brett_rogers

My POINT is that having pointed the finger at others— lest you be unfairly viewed as being hypocritical—perhaps you should back up the unsupported impressionistic blather (quoted below) with some "data" yourself. Or is this only required in connection with opinions other than your own? Make an effort this time instead of the usual gaslighting.

Right back at ya.

Sources???

A After you.

"Velvia 50" (RVP 50) is a current film type available fresh from Fuji. You are conflating it with "Velvia" (RVP) which was discontinued circa 2005. I still have a few rolls of the latter deep frozen. Gorgeous film.

That sounds normal. In order to use a slow speed and/or timer the knob must be fully wound. How many degrees of rotation that involves will depend on what setting is in use, but, in any case, the escapement, when it commences running, will be fully tensioned.

Unless I missed it; I don't think you have mentioned how you are assessing the accuracy of the times. It's not possible to determine the accuracy of the high speeds by eye with any precision. The fastest speed of a focal plane shutter will nearly always be the one most likely to first play up. It runs the tightest slit and is always most sensitive to variations in curtain performance due to age and need for servicing. The scenario you've presented is therefore not unusual. In order to rectify the problem fully, you need a means of measuring the exposure across the film gate. Obviously, the first curtain is dragging. The FT series are a quality mechanism so it is less likely the cause is excessive wear unless your particular example has been used very hard. This suggests to me it could do with more cleaning. You can increase the tension of the first curtain to get it moving faster. But if the mechanism is clean and correctly lubricated it ought not be necessary to add much extra. Curtain condition is always worth checking. Some makers curtain material ages much better than others. I like old German cameras, too, but Exaktas for instance, no matter how competently serviced, may never run to spec until their old and stiff curtains are replaced. Curtains that are no longer supple, even when correctly adjusted, will not have the same rate of acceleration or maximum speed because they'll no longer spool sweetly around their drums. I'm not saying this is an issue with the Canon. Merely, that curtain condition can never be overlooked when diagnosing erratic performance. You must appreciate that in the first instance, the goal of balancing the curtain speeds is to achieve even exposure across the film gate. This may or may not produce an amount of exposure that is accurate at faster speeds. The amount of exposure is a product of the curtain running speed and the distance between the curtains. The slit is determined not by the curtain speed in the first instance, but by the curtain timing mechanism. If the factory set timing calibration is intact, it's true that correcting the running speeds would then see the exposure fall into spec. But curtain adjustment will be right when the travel times are to spec, not necessarily when exposure is accurate, because it is possible the second curtain release delay may also need adjustment. The take away is that curtains, curtain running speed, and curtain timing, must all be good, to achieve accurate and consistent exposure.

I've repaired two Exakta cameras over the last twelve months, a Varex and a Varex IIa. The IIa needed complete mechanism cleaning plus new curtains cut and fitted. In past years I have worked on a few other Exaktas. I quite like them, although they have their weaknesses—a proclivity for Ihagee to sometimes employ a smaller size thread than many other makers might, being one such. The Exakta internal bayonet can wear. Unless it's quite bad, the fit of the lugs which bear against those of a lens can often be adjusted to remove excess play. The bayonet mount should come off for this, but that's straightforward. Be careful re-fastening the mounting screws afterwards, they are under size for what they are expected to cope with, and the metal into which their threads are tapped is OK, but only OK—it is not excellent quality, rather, a little cheesy. I've had to reclaim stripped threads by filling with JB Weld before drilling out by hand with a pin vise and tapping new threads. So, be more gentle than you might with an equivalent Japanese camera.

I quoted you, directly. Then I twisted your words to construe a point I advocate. Are your words copyright? And if so, would not my comments be fair use? Any reader with a modicum of intelligence would realise I have not quoted you verbatim, other than in the first instance. So, settle down. However, if you visit any forums where either of the above cameras are mentioned, you will find evidence that people consider them complex and unreliable. I do not disagree with this. A lot of people do consider the Contaflexes to be unreliable. But, a lot of people are wrong. As we shall see, these opinions do not stand up to critical examination. They're ridden with logical fallacies. I think that I have the runs on the board when it comes to trying, in good faith, to help numerous Contaflex owners ascertain what ails their particular example, and how to best mend them. I have been dealing with these Zeiss SLRs for a lot of years now. And I can tell you, that if you dig deeper into forum content about non-working Contaflexes, you are going to establish that, in virtually every instance, the topic of a discussion has never been professionally serviced by a competent technician. In other words, it's been bought online, at market, handed down from a friend or relative, or come to the owner by some means that has not included any service. Such cameras usually will not work very well at all. Don't take my word for this, by the way. Some basic research will soon confirm the above. Actual instances of recently serviced Contaflexes subsequently failing, are vanishingly rare. Why is it, then, that various premium quality German cameras: to take just a few examples, the Rollei twin lenses, Leica rangefinders, Linhof 2x3' & 4x5" technical cameras (to name just a few) are so highly regarded for their quality, durability, and reliability? Focal plane shutter blinds can stiffen and crack, escapements stick, high speeds taper or cap, RF prisms black out, brass wind gears can wear out. Leaf shutters will stick. Helicoids will need re-greasing. How can they be such praiseworthy benchmarks for quality photography, when they can, and most assuredly, do, suffer from all these maladies, and more? It's because owners of said cameras are not using examples from the 1950s and 1960s that are in "as found" condition. They've been worked on. CLAd (probably, many times, in the case of so many Leicas). Of course they're going to work reliably! There is a great deal of cognitive dissonance in play on the part of classic camera owners/users. We, all of us, have our favourite types. (I personally own and use examples of all I makes I have cited to date, and more, I have broad tastes). It does not bother me, in the slightest, if most people dislike the Contaflex SLRs. All the more for me. And, no, they are not perfect cameras, either. They are, however made of excellent, durable, materials, and fitted with excellent Tesser lenses. Including the 126 variant and cheaper Prontor shutter versions, Zeiss Ikon actually sold very nearly a million of them between 1953 and 1972(ish). If they were flaky, unreliable prospects for long term use, they would not have sold so well at their price point in the market. If any particular person is inclined to take the stance that the Contaflexes are unreliable, I am fine with that. If they are also inclined to accept that an M3, M2, M4, Rolleiflex, or virtually any other German camera from the same period is "unreliable". Because I can tell you right now, that anybody who thinks they have a decent chance of using any of those in their original condition without getting them looked at first is absolutely dreaming.They are all as "unreliable" as a Contaflex which has never been serviced, and to suggest that the Contaflexes are not inherently reliable is not comparing like with like, and revisionist. When not so old, they were well regarded SLRs, beloved particularly by flash photographers.

"Much like the Zeiss Ikon Contaflex, the Retina Reflex is a leaf shutter SLR with a reputation for unreliability and complexity." Not this furphy again. The Contaflex series (those with a Synchro-Compur shutter, anyway) are very well made and reliable SLRs. Criticism of them for failing to work in recent decades is only a reflection of the fact that they are old and have usually not been serviced since manufacture. If they fail to function correctly it's little wonder. Let's revisit that comment... Much like the Rollei twin lenses, the Retina Reflex is a leaf shutter camera with a reputation for unreliability and complexity. Much like the Leica rangefinders, the Retina Reflex is a 35mm camera with a reputation for unreliability and complexity. You could make the same criticisms of almost any 1950s–1960s model camera, that has never received any servicing. Expect an M3 or 2.8F to work perfectly without ever having been attended to in almost sixty years? Dream on. The biggest difference between servicing a Contaflex and M3 is you've a pretty fair chance of not needing any replacement parts to make the Contaflex good again.

Thank you Chuck. I'll give that a go, next time. :) Cheers Brett

100mm Dynaron with Acros 100 in ID-11; tripod used of course. Sorry: having trouble working out how to embed an image into a post. St Hilary, St Martin & St Brice.

I agree that if it's possible to eliminate mirror-induced vibration from the imaging equation it's prudent to do so. Whether it will actually be germane to sharpness of the images involved is another point. But given the choice between living with or managing, a source of vibration, or eliminating it—I'll nearly always choose the latter. Granted—lifting the mirror might not help. But maybe it would, and it can do no harm—so, if the feature is available—why not use it? That said, (as far as 35mm SLRs are concerned, at least) most manufacturers did not include a mirror lock up to help reduce vibration—at least not primarily. The function was usually included to facilitate the use of one or more non-retrofocus wide angle lenses, the fitting of which to the camera without first locking the mirror up would damage same. That the MLU would also be of particular benefit with long lenses or great degrees of subject magnification was surely of secondary importance. Getting back to medium format SLRs, historically, relatively few models have actually been fitted with a genuine mirror lock up. Eg the 500C, C/M and their derivatives are oft-said to have MLU, but in fact, this isn't the case. A pre-release button permits the reflex mirror and rear shutter to be pre-fired before using their lens shutters. But on winding the film to the next frame, it is impossible to stop the mirror from descending. "Mirror lock up", as the words "lock up" suggest, means exactly that—the reflex mirror is mechanically locked in the retracted position. and until it's unlocked by the photographer—it stays locked. There have been certain MF SLRs manufactured with true MLU capability. Some focal plane shutter Hasselblads Eg. their 2000FC and FC/M have various mirror operating modes apart from mirror instantly returning after exposure; one of these is mirror remains up after exposure and wind on. The 500EL & EL/M may have had a similar option—can't recall offhand. Purely as far as vibration reduction is concerned, of course, a pre-release confers all of the benefits of MLU to a camera fitted with the function.

KW's Praktina 35mm single lens reflex also used a breech mount system for its lenses, and it preceded any of the Canon SLRs to do so by several years.

Being an Alpa owner, the ultra wide angle lens which always piqued my curiosity was the Volpi Peri-Appolar. Mainly because of its unorthodox appearance, admittedly. But it also seems to be a—if not unique, then—very unusual lens. More: https://www.pacificrimcamera.com/rl/01221/01221.pdf

Thank you Chuck, that's very kind of you. I suspect you might find that if you try to interchange the standard 50mm Tessar front components of your Contaflex III & Super/Super B they may not install. Although the bayonet mounts and their lugs all look identical to the naked eye, Zeiss quite cunningly altered the dimensions just enough to prevent interchangeability from early to late. Another example is the early v late M1:1 Pro Tessar. The 35mm, 85mm & 115mm on the other hand should all have lugs compatible with any unit focus model by being fractionally smaller, small enough to fit all of them. From memory, I believe the CIII and CIV middle lens cells may have had the matching serial number of their original front 50mm part stamped into their mount. Maybe the Rapid but they seem to have discontinued it by the first Super, I've examined three the last few weeks and all definitely had no reference numbers on the middle lens mount. The Super BC is a terrific model, my own has a lens as sharp as any Contaflex I've ever used. That said, a Super B meter in good repair can easily make great slide exposures. It is instructive, I think to consider the size of the selenium cells used in Contaflex II, IV & the first Super models. The Super B cell is massively larger. If there's a weakness with the Super BC/S models, it must be the downright odd shaped battery compartment design. Accessibility for cleaning the contacts could scarcely be worse, and the small plastic lug attached to the inside of the door can detach. Proper battery positioning on its contacts is void without the lug and it also holds the hatch shut. When you spot an example for sale occasionally with a small screw bodged into the edge of the battery hatch, it's a dead giveaway that the lug has jumped ship. By all means try a Super BC/S. They're great. But as well as all the other age-related shutter servicing issues other models have, do ensure the compartment for the cell is free of corrosion, and that lug is present. Frankly, the best user of the lot, for those who prefer manual exposure control and built in metering is the New Super. It has the same huge accurate cell as the Super B, the meter is always coupled. Super B; BC; S cut the meter off at manual apertures (which also means for BC/S owners, moving your control ring off of "A" is actually the "off" switch for your meter which will stop it running your battery down). The New Super has sensible control rings with grips you can easily use without rubbing the f stops off. Admittedly the original Super isn't too bad either, in this respect, but its use of the EV coupling system is a love/hate thing. And (if I'm splitting hairs), the inevitable gear backlash in the drive between the finger wheel and shutter means that, no matter how carefully calibrated one is, centering the meter needle by closing down, versus opening up, can see perhaps a 1/4–1/3 stop difference between the two, because of the effect of the lash. Is it an issue in actual use? Not really. Just frustrating when you're trying to make the meter calibration perfect—you have to carefully split the effects of the lash so that Eg closing down to zero the needle won't make your exposure half a stop out (compared to zeroing it by opening up). Having just done all this to make an early Super really right for its lucky next owner (whoever that might be) this point is fresh in my memory...

Chuck is right, in that the sequential operation of the mechanism means that, the rapidity with which the aperture blades close down to whatever shooting aperture they've been set to, should be a constant from Bulb to 1/500 if the shutter is clean and working correctly. I'm in the habit of suggesting the aperture size be checked at 1/500 and f/22, because 1/500 is the shortest shutter speed, and f/22 is the smallest lens opening (requiring the aperture blades to travel the furthest distance). You could check the aperture function at 1/60, 1/30 or whatever. But I tend to suggest 1/500 because if the aperture process is running just a little slow, we are talking about distinctions in the realm of a few milliseconds. You would not notice any visible difference in the effective exposure at 1/60, if 50% of the exposure was at an effective f/11 or f/16 and not entirely at f/22. Only an electronic tester would pick that up and only some of them at that. On the other hand—even though the cycling speed of the blades should be constant no matter what exposure time is selected—if you are able to see a faint, but well defined tiny pentagon looking through the back of the camera at 1/500, it suggests the aperture is definitely running fast enough. In other words, the shorter exposure duration actually makes it easier to see if the opening is a tiny f/22, or closer to something like f/8 —if the blades are still moving between the two you are less likely to see it at longer times. Obviously, if the mechanism is hopelessly gummed up and in need of cleaning you would notice it at any speed setting (and it might not stop down fully, or even at all, this isn't particularly uncommon in an "as found" example). If the aperture fails a 1/500 test, observing it during a one second exposure will often enable you to observe the aperture blades slowly struggling to close down to f/22—if they manage to get there at all—as mentioned above, in the worst cases they may not. If particular example checks out OK it is not a bad idea to run the shutter through all its aperture settings from f/2.8 to f/22, simply to make sure they all select as they should. But if the shutter is getting the aperture down to f/22 as quickly as it should, f/4, f/8, f/18 et al should also be correct. If the blades can cycle down to f/22 correctly, before the shutter blades commence the exposure, it's a formality that larger lens openings which do not dictate they have to travel as far a distance, should also be fine.

Good, thank you, Chuck, and I trust, likewise for you.

That's a typo, above. I meant to write: "It certainly applies to the Contaflex III (3) model."

Absolutely. Just think of it as if you were changing the lenses of a completely conventional focal plane SLR. If you take off your 50mm f/2 lens, and fit a 100mm f/2.8: regardless of which lens is fitted, f/8 is still f/8. Right? But you can't set the 100mm lens to f/2, if it has a maximum aperture of f/2.8, can you? Well, the Pro Tessars work precisely the same way. As I said: "The easiest way to put it is that with a Pro Tessar attached, regardless of what the meter says, the lens no longer has a maximum aperture of f/2.8, but becomes a f/3.2 or f/4 optic (as the case may be)." It's that simple.

The easiest way to put it is that with a Pro Tessar attached, regardless of what the meter says, the lens no longer has a maximum aperture of f/2.8, but becomes a f/3.2 or f/4 optic (as the case may be). If the meter says your aperture is f/2.8; you need to lengthen the exposure time by a stop (and possibly also close the aperture down to f/4 if you're shooting colour positive with a f/3.2 lens, with black and white or C-41 obviously, it's of less consequence).

Yes that is correct. The Pro Tessar lenses are modular in design. That is to say they substitute for the standard front glass of the 50mm Tessars and transmit light through the remaining three elements. But the Teleskop is an additional lens design. It fits in front of the standard 45mm Tessar installed in the original Contaflex and the Contaflex II but is not compatible at all with any of the unit focusing Contaflex types. It's rather soft in the corners until stopped down to f/11-f/22 but in fairness its main purpose was intended for portraiture. The one time I used it for landscape I found as above it wasn't really suited unless stopped well down, but, when this was done it was surprisingly sharp. This image was made with my first version Contaflex II (the one with the dual range light meter) with Teleskop fitted on Fuji Neopan Acros 100.

The point that is perhaps under-reported about the various unit focusing Contaflex models is that Zeiss did subtle alterations to the dimensions of the camera body bayonet and to certain lenses. But the alterations were made in such a way that certain lenses would fit all unit focus models, and certain others would not, based on the relative dimensions of the lugs on the lenses, and the lugs on the camera bayonet. For instance the standard front cell of a late model Contaflex such as the Super B or S will not attach to the front of, say, a Contaflex III or IV. And vice-versa (from memory). There were early and late versions of the M1:1 Pro Tessar produced, and, based on the camera bayonet dimensions you need to have the late lens for late models and early one for early models. As far as I am aware the precise size of the bayonet lugs for the 35mm, 85mm and 115mm Pro Tessar lenses were chosen to be slightly smaller than some other Contaflex lenses. This is not obvious without close examination, but it ensures that they can engage with the mount on any of the unit focus bodies from III to S inclusive. I'm not aware of any differences between the f/4 and f/3.2 versions either. I'm not sure I have a copy of the f/4 35mm, but I certainly have the f/3.2 type, as well as both f/4 and f/3.2 versions of the 85mm (the 115mm was only ever a f/4), and I can't ever recall an occasion when any of those would fit one unit focusing model but not another (and I have all the Tessars from III to S inclusive to try them on). Zeiss supplied plastic bubbles in which to store the Pro Tessars and I have a few of these. They're adequate for display purposes but not really up to extended field use. The black plastic base the lenses bayonet into have an unfortunate tendency to crack or for the metal bayonet moulded into them to detach. Zeiss offered an attractive leather carry case able to take a couple of Pro Tessars. For use out in the field it's probably preferable although the bubbles, being clear, will admit light and perhaps slow fungus down better than the carry case for display use.

It's the outer diameter you can place a flexi clamp around to unscrew (normal right hand thread, unfastens anti-clockwise). There's no purpose at all in attempting further disassembly: the Tessar lens design features a single glass centre piece, cleaning all optical surfaces may be performed after removing the mount as is. The mount is made of soft metal. If a rubber mat fails to provide sufficient purchase to unscrew it, you'll need a flex clamp. Anything else will distort the mount, and as this aids location of the front lens damaging it during removal will prevent the front piece attaching correctly (and look damned unsightly). That's all from me.

That information is based on the instructions in the Zeiss service manual for the Contaflex I to IV models. It certainly applies to the Contaflex II model. Later types may not be as particular about rear lens mount installation.