gary_turner1

<p>Tower was a Sears brand. So many Towers; some made in Japan, some Germany and probably elsewhere. In this case it was most likely made by Kamerawerke Wilhelm Witt in Germany. Possible models: Tower 51 = Iloca Rapid-B. Sears Tower 52 = Iloca Rapid-II (same as Argus V-100).<br>

Nice photos that prove that a Steinheil Cassar S lens can be quite capable.<br>

Here's a link to the possible Iloca (hope I'm not breaking rules by listing it):<br>

http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00Y3ar</p>

<p>Then there was an early Zeiss Ikarex 35 & 35 TM. Discontinued 1971</p>

<p>Exakta RTL 1000 previously mentioned, by Praktica 1969-73</p>

<p>That Praktica L2, previously mentioned, made 1976-80, sounds rather recent</p>

<p>Miranda Sensomat RS 1970-71. I'm guessing that may have been the last of Miranda non metered 35mm SLR cameras.</p>

<p>Nikon F was made up until 1973 (?) but not exactly modern either. Vintage = modern?</p>

<p>Kiev 17 1977-84</p>

<p>Zenit B model without meters were made for several years 1968-73</p>

<p>One is lucky just to have a metered camera that reacts to light after so many years. My collecting & using experience: At least 50% of the battery driven meters are already dead, and I'm guessing the rest are on a downhill slide. Some likely culprits: dust, oxidation to the wires, environmental pollutants, heat, cold, dropped cameras, sticky needles, batteries left in the camera that seriously leaked powder and goo.<br>

Maybe part of that 50% failure rate is due to the incorrect battery voltage? Who will ever know.<br>

I have used 1.5 v alkaline & silver batteries for many years in cameras with working meters designed for 1.35 v. I really can't say the results were beyond the latitude of the film I used. Also, those camera meters did not seem to suffer subsequent battery caused failure year after year that I'm yet aware of, but I'm sure failures will eventually occur for any number of reasons. Then there's those camera meters that have friendlier circuitry (bridged?) where the exposure presumably stays the same?<br>

One wonders why a company like Mamiya chose to use silver batteries in various 35mm cameras way back in the 1960's while so many other companies preferred mercury?</p>

<p>Wonder why Pentax Spotmatics initially went with a rather obscure battery, the PX-400 / RM-400-R instead of the common S-76 or PX-625?<br>

Spotmatic F fortunately used the more common 625. Can't think of any other camera makes that used that small 400 battery. What's a good substitute short of using hearing aid / zink batteries?</p>

<p>I have an original focal plane type 35mm SLR Contarex (not the much more popular Contaflex series with the lens shutter and black out viewfinder) and it works fully auto. Supposedly that first model was introduced to the press in 1958 but took awhile to get to consumers.<br>

The Contarex meets all the criteria that an over engineered, way too bulky, heavy, full featured and expensive camera that Germany was well known for....like some of their WWII tanks that the Russian tanks ran circles around. Not necessarily a fair stereotype across the board since the early Praktica SLR's in comparison were of rather humble origins, far more affordable and very manageable in size.<br>

Apparently by the time Germans got around to designing small body 35mm SLR's to meet the Asian competition it was time to move production elsewhere or close shop all together.</p>

<p>With the FX-2: I should have indicated 'actuating mechanism' not pin. M42 lenses had the pin.<br>

Oh well, auto diaphragm lenses were at least a step in the right direction for more convenient operation.</p>

<p>One could say the original Zeiss Contarex was earlier with auto diaphragm than the Canonflex or Nikon F but apparently consumers couldn't see them in stores until early 1960. What a beast.<br>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>

Fully auto diaphragm lenses on some cameras does not mean a lot in a practical sense unless the cameras feature instant return mirrors. Pentacon for example did not have a true / fully instant return mirror camera until its VF model of 1964. Although a Praktica FX-2 featured auto diaphragm capability via actuating pin inside the body, the camera itself blacked out its viewfinder until its shutter was cocked again and the mirror dropped down. I have a similar situation with my Minolta SR-2 using Auto MC lenses but maybe something is wrong with the camera (?).</p>

<p>Canonflex 35mm SLR apparently edged out Nikon F by one month during 1959 with its early auto diaphragm Super-Canomatic lens (but not to become a popular camera model or lens).</p>

<p>Woops. Correction: Zunow</p>

<p>Zunov 35mm SLR - 1958? Wish I had one!</p>

<p>I recall reading an interview (via Internet) with Maitani stating that the FTL was 'outsourced'. Possibly that meant the design was provided by another company but the cameras were built by Olympus? Regardless, the FTL of 1971-72 is a rather interesting M42 mount camera with a locking lens feature similar in concept to Fujica's M42 SLRs. Now it seems to be an uncommon camera on the used market and often rather pricey as well.</p>

<p>When it comes to copyright and trademark laws it seems everyone has an opinion or interpretation.<br /> Also seems that a little common sense would dictate that it is extremely unlikely a poster of a vintage camera ad is going to be pursued by a lawyer or original copyright/trademark holder (assuming they are still alive or company even exists). When was the last time you heard of any legal action against a person posting a vintage ad?<br /> If copyright / trademark was a concern for the fellow who runs the Butkus free camera manual website it seems certain he would have been sued out of existence long ago or told to cease. I'm pretty sure Butkus site does have some disclaimers informing his download fans what's ethically appropriate; for example no one wants to have there efforts sold and profited by others.<br /> I just did some research on the copyright/trademark subject via Internet searches and all I can say is "if I were to post a vintage ad here or on Audiokarma (vintage hi-fi) I'd not lose sleep about being sued or told to cease such activity". Just my lay opinion of course. Needless to say, there's a lot of loop holes / exceptions in copyright/trademark laws that do allow reasonable use (such as old ads) by lay folks.<br /> As for large files, yes that can be a concern.<br>

Now I'll likely take the heat for these comments!</p>

<p>Maybe a Minolta Autocord would be a better comparison? Own more than one Rolleiflex, a Yashicaflex D, and Minolta Autocord. I generally preferred to use the Autocord for whatever reason. German cameras like Rollei seemed to command a premium in original purchase price so they should offer some extra special build qualities?</p>

<p>I've been collecting and accumulating lenses for over 30 years, some not cleaned yet of fungus and those are stored next to my pristine vintage lenses. I have not seen any transfer of fungus from lens to lens and no increase in the fungus endowed lenses after many years. I do store all of my lenses and cameras in a relatively controlled indoor environment with low humidity and rarely do they feel any heat above 75 degrees f. I'm guessing hot humid climates may pose an actual challenge. Just my experience; others of course may have had some bad luck.</p>

<p>I believe most old folder lenses I encountered were simple doublets and a few triplets. Typically cemented using organic balsum. Heated in an oven or boiling water they ought to separate. If the folder is for display, just place the cleaned de-cemented elements back together, install and be done with it. Re-cementing with modern cement and correct alignment of the elements may not be feasible for the novice. Newer cements are more difficult to separate if not impossible but then they typically less apt to incur fungus or delamination. Just my thoughts based on what I have read and my own experience tinkering with some old defective folder lenses. Sometimes better to find another parts folder with same lens and do a transplant.</p>

<p>Not all 35mm SLR lenses are hard to work on. I have repaired / cleaned dozens with fungus and sometimes those with just dust on the elements or oily crud on the blades. I have occasionally bought lenses knowing the elements had fungus on/in them, not necessarily because they were cheap but because I needed to match a particular elderly SLR with the lens type that originally came with the camera. Internet searches will find many good articles about lens cleaning so no need to cover that here.<br>

The easiest lenses to disassemble? Usually normal focal lengths. Zooms can be a real pain (frustration) so I rarely worked on those. With practice comes skill. The time and effort usually is not necessarily a big deal and simple tools are easily found at reasonable expense. I'm not fond of working on more modern, heavily plastic or feature laden cameras or lenses so I leave that to real experts, buy a like item without the problems or just avoid them altogether. I might also let a pro tackle my higher value vintage Leica lenses. I find that older lenses are usually much easier to service. Lens repair can be a satisfying hobby for some but not everyone finds enough satisfaction and success to make such endeavors worthwhile.<br>

I found that Minolta MC normal focal length lenses are relatively easy to work on as well as Non AI Nikkors, Canon breech lock FL & FD, and most Auto Miranda. Most anything made by Tomioka to include Yashica DX & DS, Mamiya/Sekor, Auto Rikenon are also pretty straight forward. Konica AR lenses can be pretty easy too. Somewhat more difficult for me were Pentax Takumar / Super Takumar and yes Olympus OM.<br>

I'm now mainly a collector (temporary custodian) of several early 35mm SLRs from 1950s to 1970s so I'm more concerned that a camera winds and fires (not necessarily accurately) and the lens functions. Cosmetics are important but one can't always be too choosey with earliest and harder to find SLRs. Most of my cameras look nice on display. I repaired and restored many of the cameras in my collection or paid to have them repaired. Many were bought with deficiencies that have since been sorted out and rectified. I feel I have rescued many that would have been destined for parts or tossed in the trash. Still plenty of film cameras and lenses out there in the supply chain for dedicated film users. Many of the earliest SLRs and lenses don't really make the best users in any case.</p>

<p>All I can say is the older breech lock lenses have been a lot easier for me to clean blades and crud between the elements. The newer bayonet types such as FD 50mm f1.8 reveal a lot of cost cutting efforts but that was true of many other brands as well after the mid 1970's. In some cases it's cheaper to just buy/replace some (but not all) of the more common 'cost cutter' FD lenses rather than try to repair them.<br>

Best not to drop any lens on a hard surface. Even the plastic ones can jump the focusing helicoid rather easily and that's not an easy fix.<br>

As a collector of fine vintage cameras it's nice to match the earlier Canon SLRs with the proper mostly heavier metal & glass lenses they came with. As a user the newer and lighter FD 'plasticy' lenses do have several advantages.<br>

My interest in Canon SLRs pretty much ended with the first F1, FTBn, TX, and EF. In my mind the period of the AE series and later models just aren't very collectible so I don't care to hang on to more than a few more modern Canon bayonet lenses - one's a nice FD 24mm f2.8.</p>

<p>As a collector nowadays (was once a Navy photographer and shot film a lot up until about 5 years ago but rarely now), I often buy vintage film cameras based on cosmetics and bargain pricing rather than concerns about optimum shutter speed accuracy, sluggish aperture blades, fungus, etc. Hence, full functional disclosure is my minor concern. So many film cameras are now being sold by thrift stores, pawn shops. Then there's the younger folks who also generally have no knowledge, interest, or any practical use for their parents or grandfather's 'treasures'.<br>

I have bought several fungus infected and oily jammed aperture blade lenses at low cost (lots of infested Nikkors still out there) knowing I can usually clean up such problems. I rely as much or more on the photos provided (eBay) than description of the camera or lens function. For me it's nice enough to have a camera that not only looks pretty good but also winds and fires at various speeds regardless of accuracy. I can also be satisfied with some dents, dings, Zeiss bumps, and a jammed, rumpled or torn shutter if it's a rare or harder to find camera.<br>

For the diminishing number of dedicated film camera shooters still alive and kicking, there are so many cameras now available at ridiculously low prices that rising postage is becoming more of a concern. <br>

I now still use some of my film camera lenses on a digital SLR and I suppose that's why we see an increase in many lens values compared to the bodies they were once attached to...and a reason there's so many cheap bodies available on eBay at least for the most popular SLRs from the 1960's to early 1980s. <br>

My advice is: if a seller markets their item at a premium price towards a person that will actually use the camera for it's original intended purpose, they ought to disclose all that they are aware of, allow reasonable return policy, but also state that like any camera of its advanced age it may benefit from a professional CLA. Critical buyers with high expectations should ask questions. If the seller is unaware of any faults and/or not familiar with item then their obligation is just to say "it's not been tested". If camera winds and fires at certain speeds then one should say so, and if it hangs or jams, say so. If the seller has no clue about what they are selling they should also say so and sell 'as is' for display or likely in need of repair. It's 'buyer beware' in so many of those situations. EBay for one can be a crap shoot. Buyer also needs to have reasonable expectations based on the amount they have paid and from who they bought it from. In my experience, some eBay buyers can be more of a pain than the sellers!<br>

Final notes: I have bought several cameras from sellers 'without a clue' and ended up with more gems than duds. I have fixed many of my duds and have usually enjoyed that 'priceless' experience. A lot of my working or self repaired cameras have also been passed on to high school photo class students and other film users. My apologies if you find this long winded reply inappropriate or irritating in any way.</p>

<p>Never had a problem with Mark Hama's repairs (I guess he's still around?) but he can get backlogged for a year at times. With SRT bodies now selling so cheap on eBay one might buy 3 or 4 with the chance one will work just fine. Some simple DIY repairs can often get such cameras back to life. SRT shutters are particularly easy to tension and sometimes that's all it takes to clear a stuck mirror or shutter curtain. Carefully cleaning the bottom end with electrical solvent spray then application of a small drop of NYOIL on pivot points will help (no need to over do it). Careful mirror wipe with wet alcohol soaked folded appropriately cut sheet of Kleenex held by a soft point tweezer can usually result in a scratch fee very clean mirror. Might buy a clunker camera to practice on first. I bought Minolta SRT cameras sold as non working / parts @ $10 - $15 to include shipping and with little effort they now work fine. Meters are probably the weakest link and many have somehow lost their plastic advance winder tips. I know, there's a lot more to a proper CLA.</p>

<p>You probably try to sell when (1) you can't afford to make the next mortgage or rent payments (2) you lost interest in the hobby (3) you run out of places to squirrel them away (3) old age and the future is not looking to be a long term option<br>

Side note: I know that many of the sincere users on this forum dislike the idea of collecting but let's face it collectors and users will never run out of vintage film cameras to buy. There are far more film cameras out there now than buyers. Heck, there are probably more working Zenits or even Pentax Spotmatics still on hand that could meet the user's demands. Collectors are just custodians and many just buy fixer uppers anyway that the users would avoid or have to dump more money into them than they are worth. Users and collectors need to co-exist in peace. Your typical user just might be buying a good functional camera from a collector. The typical digital user may buy an old film camera lens from a collector. If the economy sinks further watch for an even greater glut of many camera & lens brands and models to hit the market, most at very affordable prices.</p>

<p>From what I have read, the Yashica Electro AX (1972-75) was not very successful compared to other competing camera brands with similar or even better features. The few I have seen did not have functioning meters / LEDs.<br>

I always liked the compact size and ergonomics of the Fujicas to include ST605, ST705 and AZ-1. Shutters seem to be relatively trouble free. Nice bright viewfinders, very good lenses. AZ-1 (1978) originally available with a zoom lens but is often seen now with normal lens.<br>

Yashica made a lot of good cameras and they had some exceptionally good lenses but AX apparently was not one of their best efforts. AX also used a less common battery.</p>

<p>I have a Chinon CE-3 Memotron (1977-78?) amongst a few other Chinons and it's rather more compact than some of the full size Chinon M42 mount cameras. Slightly smaller in size to Pentax Spotmatic and about the same weight due to a lot of metal in its body. Other Chinons with similar body but differing features include CM-1, CM-3, Revueflex SC-1. There's also a Chinon AM-3. These cameras look well made and appear durable. More features I'd say than the most recent Pentax Spotmatics that were made until 1976. Chinon seemed to like black bodies so maybe it was their standard finish with this and some other series.<br>

The earlier M42 Chinon lenses I have seem seem fairly hefty and maybe Tomioka had a connection with the lens elements, especially the 55mm and possibly some of the wide angle lenses. The newer M42 lenses to include 50mm f1.7 seem to have cut some corners (less metal?) in order to reduce weight and size and I'm guessing Chinon was the manufacturer. Personally I prefer the M42 Pentax lenses for their well known performance and build quality.<br>

There was a Chinon CS-3 (1980) about same size as those mentioned above with Seiko vertical metal shutter (AM-3, CM-1 & CM-3 had same shutter) but it has much more plastic in its construction. I think that was one of the last M42 mount Chinons.</p>

<p>Rick, I have the very same Ikoflex III model. Never was able to locate a proper operational manual. I suppose few were imported into USA due to war conflict in Europe at the time. Mine appears in near new condition, still functional and very well made at least on the exterior.<br>

I heard that some of the reliability issues were due to the use of too many soft aluminum parts instead of the usual brass gears, etc. Would you say that is a true observation on your part now that you have been inside that camera? Gary in Bozeman, Montana</p>

<p>Mark must have repaired about 10 cameras for me over several years and his charges were very reasonable. Emails are rarely answered but he eventually gets the camera to you and a phone call can indeed help speed things up. I was patient on a few complicated repairs to relatively uncommon cameras that took over a year but they also required finding hard to get replacement parts. Mark repaired two of Konica III series rangefinders at half the price quoted by a Mr. Weber. Mark even found a rare functioning meter for my shutter jammed Konica IIIM and he did not charge extra for it. I think maybe he gets backlogged with too many repair jobs. I do not doubt his honesty and integrity. I hope he stays healthy and active in camera repair for a long while! Now if I could just find someone who likes to repair old Miranda SLRs!</p>