alan_chin

i did mention that in my first response above.

it's amazing, how 18 years after the fall of the berlin wall, there can still be so much antagonism against the former eastern bloc, and its products. of course the DDR in its final decade was collapsing, and its falling industrial and consumer standards reflected this. so it's no surprise if a 1986 or 1988 lens from the DDR or the USSR wasn't put together that well, or isn't equal to a far more expensive West German or Japanese equivalent.

 

Taken in context, however, which is that the DDR workers were paid FAR less than their western counterparts, and that their economy did not reflect any capitalist sense of market competition, its fair to assess that the cameras and lenses that they did make were and are bargains. Not bargains for the DDR buyers who were still paying a big percentage of their income for possibly flawed items, but for western photographers. You might get a lemon, but even after adding $50 or $100 to get it adjusted properly you would still be saving a LOT of money compared to buying new Leica or West German Zeiss or Nikon or whatever. And once adjusted, no one ever complains about the quality of the optics or the professional results you can get. Sure, it requires more effort, it requires patience, but you are getting something relatively CHEAP.

 

For a photographer on a budget or for specialty items not used every day (super-wide, fisheye, PC lenses, panoramic cameras, etc.), East German, Czech, and USSR photographic gear was and is a very good investment: minimal cost for maximum result.

 

The former workers of CZJ, Pentacon, Meopta, Zenit, etc. should be proud that, for low pay, poor working conditions, and the lack of any incentives, they still made some excellent gear. Anybody who disagrees, and only wants to celebrate what the well-paid West Germans or Japanese were doing, should remember what East Germans, Czechs, and Soviets had to live through on a daily basis.

actually a Nikon F in good shape should fire MUCH quieter than its replacement, the F2. frankly the worst thing about the F2 is the loud shutter and one of the best features of the F is that it's relatively quiet for a SLR -- kind of like a Olympus OM-1 -- and with the mirror locked up for the 21mm lens, it's as quiet as a Leica M.

the Canon 35mm f/1.8 and later f/2 are totally great. the 1.8 can be had for less than $300 and the f/2 sometimes only a bit more. Much faster than the elmar you have. I have and use a 1.8 one as the back-up to my summicron 35 f/2. frankly can't tell the difference.

 

for 28mm, CV makes the fast 28mm f/1.9, for, what, $350? that's a great lens and of course the f/3.5 version is cheaper, lighter, smaller. the older Canon 28 is f/3.5, they never made a faster 28 in screw mount.

 

Nikon made a 28mm f/3.5 in LTM too but it is expensive because of collectors -- however you might run into one for cheap sometimes...

 

Both Canon and Nikon made LTM 25mm f/3.5 lenses too. Now there is new CV 25mm f/4 that IS rangefinder coupled...under $400.

the only halfway reliable camera in that mount is the ORIGINAL all manual SL 35. This is an otherwise unremarkable SLR of that era roughly comparable to a Pentax Spotmatic, a Canon FTB, or a Nikkormat. But at least it will work, and take pictures, through those excellent lenses.

 

Rolleiflex made an adapter that allows the use of all M42 lenses with auto aperture, so your SL cameras have that capability too.

 

I've never dealt with repairs by Rollei but all anecdotal evidence suggests that you are better off not going that route. Frankly, the best advice, if you don't want to get a nice SL 35, is to sell everything on eBay.

actually, at the very end of the DDR CZJ era in the 1980s, the East German firm did sub-contract to put the "Zeiss" name on some rebranded Japanese lenses, (probably made by one of the many companies of that era which supplied Vivitar and the like) for Nikon, Pentax K, and other mounts. I have seen a 28mm f/2.8 of this style and probably other fical lengths and designs. The lenses can be identified because they are 1980s style lenses that say both "Made In Japan" and "Zeiss" on them, and of course they are NOT the Yashica made Contax lenses. I think they may have been an offshoot of the lens line for the Praktica Bayonet Mount cameras, that those lenses be available in other mounts.

 

that being said, i agree with almost everybody on this post. CZJ was not the same as their West German counterparts, and the lawsuits over the name to the contrary, by virtue of location, history, and the design of their products, they had as much right to be part of the tradition as anybody. I don't think anyone will will ever be disappointed by the optical performance of a properly adjusted CZJ lens. It is true that build quality and assembly, towards the end, could be shoddy at times. Same with the Praktica cameras -- earlier is usually better made than later.

i know some people love them but the Kodak Retinas were nothing but trouble for me. I had a IIa, folding model with the 50mm f/2 lens, tiny camera, the film advance busted on it like they always do. I had a IIIc, the leaf shutter was totally in need of more love than i wanted to give. sold them both, and never looked at another one again.

 

then there are the Canon screw-mount cameras. beautiful, amazing cameras that took that lens mount to the ultimate, at least until the modern Bessa R. but as i graduated to more M mount lenses, i got more and more frustrated. i wished that they could be M mount too! I had both a VT and a VIT, i love the Leicavit style trigger winder, which at that time was no way I could have that on my M2 and M3. Finally I had more money and got later generation M cameras and first the Abrahmsson Rapidwinder and then the revamped Leicavit. Along the way I had to sell both of the Canons! but i still love the lenses, use them with the M adapters.

 

then there was the Zeiss Super Ikonta. I had a prewar one that i got for $60 in a long gone now pawnshop on 3rd avenue and 13th street, the bellows had more holes in it than duct tape could keep up with, i hated the fact that it got 11 frames instead of 12 (why, oh why?!?), the ancient lens was uncoated, and although i still admired its engineering i had to get rid of it. I'll get a postwar one some day, or better yet, a USSR ISKRA or Voigtlander Perkeo, if i come across a nice one...

 

Robot cameras, again, amazing idea with the spring wind, i tried out a Luftwaffe model, no film rewind knob! have to go from one cartridge into another...forget it!!! i had another one, picked up the body in belgrade, never got around to finding a lens....sold it...

 

what else? although i love any underdog idea, late Prakticas are junk...especially the bayonet mount series...talk about forgotten mounts and useless cameras...i got one that drains batteries like you wouldn't believe...but it's post 1970...

there is no need to change your aperture once you have started shooting -- your lighting situation is not going to change from one moment to the next -- and if it does, your left hand on the lens barrel clicks the f-stop quickly as needed. same with focusing, you're keeping your left hand on the lens, but you should be willing to accept a certain amount of blur, and allow depth-of-field to take care of your focus. as for zooming, if you do it you'll likely get that "wind tunnel" look that happens when you shoot while lens is zoomed. Personally i find this to be an uninteresting effect. High speed manual camera operation is best with the zoom lens already set, and left, at a particular focal length. Frankly, best with prime lenses 50mm and wider.

 

the "trigger winder" type advance of the Leicavit, the Abrahmsson RapidWinder, that is probably the fastest form of manual film advance. Easily 1.5-2 fps if not more if you're really fast. These are available for Leica Screw Mounts, Leica M, Canon Screw Mounts, and new Voigtlander Bessa R cameras.

 

another rapid system (and unique) is the left hand plunger of the 1950s Voigtlander Vitessa cameras.

 

Finally, if you consider spring-wound (as opposed to battery operated) motor drives to be manual, there are the ROBOT cameras and a few others...

anthony,

 

you mentioned in an old post that you have the wheel to convert a Hasselblad 70 back to use unperforated film.

 

could you tell me who you bought it from?

 

thank you very much!

the Kodak #2402 70mm 150' Roll Plus-X Aerographic Film (ISO-A-200) 494 Type II Perforation S-241 Spool is $ 163.50 per roll, 18 minimum, or $2943.00

 

the Kodak TX 70mm 100' Roll Tri-X Pan Black & White Print Film (ISO-400) TX473 Unperporated 1.25 Plastic "J" Core is $ 142.50 per roll, 36 minimum, or $5130.00

 

I would buy three rolls of either, also, could we get enough people together to fill an order?

thank you for the lead to Mr. Odess, just left him a message.

 

But you don't really need a bulk loader, do you? You can do it by hand in the dark...admittedly clumsy...but putting in a half hour of manually loading up a few cassettes will provide for hundreds of frames of shooting...

 

I acquired a 10 ft. developing reel -- if i ever find some Tri-X or Plus-X -- and the C41 Portra that they still do sell can be fed endlessly through a roller-processor like the kind that most 1-hour labs use, no?

I posted some questions regarding 70mm film on the Medium Format Forum but

didn't get many responses...

 

I did an extensive search in the archives and there was a very recent thread

about this here...

 

Basically, it seems that the only readily available 70mm is Kodak Portra C-41,

in ASA 160 and 400. The B+W Tri-X and Plus-X on the B+H website demand minimum

orders in the thousands of dollars...

 

And reading old posts mention modifying Hasselblasd 70mm backs to be able to

take the UNperforated as well as the perforated film.

 

Does anyone have one of these backs or know the technician who did the

modification? It seems simple to DIY but I'd rather get it from the experts.

 

Thank you!

regarding 35mm, by WW II it was already in wide use with news magazine

photographers such as Robert Capa or Henri Cartier-Bresson. Leicas and Contaxes

did not come with factory flash sync but many had it added. Contax II or Leica IIIa.

You can get away with a post-war Leica IIIf which has built in sync, it looks almost the

same. Not the post-war Contax IIa, though, that looks different. However the USSR

made post-war Kiev IIa has built-in sync, otherwise it looks exactly the same as a

Contax II, and you can get a good example with lens for $99.

 

make sure you bring a cloth or a hankerchief, the flashbulbs are still hot after you

shoot, photographers would remove it with a cloth. in those days of pre-

enviornmental awareness many photographers, outdoors, would just toss their spent

flashbulbs onto the ground where they would get crunched. you don't see this in old

movies!

if you like folding cameras the best of that period really is either the Zeiss Super

Ikonta or the Plaubel Makina. These are top of the line. Coupled rangefinders, fast

lenses, full range of shutter speeds.

 

The best other medium format option, and not too expensive if you search, is a

Rolleiflex. Put a new focusing screen in, a filter and a hood on the taking lens, usually

a new strap, and you're ready to go with 120 film.

 

Flash sync even for flash bulbs was usually an after-market add on, either with a

standard PC socket or those metal pins you see on a lot of old cameras. if you google

for flashbulbs i'm sure you see quickly what is available. the flash guns to mount the

bulbs in are all over eBay, no problem. usually they do not use the

accessory shoe of a camera but rather attach with a bracket. Leica did make a small

gun that fit into the shoe, but you're going for medium format.

 

Remember that your shutter must be set to "M" for flash-bulb sync, as opposed to "X"

for electronic strobe flash. leaf shutters such as in the Ikontas and Rolleiflexes will

sync at all speeds.

i forgot to mention, also, the prewar Plaubel Makina cameras, these were popular in

europe and with british correspondents, the photos of the Prince Of Wales and the

Repulse sinking after Japanese air attack were taken by a british reporter with one of

these, equiped either with a 6x9 120 rollfilm back or sheet film back. And don't

forget Speed Graphics, if i'm not mistaken, Joe Eisenstadt used one for the Marine flag

raising on Iwo Jima.

unbelievable, the level of invective and unhelpfulness here. what is wrong with using

a rapid rewind crank?!? it really does make reqinding the film faster. i have them on

my M2 and M3 which for 8 years were my full time professional cameras. and here's

another tip: the rapid-load spool kits really do work, also. no need to have a bunch of

pre-loaded extra spools if you get the rapid-load. makes M2/M3 almost as fast as

later M4/M6 to load.

medalist is a fine ww II era camera but it uses 620 film, which you can respool from

120, have the camera expensively converted also.

.

by far the best military photography in the US forces during WW II was Edward

Steichen's naval photographic unit. From 1943-45 they have an extraordinary high

quality record of the Pacific naval campaign.

.

for land forces you're better portraying a LIFE magazine photographer like Robert

Capa or George Rodger! Capa typically worked with two Contax II cameras and a

Rolleiflex, Rodger used Leicas.

.

for a cheap but visually accurate re-enactment you can use Kiev and Fed copies of

Contax and Leica cameras.

.

flash-bulbs in the front line would be a no-no!

.

David Douglas Duncan as a US Marine photographer used a Zeiss Super Ikonta. that's

another good option. uses 120 film. expensive to get a pre-war one into shape.

.

i've been photographing re-enactments with Leica M from the 1950s. not accurate,

but at least they're chrome and the lens signatures of summicrons and summarons

are close to WW II era, albeit improved.

.

been eyeing getting Contaxes. but prices on them are going up and up! how great

would that be, though, to have a 50mm f/1.5 Sonnar on one and a 35mm f/2.8

Biogon on the other, and a 85mm in your pouch.

not a hard camera to use.

 

1) pick up the camera. open the back from the bottom. put the roll of film in the

bottom slot and, for most models, make sure to thread the paper under the metal bar

before slipping the paper into the top spool. the metal bar activates the automatic

feature which counts the frames.

 

2) close back and advance to first frame with lever advance, it will automatically stop

at the # 1. disengage shutter lock. you are ready to shoot.

 

3) use hand-held light meter or guestimation (or the built-in meter if yours has one;

although most of those selenium meters are dead and weren't great to start with).

Transfer f/stop and shutter speed settings to the camera using those two wheels (or

sliders, on "T" model, for instance.) one wheel controls the f/stops, the other the

shutter speeds. you can read the settings at the top. Very simple.

 

4) open up the "waist-level finder" at the top. flip up the little magnifier. On most

rolleis you should replace the focusing screen with a newer, brighter screen. lots of

photographers complain about dim focusing on old rolleis. solution is simple. new

screen. Focus using your left hand with help of magnifier. even if you have great

eyesight, the magnifier helps you get perfectly sharp images.

 

5) shoot photo.

 

6) advance film and repeat. at end of roll, after 12 photos, advancing lever will no

longer stop. keeping winding it a few times until you are sure all of the backing paper

of your roll of film is on the top spool. open camera, lick your roll of film tight,

reload, repeat.

 

the flash will sync at all speeds due to leaf shutter design. certain models do have

eccentricities so tell us which model you are using and we can provide totally

detailed, specific instructions.

 

that's it. that's really all there is to it.

much better to speak to a recommended specialist like Dean Williams (or somebody

like that who works on classic cameras) if the local shop either turns you down or

wants to charge you too much money.

 

the comment about Minolta being the best is unjustified. All major brand mechanical

cameras of that era, whether they be Minolta, Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Leica, Olympus,

etc. were made well and will continue to work well if properly maintained. now of

course these ARE old cameras and, especially if they have been unused for a long

time, or had very hard-working careers, then you MUST do some preventive, or in this

case, post-jam care.

 

the Canon FTB, while very cheap and not valuable, was and is a workhorse of a

camera. Canon FD lenses are also cheap, especially for the non-elite medium speed

versions, and they are as sharp and pleasing as anything else out there. in terms of

handling and ergonomics the FTB is roughly similar to a Nikkormat or Pentax

Spotmatic. A solid, serious camera, for solid, serious results.

 

the battery is only for the light meter -- as mentioned, you can get that converted to

1.5v, or use the short-life Wein cells, or pick up some outlawed 625 batteries in

countries where they are not yet outlawed (they last many YEARS) -- or, since the rest

of the camera functions without the meter/battery, you can just ignore it altogether.

 

Frankly a loved FTB will outlast its electronic descendents of the A and T series. The T

cameras, except for the flagship T90, were all very plasticky and junky with built in

motor winders. The A cameras, A-1 and AE-1 Program especially, were very well

thought out machines. but they are electronic, not mechanical.

 

Finally, if it is in fact too expensive to repair, buying another FTB or its successor the

FTB-N is very cheap. you can buy three or four of these cameras for the price of a

nice dinner for two. They constantly appear on eBay or at flea markets and camera

shops.

Definitely get the F100. It is the best Nikon AF body ever made, by

far. It is smaller and lighter than the F5 with the same real-world

functionality (that is, field as opposed to studio, scientific, or

sports use.)

 

The quieter shutter and film advance, the build quality, the option

to set aperture with a thumbwheel (although I do not use this

feature), ALL blow the N90s away.

 

N90s if they are really beaten up (like mine was) feel feeble,

even after 2 trips to the shop at $250 each time. So I sold it for

almost nothing. Granted, I probably put 1000+ rolls of film

through it in all sorts of conditions.

 

The F4 is an antiquated beast. Excellent build quality and

extremely rugged, but even without the big "F4s" motor addition

and new lithium instead of traditional batteries, it still weighs a

ton. It still sells for a decent amount of money because there are

lots of people who like that weight, sturdiness. But its AF is really

slow in comparison with the F100, and for the other features, like

the removable finder, you are better off with a F3, F2, or F.

1) Bessaflex like everyone else says $299 body.

 

2) late model Fujica screw mounts -- but there may be

compatability problems with all screw mount lenses. check first.

 

3) Chinon screw mounts -- decent with motor winder capanility,

the late ones. but a bit clunky

 

4) Prakticas -- East German Ostalgia. Solid, decent, pieces of

history. the late screw mounts should be OK. cheap on eBay.

 

5) Ricoh or Sears TLS ... large but really well made... the Nikon F

of M42 screw mounts.

 

6) Vivitar 220 and other Cosina bodies -- cheap and look OK.

Never used one.

 

7) Mamiya -- again, never handled one, but they look nice. their

successor series, NC1000 , has an adapter that allows AUTO

aperture on M42 lenses.

 

8) Rolleiflex SL35 aka Voigtlander VLC -- also has an adapter

that allows AUTO aperture. but avoid the SL35 SE. Despite being

the last and seemingly the best, it's likely to get gummed up and

is essentially unrepairable. The SL2000, the medium format

style SLR, is an AMAZING camera. with the adapter it will use

every M42 lens ever made, with the odd exception here and

there.

 

NOTE that Pentax K and Praktica Bayonet adapters do NOT

allow auto aperture

 

Personally I would avoid the Zenit bodies. The USSR lenses are

decent; I have a 58mm f/2 Helios which is fine. but the bodies

are really sad. most don't have shutter speeds below 30. some

don't even have auto aperture. Go for a Praktica body is you want

to relive the Prague Spring or the Solidarity Movement.

don't go near the M4-2. i use mine as my primary camera because i

haven't been to afford something else, but it's terrible. it needs

repair at least once a year. the rangefinder constantly goes off, it

barely works with my abrahmsson rapidwinder (he had to send me

different parts to make it work), it will barely work with any of the

motor drives, even the one made for it, the motor M4-2, and in general

it is an inferior product. mind you i treat it terribly. it's been to

the balkans and afghanistan and the middle east and i shoot several

hundred rolls through it each year. but for an extra couple of hundred

dollars, on average, you can get an M4-P or an early M6. xxxx

Query regarding Leica M motor-winders:

 

I am using an old M4-2 with the Abrahmsson Rapidwinder gadjet, but

would like to have a motorized option as well. I tried a M6 with new

small winder/lithium batteries and it was superb, but it did not seem

to work on the older M4-2. so,

 

1) Is there any way to make the fantastic new motor work on the M4-2?

 

2) If not, what is the difference between the motor M4-2 and the motor

M, i know the one is newer than the other, but what are the functional

differences regarding size, weight, noise, speed, etc.?

 

thanks very much!

 

alan chin

new york

 

.