you are speaking of is the horizontal surface, at about the same height as the top of the camera, that separates the top and bottom halves of the reflex housing. Yes, that break is in both the picture cited by the OP, and the photo of the Flektoskop housing that you cited.</p>

<p>However, the break that I'm talking about is different. It's a break (or lack thereof) in the lines that runs along front edges of both adapters. To make this clear, I highlighted this line in yellow in the attached photo, whereas I highlighted in blue the break that I suspect you were referring to.</p>

<p>As you can see, there is hardly any break in the yellow line (as it crosses the blue plane) in the photo cited by the OP, whereas there is an obvious change in angle of the yellow line (as it crosses the blue plane) in the photo you cited.</p>

<p>Another way to state this difference is that in the photo cited by the OP, the front of the upper part of the housing slopes back towards the photographer, whereas in the photo you cited, the corresponding piece slopes forward ... almost an overhang.</p>

<p>This difference is why I made the comment that the housing in the photo cited by the OP does not look exactly like the model Flektoskop you cited, but it also does not look like the one piece Panflex housing.</p>

<p>Now, whose monitor needs cleaning.</p>

<p>;-)</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

<p>PS - Also, notice the difference in shape between the part of the housing just under the eyepiece, at the back of the lens. Perhaps it was just a model change, but there clearly is a large difference between these two housings.</p><div></div>

[starvy]

<p>The Jordanian female bodybuilder, on an article linked to the right of this one is rather fetching too!</p>

[fred_c1]

<p>Tom, I see what you mean. I think it's just a slight variation of the Flekoskop between different production batches, maybe one made pre-war, the other post-war. It's not a Panflex and that's for sure.</p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>Fred, I agree that's the most likely explanation, but until I see a photo of what appears to be an identical unit, I can't be sure. Don't forget, around that time, all sorts of strange business arrangements were in place ... Nikon making lenses for Canon, Nikon / Contax sharing the same mount, etc.</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

<p>PS - Glad you finally got your monitor cleaned. :-)</p>

[fred_c1]

<p>BTW, what Morse had looks the same as the one from the Cameraquest page, except for the eyecup of course.</p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>You're right. I took another look at the Cameraquest page, and it does look almost identical.</p>

<p>Tom</p>

[jodys]

<p>Well, if you want one, it will cost you US$2581.00. Plus a few $$ for the hood and sundries.<br>

I admit I'm tempted, but if I ever spend that much on a camera (again) I'll end up spending even more on a divorce lawyer.<br>

<a href="http://cgi.ebay.ca/Contax-III-2-8-18-cm-Olympia-Sonnar-Flektoskop-/370411685286?pt=Film_Cameras">Item #370411685286</a></p>