Praktica IVF from the 60's

[Alan Johnson]

<p>IMO the Praktica IVF (1963-66) with fixed prism and split image rangefinder was a notable improvement on its predecessor series the FX,which had a removable prism with no focussing aid except the ground glass.<br>

However,with the IVF, special care still needs to be taken when loading film,the back is completely removable,and with no built in meter I have not attempted to use it with transparency film as metering is too slow.<br>

The IVF may be the biggest Praktica made and is a real statement.For the series following I used it with a 35mm f3.5 Soligor, 50mm f2.8 aluminium Zeiss Jena Tessar and 135mm f3.5 Zeiss Jena.I think this would have been a typical late 60's kit. Film was Kodak ColorPlus 200 negative. <br>

The images come from a winter trip to the seaside.</p><div></div>

[Alan Johnson]

<p>Some seaside attractions.</p><div></div>

[Alan Johnson]

<p>Seafront shop.</p><div></div>

[Alan Johnson]

<p>Fish and Chips are very popular.</p><div></div>

[Alan Johnson]

<p>There is also a fairground.</p><div></div>

[Alan Johnson]

<p>Also at the fairground.</p><div></div>

[Alan Johnson]

<p>I used the 135mm for the first shot,the 35mm for the next two and the 50mm for the last two,I think this outfit was the bees knees in the 60's.Any comments, thanks.</p>

[Rob_the_waste]

<p>Interesting shots. They are very nice, colourful, and missing snow and ice. They remind me of the colours I'd seen at Santa Monica a couple of years ago. They have an amusement park on the pier.</p>

[chuck_foreman1]

I think your first shot using the longer lens is great! I prefer the close up with the 35, the second shot probably suffers from the weather conditions as it appears sharp enough. The two using the 50mm are also sharp with good contrasts. Looks like a fun place to be! How brights the finder?

[rick_drawbridge]

<p>Iconic old camera, <strong>Alan</strong>, and certainly not the most user-friendly I've handled! Great lenses, though. It's certainly a great big hunk of a camera, and you've proved that it can still produce fine images. "Seaside Goods" is a pleasing study.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>In my own experience, the Praktica IV series were mechanically the next to worst of the whole Praktica line. It largely dates to the time before the construction of the Anti-Fascism Defense Wall (aka, the Berlin Wall) when public and industrial morale in the DDR was perhaps at its all-time low. (The worst, IMHO, were the nova series, but that is another story).<br /> That being said, many of them still do work, something that cannot normally be said of their 'default' lens, the Meyer Domiplan 50mm f/2.8 (auto diaphragm almost always non functional). Like the Domiplan, however, when they do work they are capable of surprising results, as your pictures show. The Tessar was and is a classic for so simple a lens, and does even better than the Domiplan (which I think was basically a Tessar as interpreted by Meyer). Most Zeiss Jena lenses are very superior.<br /> I've played around with these some. I did a report on the Praktica IVFB (with a built-in lightmeter) at http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00VHpr , and the Praktica VFB (the IVFB with an instant-return mirror) at http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00WKmz .<br /> You inspire me to try out my working IVF. My earlier IV, like so many of its kind, is not working at all. Another long-night project, perhaps. I think it was SP who has had astonishing skill in resurrecting some of these.</p><div></div>

[JDMvW]

<p>BTW, your silver Tessar was probably 'borrowed' from an earlier Praktica or even Contax. The contemporary lenses were mostly like the "zebra" Domiplans shown above. The Pentacon lens on the IVFB is a later lens, surely put on the camera to replace a non-working Domiplan.</p>

[jodys]

<p>A fun camera to use. It was when I finally got mine working (IVFB) that I started carrying a pair of reading glasses and a small flashlight with me when I went out shooting. It's been sitting in a drawer for a couple of months now though, I should give it a whirl and see if my cleaning job stuck.</p>

[subbarayan_prasanna]

<p>A very stately looking camera indeed; though, I am scared of its size and weight. The IV and V are the only Prakticas that I have not acquired. The Nova series, I believe, started with the same mechanism but changed it in the Nova 1 PL series, from the pin- hole rotating shutter knob to a non-rotating cam based mechanism. Most notable in these Prakticas is the accuracy of the shutter timing; as <strong>JDM</strong> observed in an earlier thread, even after 40 to 50 years of work or non-work they seem to be correct, when made to work again. Just some cleaning, lubricating and adjustment make them work like new. I like the seaside picture, <strong>Alan</strong>. Please post more. Thanks, sp.</p>

[brett_rogers]

<p>By way of a brief introduction, I recently joined PN and have put a post in the New User forum. I tend to use a few older cameras on a regular basis and have loved some of the recent discussions here in the Classic Manual Cameras forum which have covered cameras I own, especially Rick's series on the 35 Fujica RF line.</p>

<p>I acquired a Praktica IV (no lens) with a box of assorted manufacturers lenses in various mounts, and a few older bodies, that recently came my way. It seems to be the second or third iteration after the original IV (no meter, slightly different finish to the front and prism etc). It still has a plain ground glass though.</p>

<p>I wouldn't go so far to say I'm a major fan of Prakticas—as they seem, on the whole, to be a bit on the clunky side, and I tend to prefer West German cameras—but they have a certain robust charm and solid good looks, and I also have a long term project FX to look at one day. The IV I have arrived with sticking slow speeds, but the curtains were OK, it is clean enough to use (perhaps about on a par with Alan's example or even a little tidier) and it is an 'interesting looking' camera. I spent a Sunday afternoon removing the bottom plate and the cover next to the film rails so I could clean and lube the escapement and the curtain spindles.</p>

<p>It seemed a fairly straightforward task, with the escapement easily reached beneath the bottom cover. Until, that is, having assumed none of the pieces inside the bottom cover would dislodge as I manipulated the Praktica, various parts of the film advance ratchet and pawl decided to jump ship onto the floor! Happily, nothing was lost, but a bit of extra time was needed to work out where they went and reinstall. I should know better by now. . . I also learnt the hard way that the pawl for the ratchet might look like it can be installed in either of two directions, but if you put it in 180 degrees out, the ratchet won't operate properly!</p>

<p>The IV is now firing happily on all the speeds and the mechanism is cocking super smoothly, so I'm quite pleased. I love the way that gentle initial pressure on the release will fire the mirror first, leaving you to trip the shutter at your convenience. Almost as good as a mirror lock. One thing now remains: the lens mount may be out of spec, as the camera focuses slightly past infinity with several different lenses fitted, so I think I will need to remove the top plate and the mount cover, to shim the lens mount, in order to correct this fault. Once I've done this, I'll run a film or two through it, for sure.</p>

[ridinhome]

<p>Very nice <strong>Alan</strong>. I liked the Go Karts shot a lot. Man that looks fun.</p>

[Alan Johnson]

<p>Thanks,Rob,Chuck,Rick,JDM,Jody,SP,Brett, Kayam,I won't reply individually as the thread is already OK for collecting info and stories on the Prakticas.<br>

The viewfinder brightness on the Praktica IVF is about the same as on my Nova B and Super TL (and on my non-classic EOS Rebel).However,the image size as seen through the viewfinder appears quite a bit larger on the Praktica IVF than any of the others, maybe big prism=big viewfinder image.<br>

Matching contemporary Zeiss Jena and E Ludwig lenses to Prakticas I have never managed to figure but there is this for Meyer Optik lenses, Regards,Alan:<br>

<a href="http://www.mflenses.com/meyer-optik-goerlitz-lens-list.html">http://www.mflenses.com/meyer-optik-goerlitz-lens-list.html</a></p>

[ralf_j.]

<p>JDM, I actually like the IV and IV FB. The speed changing mechanism is definitely an interesting design, however. The problems I have with mine, is the shutter capping at high speeds, but other than that, I like them. The NOVA-s from what I hear though, were plain horrific. Even Matanle, kicked them to the curb and he was a Praktica fan.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>My two FBs somewhat brightened my outlook on these IVs, I confess. They both look and work like new.</p>

<p>I still like the earlier and later Prakticas better, but maybe I need to get a more positive attitude on the IVs. Sometimes even Matanle was right, (but you didn't hear it from me). ;)</p>

[k5083]

<p>Wow! That camera looks like it should be carrying an unconscious girl back to a mad scientist's laboratory. Who would have thought that the monster could produce such delicate images.</p>

 

[subbarayan_prasanna]

<p><strong>Ralf</strong>, some of the Prakticas of this older shutter design from model F to model Nova had this problem of capping. The factory introduced a plate spring that would brush the second curtain roller and retard it by causing some friction. The spring was located on the wall between the film loading chamber and the mirror chamber. A screw operated from the film loading chamber can be adjusted to increse or decreas the spring brush's tension and friction.<br>

I found this device on my old Praktica 1949-50 [before the F] model. I found it also on my FX-3. Tomosy refers to this in his book and asserts that it was a part of the original design, that without it "the shutter slit will not open at all." [it would always cap!].<br>

I had some discussion with Rick Oleson on this device. Surprisingly, Rick's cameras of the same models do not have this device. And they do not cap, either. We inferred that this device must have been an after thought to the original design added at the end of the assembly line only when they found that some cameras were capping.<br>

I will be happy to know if others have experienced similar peculiarities with the Prakticas made between 1949 and 1963. All of them seem to have had the same shutter mechanism. <strong>JDM, </strong>do you have any experience on this? Regards, sp.</p>

[subbarayan_prasanna]

<p>Here is a picture of the Spring Brush to retard the closing curtain.</p><div></div>

[subbarayan_prasanna]

<p>Sorry! that ought to read Praktica. Here is another picture. sp.</p><div></div>

[brett_rogers]

<p>Brilliant posts Subbarayan, thanks for that and the images are most helpful. I have a Nova I acquired last year off the big auction site for $5. I have also read Tomosy's remarks about the part you have highlighted. I was concerned to see my example did not appear to have it and, of course, Tomosy suggests the possibility the spring might sometimes be absent if it has been lost during repair. I'll stop looking for one now, as I don't believe it is required in my Nova, which seems to be working as well as it is ever likely to. I think this discussion has confirmed a suspicion I have held for some time, which is that the Tomosy guides are very useful reference sources, but are far from infallible.<br>

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3667779"><br /></a></p>

[subbarayan_prasanna]

<p>Thanks <strong>Brett</strong>; you are one of lucky ones to have got a camera that worked well right off the assembly line! <strong>Rick Oleson</strong> and I also found that the spindle in my camera with the brush had a narrowed down cylindrical surface for the width of the brush. The original spindle must have been altered and substituted with the one that would accommodate the brush. Best, sp.</p>