Related Links:
Ansel Adams Documentary (PBS) [4/2002]
Contax History
First Photograph [7/2002]
First SLR - Exakta Sport? [8/2002]
History of the Medium Format SLR
Kodak Design and Technology History
on Kingslake... (Brian Wallen) [8/2002]
Minolta Corp history site
Nikon Lenses History Pages/Articles
You will find a lot of interest in subjects related to the history of photography and
photographers in the links above and the postings below. While there are lots of historical
notes and nuggets on the various pages at this medium format megasite, there were lots
of history related items that just didn't seem to fit. So I started this page on historical
notes and postings to capture those items in one place. If you are just looking for a
particular topic, simply use your browser's FIND function (usually control-F on PCs
or command-F on Macs) to locate keywords in the history notes below.
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 1999
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] German TLR lenses
> Enna is a small German lens house in Munich which made some sterling > designs; many of their lenses were sold in the US under the Sandmar brand. > The 2.8/80 Ennit used in the Rollop is, per Wright and Wilkinson's LENS > COLLECTORS VADE MECUM, a four-element, three-group lens, with a center > doublet. Enna's 1.5/85 Lithagon deserves special mention as an interesting > and capable lens produced in a number of mounts, including coupled LTM. > > Marc
Enna Werk is still in business, but moved their operations to Wegscheid on
the Austrian border some years ago. There they built a state-of-the-art
new factory dedicated to precision tool making and plastic injection
molding. In the town they own a big old building which was formerly a
schoolhouse, and the optical works were moved there. Their main products
today are slide magazines for European projectors which they make under
their own name and OEM for a number of others. They also make some very
nice slide viewers, CD cases, and a number of other molded plastic
things. I went down to Wegscheid in 1982 when the new factory was still
under construction and was shown around both facilities. The reason for
the move was that the original factory in Munich had become too valuable
as real estate and workers in Munich were paid much higher wages than
at Wegscheid, which is a rural area.
The current owner is Dr. Werner Appelt, a medical doctor who was forced to
take over management of the company when his father, the founder, died.
With his mother's death in the late 80s he came into full ownership.
The chief optical designer for Enna was Dr. Siegfried Schafer who deserves
to be better known in the history of optics. He designed one of the first
commercially sold zoom lenses, and invented the idea of making one lens
barrel which could accept a variety of mounts on the rear and provide auto
diaphragm operation. These were sold as Enna socket-mount lenses. He
has retired and as of the last time I talked to Werner Appelt at the last
photokina he was still living. He was always an avid photographer and
user of his own designs.
Some of his last projects before retiring were the optical system for the
Gossen spot meter, which was built by Enna, and some aspherical moulds for
contact lenses. Enna made lens elements and complete lenses for major
German optical houses on an OEM basis.
The only history I know of is _Enna Taschen Buch_ by Friedrich-W. Voigt,
published by Heering in 1964.
The name, Enna, is the founder's daughter's name reversed.
Bob
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2000
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Favorite films...
you wrote:
>I used to use all their films, but then I was a dealer >and was getting them wholesale. Yes, I remember when all >the patents and such were sold and we were assured it would >all be back on the market soon under the Ansco name and >made somewhere in the Far East. All that ever turned up >were cheap Haking cameras branded Ansco. > >Bob > >---------- >>From: Jon Hart jonhart51@yahoo.com >>To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us >>Subject: Re: [Rollei] Favorite films... >>Date: Sat, Jan 1, 2000, 12:03 PM >> > >> Truth to tell, I only used their 500 speed slide film, >> usually for available light, natch. I remember that >> someone bought the old GAF structure (films, patents, >> etc.) and planned to bring back the GAF 500, but >> nothing came of it, apparently.
Those interested in the history and fate of Ansco and its successor, GAF
should read
_Anthony: the Man the Company the Cameras_ William and Estelle Marder,
(1982) Pine Ridge Publishing Company ISBN 0-9607480-0-8
The book should still be in print.
Ansco is a abreviation of Anthony and Scoville, the name was adopted
around 1905.
Ansco was arguably the oldest photographic manufacturer in the US and
was
for many years Kodak's only real competetor.
The Ansco company was bought by Agfa in 1926. They continued to own it
until it was siezed by the US government on the entry of the US in WW-2.
The company was operated by a caretaker management until (by memory) the
early sixties when it was taken over by private management. They managed
it
into bankruptcy and its various parts were sold off.
GAF means General Aniline and Film. It was a front set up by the
I.G.Farben in order to disguise the German ownership. The I.G. also had a
significant holding in DuPont at the time.
Most of the famous Ansco product were Agfa technology. The familiar Agfa
trade names like Brovira were also used on their American counterparts.
During the period of Agfa ownership the Agfa trade mark was used on the
products rather than Ansco. In 1943 the Agfa name was dropped and Ansco
was
once again used.
There are a couple of good books about the I.G., its history and
involvment with the German war machine in two wars. Its not a very
honerable history. I don't have titles handy but will find and post them
if
there is any interest.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000
From: Pookywinkel pookywinkel@my-deja.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Lower Prices For Used TLRs
> I wonder why the Russians never made a copy of the Yashica or Rollei? They > stuck with that stupid Lubitel, with the terrible screen. > > John
John-
Around 1956-8, the Soviets introduced the Neva (Heba). It had a metal
body, ground glass focusing, and spring winding. It was innovative, but
was never mass produced. Perhaps hundreds were made.
Around 1960, the Soviets did build a nicer looking prototype TLR called
the Rassvet (Cyrillic Paccbem), but production never commenced. It's
looks like a nice camera, perhaps comparable to a Ricoh or Yashica. It
is *extremely* rare as only prototypes were built. Perhaps 10 or 20
were made.
I like FED, Kiev RF, and Zorki 35mm. My Lubitel takes amazingly crisp
photos, even though it looks like a plastic POS.
--
==Cuspid Pookywinkel==
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999
From: Dirk-Roger Schmitt Dirk-Roger.Schmitt@dlr.de
Subject: Re: [Rollei] New Rollei SLR List
>Somehow I dont think of erecting a Braunschweig Wall, on the 10th >anniversary of the teardown of the one in Berlin,
Well, since I have been some time off-line, I am back from Braunschweig,
the home town of Rollei and Voigtlaender.
And I can tell you, 10 years ago the wall was just 20 minutes away from
Braunschweig. On 9th November, in the evening, the wall came down in
Berlin (while I was sleeping), and on the 10th November the wave reached
this area and the wall opened near to Braunschweig. Needless to say that I
went there in the evening of the 10th. I was equipped with my SL 2000 F
and a Beta 5.
However it was cold and misty, and the battery packs did not work as they
should and the magazine had problems to transport the film...Should have
used the good old 2.8 F. Well instead of the problems I shot some photos
of Trabbis crossing the border.
On 12th November, which was a sunny and bright Sunday, much more border
crossings opened. People remembered old roads from pre war times passing
the boarder line, found them and just had to remove some soil and grass to
uncover the old bricks and of course had to cut the wall (which was with
the exemption of Berlin actually a fence). On Sunday morning I went to
such
a location, again with SL 2000 F (same battery and transport problems) and
came back in the late evening. The city center of Braunschweig - the home
town of Rollei and Voigtlaender - was crowded by Trabbis and East-German
people entering and buying out all shops. To be able to shop around, the
government gave every visitor DM 100.- (about $50.-) or so as "welcome
gift".
Greetings
Dirk
.....
From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] re: Rollei 35S Classic
I got to know John Noble when he was the owner of Noblex. He had regained
ownership of part of the Dresden works, the KW part specifically, and he
showed me photos of Rollei, Minox, Exakta 66, Leica, etc., subassemblies
being made in his factories. I think a lot of stuff was farmed out to
them right after reunification and may continue today. Unfortunately for
him, the bankers took it away from his family so I no longer know the
owners.
Bob
.....
From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999
From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] re: Rollei 35S Classic
Bob Shell wrote:
>I got to know John Noble when he was the owner of Noblex. He had regained >ownership of part of the Dresden works, the KW part specifically, and he >showed me photos of Rollei, Minox, Exakta 66, Leica, etc., subassemblies >being made in his factories. I think a lot of stuff was farmed out to them >right after reunification and may continue today. Unfortunately for him, >the bankers took it away from his family so I no longer know the owners.
Well, the Noble family had bought out KW from the Guthe and Thorsche
concerns -- they were Jewish, Germany had gone Nazi, and they wanted ready
cash, so a friendly deal for all concerned was cut. Then KW got itself
nationalized as Alien Property when Germany declared war on the US. It is
interesting that the Nobles recovered, however briefly, ownership of KW,
though the prize KW brand-name, Praktica, went with the general buy-out
which transferred all the rest of Pentacon to Mandermann of Schneider
fame, who runs it still as "Schneider-Dresden".
Marc
msmall@roanoke.infi.net
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999
From: wvl wvl@marinternet.com
Subject: [Rollei] special Rollei 35
Photogrammetry model for Interopl
The secret's out. While all the NATO spooks were checking out Leicas
with Visoflex and lenses that cost the budget of some whole school
districts, the clever Interpol agents were pretending to be tourists
taking snaps of the wall with innocent appearing photogrammetry Rollei
35s. I have a former student who was in Army Intelligence in Berlin in
1989. He said some of those "students" seen on the news attacking the
wall included himself and his buddies who were making sure the first
gaps were wide enough to pass NATO tanks that were ready to go 24/7" if
needed.
Seriously, Godfrei, please elaborate on that interesting tidbit. It
might even be "a good topic".
Bill Lawlor
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999
From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] How unreliable is Evans?
Vivienne M. Coutant wrote:
>For example, Evans >says that Rollei MX type 1 had Opton Tessar lenses through 1953, Carl Zeiss >Tessar in 1954. I have two - #121xxxx with CZJ Tessar, #125xxxx with Zeiss >Opton. This seems backward.
Well, the Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar is the aberration, as F&H; wasn't doing
much business with the Communists at this time. The Zeiss-Opton Tessar is
what we would expect in both cameras. (Carl Zeiss Jena was the original
Zeiss plant; from 1945 until 1990, it was run by the Communists. The
management and senior designers moved to Oberkochen and, from 1947 until 1
October 1954, made lenses under the name "Zeiss-Opton" and, from that date
to the present, under the name "Carl Zeiss".)
Marc
msmall@roanoke.infi.net
From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: Slightly off-topic accessory back
you wrote:
>--- Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com wrote: >> >> Actually, 120 roll film (introduced about 100 years >> ago) is the last >> commercially successful new film size Kodak ever >> introduced. > > >Bob, > I thought that 35mm AS PRESENTLY CONSTITUTED was >the last truly successful film size for Kodak. > >Jon >from Deepinaharta, Georgia
Well, I guess that can stretch a point. Kodak did not introduce 35mm
film for still cameras. That was done by Leitz. At first, there was a
difference between film for Leica's and Contax cameras. I think this may
have been only the design of the leader but Marc will know for certain.
35mm film as such was introduced by Kodak in co-operation with Edison.
The real origination of the format, perforation, and mechanism is so
obscured by conflicting claims of priority that its pretty hard to decide
to whome the cridit really belongs. However, the historians seem to give
the nod to William Kennedy Laurie Dickson, who worked for Edison at one
time.
The film used by Edison was 35mm wide and had the same aspect ratio and
image size (about 3/4 inch by 1 inch) as current half-frame film (sound
motion pictures have a smaller picture area to make room for the sound
track)but had different perforations.
The original film had round perforations, four per frame. Perforations
with round sides and flattened perforations were introduced by Bell and
Howell, probably around 1900 but I am not sure of that date. B&H; started
making contact printers before introducing their very famous Model 2709
"Standard" camera in 1912. This camera, which introduced the use of fixed
register pins, very definitely used B&H; perfs. B&H; perfs are standard to
this day for 35mm motion-picture camera film.
35mm still film uses Kodak Standard perforations. They were introduced
sometime in the teens (don't have the date in memory) because B&H; perfs
tend to tear too easily under continuous projection conditions. B&H; perfs.
continue to be used for camera original film because they register more
accurately than K.S. perfs.
I believe, that at first, film for 35mm still cameras was perforated
with B&H; perfs simply because it was spooled motion-picture film and those
perfs were standard. I don't know when K.S. perfs began to be standard for
still film would guess it to be about when 35mm cameras began to become
popular, maybe the mid 1930's.
Kodak did itroduce some other roll film sizes after 120. 127 (1912), and
the narrow spool films like 616 and 620 (about 1932) were introduced
later. These were "successful" if you consider that they had a production
life of fifty years or more.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000
From: Tim Ellestad ellestad@mailbag.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: Slightly off-topic accessory back
Kodak gives credit for the 35mm film size to the Lumiere brothers, enabled
by Eastman's invention of the celluloid film base.
Didn't Edison and Eastman originate the present standard perf pitch?
I was told years ago that Barnack originally proposed his little camera
for motion picture "slop tests" at the beginning of each days shooting, to
determine working film speed and exposures prior to having useful
lightmeters.
At any rate Barnack merely came up with the still format and the camera.
Tim Ellestad
ellestad@mailbag.com
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: Slightly off-topic accessory back
.....
As to the perf pitch, yes. The story I read is that Barnak designed the
Leica for testing motion picture lenses, but the other version could also
be true, I bow to real Leica experts like Marc.
The question is about the origination of the familiar cassette. I don't
know if the very earliest Leica's used this cassette or something else. I
do know that at least at the the original Contax came out that 35mm film
was put up in two types of cassette, one for Leica, one for Contax. I
don't know if the cassettes were mechanically different or if it was only
the way the leader was trimmed.
The back of the Leica did not open so the film was inserted edgewise.
The film had the current type of leader, trimmed off on one side, to make
it easier to fit into the camera.
Contax leaders were trimmed off on both edges and had a tongue in the
middle. The Contax had a back which opened (big sales point). Both
versions of cassettes were offered at least until the mid 1930's. Again, I
suspect Marc has details.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000
From: "John A. Lind" jlind@netusa1.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: Slightly off-topic accessory back
Edison is properly credited with 35mm still camera film itself, but not
the cassette in which it is rolled. The concept of the cassette was Oskar
Barnack's idea. Maybe more accurately one of Edison's employees should be
credited with the film. His lab ordered 70mm film in bulk from Kodak with
the request that it be slit down the middle into two 35mm wide strips.
Edison's lab punched the sprocket holes as we know them today; both sides
of the strip and with the same pitch. The purpose however, was to create
motion picture film. For a long time 35mm film was called "Edison size."
The Lumiere brothers used different sprocket holes and as I recall only
one set at a different pitch.
A footnote to this. I have a Nikon reloadable cassette for the Nikon SP
type rangefinder with the revolving outer cylinder that is opened when the
camera back is latched. It does not fit in my Contax IIIa CD which uses a
nearly identical reloadable cassette that works using the same concept.
It is just a hair too tall and the Contax back will not slide up far
enough to close. I have always wondered if Nikon did this deliberately.
Obviously, the preloaded one-time-use cassettes we buy our film in today
fit in either body.
-- John
From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000
From: John Jensen jjensen@sirius.com
Subject: Re[2]: [Rollei] Re: Slightly off-topic accessory back
I remember reading somewhere that a camera company, Nagel, in Stuttgart,
came out with a 35 mm cassette format camera in the 1933, 1934 period.
Kodak was so interested in this that they bought the company (sort of like
the Remington shaver guy). In 1934 the Nagel cameras were put out as the
Kodak Retinas. Of course, their interest was really not like the electric
shaver interest but more like Gillette's (give away the razor, sell the
blades). Part of the story is that not all back in Rochester were happy
with this decision but the rest is history.
Does anyone have anything to add to this story?
John Jensen
jjensen@sirius.com
....
From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2000
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: Slightly off-topic accessory back
.....
I believe the Lumiere brothers film had two sprocket holes on each side
per frame rather than four on each side as did Edison and subsequent film.
There is a brief but good coverage of the development of motion pictures
in:
_Images and Enterprise_ Reese V. Jenkins, (1975) Baltimore, The Johns
Hopkins University Press
Paperback edition 1985. There is an abundance of motion picture history
in many locations. Jenkins has enough bibliography to give a starting
place to people who want to know more.
I have a bunch of similar Nikon cassettes like yours. I use them. The
original spools were missing when I got them but the plastic spools out of
Kodak cassettes (otherwise useless) seem to work OK.
I think Leica also made reusable cassettes, like the Contax ones, very
similar to, but not interchangible with others.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2000
From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: Slightly off-topic accessory back
Richard Knoppow wrote:
> The question is about the origination of the familiar cassette. I don't >know if the very earliest Leica's used this cassette or something else. I >do know that at least at the the original Contax came out that 35mm film >was put up in two types of cassette, one for Leica, one for Contax. I don't >know if the cassettes were mechanically different or if it was only the way >the leader was trimmed.
The Leitz cassette, which continued in production until the middle 1980's,
differs dramatically from the significantly better Contax cassette, which
continued to be produced to 1972. Canon used the Leitz design in their RF
cameras, and continued to produce the Canon cassette (which will fit Leica
cameras) until 1979; Nikon copied the Zeiss Ikon design, and the Nikon
cassette continued to be produced until the end of the 1980's. The
Soviets also copied both designs, for their FED and Kiev RF cameras.
In the Prewar era, film was customarily purchased in "loads": you
received a roll of 20 or 36 exposures which you had to load into your own
cassette. The standard spin on the regular 135 cassette is that it was
designed by AGFA in the 1930's.
Marc
msmall@roanoke.infi.net
From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2000
From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net
Subject: [Rollei] Barnack and the 35mm Format
Tim Ellestad wrote:
>I was told years ago that Barnack originally proposed his little camera for >motion picture "slop tests" at the beginning of each days shooting, to >determine working film speed and exposures prior to having useful light >meters.
This is one of several tales, and probably not true, as Leitz did not
then, nor for many, many decades thereafter, produce movie cameras in
quantity. But they were doing research on movie cameras at the time, so it
is not completely impossible.
More likely is that Barnack wanted a camera which was portable but still
capable of producing a decent negative. He was an asthmatic (it was
Zeiss' refusal to put him on the company medical-insurance plan which
caused him to go to Leitz in the first place) and lugging a plate camera
around was physically demanding.
Barnack himself always claimed the second version.
Marc
msmall@roanoke.infi.net
From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2000
From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re[2]: [Rollei] Re: Slightly off-topic accessory back
John Jensen wrote:
>I have since seen a link that Kodak took over the Nagel Camera Works in >1931. I don't know what this does about the 135 history.
Not much. Dr Nagel had owned the Contessa-Nettel works in Stuttgart which
was merged into Zeiss Ikon (with Ernemann, ICA, and Goerz) in 1926. Nagel
was given a sinecure job with Zeiss Ikon but wanted actual management
authority. When he found out he was not to receive this, he sold out and
founded the Nagel camera company, which he then sold to Kodak, with the
proviso that he, and his family, manage the company. He managed Kodak AG
until his own death in 1944, and his son managed it until 1972 or so. The
son died within the past three years.
Marc
msmall@roanoke.infi.net
From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2000
From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re[2]: [Rollei] Re: Slightly off-topic accessory back
Jon Hart wrote:
> Are any of the Nagel family still with Kodak?
Not that I know of, but the man to ask would be the Great Retina Scholar,
Dr David Jentz, who can be reached at
Marc
msmall@roanoke.infi.net
From Panoramic Mailing List:
I posted something about the origin of panoramas a while ago and couldn't
find the web reference. There is a board with details close to the actual
site at the south east end of Blackriars Bridge in London. Here is the
stuff from the web:
http://www.topsoc.org/mapviews.htm
Barker's Panorama of London from the Roof of the Albion
Mills, with introduction by Ralph Hyde and keys
by Peter Jackson. Robert Barker not only invented and
patented the concept of a vast 360 degree painting, but he
also originatedthe word panorama. His London panorama of
1792 was displayed in a specially constructed building and
launched a phenomenon which swept Europe and America.
Our publication reproduces the aquatint engraving,
which immortalised his achievement. Six colour sheets
plus three sheets of introduction, in a folder.
Publication no.139 (1988). o10.00.
Peter Marshall
London's Industrial Heritage: http://www.cix.co.uk/~petermarshall/
From Rollei Mailing List:
Andre Calciu wrote:
Well, Andre, the entire Arsenal works IS an off-shoot of the Carl Zeiss
Jena plant -- much of the machinery was German (as was the case at LOMO
and KMZ, as well, and probably FED, too), and the workforce were
originally German workers taken on a forced relocation to the Ukraine from
what was to become the DDR. (And these ex-Zeiss workers were accorded
great honour under the Soviet system. Many of them remained in the
Ukraine following their retirement. I have it on fairly good authority
that the last of the German workforce retired in the middle 1980's.)
Thus, the Kiev prisms are, in a sense, Jena products, though I agree that
all I have ever seen were made in the Ukraine. I have two of these
puppies (one on my Hasselblad 2000FC/M, and the other on my Kiev 88) and
find them both optically grand and with quite accurate metering.
One of the grand anomalies of the photographic world is that it is still
possible to get new "factory" parts for the Contax II and III, cameras
last made in Germany in 1947, though Zeiss Ikon quit supplying new parts
for the Postwar IIa and IIIa some years before its own demise in '73.
Marc
msmall@roanoke.infi.net
From Rollei Mailing List;
you wrote:
Well I would not second Andre's opinion but Bob's.
A huge amount of high
performance military optics was made in "Werk U" ("factory U") of Carl
Zeiss Jena for the Soviets. For they did not pay a fair price this was
some kind of "taxes" East Germany had to pay to Russia. Most of the work
Werk U was doing was not well known in the public, but most of high
performance optics of the Russions came from there for a budget price.
Even Zeiss workers of other departments did not know what was done in "U".
Some days after the wall came down I went there for, and it was not easy
to get in. They still had big double fences and video monitoring
everyhwere.
I do not doubt that also Kiev had an optics industry, but not for the high
performance parts as Zeiss was able to make.
However, after the war on 26. October 1946 the Soviets took 30,000 (!!!)
people of East Germany who worked for Zeiss and other companies in East
Germany in prison, deported them to Russia and let them build up the
technology. Most of them where released back to Germany 1953. So most
optical, aircraft, and rocket technology the Russions have is still German
technology from the last war.
After reunification Werk U became base of Jenoptik company. Now they
constructed a new building nearby and use both, the new and the old
factory.
Greetings
Dirk
[Ed. note: Mr. Small is a noted expert and author on Zeiss optics
etc...]
Roland Schregle wrote:
This is relatively simple. If the lens is marked "Carl Zeiss Jena" it is
a product of the original Zeiss lensworks at Jena. Until 1947, this was
owned by the Zeiss Foundation; from '47 until '90, it was a property of
the East German government under one appellation or another. (Other marks
used by Jena include "CZ", "aus Jena", and, of course, "Pentacon".)
Since 1991, optical gear produced at Jena is simply marked "Carl Zeiss",
as the West German company recovered control of the Jena plant under a
rather convoluted legal structure -- the Jena plant is actually owned by
Zeiss and the Thuringian government through the efforts of a joint agency
called "Jenoptik".
The West German Zeiss works at Oberkochen marked their products with
"Zeiss-Opton" from 1947 until 1st October 1954, when they began using the
simple "Carl Zeiss" which is still used today. The "Opton" brand was
retained in use until 1989 for gear sold in the Third World and Warsaw
Pact, where the "Zeiss" name was held to be the property of Jena and not
Oberkochen. (There are a number of Rollei 35's, for instance, which bear
"Opton T" and "Opton S" lenses, and Hasselblad "Opton P" lenses are not
uncommon.)
The division of the two Zeiss entities did not become complete until the
middle 1950's; as late as 1954, Franke & Heidecke was having orders it
placed with Oberkochen filled with Jena lenses -- the early 2.8A Jena
Tessar is a good example of this.
Marc
msmall@roanoke.infi.net
From Rollei Mailing List;
Jack Casner wrote:
Well, I will cheerfully point out that you could not possibly have an
"old" Praktina, as these cameras all date from around 1960, and I refuse
to acknowledge that any camera younger than me is "old". I regularly
shoot with cameras twice as old as this Praktina, for that matter.
The Carl Zeiss Jena plant is now controlled by the Carl Zeiss Foundation,
which has resumed using that as its legal address, together with
Heidenheim (this is important under German law, as the Foundation by the
terms of its creation had to be based at Jena, an impossibility under
Communism). The Jena works is the site of most optical research being
conducted by Zeiss; I believe the only significant production there today
is astronomical equipment. The former Carl Zeiss Jena facility at Eisfeld
was sold to Docter Optics Technology of Wetzlar who produced binoculars
and spotting scopes there for some years; I have recently heard that the
sports optic division is now spurlos versunkt but haven't had this
confirmed.
The old Pentacon works were divied up: the KW side of it, less the
"Praktica" name was returned to its original owners, the American Noble
family, who later sold it (in bankruptcy, I understand) to a consortium of
investors who continue to produce the Noblex panoramic camera line. The
remainder of the Pentacon facility was sold to Manderman, the former owner
of Rollei, who runs it as "Schneider-Dresden" and who produces the
Praktica B camera family and the Exakta 66 line there.
Marc
msmall@roanoke.infi.net
From Rollei Mailing List:
Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter) wrote:
Pete
I am not certain what your point was -- I am speaking of why some of the
Germans remained in the USSR following retirement, not why they went there
in the first place.
In some of the industries, such as the optical and rocketry programs, the
transportees -- who were compulsorily moved to the USSR -- were better
treated than in some other trades.
And, it is important to remember that the US did the same thing with the
leadership of, say, the Zeiss works and the von Braun missile team. It
doesn't matter that these guys WANTED to go with the American troops:
they also had no choice. The British did the same with the Walther
hydrogen-peroxide design and construction folks and with most of the
German atomic scientists. These guys were forced to go and, had they
objected, they would have been hauled over at gun-point.
The Zeiss folks at Oberkochen and the atomic scientists in the UK were
both housed in abandoned barracks for a year or so, hardly the sort of
lush housing they had had before the end of the War; they were treated as
prisoners during this time.
Marc
msmall@roanoke.infi.net
From Rollei Mailing List:
Only a small part of the Carl Zeiss Jena plant was overtaken by the Carl
Zeiss foundation. It was that part with the "classical optics" the Zeiss
people thought to make profit with. The largest part of the factory (which
included electro optics, semiconductor technology and space optics) was
left at its own. It was renamed to Jenoptik and the managing director
became former prime minister of the state of Baden Wuertenberg Lothar
Spaeth. Everybody thought that Jenoptic would become the dying part of the
Carl Zeiss works compared to that part the Carl Zeiss foundation overtook.
But the history shew that the opposite became true: The Carl Zeiss
foundation part got into heavy problems, firing people, closing production
lines. And Lothar Spaeth managed to make Jenoptik to one of the leading
optical companies in the world. The profits are high, the company is
expanding and became world wide leader for semiconductor clean room
equipment and UV-optics, both needed for for the new generation of Silicon
chips. Also the electro-optics department is booming. Jenoptik became some
months ago the first former East German company which transferred to a
share holder company. You can still invest...
The success of Lothar Spaeth in Jena became a legend and he is now one of
the most acknowledged and honest men in Jena and respected by everybody
for saving so much work for the people
www.Jenoptic.de
www.jenoptik-los.de
As I heard Dorctoer Optic became bankrupt and was overtaken by Jenoptik,
however the name Docter Optic was kept.
Greetings
Dirk
From Rollei Mailing List:
Neil Carpenter wrote:
Sure. For starters:
Prochnow, Claus. Rollei Report 1: Franke & Heidecke Die ersten 25 Jahre.
Stuttgart, Germany: Lindemanns Verlag, 1993. ISBN: 3-89506-105-0.
Prochnow, Claus. Rollei Report 2: Rollei-Werke Rollfilmkameras 1946 bis
1981. Stuttgart, Germany: Lindemanns Verlag,
1995. ISBN: 3-89506-118-2.
Prochnow, Claus. Rollei Report 3: Rollei-Werke Rollei Fototechnic 1960
bis 1995. Stuttgart, Germany: Lindemanns Verlag, 1995. ISBN:
3-89506-141-7.
Prochnow, Claus. Rollei Report 4: Rollei-werke rollei Fototechnic 1958
bis
1998. Stuttgart, Germany: Lindemanns Verlag, 1997. ISBN:
3-89506-170-0.
Prochnow, Claus. Rollei Technical Report. Stuttgart, Germany: Lindemanns
Verlag, 1996. ISBN: 3- 89506-156-5.
Prochnow, Claus. Rollei 35, Eine Kamera-Geschichte. Stuttgart, Germany:
Lindemann's Verlag, 998. ISBN: 3-930292-10-6
Avoid Parker, as he is untrustworthy. Avoid Evans, as he wrote quite
early, before a lot of this stuff had been figured out.
The standard Prewar Zeiss dating list is available in McKeown's or in the
Zeiss Ikon Bestellnummer Listing given to all members of the Zeiss
Historica Society (a badge of honour, it is, to own this document!). The
Postwar List is available in Nordin's superb HASSELBLAD SYSTEM COMPENDIUM
(I routinely praise all books which thank me, personally, for assistance
in their writing but, in this case, I hadn't a single comment of any
nature to Rick: he did a sterling and magnificent job!). We are working
to improve both of these lists: we chopped 12,000 numbers off of 1938 a
couple of weeks back, thanks to an early Super Ikonta II which surfaced.
I can go on. But maybe some List member should do a handy-dandy $5 book
which includes ALL of this stuff, for the benefit of suspicious suckers
like yrs trly at camera shows?
Marc
msmall@roanoke.infi.net
From Rollei Mailing List;
Jacques,
Yes, I used this stuff years ago.
Brandess Brothers was a big photo distribution company in the USA. Some
years back they bought their competitor Kalt Company from its owner Miller
Outcalt, and the company became Brandess-Kalt Distributors.
More recently they merged with another distributor, Aetna Optics. Since
Brandess-Kalt-Aetna was a mouthful they also go by BKA Distributors. They
have dropped most of the product lines they used to carry, and the only
thing they advertise any more is studio flash equipment. You can contact
them at 847-821-0450, or look at their web site www.bkaphoto.com . The
only chemicals they list are Ethol, Acufine and Heico, so I doubt that
the Crone-C additive is still made.
I think the Crone-C additive did pretty much the same thing as the
additive Ilford puts in ID-11 Plus, so this may be essentially the same as
C-76. However, this is something I haven't even thought of for at least 20
years so my memory may be foggy.
Bob
From Rollei Mailing List;
you wrote:
It may be intesting to know that the famous Speed Graphic camera evolved
from cameras meant for bicycle touring.
The Folmer & Schwing company originally set up to make gas appliances.
Probably the switch from gas to electric lighting caused them to start
making bicycles around the mid 1890's. Bicycles were new than and all the
rage. F&S; was quite successful and began selling cameras to go along with
the bicycles to take when touring. After a time they began making the
cameras also. These were light weight, folding cameras called "Cycle"
cameras.
By the turn of the century the camera business became bigger than the
bicycle business (plus the enthusiasm for bicycles had cooled down a bit),
so the company concentrated on cameras. At around this time they came out
with the famous Graflex SLR, which remained in production for some sixty
years.
About 1905 the company was acquired by Eastman Kodak and remained a
divisionn of Kodak until an anti-trust action around 1926, when it was
made an independant company again.
The Speed Graphic is a direct decendant of the folding Cycle cameras
meant to travel with you on your bicycle.
----
From Rollei Mailing List;
Mamiya today is a very different company than before the bankruptcy. They
are owned by banks today, and charged to make a nice profit. Before they
were just sort of aimless.
The lens design team has been charged to make the best possible lenses,
and all of the newer lenses regardless of which camera they are for are
excellent.
The lenses for the Mamiya 7 are the best of the lot and it is a matter of
pride for them that they be better than anything else on the market.
I've used most of the recent lenses for all the systems.
But, you are right in saying that the big neg size helps. Lenses for 6 X
7 just don't need to resolve as many lines as lenses for 645 or 35mm.
Bob
From Hasselblad Mailing List;
Marc James Small wrote:
[...]
Slight correction: it is Joseph Schneider Kreuznach; the company was
founded in 1913 in Kreuznach, now Bad Kreuznach, near Mainz in the Rhine
area. I do not know when ISCO was acquired by Schneider, however my 1980
and 1982 Photokina catalogues list this company independently of
Schneider,
with an address in Goettingen, Lower Saxony.
Quoting my own query of July 24, to which I have not seen any response:
In an exchange on another listserve, someone stated that when Hasselblad
started manufacturing aerial cameras during WW II, these were not only
furnished to the Swedish air force, but also to the German 'Luftwaffe'. To
me, this seemed somewhat surprising, given the small scale and rather
improvised nature that Mr. Hasselblad's production workshop must have had
at the time.
The book by Evald Karlsten on Viktor Hasselblad and his camera system,
which is more of a PR enterprise than a serious historical publication,
does not cover this period in Hasselblad history very extensively. He
reports, however, that the first aerial model, the HK-7, was developed
after analysis of an aerial camera that the Swedish military had rescued
from a German airfighter they had shot down for entering Swedish air space
during the German invasion of Norway in 1940. The interesting point
however is that the lenses for this first Hasselblad camera came from
German manufacturers such as Zeiss and Schneider. [end of quote]
Addition: The lenses listed by Karlsten for this camera are:
Zeiss Biotessar 2,8/135mm, Meyer Tele-Megor 5,5/250mm or Schneider
Tele-Xenar 4,5/240 mm; Compur shutter with 1/150, 1/250, 1/400 sec.
Production run 1940-1943: approx. 240 cameras
Questions that come up: Did Hasselblad copy the German camera
design, as Karlsten suggests, or was there a secret deal between Germany
and Sweden for the further production of the German camera by Hasselblad,
as Marc Small writes? Any evidence, any published sources? What keeps
puzzling me is that relations between neutral Sweden and Germany must not
have been overly friendly after the German invasion and occupation of
Danmark and Norway.
Tropical regards,
Martin
--
[Ed. note: lanthar was from lanthanide elements (Rare earths) used in lens
to achieve desired glass properties - slightly radioactive, see lens faults pages...]
Bob's comment on the origin of the Lanthar lens name brought up something
I read a few days ago. The name Hektor came from the inventor's dog's
name. I'm sure there are plenty of stories on interesting lens names.
From Rollei Mailing List;
Bob Shell wrote:
Shame on you, Bob: someone HAS written it up: Barringer and
The Weber SL725 was not connected directly to the Rollei SL2000F saga.
Rather, the SL725 was to be the successor to the Contaflex line, not the
Contarex. It was sold directly by Zeiss Ikon to Weber. Weber had though
Zeiss Ikon was to fund production but they chose not to do so, dooming the
project.
Had the Zeiss Foundation continued to fund camera production by Zeiss
Ikon, the top of the line from 1974 onwards would have been the SL2000F
(replacing the Contarex), the SL725 (replacing the Contaflex), and the
SL706 (replacing the Icarex). As it was, only the SL706 made it into
production under Zeiss Ikon's name, though the SL2000F appeared later, of
course, as a Rollei product.
Marc
msmall@roanoke.infi.net
[Ed. note: spira of spiratone; lens is soft focus 100mm f/4 Tmount..]
About six years ago or so the folks who bought out Fred Spira when he
retired were digging through old inventory and found an unopened crate
of these. I don't know how many were in the crate, but it was enough
for them to run an ad in Shutterbug for a while until they sold them
all. Those were absolutely the last ones since the company in Japan
that made them for Spiratone is defunct. To me one of the most
interesting things is that the AX can autofocus this lens!
Bob
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000
Have you tried the Dresden City Museum in the old Pentacon factory? They
have a wonderful display of Exacta products including many designs never
produced.
--
www.hpmarketingcorp.com for links to our suppliers
From Rollei Mailing List;
jerryleh@pacbell.net wrote:
Well, to be precise, Jason Schneider, in the three-part article he wrote
on the Contax line back in his Modern Photography days, suggested that the
reason the Contax design is so different from the Leica was not an effort
to get around Leitz patents or to prove some essential superiority so much
as to do things differently than did the mavens of Wetzlar.
The truth is probably a bit more basic: in 1930, nothing involving the
35mm camera was set in concrete. It was a new concept, and each
manufacturer could do things as they saw fit. It was five years before
Ihagee brought out the Exakta which was a "backwards" design, and the
Kodak Ektra matched that three years later.
And, yes, by 1947, things had become rationalized and standardized, and
other manufacturers gradually came to adopt Leica's control layout, while
only Nikon followed Zeiss Ikon's approach. And, just as Leitz and Zeiss
Ikon had spent a decade trying to outdo each other with a frenetic spate
of one-upmanship, so did Canon and Nikon do precisely the same thing, only
for years longer.
Marc
msmall@roanoke.infi.net
[Ed. note: Mr. Small is an expert and noted author on Zeiss and Leica
optics etc...]
Bob Shell wrote:
Well, first, Zoomar didn't 'go bust': they restricted themselves to
government and military work and left the commercial market in 1988. I
know a fellow who was at the fire sale in their American plant on Long
Island that year and scarfed up a zillion handy-dandy adapters.
Second, the WEHE adapter was made for the Hasselblad 2000 series. These
are all but impossible to find today. Mike Fletcher has been making
noises for years about having a run of them made.
Those interested ought to pick up a copy of Professor Ketzner's fine
Kilfitt manual. He can be reached at:
Marc
msmall@roanoke.infi.net
From Contax mailing List:
Ah, the last real camera Pentax made!!
I presume that you know that Zeiss had a collaboration with
Pentax when they decided to get out of the camera business.
This lasted several years and yielded SMC multicoating and
the Pentax K mount. Zeiss broke off the relationship, though,
because Pentax could not meet their quality control and reliability
standards, and said so in their press release. So Zeiss went
to Yashica, which already had considerable experience in
electronically controlled cameras. This is why the Pentax
K mount and Contax/Yashica mount are identical functionally
but differ in dimensions.
The relationship with Yashica, now Kyocera, obviously has worked
to their satisfaction.
Bob
- ----------
From Rollei Mailing List:
----------
The Munich factory was shut down, and they went out of the
photographic business. I didn't ever hear that they continued on
in military production. Toward the end of things in Munich they had
just finished development of a high speed modular shutter which could
have gone into a new generation of German cameras.
Is your 1988 a typo for 1978?? That I would believe.
As you now know a mutual "friend" of ours was working for them at the
time of the shutdown of the Munich plant. Since I met him for the
first time in the early 80s and the Munich works was ancient history
at the time, this would fit.
OK, if the Hasselblad 2000FC was introduced when Austin said, this
could make sense. I know the last time I was able to order anything
from Zoomar was in 75-76 time frame.
Bob
From Rollei Mailing List:
Bob Shell wrote:
No, it was in 1988. Heinz Kilfitt sold the business to Frank Back in
1968, who then changed the name to Zoomar. Back closed the Munich plant
in 1976 or so and consolidated all operations at his original plant on
Long Island.
The friend I have who was at the fire sale in 1988 is Mark Wallace, the
Ferrari photographer.
Zoomar remained in the commercial photographic business until 1988. I
have some literature from them from around 1985. However, they gradually
withdrew from still photography and concentrated on cine work, as a
relatively low-cost alternative to Zeiss!, and TV lenses. Today, they are
in upstate New York and do military and scientific work on a special-order
basis.
Mike Fletcher could tell you more, Bob: a close friend of his is one of
the fellows Back brought over to Long Island when the Munich plant was
closed.
Folks keep bugging me to write a book on Kilfitt. Maybe I will, after I
win the lottery! It is a breed -- as is Novoflex! -- deserving
commemoration.
Marc
msmall@roanoke.infi.net
From Rollei Mailing List:
I think the first Rolleiflex dates from 1929. Correct me if I'm wrong.
The Contessa Nettel Miroflex dates from around 1926. There may have
been earlier uses of flex, but I don't know.
Bob
----------
From Rollei Mailing List:
Javier wrote:
There is a Rollei 35 "Metric" also. It has a 40m f/2.8 Sonnar lens and
like the various post-production commemoratives has flash shoe on top,
lens release on front, etc., but with chrome body caps and black
leatherette body covering. Unlike the commemoratives it also has a grid
that overlays the film gate and thus is captured in the photographs.
Rumor has it these "Metric" Rollei 35's were used by various military
personnel dressed in civilian clothing during the demise of the Berlin
Wall. Photometrics were used to determine if the gaps were getting big
enough to drive tanks and other vehicles through . . . in the event
someone on the East side changed their mind. The story I read about their
use was very sketchy. Perhaps someone else on the list could elaborate
more. I would not be surprised if they were used at other times and in
other places for similar tasks.
The Rollei 35 Metric looks like a typical tourist P&S; making it a good
choice for not being obvious about what was going on in photographing "the
wall." It is advertised by Rollei as the smallest 35mm full frame
photometric ever made.
-- John
From Rollei Mailing List:
.....
John, this makes perfect sense to me in light of a story told to me
by a former student. His Grandparents lived in Berlin and he visited
them almost every summer as a child. His German language skills were
excellent. After High School he decided to make the Army a career. He
was assigned to an intelligence unit in Berlin where he joined the
corps of plain clothes army agents operating as West Germans, Ost
Germans, and tourists vack and forth across the zones. He told me the
photos of young Berliners attacking the Wall with sledgehammers
included him and other agents. The were directing the efforts of the
crowd by starting breaches in the wall that would allow passage of
U.S. and NATO tanks. The tanks were ready to go a few blocks back
from the wall all during the events of November, 1989. He said the
U.S. had many agents in the East and was committed to rescuing them
if the Stasi started to take reprisals. I'll have to show him my
Rollei 35 and see if he recognizes the model.
Bill Lawlor
From Leica Mailing List:
you wrote:
A couple of years ago, Doug Richardson posted the following:
Thanks Doug...
Leica-related burials in the old graveyard at Wetzlar
by Doug Richardson
The old graveyard ("Alter Friedhof") at Wetzlar contains the graves of
the main individuals responsible for the development of the Leica -
Ernst Leitz I, Ernst Leitz II, Oskar Barnack, and Max Berek. During
the April 1999 Leica Historical Society of America (LHSA) visit to
Wetzlar and Solms, I used part of my free time to explore the
graveyard and locate the burial sites of all four.
Several Leica enthusiasts who plan to visit Wetzlar in the near future
expressed an interest in visiting the burial place of Oskar Barnack,
so I've prepared the following guide to the area from notes I made
during the LHSA visit.
The Alter Friedhof is located in the eastern part of the town, on the
corner of Berg Strasse and Frankfurter Strasse. The walk from the
historic district of the old town to the graveyard takes around 20
minutes. You will probably reach Berg Strasse either via Silhofer
Strasse, Friedenstrasse, or Bruhlsbachstrasse (where Barnack used to
live at No 18 before moving to what is now known as the "Barnack
House" in Alte der Platte to the south of Berg Strasse).
The graveyard has several entrances, but the directions which follow
assume that you will enter from Berg Strasse using the gate at the far
end of a long narrow car park on the east side of Berg Strasse. This
location is around 50 metres from the point where Friedenstrasse
crosses Berg Strasse.
Once through the gate, you will see a long paved path ahead of you.
Ignore this paved path for the moment, and take the path which runs
left from the gate. The Leitz family grave is on the right hand side
of this path, and less than a minute's walk from the gate. It consists
of a large pale-coloured main tombstone, whose style reflects the
taste of the early years of our century, plus a series of small urns
engraved with the name and dates of birth and death of the individual
members of the family. Ernst Leitz I and II are not identified by
number, but Ernst Leitz I died in 1920, and Ernst Leitz II died in
1956. (If you own a copy of Dennis Laney's "Leica Collectors Guide"
published in 1992 by Hove Collectors Books, the Leitz family tree on
page 15 will help you identify the other members of the family.)
From the Leitz grave, walk back to the entrance gate, and turn left
onto the paved path. This runs down the centre of the graveyard, but
as you walk down its length, you will see that it ends at a war
memorial. To reach the Barnack grave you need to make a slight detour
in order to get behind the war memorial so that you can continue in
the direction that the paved path was heading.
I suspect that the network of paths within the graveyard started out
as two separate systems which originated at opposite ends of the
graveyard. Unfortunately, these two systems are not well
interconnected, but meet in a confusing network of small paths in the
area to the rear of the war memorial. The route I used to get to the
Barnack grave site is as follows:
Take the last turning on the right before the war memorial, then take
the first path to the left, then the first set of steps to the left.
You should now find yourself near the end of another long path which
heads in the same direction as the paved path from the gate - had the
war memorial not been built, this long path and the paved path would
probably have run continuously down the centre of the graveyard.
As you walk along this long path, you will pass the rear of a church
built from pale brown stone. (This is the only large building in the
graveyard, so if you have difficulty in following the detour sequence
of right-left-left, or have entered the Alter Friedhof from a
different gate, look for this church and find the long path which runs
past its rear.)
Once you have passed the rear of the church, walk on for another 50
metres or so, and you will see that the long path begins to climb and
turn to the left, while a second path branches off to the right and
heads downhill. You will be able to tell when you've reached this
junction - there is a water tap and a circular concrete sink on the
corner between the long path and the downhill path.
Take the downhill path - it is quite short, and Oskar Barnack's grave
is on the left-hand side, around two-thirds of the way down. The
memorial takes the form of a rough unshaped brown stone, whose
inscription describes Barnack as the inventor of the Leica, but spells
his first name as "Oscar" rather than the more commonly used "Oskar".
From Barnack's grave, carry on down the path until you reach a T
junction. Turn right onto a long narrow path which will take you back
in the general direction of the entrance gate.
As you walk along this narrow path, look up to the right and you will
see the rear of the church which you passed earlier. Walk on until you
have passed the church, and you will see the grave of Max Berek on
your right. This has a relatively small black stone of modern style.
Carry on along this long narrow path until you reach a point where
another path branches off downhill and to the left. Take this
left-hand path, which will eventually take you round to the right and
towards the paved path which leads back to the gate on Berg Strasse.
The Leitz and Barnack tombstones face northwest, while the Berek
tombstone faces southwest, so the best time to photograph these is in
the late afternoon. The gate of the Alter Friedhof is open until 8pm
in summer, 5pm in winter. Assuming you spend five minutes at each
grave site, the entire visit to the Alter Friedhof will take around
30 - 40 minutes.
From Rollei Mailing List:
Guys and Gals,
I was just perusing today through my newly acquired book "Illustrated
History of the Camera from 1839 to the Present" by Michael Auer, ISBN
0-8212-0683-4
This is a very good camera book, reaching all the way to the NASA
Hasselblad (modified 500EL). Flipping through the pages I was very pleased
with the numerous illustrations and even reproductions of advertisements
and a number of detailed drawings of cameras.
The neatest of all cameras there was a contraption with a rotating lens
(like the Kodak Panoram) that was attached to the belly of a PIGEON!!!!
I was very surprised to discover that the twin lens concept is not new.
The first Twin Lens camera was from around 1872 and was quarter plate
size. There was no reflex mirror yet as the darn thing was too big for
hand-held operation (nevertheless, a concept drawing shows someone using
one that very way). Within the next decade, there was a plethora of wooden
TLR cameras from renouned manufacturers like Ross.
My favorite of the TLR cameras (of course, excluding Rolleis) are the two
folding models by Welta: Perfecta and Pilot. I missed buying either of the
two because I was too cheap. I found them available for 80 and 60,
respectively, and would not spring for them. Now, in retrospect, I think I
should have bought them just for their ingenious design. They are
virtually useless, despite their use of 120 film.
-_______________
From Rollei Mailing List:
----------
OK, this time frame makes sense, since it was around 1976 that they
ceased filling camera store orders and effectively withdrew from the
still camera lens business. Back's company on Long Island is who I
was dealing with. Prior to them going direct, they had been
distributed first by Kling and later by Berkey, and I first started
selling them via my Berkey dealership. My last Berkey price list is
dated January 1, 1970 and calls them Zoomar-Kilar lenses. Zoomar was
also the US distributor for SEI meters. After 1976 I had to get any
Kilfitt/Zoomar stuff I wanted from Karl Heitz at higher prices.
Yes, but only a few were brought over. Most, like our friend, had to
find other jobs, or went into retirement.
BTW, when I first got to know him Zorkendorfer had a lot of ex-Kilfitt
stuff like adapters and parts. I don't know if he still has anything
left. He has one of the big mirror lenses but wouldn't talk of
selling it at the time. I always wanted to see how good those were
in comparison to the Mirotars.
Bob
From Rollei Mailing List;
Hi gang
Those interested in what happened to the Angenieux company since they
were merged inside the Thomson group in 1993 can check :
http://www.gifo.org/company/angenieux.htm for a short presentation
http://www.angenieux.com/ Angenieux's web site
http://www.gifo.org/welcome.htm the French Optics manufacturers'
association.
Yes ! we still do Optical engineering in
France !!
--
From Contax Mailing List:
Muchan, Muchan, Muchan. When will you learn that you are only seeing
nonsense on these other lists?????
Tomioka was an old Japanese optical firm which made lenses for a
number of companies including Polaroid. The top model Polaroid
cameras had Tominon lenses, as does the just introduced model 180
from NPC who found a stock of these lenses in a Polaroid warehouse.
No lenses under the Tomioka or Tominon name have been made for years
because Tomioka was bought by Kyocera. The former Tomioka factory
is now the Japanese Zeiss factory. No lenses for anyone else are
made in that facility.
Tomioka was never a glass maker, just a lens maker. They bought their
glass from Hoya like everyone else in Japan does.
The only connection between Mamiya and Zeiss lenses is that Mamiya
makes some of the lens barrels and parts for Zeiss as a subcontractor.
But this is metal parts only, no lens elements.
Damn, where DO these weird stories come from???????????
Bob
- ----------
From Rollei Mailing List:
ross bleasdale wrote:
As simply as the history will allow! In 1896, Paul Rudolph, Chief of
Photographic Optical Design at Carl Zeiss Jena, developed the original
six-element symmetrical Planar design, the first modern photographic lens.
However, this lens, with its many elements and surfaces, was prone to
flare. Hence, he then developed the less-capable, but less flare-prone,
Tessar formula in 1902. (I am leaving out a LOT!). From 1902 until he
retired in 1922, his main task was to 'open the Tessar' from its original
f/6.3 configuration, and, to that end, he worked his assistant, Ernst
Wandersleb, tirelessly. Wandersleb finally came up with the f/2.8 version
of the lens, and, at that point, Rudolph retired, and went on to develop
the Hugo Meyer lenses which were to be first coupled to the
interchangeable-lensed Leica cameras nine years later.
Wandersleb inherited Rudolph's position. In 1935, another Zeiss
scientist, Smakula, came up with lens coating, based on a number of other
folks' works, including those of Taylor in England. Wandersleb, who had
just suffered a huge embarrassment from a book he had written and dealing
with those Two Titanic Egos, Ludwig Bertele and Willy Merte, tasked HIS
assistant, the young Hans Sauer, to see what could be done with the
flare-prone Planar design in light of lens coating. Sauer quietly went to
work and completely redeveloped the lens. (I KNOW what Kingslake says
about the five-element Planar, but he is, historically, wrong, at least
from Sauer's own lips -- Sauer to a man now dead and thence to me, but I
am happy with the citation.) Then the War ended, and Zeiss bifurcated
into Jena and Oberkochen, and litigation resulted.
The Western Courts ruled that Zeiss Oberkochen owned the Planar name but
acknowledged that the design was shared by both. Hence, Jena came up with
the name 'Biometar' for Sauer's five-element design. And, in the early
1950's, Oberkochen could not produce the Planar lenses for Rollei but
COULD supply East German glass, as the links from Jena to Oberkochen had
not terminally died, though they were soon to do so.
And the use of the CZJ 2.8/8cm Tessar T on the 2.8A and the 2.8/80mm CZJ
Biometar on the 2.8B resulted.
So, the short and long of it is that a Biometar IS a Planar, albeit the
designer had voted with his feet and left the concern making the lens. A
2.8/80 CZJ Biometar in a 2.8B should perform identically to the 2.8/80 CZ
Planar used on the 2.8C through F series.
The 2.8B is the rarest of the 2.8 Rolleis and is a collector's gem. Any
of you owning these would earn my Eternal Gratitude by providing the body
and both lens serial numbers to me for the Zeiss Historica archives, and
thanks!
Marc
msmall@roanoke.infi.net
From Rollei Mailing List:
you wrote:
To which add Mirroflex, made originally by Contessa-Nettel and later by
Zeiss-Ikon. It dates from about 1914. And Ernoflex, made by Ernemann, also
from about 1914. And, of course, Graflex, dating from 1902. There are
certainly many others both earlier and later than Rollei. Anscoflex,
Omegaflex, Kalloflex, come to mind as later "flex" cameras.
BTW, I found in McKeown's Guide a camera called the Flex-O-Cord made by
the Kojima Optical Co. in Japan, c.1954
Reflex cameras seem to have had a very long standing popularity. I
can't find any certain date for the first of them but it must have been
around 1900.
----
From Rollei Mailing List:
I was under the impression that the Biometar (from Jena) was essentially
the same as the Oberkochen Planar, but the East German Zeissers were not
permitted to use the P word. Further, that F&H; did want a supplant for
the 2.8 Tessars, and as Oberkochen was not yet in production with the
Planar, got the Biometars from Jena as a stopgap, apparently not wanting
to wait.
Apocryphal?
[Ed. note: see related postings in Lens Elements
Pages postings (by related date)]
John A. Lind wrote:
Just a couple of minor additions.
First, Leica had not yet become quite all that successful. By 1926, they
were barely a blip on the horizon, in fact, and their great success was to
come only in the later 1930's. The merger of the four companies into one
was caused by the German government, which, in that same year, merged four
smaller auto companies into 'Auto Union', now the Audi divison of VW.
Bertele had developed a reputation as a rather reckless loner, and not the
sort of team-player beloved of large corporations in general and by German
corporations in particular. He had distinguished himself with the
high-speed Ernostar lenses, though, while at Ernemann, and his assignment
to formulate the lenses for the new Contax line was a natural. Bertele
stayed at Zeiss only until the outbreak of War, when he took an additional
position as the head of Optical Design at Steinheil. At one point he had
three Zeiss offices, one at the Zeiss works in Munich, another at the
former ICA plant in Dresden, and third at Jena, with yet a fourth office
at Steinheil. Late in the War, he began to do contract work for Wild in
Switzerland, as well. When the War ended, he quit his Zeiss positions and
went to work full-time for Wild, who promptly rented him back to Zeiss.
Quite in demand, our boy was!
The variations in the Sonnar design don't really represent a thorough
reformulation of the lens, just an adaptation of a basic pattern to
differing requirements. For instance, the 2/5cm Contax Sonnar has one
less element than does the 1.5/5cm version of the lens. (These,
incidentally, remained in production in the Soviet Union and in the
Ukraine and Russia until the very recent past.)
Finally, the reason the Planar was chosen for the Rolleiflex was a matter
of production economics and corporate politics. The Planar is a cheaper
lens to assemble than the Sonnar and its production lends itself more to
automation. And Bertele was not a team-player, while the modern Planar
designs come from Hans Sauer, the protege of Ernst Wandersleb, the protege
of Paul Rudolph. And Sauer was therefore in the inner circle, while
Bertele was perceived as an outsider.
Marc
msmall@roanoke.infi.net
From Rollei Mailing List;
Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter) wrote:
A rather minor quibble. In 1935, Alexander Smakula perfected modern
lens-coatings while at Jena. (Yes, yes, Kodak, Wollensak, and Ross were
all completing similar research at the same time, and all were marketing
coated lenses before the Second War broke out, but that's a different
topic for a different thread!) The Chief of Optical Design at Jena was
Ernst Wandersleb, who became curious as to whether the symmetrical
six-element Planar of 1896 -- a wonderful lens much restricted in its
applications by flare -- could be optimized with these new-fangled lens
coatings, so he turned the project over to his assistant, Hans Sauer. By
1938, Sauer had developed the five-element Planar design, though it did
not enter production until after the War.
The litigation between the two Zeiss entities granted the design rights to
both but gave the Planar trademark to Oberkochen. Hence, Jena and
Oberkochen produced the identical lens with different names, Biometar for
Jena and Planar for Oberkochen. And Jena was quicker to get the design
into production. Hence the use of the Biometar on the 2.8B. (When the
2.8A was designed in 1948, F&H; contacted Oberkochen for a supply of
2.8/8cm Tessars for the new camera, and Oberkochen filled the order with
lenses supplied by Jena. Things were not nearly so cordial five years
later, when the 2.8B was in the works, and Oberkochen had a cow trying to
prevent F&H; from using the Jena Biometar but had to put up with a small
run, as they did not yet have the Planar in production.)
The one failing of Prochnow is to tell all when confronted with the
realities of Oberkochen and Jena rivalries: he does not even admit that
the first run of 2.8A's had Jena lenses.
Marc
msmall@roanoke.infi.net
From Pentax Mailing List:
Yes, it is quite complicated. Exacta was an independent company (Ihagee)
founded by a Dutchman Johan Steenbergen and being Dutch owned it stayed
independent for a long time into communism era (until 1970?). Praktica
cameras were manufactured by Kamera WerkstStten and the evolutionary
Contax S (first commercially successful SLR with pentaprism) was made by
VEB Zeiss-Ikon. These were all situated in Dresden, Germany and eventually
became parts of the VEB Pentacon - so a connection exists. But as the
Praktisix dates from 1957 and the company that became Pentacon was formed
in 1959 (Pentacon name is from 1964) it is difficult to imagine what
Zeiss-Ikon had to do with Praktisix (except lenses from Carl Zeiss Jena,
of course) - and no Zeiss companies ever manufactured a camera like it.
All the best!
From Contax Mailing List:
Muchan, the Contax S was the first "modern" SLR
camera. While all previous SLRs had used waist level
viewfinders, the Contax S used a pentaprism for eye
level viewing. The first one was built in 1948 but
sales did not begin until a year later. The camera
had been prototyped in 1937 but not produced due to
the war. Gamma in Budapest had made a similar, but
more advanced prototype called Duflex System Reflex
S at about the same time, so exactly who did what
first is debated. The Gamma Duflex which went into
production in 1947 was actually more advanced in
some ways, since it had instant return mirror and
auto diaphragm. The Zeiss designs all had fully manual
diaphragms and mirrors that stayed up until the camera
was re-cocked. However, the Zeiss design was probably
better for the manufacturing capabilities of the day,
since most of the Contax S cameras I have seen are
still working, and no one I know has ever seen a
Duflex that still works!!
The Contax S and Contax S2 share only very general
similarities in shape and function.
Bob
From Contax Mailing List;
Exakta was a Dutch-owned company before the war. After the war
the communist East German government nationalized it along with
Carl Zeiss Jena, Kamera Werkstatten, and a number of other small
camera and lens makers. The name of the company which built
the Exakta was Ihagee, sometimes seen as Jhagee, which would
be pronounced the same in German. It is pronounced like
EE - HAH - GAY, with emphasis on the second syllable.
Needless to say the Dutch owners were not happy with this
takeover and began legal action to protect their trademarks.
While this was all going throught the courts a number of odd
variations on the cameras were made. Some were sold with
the Elbaflex nameplate, some were marked Exacta, and, as you
note, some had the Varex removed and replaced with VX in a
very crude way.
Eventually the Dutch owners regained control of the Exakta
name and this resulted in the Exakta Real camera made in
West Berlin in 1966. This is the only exceptionally rare
Exakta, since very few were made. It is also rumored to be
the best built, but I can't confirm since I've never seen
one.
Later the company put the Exakta name on a camera built by
Praktica called RTL 1000, which was a real piece of junk,
and when that flopped they moved on to a series of Exakta
cameras built in Japan by Petri, Topcon and Cosina. Today
the brand name is owned by Schneider and used on a line of
cheap point and shoot cameras and SLR lenses from Japan and
Korea. I believe the medium format Exakta 66 is now out of
production. A sad legacy for a once great camera name.
Bob
...
From Rollei Mailing List:
Siu Fai Au wrote:
Well, I would recommend you get the straight skinny -- read Barringer and
[ah-HEM!] Small, THE ZEISS COMPENDIUM, Hove, 1995. Get YOUR copy today!
The Soviets did not occupy Western Germany, but only the Eastern portion.
Leitz was then located at Wetzlar, in the Western Zone. And what was
removed to the Ukraine was not a complete factory but a single assembly
line, that for the Contax II and III. And the Soviets required the
Germans to set up a working assembly line at Jena, train their personnel
there, and THEN and only then moved the line to Kiev, along with a number
of German technicians and supervisors. The camera was then renamed the
"Kiev". The early Kiev camera body and lens production was at Jena but,
by 1949, indistinguishable gear was being produced from the heart of the
Ukraine.
Marc
msmall@roanoke.infi.net
From Panoramic Mailing List:
russian cameras..white house.. are you in for a rough awakening. the
famous photos of jfkjr and his mother in black at the president's funeral
were shot with the 500mm grand prix lens designed by matsutoff(can't spell
his name)the first solid state mirror lens introduced at the world's fair
in 58 and made in russia. the life photographer followed her all day at a
discreet distance. the photos caused such a sensation that 500's world
wide were snapped up by photojournalists and it was quite a while before
you could get one. all the other lens manufactures copied this technology.
the day world war 11 ended the russians snapped up the jena zeiss works
though fortunately some of the best innovators including bertelli escaped
to our troops . regards, ralph
....
...
From Rollei Mailing List:
Well it isn't all that modern. This camera is identical to the last
Balda (I forget the Balda model designation) and was sold under both
names and built at the Balda works. It was not enough of a sales
success
to keep Balda alive, and they went out of business. When the company
shut down the tooling for this camera was sold to the Chinese, and it
went into production for several years in China under the name
Yangtse-Balda. John Noble had plans to import the Chinese model into
Europe and the USA but the financial problems encountered by Noblex
killed that idea. It is possible that they are still made in China,
but I have not found anyone who knows for sure.
As for how good a picture taker it was, I'd guess pretty good. But if
you get one and it breaks you'd never find anyone who could fix it.
Bob
...
From Rollei Mailing List:
It is quite possible that Minox farmed out manufacture of some products to
Balda. After reunification they were farming out manufacture of some
parts and subassemblies to the old Praktica factory as well. So was
Leica. The idea that camera companies make everything in their own plants
is an incorrect one.
I wanted one of those Voigtlander Vito C cameras when they were current.
They were sold through Photo Quelle in Germany, but the price was rather
high at the time and I didn't want one that badly. At some point they
were closed out at low prices, but I didn't find out in time.
Bob
----------
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000
Dear Bob:
Your email jogged my memory of my first job after high school. My father
was chief engineer for Todd-AO, and my first real job was maintaining the
camera inventory for Todd-AO. This was in 1965-66 time frame. Todd-AO was
then know for their 70mm widescreen format and had 65mm cameras and lenses
for rent (we provided the cameras for The Bible, My Fair Lady and Dr.
Doolittle for Fox and Dino De Laurentis during my stint). We were also in
the process of developing a handheld 65mm camera with Mitchell Camera. We
were also looking to upgrade our lenses (most of which were cobbled up
from Hasselblads - I remember disassembling 10 SWCs just for the 38mm
Biogon). We had approached several optical companies to develop a
replacement for the two 28mm f2.8 lenses America Optical (the AO of
Todd-AO) had developed for Mike Todd for Around the World in Eight Days.
The 28/2.8 were truly impressive with hemisphere front cells about two
foot in diameter. I think Doug Turmbel and Harry Anderson ended up with
them when they bought up all the Todd-AO Thomas Color 65mm cameras and
lenses in the early 1990s.
Anyway, Nippon Optical was one of the companies we were talking to and
they felt they could afford to develop the 28-30mm fisheye for us because
the felt they had additional markets available to them for such a lens.
There was a one-off prototype built which was quit good and a whole lot
smaller than the AO lenses we had (you should have seen the
Harrison-Harrison and Polaroid glass filters we had for those lenses -
VERY manly). This prototype, which I assume ended up back in Japan, must
have been the source of the 30mm Nikkor/Bronica rumors.
The motion picture strikes of the late 60s put an end to the development
of the 65mm handheld camera after ten were built. And interesting side
note is that the engineer at Mitchell we were working with was a young
hotshot by the name of Eddie DeGulio, who left Mitchell and started Cinema
Products, who's CP16 and later CP35 look remarkable like a small version
of the Todd-AO handheld 65mm camera.
Best wishes,
Ron Bennett
From Rollei Mailing List:
Not this old canard yet again!
The true story is easily told. Capa went ashore with E/16th Infantry of
the 1st Infantry Division at Red Fox Beach. On the way in, he used his
Rolleiflex to take a number of rolls. On the beach itself, he used a
Contax II -- Capa was a long-time Contax user and, of course, died in
French Indo-China with a Nikon RF and Contax around his neck. The Contax
rolls, but NOT the Rolleiflex rolls, were rushed back to London on a RN
MTB and were delivered to the London Bureau of Time-Life. (Note: Capa
remained at Normandy.)
The film was entrusted to the old gangers in the London Lab, wo were told
to hasten the processing, as the Entire World Was Waiting. They failed to
properly fix the film, or, alternatively, rushed the drying, though the
latter seems unlikely. And they blamed it, most unfairly, on a
15-year-old "Tea Boy", Larry Burrows. Burrows had nothing at all to do
with the film's processing -- given British shop rules of the era, he
probably never got to do more than what his job-title suggested, running
out to get cups of tea for the dark-room guys. But the canard has stuck.
Burrows went on to become a most accomplished and honored photo-journalist
himself, and was to die in Vietnam a quarter-century later.
Marc
msmall@roanoke.infi.net
From Rollei Mailing List:
No Mystery--The editor was John Morris, Life Magazines , he put togeather
Life's invasion team. CAPA was on the beach for almost 2 hours , he left
the beach on LCI-L94. this vessel took him to the U.S Cast Guard ship the
Samuel Chase. Which took Capa and his film to Portsmouth, were the film
went by currior to London and John Morris. 4-35mm rolls & 6-120 rolls.
with a note from Capa saying the action is on the 35mm. The darkroom
problem was rushing to make a deadline and that when things happen--the
vent in the drying cabnit was not opened, so the film got very hot
..Dennis Banks put the film in and didn't open the vent. He did it and
not Larry Burrows, who was 18 years old and not 15, but he was the "Tea
Boy". Capa did not get back to France until the 8th of June, late in the
PM. Later Guys. QWho
From Rollei Mailing List;
Thanks, Mike, for setting the story right! The poster, folks, is a good
friend of Cornell Capa and is a noted Capa scholar in his own right.
Marc
msmall@roanoke.infi.net
From Contax Mailing List:
Well, not exactly. The company was call Zeis Ikon and owned the
Voigtlander name. They were a separate company from Carl Zeiss.
When Zeiss Ikon decided to go out of the camera business in the
early 70s, they sold the tooling and the Voigtlander name to
Rollei. Rollei produced some point and shoots under the Voigtlander
name, one interchangeable lens rangefinder camera, and the
VSL-1, VSL-2, and VSL-3E SLR cameras. These had the Rollei
bayonet mount (except for early European production VSL-1 which
was Pentax/Praktica thread mount). The VSL-1 and VSL-2 were
based on the Zeiss Ikon SL 706 (produced and sold) and SL 707
(only prototyped by Zeiss Ikon, but produced by Rollei) and the
shop manuals actually have photos of the Zeiss Ikon cameras in
them. Rollei also produced a line of lenses under the Voigtlander
name in both screw mount and Rollei bayonet. Some were made
in Germany, some in Singapore, under license from Carl Zeiss
whose optical designs were used, and some were produced in
Japan by Mamiya.
It was only after the Rollei bankruptcy that the Voigtlander name passed
into the hands of the current German holding company. Initially
they contracted with Balda to build a small point and shoot
which was a clone of a Minox 35mm with folding bed. When Balda
went out of the camera business they sold point and shoots from
a variety of Far East sources under the Voigtlander name. Their
liaison with Cosina is actually rather recent, although I do not
know the exact year it began, and started with the Cosina SLR
cameras and lenses.
Bob
From Contax Mailing List:
The original company was Franke & Heidecke, who made cameras under the
Rollei brand name. In the early 70s they decided on a massive expansion
plan funded by some German banks. They enlarged their facilities at
Braunschweig in Germany and built a massive factory complex in Singapore
where a whole group of new products were to be built. First they moved
production of the SL35 (Rollei's first 35mm SLR) from Germany to Singapore
so they could lower the price. They began building lenses there under
license from Zeiss, again to control cost and keep pricing somewhat
reasonable. The Rollei 35 line of compact point and shoot cameras was
moved to Singapore as well. Then, when Zeiss Ikon shut down camera
production (1973 if I remember right) they took the tooling and parts
they had bought from them to Singapore and introduced the new Voigtlander
line I mentioned earlier, as well as new Rollei cameras called SL35M
(mechanically same as Voigtlander VSL-1) and SL35ME (same as VSL-2).
Unfortunately these cameras were difficult to build and Rollei suffered
devastating quality control problems on them. I was a dealer at the
time and it was rare to take a new one out of the box and find it
fully functional!
The Singapore factories were also making flash units (the excellent Rollei
Beta series), compact cameras, view camera lenses for Schneider,
typewriters, home appliances, etc., etc.
It soon became clear that recycling old Zeiss Ikon designs was not going
to work, and Rollei designed a new SLR from the ground up. It appeared as
the Rollei SL35E and Voigtlander VSL-3E in 1978, but sold poorly due to
dealer reluctance based on the previous quality control problems, and
those problems persisted in the early production of these cameras. I have
a brand new VSL-3E in my collection which would never fire the shutter
from day one out of the box!!! Looks pretty though!
By the time the SL35E was produced with adequate quality control it was
too late and the company collapsed financially. They went through
bankruptcy and sold off an incredible stock of equipment at very low
prices. I bought a bunch of brand new Zeiss 16mm F-Distagon lenses at the
time for $ 75 each! The last model in the Rollei 35 series was closed out
at $ 39 each, and I picked up a bunch of those, too. Beta flash units,
still advanced in some features today, went for $ 20 to $ 50 each. And so
on for the whole line.
The current company, Rollei Fototechnik, emerged from the ashes as a much
smaller phoenix, making only medium format cameras and the advanced
SL2000F 35mm SLR. Everything else was gone. Later they revived the
Rollei 35 as a very expensive and limited edition series.
This new Rollei has gone through several different owners since its
founding. Most recently it belonged to Samsung who sold it off last year
to a group of employees and German banks. So it is German ownership
once again.
There is MUCH more to the story, but I don't have time to tell it all.
Bob
...
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
"Nicholas O. Lindan" nolindan@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Ihagee, means I.H.G. in German, I have forgotten what the initials
stand for, something like Universal Camera Company. They made a wide
range of cameras including a lot of folding cameras. I think they made
cameras with focal plane shutters other than the Exakta. Certainly the
Exakta is easily the best known of their cameras. The Exakta was made
in 35mm, 127, and 120 sizes. The pre-WW-2 120 camera was a horizontal
type similar to the current Mamiya in general form. Post war 6x6
Exaktas are like the Hasselblad in form.
The old Contax shutter is interesting. It is made of metal strips
held together on silk cords. Evidently, the silk in these shutters
holds together pretty well. The Contax shutter is amazingly
complicated having three gear train speed regulators. While some think
the design was done this way to get around the Leica patent, in fact,
the basic Contax design traces back to much earlier cameras. The
shutter in the Zeiss Mirroflex is very similar in principle.
The advantage of the metal Contax shutter is that one can't burn
holes in it by accidently pointing the camera at the sun, a problem
with rangefinder cameras.
---
From Rollei Mailing List:
Austin Franklin wrote:
Buy my book! (Shameless commercial propaganda!) The Zeiss Foundation, a
charitable and educational trust, owned and owns a number of differing
entities, from the Zeiss lensworks at Oberkochen and Jena, to the Gauthier
shutter company (now incorporating FW Deckel), to a company which makes
wooden wood-working tools and which bears the epic name of "Leitz", though
I understand that family has no connexion with the mavens of Wetzlar and
Solms.
One of the companies owned by the Foundation was the Zeiss Ikon camera
company, originally formed in 1926 by a government-coerced merger of four
independent concerns, ICA and Ernemann at Dresden, CP Goerz in Berlin, and
Contessa-Nettel in Stuttgart. The Foundation ceased subsidizing Zeiss
Ikon in 1972, so camera production ceased then, and Zeiss Ikon continued
as a producer of mortice locks (a former Goerz subsidiary) and slide
projectors.
These concerns -- but not the name -- were sold in 1990 or so to a
Scandanavian company called Zett, who later passed on the slide projector
works to Leica. The Zeiss Foundation still owns the Zeiss Ikon name but
is not using it; the old Contessa works in Stuttgart now produce eyeglass
lenses.
As to multi-coating, the earliest use I can determine of multi-coating was
on Zeiss technical and scientific gear around 1970, probably on a
field-test basis. Both Zeiss and Asahi began to coat camera lenses in
'73, and arguments have persisted to this day as to which of them was
"first", though I suspect Asahi beat Zeiss by several months; certainly,
their advertising was superior! We have evidence of multi-coated, but
unmarked, Planar lenses on 2.8F's and 3.5F's from the mid-'70's, so,
apparently, Zeiss soon began multi-coating all production, but only marked
the lenses with the "T*" marking if the customer paid for it.
Marc
msmall@roanoke.infi.net
From Rollei Mailing List:
In the book, "75 years of Nikon" (produced in the Japanese language for
the shareholders of the company) there is a reproduction of a 1948
blueprint for a Nikoflex TLR. It has an 80 mm/2.8 View Nikkor and an 80
mm/3.5 Nikkor QC taking lens. It accepts 120 film for 12 pictures of 6 x 6
size.
todd
From Rollei Mailing List:
I have several Aires TLRs.
Two with Nikkors. One is an Automat and the other is not.
Another has Zuiko lenses and one other has Coral lenses.
They are not particularly high quality cameras, other than the lenses.
todd
Have you ever seen an Aires Automat (1954) with 3.5/75 Nikkors? A
friend of mine used to have one.
--
From Rollei Mailing List:
Lucian Chis wrote:
When Carl Kellner opened his optical works at Wetzlar, he wanted to
concentrate on the manufacture of microscopes and scientific gear, but was
flooded with orders from the gentry for field glasses. He asked a friend
of his from his apprenticeship days, Hensoldt, to pick up this works, and
thus the Hensoldt works were born. The family sold the works to the Zeiss
Foundation in, I believe, 1906. (The Kellner works later were taken over
by Ernst Leitz I and became the modern Leica concern in time.)
Zeiss has had a policy for many years of making all smaller glasses as
roof-prism designs and using Porro prisms in binoculars with 50mm or
larger apertures, due to the size of the lenses. In recent years, Zeiss
has revisited the Porro designs for smaller glasses and we may see some
new Porro designs being manufactured by Zeiss in the next several years,
though I have heard nothing definitive.
Marc
msmall@roanoke.infi.net
From Rollei Mailing List:
An interesting thread that needs some historic notes:
(1) The "standard" focal length of 50mm in small format (35mm) was
established by the first successfully marketed 35mm camera, the Leica A in
1925, production of which ran through 1936. It also established a few
other standards we still see today:
Not too bad for the first kid on the block; kudos to Oskar Barnack for
having set some standards that have withstood a real test of time!
(2) The origin of 35mm still photography film:
It predates 35mm still cameras by some decades! When Thomas Edison was
looking for a suitable film to use in his Kinescope (movie film), he had
been playing with still photography and had a reel of 70mm film from
Eastman Kodak. To create some film for his movie camera, one of his
assistants ordered a reel of 70mm film (I believe 100 feet) slit down the
center for a pair of 35mm reels. Edison's lab punched the sprocket holes
exactly as we see them today. In developing the Leica A, one of the most
prevalent films available was Edison Size 35mm movie film. Oskar Barnack
was not original in the idea of using this film; other commercially
unsuccessful attempts at a small format camera used movie film.
(3) The origin of 4"x5" and 8"x10" standards for view cameras:
In the early days of glass plate, one had to *get* glass plates, very flat
ones too, and coat them with home made emulsion. What was the easiest
source for very flat glass plates? In the U.S. it was the local and
ubiquitous (even in the Wild West) General Dry Goods Store. Window panes
were among the few easily adapted pieces of flat glass that came in very
convenient rectangles. They had to be pretty flat or people would
complain
about seeing distorted images through them in their windows! The most
common dimensions? 4"x5" or 8"x10" and even if you couldn't get the
smaller size, you could easily cut an 8"x10" in half with a glass cutter.
-- John
...
From Panoramic Mailing List:
i was walking east on 34th street from sloane house. we didn't know a
plane had hit. i assumed it was explosion in dupont lab, empire state
bldg, because i'd been there day ot two before,and i didn't know it
was plane till i handed film to picture editor harold blumenfeld. it was a
saturday, my day off. he asked this 24 year staff photographer for
acme newspictures to stay and work. i did. my girl friend wanted to know
why i was late for birthday dinner. she was footstoppin' mad. i said that
a plane had hit 350 5th av. fantastic excuse. there was no tv in 1945.
"turn on your radio" and i was vindicated.
GAPiccagli@aol.com wrote:
aghalide@panix.com
writes:
Don't ask him to tell you stories about
So, Simon, is there any truth to the rumor that you arranged to have the
Giorgio P.
From Rollei Mailing List:
Lucian wrote:
Sorry, misunderstood the question. Here's the corporate history of Ilford
from CIBA to present:
1966: CIBA and ICI acquire all outstanding shares of Ilford
Doughty Hanson is the current owner.
-- John
From Rollei Mailing List:
Backwards, John. Ciba-Geigy, the maker of Cibachrome, bought Ilford.
Later, in a corporate downsizing, they sold it to International Paper.
International Paper spun it off last year into an independent company,
and it is currently owned by an investment group. They have had layoffs
right and left and the current company is a ghost of its former self.
Only a handful of the people I know are still there.
Ilford is openly up for sale at the moment, and there was a rumor going
around that Kodak was going to buy them. However, as of last week at
photokina the Ilford management did not have any verification of this,
although they, too, had heard it and did not discount it.
Ilford's long-term future will depend entirely on who ends up owning
the company.
Bob
...
[Ed. note: thanks to Michael Gudzinowicz for sharing these resource
notes!]
Wisbl isabella32@earthlink.net wrote:
There's quite a bit of detailed information in volume 1.4 ("Die
Photographische Objective") of Josef Maria Eder's "Ausfuhrliches handbuch
der photographie" (published by W. Knapp, 1892-1928) which deals with
"older" lens designs. The design details and formulas of most 19th and
early 20th century lenses are included. You will probably have to check
the Library of Congress catalog for detailed information, and acquire the
volume through interlibrary loan. It is not common, and is in German.
General information including the coverage of some lenses is included in
Rudolph Kingslake's "History of the Photographic Lens". Also, there is a
lot of information in his chapter contributed to Henny & Dudley's
"handbook of Photography" (McGraw Hill, 1939).
Conrad Beck has a fairly good treatment of 19th century designs in his
book "Photographic Lenses: A Simple Treatise" (R&J; Beck Ltd, London,
1903). The book concentrates on Beck-Steinheil lenses, of course, but they
offered designs which were representative of most common lenses. On page
160 of the 2nd edition, there are figures which diagram astigmatism amd
curvature vs. field angle for typical 19th century designs.
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
InfinityDT@aol.com wrote:
The Zeiss Foundation had Albert Gauthier of Calmbach, (AGC), maker of the
Prontor shutter, buy all the assets of FW Deckel of Munich, maker of the
Compur, around 1984. Around 1992, Zeiss bankrupted Deckel. Hence, all
Compur shutters for the past 16 years have actually come from Gauthier.
(And let's not get off on the workforce Gauthier used for years,
off-season farmboys from the Calmbach area.)
Marc
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Oh! I should have pointed out that Albert Gauthier and FW Deckel were
both subsidiaries of the Zeiss Foundation, as Gauthier is today.
Gauthier has made the slow-speed escapement for Leitz/Leica since its
inception with the III in '34 or so. (I am too damned tired to look up
the date right now -- I've been answering a battleship question over on
one of the WWII Lists, and all my at-hand references are on Large Obsolete
Naval Vessels and none around on cameras!)
Marc
From Rollei Mailing List;
you wrote:
Yes, Leica vs: Contax and the later Nikon vs: Canon.
I think part of the problem is that Schneider was started much later
than most of the other German lens companies. Schneider also did not have
so good a reputation before WW-2. Schneider lenses tended to be cheaper
versions of other maker's lenses on which the patents had run out. Early
Xenars were not the equal of Zeiss Tessars nor was the orignal Symmar up
to either Goerz or Zeiss Dagors. Schneider did have some original designs.
The Angulon is a very well known one. Its essentially a Dagor and capable
of excellent quality, but some post war ones are not so good. I have a
c.1930 Angulon which is an abosolute dog. It has color fringing, a fault
which should be completely absent in a Dagor type lens. It should never
have escaped from the factory. Schneider also orignated the Xenon lens
for, or with the co-operation, of Leitz. This is a six or seven element
Biotar type lens, but predates the Biotar. Some Xenon lenses are
excellent. They were made for various cameras for many years.
Post war Schneider lenses are a completely different story. Evidently
they decided to go after the quality market. Post war Xenars are the equal
of Tessars and the air spaced designs Schneider came out with at that time
(Xenotar and second type Symmar) are superior lenses.
In any case Schneider lenses should be considered right at the top of
the quality ladder.
Zeiss has the advantage of being the originator of Anastigmat lenses and
of the Schott glass works. For a short time around the end of the
nineteenth century Zeiss probably had a lock on really high quality
lenses.
It didn't take the rest of the industry long to catch up but Zeiss had the
name and still does after more than one hundred years.
----
From Rollei Mailing List:
....
What? No Nikon microscopes?
My guess is that the market is just too small. Rollei proabably can get
what it needs from Schneider and Zeiss. Rodenstock does indeed make superb
lenses but the lens making part of the company is small. I believe they
just spun off the photographic lens division to an independant company so
they can concentrate on opthamic lenses.
Fifty years ago the US had: Eastman Kodak, Bausch & Lomb, Wollensak,
Ilex, Goerz-American, Gundlach Manhattan, Elgeet, Pacific Optical, all
making photographic objectives and American Optical (a different company
from Goerz-American) making optical instruments and custom photographic
objectives (Todd-AO System for example). What's left? Pacific Optical just
sold out to some foreign company.
----
FRom Zeiss IG Mailing List:
Javier Perez wrote:
The basic Biotar design is an unsymmetrical double-Gauss design -- that
is, it differs from Rudolph's Planar design which is symmetrical. The
unsymmetricality was brought into optical play by the famed British
designer, HW Lee, following the first World War and led to a slew of
developments, including Tronnier's Xenon and Berek's Summar. In 1927,
Willy Merte of Zeiss produced the Biotar. The basic design has six
elements in four groups (single plano-convex, concave-convex doublet,
concave-convex doublet, single plano-convex).
The Biometar has a more complex history. In 1896, Paul Rudolph developed
the symmetrical double-gauss Planar design which was a magnificent optical
performer but which suffered from flare due to its eight air-to-glass
surfaces. By the 1930's, Rudolph's former assistant, Ernst Wandersleb,
had come to inherit his old boss's role as Chief Optical Designer in the
Photographic Department at Jena. Wandersleb assigned HIS assistant, Hans
Sauer, the chore of investigating whether lens coatings would put new life
into the Planar. Sauer began to redesign the lens and soon shed an
element to produce the five-element Planar -- five elements in four
groups, still with eight surfaces but, with lens coatings, this was no
longer the problem it had been with the original design.
The War intervened and Zeiss only considered producing the lens in the
1950's. By this time, the two Zeisses had gotten to a-fussin' about with
each other, and the Courts ruled that both had the rights to Sauer's
design but that only Oberkochen had the rights to the Planar name.
Hence, the East Germans adopted the 'Biometar' name for their version of
this lens, used primarily in the Rolleiflex 2.8B. (The later MF versions
of the Planar and Biometar made for the Hasselblad and Rolleiflex SLR's
and the Pentacon Six cameras are only vaguely related to the original
Sauer design.
In other words, 'Biometar:Jena=Planar:Oberkochen'. It's a name thing.
Marc
msmall@roanoke.infi.net
From Contax Mailing List:
The first image stabilized lenses were for the motion picture business.
Originally, people used external gyro stabilizers which attached to the
tripod mount of the lens (or camera) and were powered by gigantic, heavy
power packs. Kenyon still makes these, and some photographers still use
them, but I never cared for them. One photographer who shoots from
helicopters told me he uses one WITH a Canon IS lens for maximum stability
in his shots.
The first lens with built-in stabilization that I know of was called the
Gyro Zoom and came out in the early 80s. It was for professional 16mm
cinema cameras and pro video cameras. It was not that much bigger than an
ordinary power zoom lens for one of those cameras. It used very small
gyros adapted from missile guidance systems to move a prism-shaped optical
element inside the lens to stabilize the image, and it worked very well.
I have a demo tape the company sent me back then which is really startling
in quality. One sequence was shot by a TV news crew from a helicopter who
accidentally encountered a tornado and shot it from above!!
The Vivitar project was developed from some ideas I had and some ideas
Bill Maxwell had, and would have used an inertial damper effect rather
than a powered gyro. Prototypes were built, they worked, and the products
would have been on dealer shelves (and me and bill considerably wealthier)
if Vivitar had not been sold at that point to a new company which decided
to shut down all USA R&D; and just stamp the Vivitar name on products
bought from a variety of vendors. Sad story, but all too common.
Bob
From Rollei Mailing List;
you wrote:
There were a number of additive color transparency processes available
before Kodachrome. I am not sure what formats were available, some were
certainly available only in glass plates.
Dufaycolor, as pointed out by Les, Agfacolor using a screen plate, Finlay
Color, Lumiere Autochrome, and others. Its possible that the plate back
adaptor for the Rollei was a way of making at least some of these
processes available to Rollei users.
Agfa beat Kodak to the punch with chromogenic film. While the first
Agfacolor was not wonderful it was much more akin to modern film than
Kodakchrome, with which it was about contemperaneous. Agfa used protected
color couplers in the emulsions to generate the dyes. Agfa used a method
of tying the dye couplers to very large molecules to keep them from
migrating around in the gelatin. This is the method used for most color
film now.
Kodachrome did not (and does not) have the couplers in the emulsion. They
are contained in the second developer. The film is processed by a rather
complex method which requires a redevelopment for each layer. Kodacolor
used a different method of protecting the incorporated couplers. Kodak's
method was to encapsulate the coupler in a resin which was penetrable by
the developing agents but would still keep the dye from migrating.
Processing solutions for this type of color usualy contain alcohol to
permit penetration of the processing chemicals into the resin capsules. I
beleive nearly all color films and paper now use the Agfa method.
In any case, there was very active research in to methods of color
photography from the beginning of photography. Methods using a single
photographic plate or film date to at least as far back as the first
decade of the twentieth century.
I don't know when the first Rolleikin was put out but suspect it must
have been about the time of the first Agfa and Kodak color films.
I have two and find they work very well for doing color portrait work
with the Rollei.
----
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001
Well, not really X-ray photography in the same way your doctor shoots
"chest films" (which are more like contact prints with your body as the
negative and an X-ray tube as the light source.) It used to be quite
common, both for cost reasons and to facilitate study of successive
exposures, to record X-ray images by positioning the subject in front of a
fluoroscope screen, which "lit up" in response to the X-ray energy, and
then photographing the image on the fluoroscope with a 35mm or other
small-format camera. (I think some industrial X-ray applications still may
be handled this way.)
Since the image on the fluoroscope was really dim, and since
super-sharpness was neither required or useful (the X-ray image not being
all that well-defined to begin with) optical manufacturers offered a range
of lenses with ultra-wide apertures especially for this type of
"radiographic" photography. Since the lens had to be optimized for only
one distance (close) and only one aperture (full), it was actually much
easier to design one of adequate performance for this type of application
than it would have been to make a lens of similar maximum aperture for
*general* photography (where the designer would have had to provide decent
performance at both close and far distances, and at both maximum and
smaller apertures.) Thanks to the fact that the design parameters for
radiographic lenses were simpler, lenses with really exotic-sounding
maximum apertures could be offered all the way back into the '30s!
Often the names included an R or related word as a tip-off that the lens
was a special-purpose radiographic item: the R-Biotar mentioned above,
Nippon Kogaku's Regno-Nikkors, Canon's old-time R-Serenar, etc.
A very similar application for these types of lenses was oscillographic
recording: before data-recording instruments were widely available, one
common way to record the waveform displayed on an oscilloscope was to
photograph it with a special camera. The parameters were much the same as
for radiographic recording: the image was very dim, superb sharpness
wasn't really necessary, and the designer could assume that the lens would
always be used at maximum aperture and a fixed, close distance.
Wollensak's series of Oscillo-Raptar lenses was one in which this
oscillographic recording purpose was bundled right into the lens' name.
Special cameras often were designed to go with these special lenses, the
X-ray versions often incorporating simple provisions for operating the
camera from a safe distance, holding it at a fixed range from the
fluoroscope, etc. The "camera" itself generally was just a holder for the
35mm film and a mount for the lens; a shutter wasn't necessary as the
duration of exposure was controlled by the X-ray source. Occasionally
you'll see an old, finderless Leica camera modified with such features as
a nonstandard (square) film format, a mounting cone on the front, and a
crank for quicker film rewinding, all pointing to past use for
radiography. Canon made a special X-ray camera unit from all the way back
to the '30s until well into the '50s, probably its longest-surviving
product ever -- it incorporated a compact square-format 35mm body with a
dark slide (so different bodies could be switched onto the X-ray
apparatus), a big wood or metal cone for attaching to the fluoroscope, and
a wind knob with a pulley and chain on it to allow the operator to stand
aside and advance the film without getting quite as big a dose of X-rays.
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001
There has been an X-Ray lens, its the imaging element of the Roentgen
X-Ray satellite. That's a little like a mirror lens, the X-Rays are bent
by striking the mirrors at a very shallow angle.
http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/rosat/ruh/handbook/node30.html#SECTION00600000000000000000
Its a 2400mm f/2.8.
--
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001
....
Photolithographic lenses used for making computer chips are
simultaneously much faster and much much .... much sharper than any
35mm lens ever conceived. They are in fact fully diffraction-limited
at apertures of f/0.7 to f/1.0. Of course they weigh hundreds of
pounds, cost in excess of $1,000,000 and are only good for the deep
ultraviolet.
In the world of consumer 35mm stuff the macro lenses are probably a bit
sharper than 50mm normal lenses because they are slower and generally
cover a narrower angle of view. My personal favorite is the Vivitar
Series 1 90mm f/2.5, which has incredible center-to-corner performance
even wide open. The Nikon 55/2.8 micro nikkor is perhaps a tiny bit
sharper in the center, but drops off a bit more toward the corners
because it has a much larger field angle.
Brian
greg greg@on.aibn.com wrote:
[Ed. note: Mr. Small is a noted author on Zeiss related topics, among many
other professional photographic efforts and publications...]
J Patric DahlTn wrote:
What precisely are you looking for? A list by which to date, or a list by
which to determine production runs? I am developing a Postwar Zeiss lens
list by date of production, based on Nordin's phenomenal work in THE
HASSELBLAD SYSTEM COMPENDIUM. The other List (by lens type) is maintained
by Charles M Barringer.
Marc
msmall@roanoke.infi.net
From Zeiss Interest Group Mailing List:
flexaret@sprynet.com wrote:
Prewar, Zeiss Ikon had four factories: Contessa-Nettel in Stuttgart,
Goerz in Berlin, and ICA and Ernemann in Dresden. The two plants in
Dresden fell immediately into Soviet hands, Goerz was briefly under Soviet
occupation, and Contessa-Nettel was under French occupation. Compur
shutters were produced by FW Deckel in Munich and Prontor shutters by
Albert Gauthier in Calmbach; these factories fell into US hands. The
main Zeiss works were at Jena, with satellite facilities at Eisfeld
(rangefinders and binoculars), Saalfeld (OAS), and Munich (the Pleon
aerial-recon lens): Jena and Eisfeld fell into Soviet hands, the other two
into US hands.
Zeiss Ikon had parts stockpiled at most, if not all, of their plants for
supply to repair shops. Hence, the Soviets could certainly have obtained
Zeiss and Zeiss-Ikon lenses and Deckel and Gauthier shutters, as well as
more mundane repair parts, from Dresden or Berlin with little problem.
And finding trained repair folk to shanghai back to Holy Mother Russia to
help them get camera production going would hardly be a matter of much
difficulty. Certainly, early Moskva cameras more often than not sport
Compur shutters and Tessar lenses.
Marc
msmall@roanoke.infi.net
From Zeiss Interest CG Mailing List:
flexaret@sprynet.com wrote:
Ludwig Bertele designed both lenses, and the passage of two decades
between their formulation had only improved his skills, while giving him
access to a broader range of optical glasses. Hence, the Postwar
Oberkochen 2.8/35 Biogon is a lens somewhat better than its superb
predecessor. This was the lens Bertele designed immediately before his
epic 4.5/21 Biogon, a lens which he claimed would be to photography as
penicillin was to medicine or the jet engine to aviation.
Marc
From Rollei Mailing List;
Richard Knoppow wrote:
This is the United States Strategic Bombing Survey; copies are available
at the Archives, the Library of Congress, the New York Metropolitan
Library, and a number of other large depositary libraries around the US.
The summary of the Survey is posted at http://www.anesi.com/chuck.htm but
this is pretty basic stuff; the entire Report is fifty or sixty volumes
long. The team included such luminaries as Paul Nitze, the future arms
negotiator, John Kenneth Galbraith, the economist, and George W Ball, one
of the architects of the US policy in Viet-Nam under LBJ. I have a copy
of the optical section SOMEWHERE but cannot lay my hands on it right now.
Marc
msmall@roanoke.infi.net
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
ULF SJ+GREN wrote:
The name Hasselblad is not so common here in Sweden, but others than
the "camera family " have it. The parts of the name as you split it can be
used per se. Hassel (Hazel) is not a common family name, but it exists.
Blad (Leaf) is more common and I know that there is an optic (SIC!) firm
with that name. But if you go further back in the history of buisness in
Gothenburg the name Hasselblad shows up as the name of a rather big
import/export company (mostly textiles). And that was the ancestors of
Victor Hasselblad, but he was never interested in taking over the family
business. I think nobody here weeps over that....? ;-).
Victor's great-grandad, Fritz Victor Hasselblad founded F.W. Hasselblad &
Co. in 1841. His son, Arvid Viktor Hasselblad, continued the company in
1871. It was he, not his grandson, our Victor Hasselblad, that introduced
photography into the Hasselblad company. They started by selling picture
postcards.
Arvid was an avid photographer, and he established a photographic
division, not, as he said, because he believed it would be profitable, but
this way they "could have all their photographs for free". Arvid Viktor
had two relatives Georg and Hugo Hasselblad, and these two started selling
the photographic equipment Arvid Viktor imported into Sweden. In 1893
they, together with an art teacher cum dealer in photographic equipment
Sven Scholander, published the first photographic Hasselblad catalogue,
"Priskurant i Fotografiska Artiklar jemte FullstSndiga Bruksanvisningar
frsn F.W. Hasselblad & Co., G"teborg, Sven Scholander, Stockholm, G. & H.
Hasselblad, G"teborg". This first list is a collectors item now.
In their catalogue they had, among others, a British made "Murer's
Express". The swedish firm Hugo Svensson & Co. soon after produced a very
similar camera, which they called the "Svenska Express". F.W. Hasselblad &
Co. started selling these, rebranded as "Hasselblad Svenska Express" and
"Hasselblad Svea Express" from 1895 upto 1920, in which period they sold
approx. 13,000 of theses cameras. Interestingly, this first Hasselblad
camera had a Zeiss lens...
In about 1890 F.W. Hasselblad & Co. managed to become the sole
representative of Kodak products in Sweden. This was done by verbal
agreement between Arvid Viktor and, it is assumed, George Eastman himself.
Verbal agreements apparently agreed very well with the Hasselblad way of
doing business, viz. Victor Hasselblad's verbal agreement with Zeiss' Dr.
Hans Sauer in 1950.
In 1908 Hasselblad Fotografiska AB was founded as a full daughter of F.W.
Hasselblad & Co. All photographic activities were transferred to this
company, which also had the exclusive right to import Eastman Kodak
products in Sweden. Hasselblad Fotografiska AB existed until 1966, when
they (a multi-million dollar company) were bought by Eastman Kodak. Victor
Hasselblad however continued his camera factory, the well known "Victor
Hasselblad AB".
Victor Hasselblad, son of Arvid Viktor's son Karl Erik, took an interest
in photography at an early age, and, using the family's connections to
Kodak, was able to deepen his interest and knowledge by studying at Kodak
PathT in Paris, at Zeiss in Germany, and at Eastman Kodak in Rochester.
When he came back from his studies, he started work in the photographic
division of, now his father's company. When during the depression in the
thirties things started going slow in his father's company, In 1937 Victor
left F.W. Hasselblad & Co. and started his own company: a shop selling
photographic equipment (as he had done in his parental company) annex
photolab. He called his company "Victor Foto". This shop was a success,
albeit not a goldmine. He also had a trading company, called Ross AB. In
1942 however, his father Erik died, and his children inhereted the
company. None of them except Victor took any interest in photography, and
Victor was the only one left to continue the company. He borrowed money to
acquire a majority share in the F.W. Hasselblad & Co company.
Also during WW2, Victor was approached and asked if he could build a
camera similar to a German aerial camera. We all know his reply: "No, i
can't build such a camera. I can build a better one." He started work by
renting a shed next to a automobile repair shop, which had a huge pile of
refuse metal components and other assorted rubish: the stuff that
Hasselblads are made off ;-).
The rest, so they say, is history.
By the way: building the aerial camera for the Swedish Airforce was not
enough to keep his company alive. Victor Hasselblad also made gearboxes
for SAAB's airplanes, clocks (approx. 95,000 (!!!) were made from 1944 to
1950, sold as "Exacta"), and a small slideprojector he called "Ross". The
name also given to the first prototype of his civilian cameras, until
someone suggested to him to call them just "Hasselblad". Money was short,
and this happened to be the reason Hasselblad cameras now use Zeiss
lenses. Victor started using Kodak lenses, because of his and his
familiy's connection to Kodak and because the German optical industry was
in ruins because of the war. But paying in dollars was just to expensive,
and Victor knew Zeiss (in 1950 emerging from the ruins of war) from his
stay there in the 1920s, and the DMark was affordable. So the first Zeiss
lenses were supplied in 1952.
Or, to cut a long story short, Victor Hasselblad did indeed enter and
continue the family's business, and he did indeed first get involved in
photography because of his family's business, and yes, the family business
was dealing in photography.
From Rollei Mailing List:
you wrote:
Some of this isn't too difficult to figure out.
Flex: Reflex, for the mirror finder.
Mat: For Automat, for the automatic threading and winding.
I have no idea where Cord came from, perhaps someone else knows. I think
Prochnow may explain this but I read German one word at a time.
Lens names are mixtures of Latin and Greek roots with other stuff.
Anastigmat is a double negative. Astigmatism is the failure of a lens to
focus radial lines and tangential lines at the same time. In other words a
astigmatic lens will not focus the spokes and the rim of a wagon wheel at
the same time. The correct name for a lens corrected for this would be
"stigmatic", and, in fact, there was at least one series of lenses bearing
this name. However, for some reason, Anastigmat became used. Originally,
Zeiss used this as a trade name fot its first lenses using Jena glass. The
new glass allowed the simultaneous correction of astigmatism and field
curvature, not possible before, or at thought not to be possible.
These lenses, designed by Paul Rudolph, were sold as Anastigmats, but
Zeiss could not enforce the trade-mark so it became generic, and in 1900
Zeiss changed the name to Protar.
All sorts of lenses have been sold as anastigmats since.
'gon is derives from (I think) a Greek root for angle. Generaly, lenses
ending with gon are wide angles of some sort, as in Biogon, Rectigon, etc.
I have no idea of the root for "ar, tar, etc." very common endings for
lenses.
Other word parts sometimes found:
Bio, life (Biogon, Biotar)
Ektar Eastman Kodak + tar
Velostigmat (old Wollensak name) Fast Anastigmat. Raptar was the later
name, with the same meaning i.e., Rapid + tar
Rectigon (a Goerz WA aerial lens) correct + gon meaning it is well
corrected for geometric distortion.
Tessar suggesting four elements + ar
Heliar Bright like the Sun, + ar
Dynar Dynamic or powerful + ar
Xenar, Xenotar Distant, meaning it makes images of distant objects. (Xenos
can also mean strange)
Variogon: A Zoom lens, a variable angle of coverage lens.
A great many others, you get the idea. Typically, the names mean sharp or
bright or correct or something of the sort.
Some lenses are named for the manufacturer or in some other way. Boyer,
of france, named their lenses after jewels, e.g., Safir.
There were a few recycled names. Sonnar, famous now as a lens, was
originally a camera, and there are some others.
Some names, like Tessar, refer to a specific generic design, in this
case a four element lens originally designed by Paul Rudolph of Zeiss.
Some names are simply company names used for a variety of lens types;
Ektar, Velostigmat, Raptar, Paragon, are examples. Paragon is, of course,
not a derived word, it simply means the dictionary meaning, something so
good it is a basis of comparison for all others. I may have been a mild
pun since it ends in gon.
----
From Rollei Mailing List:
Ennagon and Ennalyt, as well as some others, are brand names used by Enna
Werk. They do not denote specific optical designs. The only text I know
of about Enna is Enna Taschen Book (Enna Pocket Book) by Voigt. It is
in German, of course, and probably hard to find. My copy was given to me
when I visited Enna in Munich in 1982. Enna is still in business, but
sold the Munich works because the real estate was too valuable. Today
they are in Wegscheid, down near the Austrian border, in a modern new
factory. They do a lot of OEM work.
Bob
From Contax Mailing LIst;
This is a complex issue.
Originally, Contax cameras were made at a Zeiss factory in Jena, Germany.
This included the Contax I, II, and III rangefinder cameras, and just
prior to the war the Contax S, their first SLR. Right before the war the
man who designed the original Contax cameras (whose name slips my mind at
the moment) left Germany and came to live in the USA where he went to work
as a designer at Graflex. During the war years all attention was put into
making Contax rangefinder cameras and production of the Contax S was
shelved.
At the end of the war the Zeiss factories ended up in the Eastern Zone
under Soviet occupation. The complete contents of the Contax factory were
loaded onto railroad cars by the Soviets, and there was a showdown with
Allied soldiers when they tried to stop the train from leaving. But they
were outnumbered and the train did leave, ending up in the Ukraine at
Kiev. There the factory was reassembled on the grounds of the Arsenal
Works, and the first Kiev rangefinder cameras were made. Kiev rangefinder
cameras are not, strictly speaking, Contax copies, since they were made
with the original tooling, some original parts, and assembled by some of
the same workers since people were also taken to Kiev.
Those Zeiss employees who managed to leave the Eastern Zone founded a new
Zeiss-Ikon in West Germany, and after some time retooling came out with
the Contax IIa and IIIa, which were much improved mechanically. They did
not make any SLR cameras in West Germany until 1959 when they introduced
the Contarex.
Meanwhile, back in East Germany the Zeiss people who remained reintroduced
the Contax S (different factory, which had not been taken by the Soviets)
and made it under a variety of names, and with no name at all, during the
time of legal battles over the old Zeiss trademarks. Carl Zeiss in Jena
went on to make a long line of very high quality lenses for Exakta,
Praktica, Praktina, Pentacon, and other East German cameras.
Since German reunification those old East German factories have passed
into the hands of the Carl Zeiss Foundation, Schneider-Kreuznach, and
others. Sir John Noble, who had spent many years in Soviet prisons on
trumped-up spy charges, regained his freedom and sued for return of his
factories, the old Kamera Werkstatten, which had built Praktica and
Praktina cameras. Eventually he won a somewhat hollow victory, getting
back partially gutted factories and a disinterested work force. He
mananged to pull this all together and from it produce Noblex cameras.
Meanwhile, Carl Zeiss in West Germany won ownership of the Contax and
other trademarks, and worked to develop a modern camera system to put
their lenses on. First with Pentax, and then with Yashica, they developed
the first Contax RTS, the first of the modern Contax line.
There is enough history here to write a BIG book, and this only skims
the surface.
Bob
From Rollei Mailing List;
Richard Knoppow wrote:
Well, the design was completed before the "split" between Jena and
Oberkochen, around 1944. Sauer took one set of drawings with him to
Oberkochen when he was frog-marched there by the US Army to build medical
lab gear for DOWNFALL, another set, or sets, remained behind. The designs
of the 2.8/8cm CZJ Biometar and the 2.8/80 CZ Planar OUGHT to be
identical!
The court case over the trademarks -- in a Dutch court, of all places! --
ruled that the designs were identical and that both Jena and Oberkochen
had proprietary rights to the designs, but that Oberkochen only owned the
trademarks -- "Sonnar", "Planar", "Biotar", "Tessar", "Bio-Tessar", und so
weiter, were Carl Zeiss property and forbidden to Carl Zeiss Jena, as was
the very name "Carl Zeiss".
(The East Germans COULD be witty: for many years, at western trade shows,
"aus Jena" would have a huge booth with a large banner overhead, listing
the company as "aus Jena: NUMBER ONE CARL ZEISS STRASSE, JENA", just so
that everyone remembered who the TRUE Carl Zeiss company was!)
Marc
msmall@roanoke.infi.net
From Rollei Mailing List:
Richard Knoppow wrote:
The other way around. VoigtlSnder contracted with Back to produce a
multi-focal-length lens. He designed such but was unable to produce it
due to other commitments, so VoigtlSnder contracted with Kilfitt for
production. The result was that Dr Back purchased the Kilfitt company
when Heinz Kilfitt retired in 1967. Thus, there are two independent
"Zoomar" products -- those produced directly by Dr Back's own Zoomar
Corporation from 1946 until 1987, and the Kilfitt/Zoomar lenses produced
between 1967 and 1987. In 1987, the Zoomar Corporation left the consumer
optics field and restricted itself to military and government production
of some sort, though this is rather mysterious and quite murky.
Marc
msmall@roanoke.infi.net
From Hasselblad Mailing List;
Eduard Crombie wrote:
Good heavens! Kilfitt is like Novoflex.
Heinz Kilfitt produced a range of most highly regarded lenses with
switchable mounts from the late 1940's until he retired in 1967 --
available mounts included almost every camera system of the era, including
Hasselblad 1000F/1600F. Many, but not all, of the Kilfitt lens line
provided MF coverage. Especially well thought-of was the 2.8/90
Macro-Kilar, which provided a reproduction ratio of 1:1.8 on a 6cm by 6cm
format. Kilfitt for years was used quite extensively in cine
applications, especially in Hollywood.
In the early 1950's, an American named Dr Frank Back began to produce
multi-focal-length lenses for cine work. In 1958, he was contacted by
VoigtlSnder and asked to produce such a lens for their Bessamatic camera,
and the 2.8/36-82 Zoomar resulted. Back, however, lacked the production
capacity to produce the lens, so VoigtlSnder contacted Kilfitt, and a
happy relationship between the Zoomar Corporation and Kilfitt resulted.
When Heinz Kilfitt retired in 1967, he sold his company to Dr Back, and
the resulting Zoomar Corporation operated plants both in the US and
Germany. In 1987, Zoomar withdrew from consumer optics and closed its
plant on Long Island.
The WEHA adapters allow most of the later Kilfitt/Zoomar lenses to be used
on 200X and 20X cameras. However, these puppies are most rare -- as I
noted yesterday, I've never even seen one such! Mike Fletcher, a List
member, has a set of the factory plans for the WEHA adapter and has
contacted a machine shop about bringing these guys back into production.
The cost would be around $300 for a small run, and would come down quite a
bit if sufficient orders can be found. Leo Wolk, another List member, is
perhaps the World's Only Known Kilfitt Collector and is quite an expert on
the breed.
And, yes, there WERE adapters to fit these lenses to Rolleiflex cameras as
well -- WERO for the SL66, though not for the SL35's, though these could
be adapted using the PAN M42 adapter and the Rolleiflex M42 adapter -- as
well as Leica -- WEVI for the Visoflex II/III, Jim, and LEN and LEN-R3 for
the Leicaflex/R cameras.
All in all, Kilfitt/Zoomar lenses are an immensely powerful line with
almost infinite adaptability. (And Herr Zorkendoerfer of the nifty
adapters begin his working career at Kilfitt in Munich.)
Marc
msmall@roanoke.infi.net
From Contax Mailing List;
My guess would be that quality control was handled by whoever made the
lenses. Carl Zeiss Jena was still using prewar machinery when German
reunification came. They did not have the machines necessary to cut the
cams for zoom lenses, and no money to buy such from outside, so they were
stuck unable to build zoom lenses. Whether they had the computer power to
calculate zoom designs would also be a big question.
So sourcing and branding lenses from Japan was the only way they could
offer zoom lenses for the Praktica cameras, built by another wing of VEB
Pentacon.
Bob
From Rollei Mailing List;
you wrote:
Cox shows a couple of Culminars, one is a Tessar and the other is a
reversed Tessar, i.e., the cemented elements are in front. The 85mm, f/2.8
Culminar is a reversed Tessar.
I have a couple of Steinheil lenses for my Exakta and I've found them to
be excellent lenses. Steinheil is an old company. Steinheil twice
invented lenses simultaneously and independantly which were claimed by
other inventors but where Steinheil was probably first. The first was the
Steinheil Aplanat also claimed by Dallmeyer who called his lens the
Rapid-Rectilinear. This was the most widely used lens in the world from
the time of its invention in 1866 until the early 1930's when it was
replaced by the Cooke Triplet.
The second occasion was a Dagor like lens which Steinheil called the
Orthostigmat. The lens was also claimed by Voigtlander, who called their
lens the Kollinear (or Collinear). Acording to Kingslake the German
government awarded both patents although Steinheil clearly filed first.
Both are excellent lenses.
----
From Rollei Mailing List;
Richard Knoppow wrote:
Steinheil WAS an old company. The family sold the company for its assets
around 1961, and it has been no more ever-since, as the Japanese have not
yet thought of purchasing the name to put on their lenses, as happened
with VoigtlSnder.
Steinheil manufactured the first generation of Novoflex lenses for
FotogerStebau Karl Mnller, the ones with M39 threat-mount. Following the
closure of Steinheil, Karl Mnller turned to Messrs Dr Staeble, who have
produced the later lenses -- the ones with a Praktina BM -- thereafter,
their offerings occasionally being punctuated by the odd Leica long lens.
Marc
msmall@roanoke.infi.net
From Rollei Mailing List;
you wrote:
I don't have specific knowledge but all of the Agfa property in the US
was seized by the government. Agfa bought Ansco in 1928. Agfa was part of
the I.G.Farben combine which also held a part interest in DuPont. In order
to mask the German interests the I.G. created a US holding company called
General Film and Aniline Co., which was the owner of record of Agfa/Ansco.
Agfa manufactured in the US but used German Agfa emulsion knowledge. Agfa
manufactured color aerial film for the military during WW-2 under US
supervision using Agfa patented processes. Undoubtedly Kodak had access to
all of this. Nonetheless, Kodak used its own method for Kodacolor film.
Kodak also produced color aerial film but I don't know if it was similar
to Kodacolor or Agfacolor. The Kodak type emulsion requires the use of
alcohol or a similar solvent in the second or color developer.
Virtually all German trade secrets became public property after the war
through the various intellegence reports. Any of these which were not
classified were public. Both the US and England had extensive teams of
experts who investigated all phases of German industry and generated
reports on them. The most often cited are FIAT and BIOS reports although
there were other groups. I have a BIOS report on the Zeiss optical plant
inJena describing the grinding and centering machines. Undoubtedly the
exact formulas and methods of making glass at Schott and of making
emulsions at Agra were reported and exist somewhere. I don't know who has
the custody of these things in the US. I was able to get a report on the
Georg Neuman microphone factory some twenty years ago from the Library of
Congress. I was lucky in getting someone who knew what I was talking
about. I say lucky because the guy was retiring the next week.
Undoubtedly, the exact precriptions for all pre-war and wartime Zeiss
and other lenses exist somewhere in these reports.
Ansco did quite well under government supervised management and fell
apart rather rapidly when it was returned into private hands. It was just
managed very badly. Some other group might have made it successful.
The history of the I.G. and its involvement with the Nazi party and war
efforts is astonishing and dishartening. It has been written about
extensively so I will only point to it as an interesting subject here.
----
Date: 7 Jun 2001
Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com wrote:
[I'm from Jena] Some parts even became research labs. But with a few
words about the development in Jena:
Jenaer Glaswerke (which was Schott Jena before the war) belongs now to the
Westgerman Schott Mainz (www.schott.de). They manufacture glass.
Zeiss itself split. One part belongs now to the Westgerman Zeiss
Oberkochen (www.zeiss.de). The other part is now called Jenoptik
(www.jenoptik.de) and belongs to the Thuringian state.
What was East German Zeiss doesn't exist anymore. The historical factory
area was remodeled and is now partially a mall, headquarter of Jenoptics,
Intershop and most notably a beautiful campus with Frank Stella
sculptures. (Some people disagree about the beauty of the sculptures.
Please have a look at the campus at
http://pandora.inf.uni-jena.de/jena/jenawalk.php3?nr=1018&size;=2
You can rotate the view.)
None of them seems to be really interested in camera lenses. Optical
instruments, microelectronics etc. make money.
Ilja.
From Rollei Mailing List;
you wrote:
I quote from Rudolf Kingslake's book:
In the late 1800's Joseph Schneider Sr. operated a brewery in Springfield
Illinois. When he foresaw the coming of prohibition , he returned to his
home in the Rhineland, where he cultivated grapes and wine, eventually
becoming vintner to the Czar. His son Joseph August studied at Frankfurt
University, here he became interested in optics, so in 1913 Joseph Sr.
sold his vineyards and together with his son founded the Joseph Schneider
Optical works in Kreuznach.
They made their first f/4.5 Xenar lens in 1919 and their millionth lens
was made in 1936, by which time they had over five hundred workers at
their factories in Kreuznach and at the Isco works at Gottengen.
There is a little more but this is enough to cover the question.
----
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001
the current july 9-16 issue of us new and world report is a two part
issue, one of which is a marvelous illustrated history of photography from
its invention to the digitial present. the subscriber got it in two
separate parts, newstand has them together. grab it, enjoy.
ralph
From Rollei Mailing List;
The stated reason at the time of the breakup of the Zeiss/Asahi
relationship was that Asahi was not sufficiently advanced in electronic
camera development and could not achieve the level of quality required by
Zeiss. Zeiss then almost immediately made an agreement with Yashica.
Yashica had a great deal of experience in electronically operated cameras,
and Zeiss engineers were pleased when Dr. Sugaya showed them his ideas for
a new shutter for a top end SLR. Thus was born the Contax RTS.
Bob
From Rollei Mailing List;
Bob Shell wrote:
This undoubtedly is true, Bob. But Zeiss -- or, more specifically,
VoigtlSnder and Gauthier (Prontor) had done buckets of work with
electronic shutters and were, at that point, the best in the field --
which is NOT to denigrate Sugaya's unique genius. But Zeiss could have
contributed quite a bit to the development of a sound electronic shutter,
so Asahi's lack of expertise in this field is only a partial explanation.
The Zeiss folks really DID want the lens production moved to Japan, and
for very sound economic reasons: they made 100 times the profit on a
microscope as they did on a camera lens and there were huge demands for
increased supplies of such gear. The Zeiss Foundation was simply sick of
losing money (Zeiss Ikon, Deckel) and not making as much as could be made
(the Zeiss lensworks, Schott Glass, Gauthier). Hence the requirement to
shift lens production to Japan.
In the end, Zeiss Ikon was down-sized dramatically, Deckel was merged into
Gauthier with some fancy corporate foot-work, and the lensworks and Schott
moved a lot of their break-even production out of Oberkochen -- Schott
shifted optical glass production to Hoya and Malaysia, commercial glass to
Mexico, the lensworks moved Contax RTS lens production to Kyoto and Rollei
lens production to Braunschweig and, for a while, Singapore. And Zeiss
profits boomed, until their difficulties with night-vision gear and the
collapse of technical and military markets in the 1990's caused their
bottom end to bottom out.
So, now, the Zeiss lensworks is back to making camera lens. The Circle Is
Unbroken!
Marc
From Nikon MF Mailing List;
you wrote:
Actually, when SLR bodies first became readily available, there was no
black-chrome option. I have my Dad's Kodak Retina Reflex IV (35mm
non-instant return mirror; this camera was eventually devolved into a 127
format SLR BTW). It has the brightest shiniest chrome I've ever seen --
nothing like today's matte finish brushed chrome. It looks like a low
rider.
Leonard McCombe, one of the greats from the days when Life was a weekly
and really did have great shooters on staff, is generally considered the
originator of black bodies since he was the first on record to cover his
cameras with electrician's tape to make them (and him) less noticeable.
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2001
The predecessor to the Spotmatic, the Pentax K (not to be confused with
the K-mount), was introduced in 1958 and by 1960 Time and National Geo
were using it. The K was the first camera to contain the features of the
modern SLR (except the bayonet lensmount, interchangeable finder, and of
course, lens-coupled metering). The Spotmatic provided metering when it
was introduced in 1965. Pentax pioneered most of the features of what we
think of as the modern SLR. Once the feasibility of a design is
demonstrated and it is tested in the market, competitors may apply it more
effectively than the originators did. It's happened before. Unlike many
pioneers, Pentax continues to thrive. Details of the history are at
http://spotmatic.web-page.net/.
Tom
...
From Hasselblad Mailing List;
Bernard Ferster wrote:
Well, yes, but it is older than that: Dr Frank Back's original creations
were made for cine work but were taken over for television use almost
immediately. Back picked the name "Zoomar" for his company, I guess, due
to the "zoom" concept though the lenses he was producing were not what we
now call "zoom" lenses -- they were multi-focal-length lenses, as they had
to be refocused when the focal length was changed.
See Kingslake for some discussion on the design of the original Zoomar
line.
And understand that there are two distinct production groups under
discussion here: the Zoomar lenses produced to Dr Back's design and the
Kilfitt/Zoomar lens designs he acquired when he purchased the Kilfitt
works in 1967. The original discussion was about the Kilfitt/Zoomar
lenses; the pure Zoomar lenses are in TV or cine format and cannot
provide full-frame MF coverage, I strongly suspect.
Marc
From Rollei Mailing List;
Raimo Korhonen wrote:
The 2.8 Tessar is universally regarded as the worst Rollei lens ever.
There is even a rumour - unsubstantiated - that these were recalled by the
factory. This lens tells that it is the Rolleiflex 2.8A manufactured from
December 1949 to August 1951 - right after the WW II - in relatively small
numbers - approx. 10.000 in total. The serial number belongs to the first
batch of 7.870 units made until February 1951. I have no personal
experience of it, though.
This is bunk. There is no "universal regard" nor "unsubstantiated rumors"
of any sort -- the history of the 2.8/8cm Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar as used
on the Rolleiflex 2.8A and on the Prewar Ikoflex III is quite well known
and there are no remaining unresolved questions. I am shocked and
disappointed by Raimo's firm mis-statements on the facts of this rather
interesting saga.
In 1936, Zeiss Ikon decided to trump Franke & Heidecke by producing a 6cm
by 6cm TLR; this was in response to the "Baby Black" Rolleiflex, with its
2.8/6cm CZJ Tessar using VP (127) film. Zeiss Ikon contacted its sister
company, the Carl Zeiss lensworks, for an appropriate lens, and Wandersleb
had his boys whump up the fine 2.8/8cm CZJ Tessar. The camera was
introduced at the Leipzig-Me_e in April, 1939, with deliveries from June
of that year. Obviously, the production run was most brief, due to the
War. However, a number of lenses had been produced by Carl Zeiss Jena, and
these were stored during the War years.
In 1947, when Franke & Heidecke decided to design and produce the
Rolleiflex 2.8A, they contacted Carl Zeiss -- not yet differentiated into
its East German and West German branches! -- and were advised that Carl
Zeiss Jena could supply the remaining Tessars produced for the 853/16
Ikoflex III and could, in addition, coat them. Unfortunately, either in
the course of storage or in the course of the coating process, some of the
lenses became mixed between production batch and production batch, with
the result that a portion of the lenses supplied to Franke & Heidecke
proved unacceptably soft in use. Recent research indicates that
approximately 1/2 of the first batch of Rolleiflex 2.8A's had CZJ Tessar T
lenses and that around 1/3 of these had defective lenses. The remainder
of the 2.8A production run had 2.8/8cm Tessar T lenses produced and
supplied by the new West German Carl Zeiss lensworks at Oberkochen, then
using the "Zeiss-Opton" trademark, the "Opton" being a contraction of
"OPTische-werke OberkocheN". (Clever, these Germans!).
Franke & Heidecke began to receive customer complaints about lens
performance and quietly recalled those cameras equipped with the CZJ
Tessars and replaced them with Zeiss-Opton Tessar T's. It is important to
note that a number of the CZJ lenses were perfectly adequate performers
and that the majority of the 2.8A cameras produced had the solid
Zeiss-Opton Tessar. But the damage had been done, and Franke & Heidecke
quickly killed production of the camera after the 1951 run -- the factory
produced 7,870 cameras in the first run between 12/49 and 2/51 and 2,000
more in the second run between 4/51 and 8/51.
Obviously, Franke & Heidecke was not too upset with Carl Zeiss Jena, as
the replacement camera -- the excruciatingly rare 2.8B, of which only
1,250 were made between 2/52 and 3/53 -- had a CZJ 2.8/8cm Biometar T.
Recent revelations indicate that this Biometar was not identical to the
Carl Zeiss (Oberkochen) 2.8/80 Planar introduced with the 2.8C in 1954.
The Franke & Heidecke company, with a reputation for quality, was
embarrassed by this imbroglio, and the recall was conducted as quietly as
was the recall conducted by Hasselblad in the 1980's of lenses with
defective Prontor shutters. Claus Prochnow, the company historian,
doesn't even mention the presence of the CZJ lens on the 2.8A. But such
embarrassment and reticence really doesn't make this recall a mysterious
matter -- none of us broadcast our mistakes.
The collector's angle on this is that the choice items are the 2.8B or a
2.8A with the original CZJ Tessar T. From the user's angle, a 2.8C to the
current 2.8GX is the way to go.
But there never was anything wrong with the basic 2.8/8cm Tessar design
nor is there any great mystery about the factory recall to replace the CZJ
lens with the Zeiss-Opton ones.
Marc
From Hasselblad Mailing List;
You are right. I was not aware that the rights retained at Carl Zeiss. But
it makes a lot of sense to me :-). Here's what the American Contax site
has to say in their FAQ's:
Quote
Q. CONTAX is a German company. Yet, I noticed that the CONTAX RTS III says
made in Japan. What does this mean?
A. CONTAX represents a trade name that is owned by CARL ZEISS. CARL ZEISS
began as a German company in 1846. Today CARL ZEISS is the pre-eminent
optical company in the world, with more than 30,000 employees around the
world.
In 1970 CARL ZEISS decided to withdraw from the camera manufacturing
industry. They closed the legendary ZEISS IKON WORKS so that they could
concentrate on optical production. Camera body production was given over
to Yashica, an advanced designer and builder of electronic system cameras.
In 1975, the first new generation CONTAX camera arrived, it was called the
CONTAX RTS. CARL ZEISS has retained the CONTAX name and they continue to
build CARL ZEISS lenses for the CONTAX.
Further, CARL ZEISS has, over the years, shifted much of their lens
production to Japan. These lenses are CARL ZEISS lenses in every way, they
just happen to be made in Japan. The country of origin information states
the following: "This lens is made by CARL ZEISS FOUNDATION of Federal
Republic of Germany, in Japan."
Unqote
As I understand the Carl Zeiss Foundation is since 1891 the sole owner of
all Zeiss works. (source Zeiss: 1889 Creation of the Carl Zeiss Stiftung
(Carl Zeiss Foundation) by Ernst Abbe - 1891 Ernst Abbe makes the Carl
Zeiss Stiftung the sole owner of the Zeiss works).
Would be interesting to know what Kyocera has to pay for the usage of the
name Contax.
Andre
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002
From: martin tai norpinal@yahoo.ca
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: OT: oldest photograph
--- "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl wrote:
> Eric Goldstein wrote:
>
> > Sorry not to be clearer Q.G. My point is that it
> is a long-accepted fact
> > that Vermeer and other artists used camera obscura
> (and later the camera
> > lucida) as aids to drawing/painting for centuries.
> My wife was taught this
> > as accepted fact in the 70s, my great uncle in the
> 20s, his professors in
> > the late 19th century, etc. This is not a new
> revelation by Hockney, but
> > simply a very successful populist commercial
> endeavor to bring this very
> > well-known and accepted information to a
> completely uninformed
> > public-at-large.
>
> I think it is i who must apologize for not being
> clear.
> I wasn't trying to present Hockney's display of how
> a camera obscura
Camera obscura was known to Renaissance painter
Leonardo da Vinci( 1452-1519)
In his Treatis on Painting he wrote
" ... when some small round hole penetrate the images
of illumiated objects into a very dark chamber. Then
receive thse images on a white paper placed within
this dark room and rather near to the hole and you
will see all the objects on the paper in their proper
forms and colours, but much smaller; and they will be
upside down by reason of what very intersection."
Page 45, "The Notebooks of Leonardo da Vinci" Vol I,
Dover
martin tai
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002
From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei 35
John A. Lind wrote:
>True, but "Tessar" is its formal "given name" by Carl Zeiss, similar to the
>"Triotar" name applied to their Cooke triplet design. The name I referred
>to is the "Adlerauge" [sp ??] nickname it was given after users discovered
>what a truly fine lens it is.
Bunk, sir. Zeiss DID publish a brochure on their lenses in the 1930's
entitled "Zeiss Lenses -- the Eagle Eye of Your Camera". It was a Zeiss
publicity campaign but included far more than the Tessar -- APO-Planars and
Magnars and Bio-Tessars and the like are also included in the publication.
A reprint of this brochure is available to Zeiss Historica Society members
and is invaluable in learning the swathe of Zeiss production at this time.
Marc
msmall@roanoke.infi.net
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002
From: "John A. Lind" jlind@spitfire.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Ansel Adams Turns 100
you wrote:
>Ansel Adams, him dead -- but he was born on 4 FEB 1902, so that immortal
>memory turned 100 today.
>
>No known Rollei connection, though he did use Leica RF gear through his
>most productive years and even was known to pick upa Hasselblad or two ...
>
>Marc
Adams also used a Zeiss Ikon Contax II:
His article: "My First Ten Weeks With A Contax," Camera Craft, January, 1936
A 1937 photograph: "Georgia O'Keeffe and Oville Cox, Canyon de Chelly,
Arizona" (50mm lens; which one is unspecified)
-- John
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002
From: Dale Jehning bamjdsj@ix.netcom.com
Subject: RE: [HUG] Ansel Adams Turns 100
Yes. I bought it for $150,131.00
Did anyone ever get the high bid on Ansel's Hassy's a few years
ago? Last one I heard was $150,000.
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002
From: Edward Meyers aghalide@panix.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Ansel Adams Turns 100
Ansel used the Rollei SL66 with interchangeable film magazines and
I have a photo of him with his Zeiss Contarex, also making use of
the interchangeable film magazines. He was a neat guy. All one needed
was his telephone number and he'd talk your ear off. I had that
experience. I'm now missing an ear. Ed
Marc James Small wrote:
> Ansel Adams, him dead -- but he was born on 4 FEB 1902, so that immortal
> memory turned 100 today.
>
> No known Rollei connection, though he did use Leica RF gear through his
> most productive years and even was known to pick upa Hasselblad or two ...
>
> Marc
> msmall@roanoke.infi.net
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Ansel Adams Turns 100
...
Adams shot a seried of pictures of Alfred Stieglitz at his gallery using
a Contax II. One is reproduced in Adam's book "The Camera". It was taken
with a 50mm Zeiss Tessar. c.1940. Others in this series are reproduced in
other books along with the portraits mentioned above. Evidently he liked
the Contax.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002
From: "John A. Lind" jlind@spitfire.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Ansel Adams Turns 100
...
Turned a couple pages and found another photograph:
"Alfred Stieglitz, New York (c. 1940)"
Contax II with 50mm Tessar
Both photographs are contained in Chapter 2 of "The Camera" and are, of
course, pre-WWII. Both examples are what I would class "informal portraiture."
He apparently used a very wide range of equipment; not surprising for
someone with as long a career as his. The rangefinder depicted in the same
chapter is a Leica M4-2 and the SLR is a Nikon F [??; doesn't look like an F2].
-- John
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002
From: "John A. Lind" jlind@spitfire.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Ansel Adams Turns 100
Richard Knoppow wrote:
>Adams shot a seried of pictures of Alfred Stieglitz at his gallery using
>a Contax II. One is reproduced in Adam's book "The Camera". It was taken
>with a 50mm Zeiss Tessar. c.1940. Others in this series are reproduced in
>other books along with the portraits mentioned above. Evidently he liked
>the Contax.
>----
>Richard Knoppow
>Los Angeles, CA, USA
>dickburk@ix.netcom.com
I was wondering if someone would pick up on the journal article I cited,
dated January, 1936 (this information acquired secondary, not primary
research).
If the date is accurate, and by backing up a timeline for "10 weeks" plus
publishing deadlines of the era, he must have used a Contax II and written
it in 1935 some number of months *before* it was available to the general
public. Extrapolating from this, I'm wondering if he was given the Contax
by Zeiss Ikon. Unconfirmed from another source: he used the Contax during
the Summer of 1936 for the "Sierra Club High Trip." Regardless, I agree
that he apparently liked to use it. There's at least one in "The Negative"
also, late 1930's which Adams states was made using a 40mm Biogon [???;
35mm Biogon? ~40mm Biotar?].
-- John
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002
From: Jim Brick jim@brick.org
Subject: RE: [HUG] Ansel Adams Turns 100
...
Other than his view cameras, Ansel owned and used a Conterex Bullseye,
Leica R4 and a Hasselblad. His Hasselblad system was auctioned off for some
fund or another. Brought a sizeable chunk of money. I never saw him with
nor ever heard him speak of Leica RF. Ansel was a GG kind of guy. He
carried his Leica R4 everywhere in later years, even had it in his hand
during some TV interviews.
And he was indeed born in 1902.
Jim
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002
From: Robert Marvin marvbej@earthlink.net
Subject: [Rollei] Re: Ansel Adams turns 100
Marc James Small Users list digest wrote:
>Ansel Adams, him dead -- but he was born on 4 FEB 1902, so that immortal
>memory turned 100 today. No known Rollei connection....
--
On p. 184 of the Paperback edition of "The Print" there is a
reproduction of Adams's "Trailer Camp Children, Richmond, California
(1944)". He writes (p. 185) "At the time I was using only my view
camera; for this I borrowed Dorothia's [Dorothia Lange] twin lens
Rolleiflex and made this negative (only one, as she needed the
camera)."
This is a very un-Adams-like photograph. Does anyone know if A.A.
made any other use of Rolleis?
Bob Marvin
From Zeiss Interest Group Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002
From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net
Subject: Ansel Adams Turns 100
Ansel Adams, him dead -- but he was born on 4 FEB 1902, so that immortal
memory turned 100 today.
No known Rollei connection, though he did use Leica RF gear through his
most productive years and even was known to pick upa Hasselblad or two ...
and he DID use a Contax RF, early-on.
Marc
msmall@roanoke.infi.net
From Zeiss Interest Group Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002
From: "Ronald K. Gratz" rkgratz@mtu.edu
Subject: Re: Ansel Adams Turns 100
Ansel Adams used several Zeiss-Ikon cameras. His "Examples" book lists not
only the Contax but both sizes of the Universal Juwel, the Miroflex and the
Super Ikonta B which he describes as a "fine operational instrument". Some
of his most famous early images - including his photograph of the White
House Ruins in Canyon de Chelle, were made with the 13x18cm (~5x7)
Universal Juwel. The Zeiss-Ikon magazine of the 1940's printed an article
by Ansel on mountain photography illustrated with images made with the
Juwel. The Zeiss Protar was one of his favorite lenses.
Ron Gratz
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002
From: Dave Wyman davewyman@pobox.com
Subject: [Rollei] Re: Ansel Adams turns 100
"John A. Lind" jlind@spitfire.net wrote:
Extrapolating from this, I'm wondering if he was given the Contax
by Zeiss Ikon.
I was lucky enough to be in Yosemite last weekend, and I attended a lecture held in the "Fine Arts"
room at the Ansel Adams Gallery. (The lecture is free, but is limited to about six people per
session.) The gallery curator, Glen Crosby, gave a terrific talk about Ansel Adams, and he showed us
several of Adams' best known and least known photographs.
Mr. Crosby mentioned that Adams often photographed with equipment provided him by camera
manufacturers, which he thinks included both Leica and Hasselblad gear. We saw an Adams print of the
famous O'keeffe candid he made with his Leica, and one "serious" square print made with a
Hasselblad. We also saw one of Adams' color prints made with film that Kodak gave him, and one print
made for his final "portfolio," made with Polaroid film.
Dave
--
http://www.davewyman.com
http://www.idrivebackroads.com (Guidebook to Northern California)
From Russian Camera Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002
From: Marc James Small msmall@infi.net
Subject: Re: Those Damned Exakta Patents
Jon Hart wrote:
> I understand what you say, but how did the
>Japanese figure into this? As we all know, they put
>out an awful lot of Leica copies after the war and
>they weren't the victors. Did they already have patent
>rights, granted by the Germans during the course of
>the war? Did they work around the patents, somehow? Or
>am I just plain missing the obvious? Wouldn't be
>anything new. Sorry if this was asked before.
>
The Japanese simply begun using Leitz and Zeiss patents and the Allies,
most anxious to convert the Japanse optical industry from the production of
military rangefinders and bombsights to consumer cameras, told the Germans
to forget about it. The Japanese foolishly failed to infringe the Franke &
Heidecke patents during this time: when they did get around to doing so,
the Allies had signed peace treaties with both nations, and F&H; had
Burleigh Brooks file suit in the US over patent, trademark, and copyright
infringements and won on all three.
It was simple theft. Not as blatant as the larceny of the Petzval Portrait
Lens by Peter Wilhelm Friedrich VoigtlSnder in 1866, but still a theft.
(VoigtlSnder's defalcation was really slick: he not only got a PILE of
money, he also got himself ennobled, so he died in 1878 as Peter Wilhelm
Friedrich von VoigtlSnder. I don't recall any of the Japanese camera guys
making it into the Japanese nobility, especially as that had been abolished
in 1946.)
Marc
msmall@roanoke.infi.net
From: bhilton665@aol.comxspam (Bill Hilton)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 25 Feb 2002
Subject: Re: Did Ansel Adams ever use 35mm film?
>From: blades@starband.net
>Not for any of the work he sold or published.
Not true by a long shot.
Several of his 35 mm photos are published in "Autobiography" and in "Examples:
The Making of 40 Photographs".
From: tduffy8486@aol.com (TDuffy8486)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 14 Mar 2002
Subject: Doomsayers, Part 2
My apologies for the length of the post, but I saw this on CNN today and
couldn't resist. The last 3 paragraphs make questions about which film is next
to be discontinued seem irrelevent in the long term!
Take care,
Tom Duffy
"Experts try to solve mystery of oldest photo
March 13, 2002
The image thought to be the world's first photograph, captured in 1826 from the
window of a French farmhouse.
LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- One summer morning, Joseph Nicephore Niepce
peered from an upstairs window in his home in the French countryside, framed
the view of a pear tree, the sky and several farm buildings and did something
remarkable: He took a picture.
Opening the lens of a rudimentary camera for eight hours that day in 1826,
Niepce exposed a polished, thinly varnished pewter plate to produce an image
that is acknowledged as the world's first photograph.
In June, 176 years later, the faint image will arrive at The Getty Conservation
Institute, where scientific experts will analyze it for the first time since it
was rediscovered and authenticated in 1952. Before it turned up, the photo had
been missing for decades, misplaced by its owner after it was last exhibited in
1898.
Exact details of its chemistry remain a mystery, leaving experts with precious
little information about the science behind the photo.
"There are legends about how it was done and with what materials, but no one
really knows," said Dusan Stulik, a Getty senior scientist who calls the work
the "Mona Lisa" of the photo world.
The analysis is part of a joint photo conservation project involving Getty, the
Image Permanence Institute at the Rochester Institute of Technology and
France's Centre de Recherches sur la Conservation des Documents Graphiques.
The goal is to understand all the chemical processes used since Niepce's day to
produce photographs, which conservators say is essential to preserve the art
form.
During the 8-by-6.5-inch photograph's two-week stay in Los Angeles, scientists
will study it with advanced scientific instruments, assess its state of
preservation and construct a new airtight case.
In 2003, it will go on display again at the University of Texas at Austin's
Harry Ransom Humanities Research Center, its home since 1964.
Conservators have a theory about how Niepce's photograph was produced. They
believe light hardened the bitumen, a petroleum derivative sensitive to light
that Niepce (pronounced NEE-yeps) used to coat the plate. Washing the plate
with a mixture of oil of lavender and white petroleum dissolved the unexposed
portions of bitumen.
The result was a permanently fixed, direct positive picture -- the first ever
captured from nature. Niepce called his work a "heliograph," in a tribute to
the power of the sun.
"What we are so familiar with today in terms of images and being able to snap
pictures, this is where it all began," said Barbara Brown, who will accompany
the artifact to California as head of photographic conservation at the Ransom
Center.
In the Getty Institute's laboratories, scientists will use spectrometers to
determine the photograph's chemical makeup. They hope to discover what
substances Niepce may have used to enhance the bitumen's properties.
Using a digital microscope, they plan to map the image's surface in detail.
Multispectral imaging will look for oxidation that could threaten the
photograph.
Meanwhile, conservators will repair the gilt frame. And experts will try to
photograph the work, an almost impossible chore because the image is so faint
and can be seen only at oblique angles.
All the methods will be quick, reliable and noninvasive, said Herant Khanjian,
an assistant scientist at the Getty.
Stulik, the Getty senior scientist, said he fears the days of traditional,
nondigital photography are numbered, making the need to understand its
chemistry -- from Niepce to Polaroid -- all the more pressing.
Ultimately, he said, advances in digital photography may do for its chemical
counterpart what the printing press did to the handwritten manuscript in the
1400s.
"It ended it," Stulik said."
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002
From: HypoBob hypobob@pacbell.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: folding 6x6 cameras?
william martin wrote:
> My shutter speeds go from 1 sec. to 1/500 sec., I believe. I don't have it
here in front of me, but I believe that's correct. When I get back downstairs,
if I'm wrong, I'll post it here. The moving back does seem kind of
> freakish, doesn't it? But it works out very well. From what I've read, Mr.
Mamiya was quite innovative in photography. The moving back seems to have been
one of his successes. The Olympus lens is excellent, I
> haven't tried any of the others -- mine was made in "occupied Japan", and in
those days manufacturers used whatever lenses and shutters were available,
because of the shortages caused by the war. But I
> remember being in Osaka in 1950 and wishing I had the "high" cost of 36000
Yen ( $100 ) for a Nikon or Canon rangefinder.
"David J. Littleboy" davidjl@gol.com wrote:
> >
> > "william martin"
From minolta mailing list:
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002
From: "aranda1984" stephen@aranda4.com
Subject: The life of Ansel Adams on PBS...
According to the April 2002 issue of Country Living Magazine, Ansel
Adams the great photographer of the American West will be the subject
of PBS's American Experience on April 21 at 9:00 p.m. EST.
/ Check listing./
For details on the program, visit www.pbs.org
You may visit www.adamsgallery.com also.
Stephen I. Molnar
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002
From: bigler@ens2m.fr
Subject: [Rollei] "oldest photographic document" will stay in France.. for 0.5M-euro
Few RUGgers actually take pictures with XIX-st century photographic
processes, except those equiped with the plate and cut film back who
probably coat "bitumen of Judea", "albumen", "charcoil" etc routinely
on glass plates to use with their R-TLR (and a solid tripod).
However the fascination for what is supposed to be "the oldest
photographic document in History" exists for all.
In a recent Sotheby's auction in Paris (March 21, 2002), some
photographic "jewels" of the Marie-ThTrFse and AndrT Jammes collection
were sold, including "the oldest photographic document" by NicTphore
NiTpce. This is reported by the French newspaper "Le Monde" (dated
Sat. March 23, 2002, page 30) with a web-copy (in French) here:
http://www.lemonde.fr/article/0,5987,3246--267866-,00.html
http://www.lemonde.fr/article/0,5987,3246--268111-,00.html
The image is a so-called "heliogravure", dated 1825. It is a copy (a
contact copy ??) of a Dutch engraving from the XVII-st century. The
engraving shows a man, with a big triangular hat, conducting a horse.
This image, reproduced in the Boston Globe and seen by several RUGgers
recently, can also be seen here:
http://www.shareholder.com/bid/news/20020108-68954.cfm
According to "Le Monde", the French Governement has used his
pre-emptive rights on French masterpieces to acquire the oldest
"heliogravure" for 0.5 million euro. The image will be kept in the
collection of the French National Library, recently installed in brand
new --and very controversial-- buildings along the river Seine.
Then I tried to find some information a bout what I though was the
"oldest photography" by NiTpce, the one everybody has in mind with
roofs and buildings seen from a window at NiTpce's Le Gras estate near
ChGlons-sur-Sa(ne, actually recorded with a camera and lens, and not
by contact. The image was recorded by the process of "bitumen of
Judea" with 8 hours of exposure. The image is kept in the Gernshein
Collection, University of Texas at Austin and is visible here:
http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/photography/wfp/wfpmain.html
According to U. Texas, the document is dated from summer 1826. I had
seen different wrong dates printed in different books not worth
mentioning. So the 1825 heliogravure is proved older, and the date is
attested by a correspondence by NiTpce that was kept in the Jammes
collection and sold as a lot with this image of extraordinary
historical value.
For those who plan a visit to Paris in the near future, I have no idea
if the 1825 image will be on display to the public. However those
inclined to a parisian "photographic pilgrimage" will find many
opportunities in Paris, where, among many centres of interest, the
French National Museum of Technology (MusTe National des Techniques,
hosted at Conservatoire des Arts-et-MTtiers) hosts the oldest color
photographic documents. First, a recording of the solar spectrum by
Edmond Becquerel dated 1848, and some examples of Lippmann plates, the
first permanent color photographs unveiled in 1891. Unfortunately I
doubt that the Becquerel image is on display since it was recorded
with a very special, non-fixed, electrolytic silver process fading
under light. The Lippmann plates however are permanently fixed.
A precision for those inclined to encyclopaedic knowledge ;-);-) E.
Becquerel (1820-1891) is not the discoverer of radio-activity, but the
father of A.H. Becquerel (1852-1908) who was awarded one of the first
the Nobel Prizes in 1903 (shared with P.and M. Curie) for his work on
Uranium salts. Well whether this was a good thing to discover
radio-activity or not is beyond the scope of this message ;-);-).
Lippmann soon followed since he got the Nobel prize in 1908 "for his
method of reproducing colours photographically based on the phenomenon
of interference"
--
Emmanuel BIGLER
bigler@ens2m.fr
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002
From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: RE: [HUG] Ansel Adams Turns 100
Jim Brick wrote:
>Other than his view cameras, Ansel owned and used a Conterex Bullseye,
>Leica R4 and a Hasselblad. His Hasselblad system was auctioned off for some
>fund or another. Brought a sizeable chunk of money. I never saw him with
>nor ever heard him speak of Leica RF. Ansel was a GG kind of guy. He
>carried his Leica R4 everywhere in later years, even had it in his hand
>during some TV interviews.
Jim
Adams was for twenty years or so a Poster Boy for Leica RF. He used to
give seminars for them, the sort of thing Ted Grant does now. Look up any
of the more serious photography magazines circa 1950.
Marc
msmall@roanoke.infi.net
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002
From: Edward Meyers aghalide@panix.com
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Ansel Adams Turns 100
Most famous Contax photoAnsel made was one of Alfred Stiegliz,
with Ansel sitting down and Stieglitz standing. Ed
John A. Lind wrote:
> you wrote:
> >Ansel Adams, him dead -- but he was born on 4 FEB 1902, so that immortal
> >memory turned 100 today.
> >
> >No known Rollei connection, though he did use Leica RF gear through his
> >most productive years and even was known to pick upa Hasselblad or two ...
> >
> >Marc
>
> Adams also used a Zeiss Ikon Contax II:
> His article: "My First Ten Weeks With A Contax," Camera Craft, January, 1936
> A 1937 photograph: "Georgia O'Keeffe and Oville Cox, Canyon de Chelly,
> Arizona" (50mm lens; which one is unspecified)
>
> -- John
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002
From: billfranson billfranson@attbi.com
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] platinum sources
Bostick and Sullivan is one of the major suppliers of platinum palladium
printing supplies: http://www.bostick-sullivan.com/
Bill Franson
978.463.8100
www.bfranson.com
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002
From: DaveHodge@aol.com
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: [HUG] Re: hasselblad V1 #1559
hasselblad@kelvin.net writes:
It is a little know fact that Victor Hasselblad was a formost bird
potographer, designing the original box to aid him in this persuit.
If you can get a copy of the Hasselblad 50th anniversary booklet, it goes
into some detail about VH's background in engineering, bird photography, etc.
He started photographing birds in the 1920's and used every conceivable
camera, getting ideas for his ultimate solution along the way. During the
war his company manufactured aerial reconnaissance cameras for the Swedish
Air Force, but apparently he had his own version of a "skunk works"
simultaneously working on the ultimate solution. The booklet quotes VH,
"From my earlier experience ... I was familiar with all cameras on the market
and I wanted an instrument of reflex type with interchangeable lenses,
interchangeable magazines and removable hood. I gave this idea to my
engineers in 1943 and after one experimental camera were ready to give a p
review of the final camera in New York in the autumn 1948."
Best regards to all.
[VH = Victor Hasselblad...]
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: fate of polaroid
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002
k8do@diamondcs.net (Denny) wrote:
>There is cash flow to be had from Polaroid for some time to come, but
>I strongly doubt that any growth is there... Ohe hour photo shops,
>digital cameras that can dump JPEG's directly to the internet, etc.,
>all take business from Polaroid... In an evolving technology, old
>large corporations have to shrink... Like buggy whip makers... There
>are still a very few left for the show horse trade and Mackinac Island
>in Michigan, but it will never be like it was just one week before
>Henry Ford started producing Model T's...
>
>Denny
Polaroid still has the advantage of being able to produce a hard
copy print on the spot with very simple equipment, i.e., a Polaroid
back for formats up to 4x5 and a simple hand operated processor for
8x10. While a digital image can be displayed it takes a printer to
produce a hard copy. No printer capable of matching Polaroid color and
match the size and light weight of the Polaroid process is currently
available. Maybe in the future.
FWIW the original business of Folmer & Schwing, the company who
later became Graflex, was making gas lighting fixtures. They switched
to bicycles in the 1890's when there was a great vogue for bicycles,
and electic lighting was rapidly replacing gas lighting, and began
selling small cameras as accessories for bicycle touring. Eventually
these "cycle" cameras became a big business and F&S; adopted it when
the bicycle craze dissipated a few years later. Folding cameras, like
the Speed Graphic, are direct decendants of these bicycle touring
cameras.
Graflex was killed off mainly by the use of 35mm film for press
work, which eventually supplanted 4x5.
There are many reasons for the financial trouble of Polaroid, the
shifting market is only one of them. Essentially, the company was
seriously mis-managed for many years.
The plain fact is that most companies who fail do so as the result
of sustained lousy management.
From rollei mailing list:
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002
From: "Fox, Robert" RFox@aarp.org
Subject: [Rollei] OT: Stamp Series on American Photographers
I stumbled across this on a Man Ray site and thought some of you may be
interested:
"The United States Postal Service is releasing a stamp of Man Ray. The final
installment in the Classic Collection series debuts in June, 2002 with the
release of the Masters of American Photography pane of 20 stamps featuring a
wide variety of black and white images captured on film by notable
photographers over the years such as Man Ray. Other Photographers honored on
the stamp are Ansel Adams, Alvin Langdon Coburn, Imogen Cunningham, Walker
Evans, Lewis Hine, Gertrude Kasebier, Andre Kertesz, Dorothea Lange, Timothy
O'Sullivan, Man Ray, W. Eugene Smith, Albert Sands, Southworth and Josiah
Jones Hawes, Edward Steichen, Alfred Stieglitz, Paul Strand, James Van Der
Zee, Carleton Watkins, Edward Weston, Minor White and Garry Winogrand
(Classic Collections series), to be issued in Washington, D.C. "
R.J.
from rollei mailing list:
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT: Oldest Photograph? yes if taken with a lens
bigler@ens2m.fr at bigler@ens2m.fr wrote:
> However if one defines a "photograph" as something recorded directly
> with a lens in the focal plane of a camera, NiTpce's "View from the
> Window at Gras." is still the first.
I agree. This reproduction of a drawing was, according to reports I
have read, produced by contact printing. If that's accurate, it is not
a photograph at all.
Bob
from rollei mailing list:
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002
From: bigler@ens2m.fr
Subject: [Rollei] NiTpce...
...
In fact NiTpce started by contact prints, trying to reproduce existing
drawings. One of my reference books mentions 1822 as the date of his
first experiments but this date is controversial since there is no
"heliographic" (the English for the French "hTliogravure" is
"heliography") document by NiTpce prior to 1825, that has survived or
been found. The 1825 document in the Jammes collection is one of
those, the ealiest that has been kept and transmitted to us. There are
other "optical" images similar in technology to the "View at le Gras",
among which a still life with some emblematic French items : a bottle
of wine and a loaf of bread.
--
Emmanuel BIGLER
bigler@ens2m.fr
From rollei mailing list:
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: [Rollei] Fred Picker
I just learned of the death of Fred Picker on the 4th of this month. Fred
and I had been friends for years, and in recent months he had kept me
informed about his problems with kidney failure and the horrors of dialysis.
I was not surprised to learn the end had come, since he lived for two
things, photography and fishing, and could no longer do either.
He was an opinionated curmudgeon, for sure, but I liked him and sure learned
a lot from him over the years. I'll miss him.
Bob
From: "mwestling" mwestling@cox.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Fred Picker
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002
Found this on a newslist... A sady day for all LF photographers...
=====
Let me introduce myself. I am Richard T Ritter and worked at Zone VI
Studios for 15 years under Fred Picker. At Zone VI I was responsible for the
design and development of many of the produce Fred tough would be an
improvement to the fine art of black and white photography. In the nintys
when Calumet bought Zone VI I left the company and started work to develop a
business to the repair of large format equipment.
Fred Picker for a number of years has been in poor health. He asked that
his friends and family keep this to themselves.
I'm sorry to report Fred Picker died on April 4, 2002.
Richard T Ritter
From: Scott Walton waltons@franklin.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Fred Picker
Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2002
Here's the link to his obituary:
http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/Obits/Story/44922.html
(Must scroll down once on the page)
...
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002
From: Tom Just Olsen tjols@online.no
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: [HUG] NIKITA KHRUTCHEV AND HASSELBLAD
Fellas,
In my search for pictures up and down my house, I found a book I havn't
read for years: Nikita Khrutchev's 'Memories'. It is transcripts of
audio tapes (from the time the first 'casette tapes' made the market)
which one of his sons had smuggled out to the west and had released as a
book just after he died. He dictated into the tapes after he was sacked
(as with John F. Kennedy, he was 'removed' as Secretary General of the
Politbyrau' after the Cuba Missle crises) by Kosygin and Brechnev.
Nikita Khrutchev was originally born in Kalinovka in the Kursk region,
but moved to the Donbas region of Ukraina, and was very much regarded as
an Ukranian by his fellow communist leaders. Regarded as a 'simple,
practical guy from the country side', by the many intelectual snobs of
St.Petersburg in the Politbyrau (like Kosygin). In his memoars he is
very frank and streight forward, - which he always were, with the many
vices of the society of the USSR verses 'The West'. Like the quality of
different products.
I don't want to turn this into a political fora, but just mention few
things about the legacy of Nikitia Khrutchev as viewed by many Russians
today: He is regarded as a hero for stopping the feared security chief
of Stalin, Beria, taking power after Stalin's death. At gun-point,
actually. His heritage is the beautiful 'metro of Moscow', which he was
the master of building. Beautifully decorated, it is unique in the
world and one the few thing Russians are proud of after the communist
time.
Undoubtedly he was a charismatic and good leader, managing to 'get the
Russians up in the morning out of share enthusiasm', as a taxi driver in
St.Petersburg once told me (contrary to Stalin who made the same feat by
shear terror). He had great belief in rockets both as a weapon and as a
means of exploration the outer space, but managed to stem the
'militarism' of the USSR for a while (it was picked up by his
predecessors). He genuinly wanted to turn communism into superiority
and improve the standard of living for his fellow Russians. He had no
fear of 'getting dirt on his shoes', dig into details to get matters
solved, a trait he shared with Winston Churchhill.
He was the first communist leader who visited the west and was 'joyed
like a child' (his own words) about all he saw and all the good ideas he
could bring home to 'make life easier for us in USSR' as he sayes. On
his journeys in the west he received many gifts. All from bulls for
breeding milk-cows (from Jens Otto Kragh, the Danish prime minister who
was a farmer) and different types of weath grain (from a porminant weath
grower in the Mid West USA) to test out in the fields back home. To
laboratory equipment try out in Russian hospitals or a copy of a
'Holywood Western' ('they sure know how to swing the guns in America').
And so on. As a communist he did not regard these as 'personal gifts',
but gifts he had receved 'on behalf of the Russian people'.
A few thing he did keep, though. Actually, only two things he mentions
in his memoars. A pair of Carl Zeiss binoculars he received from Konrad
Adenauer ('they are of very good quality, definately better than we make
them ourselves', he frankly states) and which made it possible for him
to 'admire the beautiful suroundings of Moscow and the rich bird-life in
the spring' (since then, Moscow has trippled in size and with it's 12
million inhabitants, turned most of the 'beautiful suroundings' that he
saw into a 'concrete inferno'). '- And the camera that the mayor of
Gothenburg, a Social Democrat, gave me' (actually, it was a personal
gift from Victor Hasselblad himself, given at a 'tour of the Hasselblad
factory') "- It takes 'damned good pictures' ('ochin dobre kartinij'-
>From the horse's mouth, fellas) and together with the binoculars is a
constant joy to me in my dreary pensionere days..." .
He lost his first wife in the Great Famine in the 20' and his oldest son
in the Stalingrad battles and had 'grown to appreciate the closeness and
the share value of family life...' - Which his pictures shows. Mostly
taken, all in black & white, at his modest dacha on warm summer days
with the grand children as the most prominent objects of photography.
Tom of Oslo
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002
From: Tom Just Olsen tjols@online.no
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: [HUG] NIKITA KHRUTCHEV AND THE HASSELBLAD CAMERA II
Fellas,
I have always wondered; who took the initiative to have the Hasselblad
camera copied to the Kiev 88?
I have always thought it was Nikita Khrutchev, but reading his memoir
over again, i see that he visited Sweden in June 1964 and was sacked by
Kosygin and Breshnev in late October. I searched up the Net for his
son, Sergej Khrutchev, who is a Senior Research Fellow at the Watson
Institute For International Studies. He was responsble for smuggling out
the tapes of his father back in the 70'. He has also written several
books on his father up through the years, - apart for being among the
few sensible comentators of the chaotic situation in today's Russia.
I have also searched the Net in vain trying to find examples of any of
Nikita Khrutchev's pictures, pictures that he might have taken with his
'damned good' Hasselblad camera. Several can be found in the two books
I have; 'Memories' and 'The Last Testament' - both released in the mid
70' - but I have found none on the Net.
I managed to search up Sergej Khrutchev's e-mail adress and bluntly ask
him about 'who took initiative to have the Hasselblad camera copied' and
'where can Nikita Khrutchev's pictures be found' and 'why not publish
them somehow'?
Here is his answer:
"Dear Tom, Now I'm thinking that you are right and the Hasselblad had been
copied in Kiev. The Contax-Kiev was made in 40-th and Hasselblad in 60-th.
I'm not sure that it was copied from my fathers camera. He initiated copying
many time but in this case, he visited Scandinavia in June 1964 and lost
power in October. May be it was not enough time to send the camera to the
factory and received it back. And copying Hasselblad was not first priority
that summer. Simply, I do not know.
He made many photos using Hasselblad and his Zenith and I cannot say which
belong to Hasselblad. You may contact my son Nikita in Moscow
hruchshev@mn.ru ,he now have all negatives and, may be, can answer your
question.
You may find some photos in my books:
- Nikita Khrushstsjov, de siste syr ar, Scibsted, 1990;
- Nikita Khrushchev and the Creation of a Super poew, Penn State
University Press, 2000. Book you may find through amazon.com
Yours, Sergei Khrushchev"
- Sure, I will take contact with his son who still lives in Russia...
Tom of Oslo
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: What is so good about leica?
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002
Speedy2 wrote:
> [...]
> Hasselblad, their products were made irrespective of cost, and purely for their
> performance which, being German, was for the nearest possible to perfection
> attainable at any given time.
(As has been pointed out, Hasselblad is not German.)
Guess why Victor Hasselblad in 1952 decided not to use Kodak lenses anymore,
but decided to switch to Zeiss?
Indeed. Because they were cheaper! So much for "irrespective of cost".
Sorry!
He just couldn't afford those expensive US $ products anymore, but Germany
at the time was still in economic ruin, so the German Mark and Zeiss lenses
were cheap.
(Quite conncidentally, the first cameras ever bearing the Hasselblad name,
the Hasselblad Svenska Express/Hasselblad Svea Express, had a Zeiss
Anastigmat lens. These cameras (initially a copy of a British made camera,
the Murer's Express) were produced by Hugo Svensson & Co., and sold by F.W.
Hasselblad & Co. from 1895 until 1920.)
From rollei mailing list:
Date: Thu, 02 May 2002
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Minox GL
Roger Wiser at wiserr@cni-usa.com wrote:
> I understand
> Leica now owns Minox.
Yes, since around 1989. I visited Minox shortly after Leica bought them.
They were cleaning the attic of the old factory and finding all sorts of
amazing stuff. Walter Zapp, the originator of Minox, was still coming in to
work in those days. The factory is on Walter-Zapp-Strasse !!
Bob
[Ed. note: anyone have any info on the KW factory history?...]
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001
From: "S. Sherman" flexaret@sprynet.com
To: rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu
Subject: Repairs and Noblex too
...
Re- Noblex:
I don't know if this story is true, but it is what I heard:
The Noblex camera is made in Dresden in the remains of the original KW camera factory
and company.
Kamera Werkstaaten (KW) was a Dresden camera factory owned by Guthe and Thorsch in Germany
of the 1920s and 1930s.
Somehow the Nazis invited them to leave the country and leave their factory behind.....?
Somehow, about 1938 an American by the name of Noble went to Nazi Germany and took over
the KW business - remaining there throughout WWII until the Russians came into East Germany
and took over KW. This was later nationalized as part of the VEB Pentacon empire. With the
fall of communism rejoining East and Western Germany - some German government agency was
able to return the KW factory to its owners - the Noble family.
It would be interesting to learn about the transfer of rights of the KW factory and how
Guthe and Thorsch left Germany in the 1930s and how that factory was acquired by Noble.
I have learned that the heirs to the Thorsch part of it own Studio City Camera store in
Studio City, California (Los Angeles area).
From rollei mailing list:
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2002
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Shutters
you wrote:
> Are there any manufacturers that make their own shutters?
>I mean, the old Wollensak lenses, did they use Compur.
>How about the Hexanon/Omegon on the Rapid Omega, Seiko perhaps?
>I have to check out my old rangefinders and see if it lists the shutter
>manufacturer.
>I have some that are stamped "Made in Occupied Japan" so it should be
>interesting to see what those are.
>
>Peter K
Wollensak, Ilex, and Bausch & Lomb made shutters. Actually, both Ilex
and Wollensak were started by men who had worked for B&L; originally. Kodak
originally used Bausch and Lomb shutters for cheaper cameras and Compurs
for better cameras but began making some of their own early on. The Kodak
Ball Bearing shutter is very common on folding cameras from the 1920's 1nd
1930's. When Compur shutters became unavailable in the late 1930's Kodak
began builting their own equivalent, the Supermatic. Around 1960 Kodak
again supplied smaller lenses in Compur shutters and discontinued the
Supermatic. Some Kodak lenses are also found in Wollensak shutters. Larger
Kodak lenses are in Ilex shutters.
For many years B&L; was licensed by Deckel to make Compur and Compound
shutters. The B&L; ones differ in details. Just as with the Zeiss lens
license all was seized by the U.S. government at the outbreak of WW-1. B&L;
continued to make Deckel type shutters during and after WW-1 without license.
Goerz also made some shutters around 1900.
The clockwork speed regulator, used nearly universally after about 1912,
is an Ilex patent. The company lived for many years on the royalties of
this, and subsequent patents.
Ilex was formed by two Bausch & Lomb employees who did not want to give
the gear train escapement to B&L.; After about a year in business Ilex
bought the Acme Optical Co., of Rochester, and began to make lenses as well
as shutters.
The Wollensak brothers, German imigrants, also worked for B&L; but went
into business for themselves after a few years, making shutters at first
but eventually branching out into lens manufacture. Both Wollensak and Ilex
built enormous numbers of lenses and shutters OEM for various camera
manufacturers and for slide and motion picture projectors.
Other than Goerz, I don't know of any German lens makers who also made
shutters. The camera manufacturers seem to have used either Deckel or
Gauthier shutters although these somtimes have the camera maker's name
featured on them prominently, sometimes confusing people into thinking they
are actually the camera maker's shutters.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: "David J. Littleboy" davidjl@gol.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Ansel Adams and Lens Quality
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002
"Homer" HomerSimpson@aol.com wrote...
> Why do people like this Ron Todd post such unsubstantiated rumors? This
> kind of crap belongs in the National Enquirer unless Todd can substantiate
> his claim of "free lenses". And this guy's a CPA and MBA???????
In his autobiography, Adams writes:
"The Hasselblad has been my camera of choice for the past 20 years. I
thoroughly enjoy it's superlative optical and mechanical precision. I met
Dr. Victor Hasselblad in New York in 1950. On my return to San Francisco, I
found one of his first cameras awaiting me: the 1600F model, with the
request to try it out and send my comments to him in Sweden. I was to keep
the camera with his compliments."
Arrangements like this are common; famous rock guitarists get lots of free
guitars. Having Adams say nice things about Hasselblad makes perfect sense
from an advertising budget standpoint. I'm sure the total cost of the
cameras Hasselblad gave Adams over the years was tiny compared to their
advertising budget in any year in the latter half of that period.
> "Ron Todd" rltodd@ix.netcom.com wrote in message
> > I thought he had a commercial arrangement with Mr. Hassleblad and got
> > the lenses for free.
Cameras too{g}.
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002
Subject: Re: [Russiancamera] Now I've seen everything
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Ron Schwarz at rs@clubvb.com wrote:
> Don't give him any ideas. {g} I heard that the guy who designed the Contax
> (the original one, pre-war, and I forget his name) retired to Israel back
> in the 60s or 70s (I don't think he's still alive). How long will it be
> before we see "Commerative" Kiev's with his name on them, from "Zeiss
> Jerusalem"? (or would that be "Aus Jerusalem"?)
The man who designed the original Contax came to the USA to live prior to WW
II, where he went to work for Graflex. He designed the Combat Graphic for
them as well as some other cameras and accessories. Whether he went to
Israel when he retired from Graflex I don't know. I can't pull his name out
of my memory banks at the moment, but the story is well documented.
Bob
From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002
Subject: Re: [Russiancamera] Now I've seen everything
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Ron Schwarz at rs@clubvb.com wrote:
> Is that the one that looks like a huge Contax? (He must have really had
> that form factor imprinted on his mind!)
I just remembered his name, Hubert Nerwin. There was a military version and
a civilian version, olive and black respectively. The military ones aren't
super rare, but the civilian version is quite rare since very few were sold.
It sold for something like $ 1,000 in 1953 !!! You could buy a nice car for
that!
Bob
From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002
From: Marc James Small msmall@infi.net
Subject: Re: [Russiancamera] Now I've seen everything
Ron Schwarz wrote:
>Don't give him any ideas. {g} I heard that the guy who designed the Contax
>(the original one, pre-war, and I forget his name) retired to Israel back
>in the 60s or 70s (I don't think he's still alive). How long will it be
>before we see "Commerative" Kiev's with his name on them, from "Zeiss
>Jerusalem"? (or would that be "Aus Jerusalem"?)
>
Emmanuel Goldberg was smuggled by Zeiss to France when the Nazis took over
Germany and, when the Germans conquered France, Zeiss smuggled him to
Israel, where he lived until 1968 or so.
Marc
msmall@infi.net
From russian mailing list:
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002
From: Marc James Small msmall@infi.net
Subject: Re: [Russiancamera] Now I've seen everything
Bob Shell wrote:
>The man who designed the original Contax came to the USA to live prior to WW
>II, where he went to work for Graflex. He designed the Combat Graphic for
>them as well as some other cameras and accessories. Whether he went to
>Israel when he retired from Graflex I don't know. I can't pull his name out
>of my memory banks at the moment, but the story is well documented.
Sorry, Bob, but this also is wrong. Emmanuel Goldberg designed the Contax
under the tutelage of Heinz Kuppenbender. When Goldberg had to leave
Germany because of the Nazi persecutions, his place was taken by Hubert
Nerwin, who remained Chief of Development at Zeiss Ikon until 1947, when he
emigrated to the US. This move was done privately and not as part of
Operation Paperclip.
Marc
msmall@infi.net
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Dogmar 18cm f4,5 lens information?
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002
suibuliu@yahoo.com (Suibu Liu) wrote:
>Thank you Arther too!
>
>When you and Richard say "one shot color cameras" what do you mean?
>(The oldest camera I have is this Graphic 4X5 and a Busch Pressman
>Model C, before these cameras, I use Konica SLRs, so I dont have any
>knowledge on these vintage one shot color cameras. Were they
>considered "higher-class" or just then Point-and-Shot kind of thing?
>
>Regarding this particular Dogmar, I have not shot any pictures with it
>(I just got it yesterday), however, when I focus a sence on the ground
>glass, this lens seems sharper than my Ektar 101/4.5 I use on my BP
>model C. The Ektar is a very sharp lens, I know that.
>
>I admit, this is not scientific at all, and I am near sighted wearing
>glasses. :) But, on the ground glass, this Dogmar forms sharper
>"image" than the 101/4.5 Ektar. :) (maybe the ground glass on this
>Graphic is finer than that on the BP? )
>
>I am planning to shot portrait with this dogmar, so I guess I am ok
>even if it is a dog. :) I just hope it is not so bad that I have to
>call it "Mom (mar) of Dogs" :)
>
>Regards,
>Suibu
Some of this effect of difference in sharpness is due to the larger
image from the Dogmar.
The 101mm Ektar is an exceptionally good lens. You would not see
differences in sharpness between these two except by examining the
aerial image with a high quality magnifier. The aerial image is the
image existing in space when the ground glass or film is not there.
A "one-shot" camera is a type of camera popular for color work
before good color film became available. They were used for
advertising and similar work throughout the 1930's and into the early
1950's, but were killed off by Kodachrome and later color films.
The camera uses a beam splitter, made of very thin mirrors, to
devide the light from the lens into three beams of light. Each beam
goes to a separate film. The camera has three film holders, each with
an appropriate color filter in front of it. Very often glass plates
wre used instead of film to maintain good registration.
While color separation negatives can be made with a single camera
using successive exposure such a camera can not photograph anything
wiht motion. The one-shot camera could be used for portraits and even
for out door action photography.
The mirrors take up quite a bit of space so the distance between the
lens and film is longer than the back focus of a "normal" lens for the
format. Generally, for a 4x5 camera, a lens of around 180mm is about
the minimum. Dogmars were used because they had good enough color
correction and were sharp when used at larger stops. Occasionally, a
process lens was used but most process lenses are only about f/8 to
f/10 wide open, not always fast enough. A late one-shot camera had a
speed of about EI-12.
Until about the late 1940's a majority of color advertising layouts
were shot with one-shot cameras and printed onto three-color-carbro
for printing. The carbro (carbon-bromide) was then photographed in a
process camera to make the printing plates.
The results were good but look a little soft compared to similar
work done on Kodachrome. Kodachrome became available in large sizes in
about 1938 and began to displace other methods of making advertising
layouts in color. The transparencies were retouched and photographed
directly in the process camera, saving a couple of generations.
Carbro was displaced by the Kodak dye transfer process in the late
1940's becuse it was much easier to use and because it produced
sharper results. A lot of one-shot originals were printed onto dye
transfer for display or reproduction.
FWIW, Kodachrome came on the market in 1935 as 16mm movie film and
as 35mm still film shortly thereafter. A new method of processing was
devised in about 1937 or 38 which allowed processing larger film.
After that Kodachrome was made and processed (by Kodak) in sizes up to
16"x20". These large sheet sizes were discontinued on the announcement
of Ektachrome around 1950.
The Technicolor three-strip camera, used from 1935 to 1951, was a
motion picture version of the one-shot camera.
I see one-shot cameras for sale occasionally. They would still be
usable provided the mirrors are in good condition and one was willing
ot carry out the experments to find out the right combination of
development for modern films.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: World's first ultra wide angle lens for a SLR?
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002
Leon Schoenfeld wrote:
> I have reason to believe that this was the world's first ultra wide angle
> lens for use on a SLR camera, without mirror lockup. My question is: Is
this
> true? Was there a lens of similar focal length made for SLR use (without
> mirror lock-up) and offered for sale before 1963?
Angenieux, Retrofocus f/3.5 24 mm, 1957, Alpa.
He (Angenieux) invented both retrofocus design and name (1950, f/2.5 35 mm,
followed in 1953 by the f/3.5 28 mm).
From: artkramr@aol.com (ArtKramr)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 30 Jun 2002
Subject: Re: Cheap Kievs from Russia - risk assessment
>Subject: Re: Cheap Kievs from Russia - risk assessment
>From: kfritch@aol.com (KFritch)
>Date: 6/30/02
>
>>For the same reason Nikon and Canon made their RF cameras look something
>>like Leica's of that period?
>
>Nikon copied the Contax RF of the period.
True. But they improved it replacing the silly vertical slotted metal shutter
with a horizontal cloth shutter of very high reliability. That also made the
camera quieter eliminating that "cluink" of the metal shutter. Also they
invented clean room assemmbly which made the Nikkor lenses sparkling clean and
free of artifacts which the entire optical industry immediately copied.. At the
time that camera came out I was woking in the quality control lab at Hugo Meyer
New York testing lenses. We were all amazed by the pristine sparkling
appearance of the Nikkor lenses and we knew that we were witnessing a dramatic
improvement in optical design and. construction. That RF Nikon may have looked
like a Contax but it was a far superior camera. None of this can be said of the
Kiev copy of the Blad.
Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
From: Lassi lahippel@ieee.org
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Brownie Film - Let's make it official
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002
"Q.G. de Bakker" wrote:
>
> Brian Ellis wrote:
>
> > So where does the term come from? I know that Kodak made cameras back in
> the
> > old days called "Brownies" and presumably the film that went in them was
> > called "Brownie" film for that reason, but why were the cameras called
> > "Brownies?"
>
> The first "Brownie" camera was designed and built by Frank Brownell. So they
> first were Brownell cameras. <...>
I'll add just another detail: the first Brownie launched in 1900 took
6x6 photos on film type 117. It was soon replaced by the commercially
successful No.1, still using 117. The first Brownie to use 120 was No.2
in 1901.
-- Lassi
From: flexaret2@aol.com (FLEXARET2)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 27 Jul 2002
Subject: Re: Brownie Film - Let's make it official
Kevin,
I had heard that 120/200 film was called "Brownie" film for many years in Japan
and you have now confirmed that it still is today.
One explanation of the meaning of "Zenza Bronica" - was:
Zenza's Brownie Camera - named for its inventor/manufacturer -
Zenzaburo Yoshino.
- Sam Sherman
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Brownie Film - Let's make it official
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002
Brian Ellis wrote:
> So where does the term come from? I know that Kodak made cameras back in the
> old days called "Brownies" and presumably the film that went in them was
> called "Brownie" film for that reason, but why were the cameras called
> "Brownies?"
The first "Brownie" camera was designed and built by Frank Brownell. So they
first were Brownell cameras.
But George Eastman initially had intended these cheap and easy to operate
cameras for use by children. Kodak organized Brownie camera clubs and
photographic competitions for young photographers. The boxes they came in
were decorated with drawings of "Brownies", "imaginary little sprites",
created by the Canadian illustrator Palmer Cox. And the "Brownie Boy"
appeared in Kodak ads: a kid eager on photography of the kind no parent
could refuse giving anything he wanted. And he, of course, wanted a Kodak
camera.
Many people thought of these one dollar cameras as toys. But, as we well
know, the market for these things rapidly expanded beyond the children-only
group. The 'childish' Brownie name however stuck. They managed to sell about
250,000 cameras (the original Brownie, and Brownie no. 1) in the first year.
Not bad.
> And why would Kodak continue to call the film "Brownie" film
> when the cameras haven't been manufactured for fifty years or more?
They don't.
> Or is
> this something like "Kodak," where no one really knows where George Eastman
> got it from?
George Eastman wrote a memo about the Kodak name, explaining how and why:
{Quote}
"Kodak", this is not a foreign name or word; it was constructed by me to
serve a definite purpose. It has the following merits as a trade-mark word:
First. It is short.
Second. It is not capable of mispronunciation.
Third. It does not resemble anything in the art and cannot be associated
with anything in the art except the Kodak.
{End quote}
And of course, George Eastman was enormously fond of the letter "K"
(inexplicably, though some suggest it was because it was the first letter of
his mother's maiden name. But how's that an explanation? ;-)). And "Kodak",
obviously, is not short on "K"s.
He did not mention that in his memorandum. ;-)
There is a story recorded about how George Eastman wrote to another firm
asking them to change the name of their product just so that it would
include the letter "K". I can't remember the exact details though, but i'm
sure i can look them up somewhere.
From rollei mailing list:
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002
From: Marc James Small msmall@infi.net
Subject: [Rollei] Re: A Zeiss Question OFF Rollei topic
...
>Some one mentioned in the Rollei list that the Novar on my Zeiss Ikon
>Nettar was not really Zeiss. I realise that its at the low end of the lenses
>for these type of folding cameras, but its given me very good results. Do you
>know anything about its design?
Thank you for the number, Brian. We collect ALL Zeiss numbers, from
microscopes and binoculars to Contax RTS numbers.
The Novar (and Dominar and Pantar &c;) lenses were not "Zeiss" lenses --
they were purchased from companies outside of the Zeiss umbrella for the
most part and were assigned a Zeiss Ikon name and serial number. These
companies included Rodenstock but did include, especially after the Second
World War, Zeiss-controlled but not integrated companies such as Hensoldt
and Voigtlander. Some of these lenses -- especially the Rodenstock
Satz-Pantar lenses -- were of the first water, and none which I have used
were mediocre.
Marc
msmall@infi.net
from rollei mailing list:
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002
From: Marc James Small msmall@infi.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] A Zeiss Question OFF Rollei topic
Richard Knoppow wrote:
> FWIW, the old Henney and Dudley _Handbook of Photography_ (1939) lists
>three lenses under Zeiss-Ikon. This is a separate list from Carl Zeiss.
>Netter, f/3.5 to f/7.7, Cooke Triplet
That should be "Nettar", Richard. All of the Nettar and Novar lenses were,
to my relatively confident knowledge, of three elements.
Marc
msmall@infi.net
from rollei mailing list:
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002
From: Marc James Small msmall@infi.net
Subject: RE: [Rollei] A Zeiss Question OFF Rollei topic - Cooke Lenses from England
Richard Knoppow wrote:
> Both Hans Harting and Eder have considerable respect for Taylor, about
>the only non German designer they think well of.
Taylor was quite a capable designer and thinker, and it was his observation
that marginally cloudy lenses transmitted more light than unclouded lenses
that led to the development of lens coatings four decades later.
Taylor's miscellaneous correspondence has recently surfaced and is being
vetted for publication. I have been in touch with the folks at Cooke about
this but do not know the present status.
Marc
msmall@infi.net
From rollei mailing list:
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: RE: [Rollei] A Zeiss Question OFF Rollei topic - Cooke Lenses from England
...(quotes above)
It would be very intersting to see such a publication.
Taylor observed the effect of oxidation on lens transmission. Oxidation
does not result in cloudiness but rather in a film of oxide which makes the
lens look discolored. I have a few old lenses which show this effect. One
is a Tessar from about 1939 which has a light blue reflection, but only
from the front element. Another is a very old Rodenstock Trinar (Triplet)
which has an oil film rainbow reflection, again only on the front, one is
an ICA Maximar which is quite blue looking..
Taylor tried to find a method of artifically producing the tarnish but
was unsucessful so far as finding one sufficiently reliable for commercial
application. He did understand exactly why it worked.
Taylor wrote a famous book, published in 1923, on lens design. He
promoted an all algebraic method and claimed never to have traced rays.
According to Kingslake, who should know, the method is not very practical.
Taylor had access to an excellent optical shop and refined designs with
actual models.
Actually, this is a technique which was pretty universally used.
It may still be despite the ease and speed of computer analysis.
BTW, the Cooke Convertible lens of TT&H; is not a Triplet. I don't know
why the Cooke name is on it, perhaps it was designed there.
The Cooke Convertible is a four lens per cell design. It is something like
a Zeiss Convertible Protar with an air space in place of the middle
cemented surface. Since it has eight glass-air surfaces it would have had
some flare as an uncoated lens. I have no idea of its performance or what
advantage was gained by breaking apart the elements. This is the lens used
by Ansel Adams and others.
Curiously enough a similar lens was designed by Ernst Gundlach and made
by the Rochester Lens company as the Royal Anastigmat. It was continued by
Wollensak after they bought out Rochester as the Vitax.
Those interested in more about the triplet should see _A History of the
Photographic Lens_ Rudolf Kingslake, 1989, The Academic Press,
ISBN 0-12-408640-3
The patent is USP 568,062 (1893) available at http://www.uspto.gov
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: Does Blad have a Carl Zeiss exclusive?
From: Bob bobsalomon@mindspring.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2002
Art,
Out of curiosity, who had the advertising account for Eastman Kodak Stores
and for Eastman Kodak in 1948-49?
Most people might not realize that Victor Hasselblad distributed Kodak in
Sweden and that Eastman Kodak Stores was the first company to sell
Hasselblad in the U.S.
HP Marketing Corp. 800 735-4373 US distributor for: Ansmann, Braun,
CombiPlan, DF Albums, Ergorest, Gepe, Gepe-Pro, Giottos, Heliopan, Kaiser,
Kopho, Linhof, Novoflex, Pro-Release, Rimowa, Sirostar, Tetenal Cloths and
Ink Jet Papers, VR, Vue-All archival negative, slide and print protectors,
Wista, ZTS see www.hpmarketingcorp.com for dealer listings
From: artkramr@aol.com (ArtKramr)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 04 Jul 2002
Subject: Re: Does Blad have a Carl Zeiss exclusive?
>Most people might not realize that Victor Hasselblad distributed Kodak in
>Sweden and that Eastman Kodak Stores was the first company to sell
>Hasselblad in the U.S.
Acytally we did at J. Walter Thompson. We had Kodak but not Kodak stores..
That was considered retail advertising and a small agency in Rochester handled
that business. It was part of Kodak's loyalty to the home town. I was a gorup
head at Thompson handling print advertising and all technical advertising. I
remember those days with great fondness. Then I left and opened my own agency
with Nikon as my main account. Interesting years. I am now retired in Las
Vegas. BTW, now that you no longer handle Rodenstock will you finaly admit that
the Nikkor Apo El Nikkors (the ones with the quartz element) were the finest MF
enlarging lenses made? (grin)
Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
From: ralf@free-photons.de (Ralf R. Radermacher)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Does Blad have a Carl Zeiss exclusive?
Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2002
Lassi HippelSinen lahippel@ieee.org wrote:
> The Soviets went a bit further. They moved whole factories to their own
> country, where they were supposed to make cameras, and the income was
> used to pay off the war damages.
Nothing wrong with a little urban legend but let's get these two
straight because they're just too obvious.
They moved exactly one (1) camera factory, i.e. the Zeiss-Ikon tools and
machines for making the Contax. This was taken from Dresden to Kiev.
> (Zeiss Super-Ikonta became Moskva,
The Russians never got as far as Stuttgart, at the far Western end of
the American Sector. All Zeiss-Ikon medium format cameras including the
Ikontas were made at Stuttgart. There was no Zeiss medium format camera
production to be taken to Russia, in the Eastern part of Germany.
So, the Moskva may well be called an Ikonta clone, but they used their
own facilities for making it, much like the early Japanese produce.
> Pentacon Six became Kiev 6, etc.).
All the Kiev 6 or the later 60 share with the Pentacon Six is the
bayonet and the general shape. One might just as wrongly claim that the
Russians copied the Pentax 67, changed it into a 6x6 and fitted it with
a P6 bayonet.
Nothing to it, in both cases.
Ralf
--
Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - K"ln/Cologne, Germany
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Does Blad have a Carl Zeiss exclusive?
Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2002
Lassi HippelSinen wrote:
> The Soviets went a bit further. They moved whole factories to their own
> country, where they were supposed to make cameras, and the income was
> used to pay off the war damages. That was a bit too much for the western
> countries, who didn't buy the products, [...]
I guess they didn't subject so much to moving entire factories (where did
all the Penemunde stuff go, scientists and all? ;-)), but to the political
and social ideology of the Soviets. ;-)
And do not forget that it were the U.S. occupation forces that packed and
loaded the Zeiss Jena lens making machinery, ready for shipping. They handed
the equipment over to the Soviets later, more or less "forced" to do so
(politics) by the Soviets. It was then shipped to Krasnogorsk. But did the
U.S. forces hand over all of it?
By the way: the camera production machinery from Zeiss Dresden was taken to
Kiev, but a large amount of it was taken back to (then East) Germany, to
Jena, where 'Zeiss Contax' production resumed for a while. It is very
plausible that the first camera bearing the name "Kiev" was made in Jena,
not Kiev (a 1947 photograph exists showing the assembly of a camera marked
"Kiev" in Jena. The Soviet production of Kiev cameras apparently started in
1948.)
> The older lens designs (like Planar and Tessar) were free already before
> WW2, because their patents had expired around WW1 time.
Are you sure? The Tessar is celebrating its 100th birthday this year, the
Planar is just 6 years older. It will have been very short lived patents if
they already expired around WW1 time.
The patents issue was/is rather muddled. After all, it took along time to
decide what part of Zeiss, east or west, was the 'real' Zeiss, the owner of
the trademarks (difficult to do because they, of course, were both the real
Zeiss).
From: eos10fan@hotmail.com (dan)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Yousuf Karsh dies at 93
Date: 13 Jul 2002
"Photographer and raconteur Yousuf Karsh, known as Karsh of Ottawa to
generations of world leaders, celebrities and cognoscenti who sought
immortality through the lenses of his cameras, has died. He was 93."
More:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/front/RTGAM/20020713/wkarsh/Front/homeBN/breakingnews
Some links to his life & work:
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/y/a132445.html
http://www.geh.org/ne/mismi3/karsh_idx00001.html
http://collections.ic.gc.ca/heirloom_series/volume4/118-121.htm
-----
dan
from rollei mailing list:
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002
From: pndalex3@comcast.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Yousuf Karsh: obit from the AP
You can find 59 nicely sized portraits of this master photographer at the
George Eastman House site,
http://www.geh.org/ne/mismi3/karsh_sld00001.html
Daniel Alexander
from rollei mailing list:
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: Rollei 35SE vs 35S Meter
you wrote:
>SF
>
>Believe me, that Sonnar is one of the wonders of the photo world!
>It is vastly superior to the Tessar.
>
>Jerry L.
>
Kingslake has an interesting short biography of the Sonnar's designer
Ludwig Bertele, in his book on lens history.
Bertele had engineering training but no formal optical training. He
designed the first verion of what became the Sonnar for Ernemann. After
this company became part of Zeiss-Ikon where he designed the famous Sonnar.
The Sonnar is a compounded triplet. The idea was to use cemented surfaces
where possible to reduce flare. Double-gauss derivitives of the
Planar-Opic-Biotar type are used in most modern f/2 or faster lenses
because they have some advantages over the Sonnar and because lens coating
reduces flare enough to obviate the need for cemented surfaces for flare
control purposes.
The Sonnar was probably a very expensive and very difficult lens to make.
It has some steep surfaces, hard to grind accurately, and many cemented
surfaces. Cemented surfaces require several manufacturing steps not
required by air spaced surfaces. The Sonnar is both a triumph of design and
of manufacturing skill.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From leica topica mailing list:
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002
From: "Steve LeHuray" icommag@toad.net
Subject: Leitz Investigated By British Intelligence 1946
Just browsing around I found a little bit of interesting history:
http://www.angelfire.com/biz/Leica/page26.html
http://www.profotos.com/education/promag/articles/october2001/japan/index.shtml
sl
From camera fix mailing list:
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002
From: "Peter Wallage" peterwallage@btinternet.com
Subject: Re: restoration methods
--- In camera-fix@y..., "Mark Stuart" madfamily at b... wrote:
> Bill, I have successfully used dry very fine steel wool (polishing
> grade, not kitchen grade!) on the aluminium body of an old Agilux
> camera. The finish was that 'brushed shiny' look, though, not almost
> chrome looking, but I assume this is what most cameras of that era
> have.
>
> Cheers
>
> Mark
Hi Mark,
Is your Agilux a 6 by 6 Agifold folding camera? I'm halfway through restoring a very
sad early example from about 1948. At the moment it's completely disassembled.
The 'aluminium' part of the body on these was only a thin skin riveted on. The body
carcass was a steel plate fabrication.
If it is an Agifold I hate to say this but the aluminium skin should finished in black
paint. On the early models only the top viewfinder 'hump' was bright polished
chrome. On the later rangefinder models the top and bottom plates were satin
chrome and the rest of the metalwork was black. The black paint used wasn't very
good quality and often chipped and wore off, so quite a few people cleaned and
polished the aluminium. It looks nice, but it isn't original. You can find several
pictures on the net if you ask Google to search for 'Agifold'.
As a matter of interest Agilux Ltd (the AGI part comes from its being a subsidiary of
Aeronautical and General Instruments Ltd) made everything in house - bodies,
bellows, shutters and, I believe, lenses as well. They also made the big boxy
Agiflex, based on the pre-war German Reflex Korelle. This was originally made as a
Government contract during the war for the RAF and the Royal Navy.
Regards,
Peter Wallage
from camera makers mailing list:
From: "Uptown Gallery" murray@uptowngallery.org
To: cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002
Subject: [Cameramakers] Scheimpflug trivia
I ran into some interesting trivia about Mr. Scheimpflug.
I forgot his military title...Captain or Colonel or Corporal in the Austrian
Army in 1900...solved some aerial photography perspective problems plaguing
the French pioneer or balloon camera photography. Scheimpflug also developed
an 8 lens camera that gave a composite wide angle perspective photo.
I didn't get to read much more...I was waiting for a prescription to be
filled and reading but it was a short wait.
Murray
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
To: russiancamera-user@beststuff.com
Subject: [Russiancamera] ENNA lenses
Interesting comments on ENNA.
I know more about ENNA than most, having been their USA agent in the early
80s. Unfortunately, I just got into this about the time they were cutting
back on lens production and shifting to more OEM work, which is what they do
these days.
The man behind the ENNA lenses was Dr. Siefried Schaffer, one of the
inventors of zoom lenses. He is retired now, but was still very active in
lens design when I knew him in the 80s. He also invented the ENNA socket
mount, the first interchangeable lens mount system with auto diaphragm,
predating Tamron, Sigma YS, T-2, T-4, Komura, etc.
The current owner/director of ENNA is Dr. Werner Appelt, son of the founder.
Werner is a medical doctor by training and was forced to take over the
company when his father died unexpectedly and his mother was unable to. The
company was named for Werner's sister, Anne . Werner is a great fan of
American jazz and we used to hang out together at Papa Joe's jazz club in
Cologne during photokina. Since he is only doing OEM these days he no
longer has a booth at photokina.
Around 1982, ENNA moved its operations from the buildings the Appelt family
had owned for years in Munich to Wegscheid, a small town down on the
Austrian border. They built a very modern new factory there with
sophisticated plastic molding capabilities, and took over the old school
house in town for optical production.
There is a book about ENNA, appropriately titled Das ENNA Buch, but only in
German.
The last ENNA lenses were made in Rollei QBM for the SL35E and SL2000/3000
series Rollei cameras. They have "two pin" design to activate all features
on these cameras.
Bob
> Being an Exaktahead I've always wanted an Enna 24
> Lithagon. But my most desired exakta optic is the late
> model Steinheil 180/2.8. What a beauty!
> Javier
from contax mailing list:
From: Michael Londarenko
from leica mailing list:
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002
From: "Don Dory" dorysrus@mindspring.com
Subject: [Leica] Leica, longevity, and advertising
Lest we get carried away, how many camera companies are no longer with us
since just the fifties?
Zeiss Ikon
Mamiya in 35mm
Voigtlander
Topcon
Petri
Exacta
Miranda
Practica
Nikon is rumored to be on the market again although if Canon can't buy them
for political reasons I don't know who: maybe someone in Hong Kong?
There are many more. So Leica has done something right whether it is just
really good design, luck, advertising, a group of crazies, whatever.
Don
dorysrus@mindspring.com
[Ed. note: cautionary note on serial number tables in books etc.]
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002
To: Russiancamera-user russiancamera-user@mail.beststuff.com
From: Nathan Dayton nathandayton@netscape.net
Subject: [Russiancamera] Re: Camera numbers don't add up
You are making several bad assumptions. First you are assuming that the
serial numbers were consecutive, second you are assuming that the serial
numbers were for only one camera model and then you are assuming that all of
the numbers were made. There is no evidence to support these assumptions.
Based upon what was done in East Germany(which I use only because there is
some documentation, not because I am sure of it being the same in the Soviet
Union).
Serial numbers were assigned to a particular technician and never
reassigned. This would mean that if a technician died or was hospitalized
the numbers were never used. A system like this causes gaps in the series
which normally would never be noticed as no one has a large enough sample.
The gaps could also be explained by making another product.
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Enough?
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002
Douglas A. wrote:
> >What is a Browny?
> A. A small chocolate confection.
> B. A Jr. Girl Scout.
> C. Something left on your underwear?
> D. An extinct camera?
E. An "imaginary little sprite".
Frank Brownell was the designer and manufacturer of Kodak's first "Brownie"
camera. George Eastman intended to sell these cameras to children, and the
Canadian illustrator Palmer Cox was asked to design the box these cameras
were sold in so they would appeal to young photographers to be. He put
drawings of "imaginary little sprites" on the box, and called those
Brownies, after Frank Brownell.
From: "Denny Wong" dcywong@netvigator.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: While we're on the subject of Zeiss Jena...
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002
"Lyle Gordon" lyle@rogers.com wrote
> O yes, you could be right
>
> steven.sawyer@banet.net wrote
> > Didn't Rolleiflex use West German "Zeiss" lenses? They used Zeiss Jena
> > lenses?
> >
> > Lyle Gordon wrote:
> >
> > > Rolleiflex
> > >
> > > steven.sawyer@banet.net wrote
> > > > Are there any "good" post-War TLRs equipped with Zeiss Jena lenses?
From: flexaret2@aol.com (FLEXARET2)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 08 Nov 2002
Subject: Re: While we're on the subject of Zeiss Jena...
The following is not well know, but true nonetheless-
Right after WWII - from the mid to late 1940's the first Automatic Rolleiflex
cameras were equipped with coated Carl Zeiss Jena
75MM f3.5 Tessar lenses.
I know, as I have one of these cameras. The lens is nice and clean and
gives really sharp. contrasty photos.
I have used some of the early Zeiss-Opton Tessar lenses on early
Rolleiflex cameras and do not think these lenses were as good.
- Sam Sherman
From: Lassi lahippel@ieee.org
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: While we're on the subject of Zeiss Jena...
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002
...(quotes above posting)
My 'flex MX from 1954 has the CJZ Tessar (75mm/3.5), and I don't think
it is the last one. Later Rollei started making themselves (licenced)
multicoated Zeiss copies. Jena was dropped about the same time, I think.
-- Lassi
From: "Denny Wong" dcywong@netvigator.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: While we're on the subject of Zeiss Jena...
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002
Bronica has offered CZJ Biometar as one of their standard lens at one point.
I don't think the eastern block had any well known TLR used CZJ optics.
There were bellow cameras like Certo, Eronta 6x9 (spelling?) & etc. used CZJ
Tessar.
steven.sawyer@banet.net wrote
> I guess then my follow up questions is what cameras used CZJ lenses from the
> mid-50s to the Pentacon? I find it hard to believe that no Eastern-Bloc TLRs used
> CZJ lenses. Although I believe that under Central Planning each camera
> manufacturer was relegated to particular functions.
>
> Lassi HippelSinen wrote:
>
> > My 'flex MX from 1954 has the CJZ Tessar (75mm/3.5), and I don't think
> > it is the last one. Later Rollei started making themselves (licenced)
> > multicoated Zeiss copies. Jena was dropped about the same time, I think.
> >
> > -- Lassi
From: flexaret2@aol.com (FLEXARET2)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 10 Nov 2002
Subject: Re: While we're on the subject of Zeiss Jena...
Re- East German TLRs and Jena Lenses.
The Reflekta V (a/k/a Peerflekta V - made for Peerless Camera Stores)
was a post war 50s TLR made by Welta and largely sold in the US market.
I have one of the Peerflekta versions with Carl Zeiss Jena "T" coated
Triotar taking lens. When I got the camera the name "Carl Zeiss Jena"
was covered with black paint which I removed to see what was originally written
there. No doub tpart of the Zeiss East/West fight at that time and the Zeiss
name could not be used by the Jena branch in the US.
- Sam Sherman
From: artkramr@aol.com (ArtKramr)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 10 Nov 2002
Subject: Re: While we're on the subject of Zeiss Jena...
>From: flexaret2@aol.com (FLEXARET2)
>Date: 11/9/02
>No doub tpart of the Zeiss East/West fight at that time and the Zeiss
>name could not be used by the Jena branch in the US.
>
>- Sam Sherman
No fight. Zeiss fell under the US Alien Property Custodian as a war prize under
these rules in the US Jena didn't exist as a Zeiss company. Only Oberchochen
and Zeiss USA. Any trade mark that read Zeiss Jena could not be admitted into
the US. Many companies fell under these rules including Hugo Meyer Goerlitz/
New York.
..
Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
From: flexaret2@aol.com (FLEXARET2)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 11 Nov 2002
Subject: Re: While we're on the subject of Zeiss Jena...
The legal dispute between the Western Zeiss at Oberkochen
and Carl Zeiss Jena and the old Zeiss Ikon in Dresden (VEB Zeiss Ikon and later
VEB Pentacon) over the names and trademarks was most imprecisely administered.
Zeiss US/ importer of the Contax IIA and IIIA cameras made in the
Western Zone of Germany, also imported Carl Zeiss Jena lenses
(with that name on the ring) for focal lengths they did not make,
including 180MM, 300MM, and others plus the Flektoscope reflex housing. These
continued to be sold in the US and were never made in West Germany and the
trademarks remained on the products. Initially
the West German Contaxes came with normal lenses from Carl Zeiss
Jena (East German zone - ruled by the soviets) until the new Zeiss-Opton
50MM lenses came to market.
Zeiss US, also clandestinely distributed Contax II cameras made in the Eastern
Zone of Germany and with Carl Zeiss Jena lenses, at the same time as they were
selling Contax IIA and IIIA with Zeiss-Opton lenses.
The court decision provided that Zeiss East could sell their products with
those trademarks in Eastern Bloc countries and Zeiss West could
sell their products with those trademarks in the Western countries.
For some reason, in the UK - both Zeisses marketed their
products with the Zeiss trademarks, and probably some other countries
too.
While all of the above seems strange and hard to believe, I have original
documentation for the above, used in a series of my published articles
entitled "The Great Contax Mystery".
- Sam Sherman
From: w-buechsenschuetz@web.de (Winfried Buechsenschuetz)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: While we're on the subject of Zeiss Jena...
Date: 9 Nov 2002
steven.sawyer@banet.net wrote
> I guess then my follow up questions is what cameras used CZJ lenses from the
> mid-50s to the Pentacon? I find it hard to believe that no Eastern-Bloc TLRs used
> CZJ lenses.
And there are not too many eastern block TLRs. If we exclude the
Lubitel and its predecessors, there are the Flexaret series from
Czechoslowakia and the Weltaflex and Perfekta from East Germany. The
Flexarets used Meopta lenses. I am not sure whether there are any
versions of the Weltaflex/Perfekta with a CZJ Tessar but I have never
heard of such.
Winfried
From: ralf@free-photons.de (Ralf R. Radermacher)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: While we're on the subject of Zeiss Jena...
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002
steven.sawyer@banet.net wrote:
> Didn't Rolleiflex use West German "Zeiss" lenses? They used Zeiss Jena
> lenses?
Even Zeiss-Ikon West used Zeiss Jena lenses during the first years after
WW2 for Contax and other cameras.
Ralf
--
Ralf R. Radermacher
NEW URL!!! private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de
From: "David" HollidayPhoto@Aol.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: While we're on the subject of Zeiss Jena...
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002
My Rolleiflex (Baby Grey) has a Schneider-Kreuznach Xenar 1:3.5/60 lens.
From: steven.sawyer@banet.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: While we're on the subject of Zeiss Jena...
Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002
I believe that all post-War Baby Rolleiflexes have Schneider lenses.
Pre-War 4x4 and Sports Rolleis usually have Zeiss lenses.
Are you using your Baby Rollei? What film are you using and how have your
results been?
David wrote:
> My Rolleiflex (Baby Grey) has a Schneider-Kreuznach Xenar 1:3.5/60 lens.
rom: flexaret2@aol.com (FLEXARET2)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 12 Nov 2002
Subject: Re: While we're on the subject of Zeiss Jena...
The articles may be available as back issues-
THE GREAT CONTAX MYSTERY - parts one and two-
Journal of The American Photographic Historical Society
MORE ON THE GREAT CONTAX MYSTERY -
Journal of the Zeiss Historica Society
From: "Tony Spadaro" tspadaro@ncmaps.rr.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Japan honouring Herbort Von Velbon Keppler
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002
There is an article at
http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS.HTM
About Japan honouring the top US shill for Japanese goods so expect him to
find a few more "real gems" that the American market really needs pretty
soon now.
--
http://chapelhillnoir.com
and partial home of
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Links are at
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/links.html
[Ed. note: congrats to David on his unusual collection of 35mm TLRs ;-)!]
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002
From: David Kwechansky buyingchazerei@rogers.com
To: Robert Monaghan rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu
Subject: Re: your web site
Thanks for your prompt reply. I have McK's 11th ed, the camera is not
pictured.
You're right about 35mm TLRs being select. I have the Bolsey, both Agfas and
the Samocaflex. One day I expect to add a Contaflex but likely not a
Luckyflex, Meikai or Meisupi, certainly not the rarest of all Yallu (which
isn't even mentioned in McK) needed to make it a clean category sweep.
David
From: camartsmag@aol.com (CamArtsMag)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 04 Dec 2002
Subject: Re: Richard Ritter
I actually sent Cathy a note thanking her but it bounced.
The photographer for the book Silence and Solitude will be highlighted in our
Feb/March CameraArts. He may then do some writing for us.
By the way, Richard has written an article on the History and Evolution of the
Zone VI camera for View Camera. At some point we will post it on our web site.
steve simmons
From: "Alec Jones" alecjspam@bellsouth.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Richard Ritter
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002
Here's his web site. http://www.lg4mat.net/
From: norpinal@yahoo.ca (norpinal)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Master camera desinger Heinz Waaske
Date: 24 Dec 2002
norpinal@yahoo.ca (norpinal) wrote
> Heinz Waaske born in 1924 in Berlin, died 1995 in Braunsweig, age 71.
> From 1950-1965, Heinz Waaske worked for Wirgin in Wiesbaden, designed
> various Edixa cameras; his Edixa Reflex was a best seller at his time
>
> In 1964, Heinz Waaske designed Ur- Rollei 35 at Wirgin
>
> From 1965 to 1977, Worked for Rollei in Braunsweig as camera designer
> and designed his masterpieces: Rollei 35/35s, Rollei A26 (for 126
> film), Rollei A110, E110 (for 110 film) Rollei 16/16s (16mm
> film),Rolleimatic and for Voigtlander. The period with Rollei was his
> high point of his career
>
> In 1978 he designed Dominick 35MM SLR cassette camera( Carl Zeiss
> Sonnar 2,8/80 mm lens.)
>
> 1978- 1980 Worked for Minox GmbH at Heuchelheim, Giessen
>
> At Minox, Heinz Waaske designed the following cameras
>
> Minox 645GL, a medium format double barn door viewfinder camera with
> retractable Xenotar 2,8/62mm lens. A prototype was built and tested,
> but never marketed
>
> Minox 35mm rangefinder camera with interchangeable bayonet mounted
> lenses: three lenses were plained: Carl Zeiss 2,8/40mm standard lens,
> Carl Zeiss 4/85 telephoto lens and 4/28mm wide angle lens. The Minox
> 35mm rangefinder was pretty, unfortunatly, never went into
> production.
>
> Heinz Waaske also worked on an improvement on Minox 35ML shutter,
> however, not implemented.
> He also worked for Zeiss and Robot.
> He did not design any camera for Zeiss, he designed a film cassette
> for Zeiss Axiophoto Microscope system.
> He designed Robot serveillance camera RSV IV
>
>
> Source: The most complete information about Heinz Waaske:
> Jorg Eikmann/ Ulrich Vogt: Kameras fur Millionen, Wittig Fachbuchverlag,
> Huckelhoven 1997.
>
>
>
> martin tai
The book
http://www.photo.net/bboard/image?bboard_upload_id=10647784
can be found on the web priced from 37.2 to 80 eur
I bought it from Joki-foto in Berlin for 37.2 eur, probably the best
price.
This book contains detail history on the development of Rollei 35,
from the first prototyp Ur-Rollei 35 at Wirgin to become the best seller
at Rollei.
martin
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002
To: russiancamera@yahoogroups.com, russiancamera-user@beststuff.com
From: Marc James Small msmall@infi.net
Subject: [Russiancamera] Contax to Kiev
Those interested in exploring the shift of production from Jena Contax to
Arsenal Kiev are encouraged to read:
Sasaki, Minoru. Contax to Kiev: A Report on the Mutation. Tokyo, Japan:
Office Heliar, 2000. ISBN 4-901241-02-8
Marc
msmall@infi.net
From: Leonard Evens len@math.northwestern.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Ansel Adams and medium format
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002
As I walked into Helix in Chciago, I passed some large reproductions of
Ansel Adams prints they have there. I always marvel at them as I pass,
but this time I stopped and looked close. One of them, the famous one
of Half Dome in Yosemite with the moon high in the sky, particularly
drew my attention. I marveled at the wealth of detail and wondered how
he managed it. I presumed he used a view camera and possibly even an 8
x 10 view camera. When I got home, I leafed through my copy of Camera
and Lens, and discovered that the picture was taken with a Hasselblad
and a 250 mm lens. My medium format never looks like that. Adams must
have been doing something that went beyond using a good lens and getting
the depth of field right. He seems to have produced an illusion of
sharpness that goes beyond what the lens can deliver for such a large
print. Perhaps by controlling development of the negative he managed to
achieve very high accutance or something like that.
Any ideas about how one does such things?
--
Leonard Evens len@math.northwestern.edu
From: "maf" maf@switchboard.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Ansel Adams and medium format
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002
According to "Examples: The Making of 40 Photographs" the photo "Moon and
Half Dome, 1960" was made with a Hasselblad using a 250mm Zeiss Sonnar lens.
Adams used a tripod and locked the mirror up prior to exposure to minimize
any camera shake. He used a strong orange filter. The exposure was 1/4
second according to his recollection.
The film was Panatomic-X with N+1 development, but no developer was
specified. Adams mentions many times his dislike for developers that contain
sodium sulfite because of its adverse impact on sharpness. But since
Panatomic-X is no longer available, it doesn't help a lot knowing exactly
which developer he used. I have achieved excellent results with Pan F+ and
Rodinal.
Adams was given the Hasselblad system in exchange for some photographs he
made using the camera and "Promotional Considerations."
...(quotes above post)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: dancke@onzine.no
Subject: Re: E.Ludwig Meritar 105 F4.5
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 200
"Jani" nospamjeheikki@nic.fi said:
>Hi!
>What kind of lens is E. Ludwig Meritar 105mm f4.5 , type and quality,
>what kind of a manufacturer was this E.Ludwig?
>Jani
E. Ludwig was a lens manufaturer in what became Eastern Germany. The
Meritars I know was 3 element lenses. Later the name Meritar was taken
over by Meyer, G"rlitz (Also in the DDR). Both companies made lenses for
the Ihagee Exatas and Practica cameras. The Meritar was supposed to be a
lower grade lens then the Meyer Domiplan (also a triplet).
dancke@online.no
From contax mailing list:
From: "Richard Wozniak" ric_woz@hotmail.com
To: contax@photo.cis.to
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003
Subject: [Contax] Camera's with Zeiss Lens (the complete list?)
Contax MM SLR
Contax N AF-SLR
Contax G AF Rangefinder
Contax 645 AF
Contax digital compact
Rollei 6x6 SLR
Rollei (Cosina/Voightlander) Rangefinder (compatible with Leica body)
Hassleblad 6x6 SLR
Sony digital compact
somebody's Medium Format Rangefinder ?
am I missing any others?
From contax mailing list:
From: "Austin Franklin" darkroom@ix.netcom.com
Subject: RE: [Contax] Camera's with Zeiss Lens (the complete list?)
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003
Pentacon 6
Super Ikonta
I mean...the list goes on and on if you want to talk about older
cameras...and Eastern block Zeiss stuff.
From contax mailing list:
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003
From: Major A andras@users.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Contax] Cameras with Zeiss Lens (the complete list?)
> Contax digital compact
Plus: Contax T series
Yashica manual-focus SLRs can also use Zeiss glass.
Don't forget the Preview II (part of the MM system really, but
distinctly different).
> Rollei 6x6 SLR
How about Rollei 3003? (Not sure myself)
> Rollei (Cosina/Voightlander) Rangefinder (compatible with Leica body)
It's Voigtlaender...
> Hassleblad 6x6 SLR
No hassle -- it's Hasselblad...
> Sony digital compact
Sony video cameras, ARRI, etc. if you count motion picture.
> am I missing any others?
Yes: Yashica T series.
Plus all old stuff and Carl Zeiss Jena as well, if you count that too.
How about Canon EOS with Bob Shell's adapter?
Andras
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: B&J; 5x7 Special 7.5" lens ??
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002
"Gary Beasley" beasleyglb@mindspring.com wrote
> davnic@aol.com (Davnic) wrote:
>
> >Just got a B&J; 5x7 camera and it came with the above. Have shot a couple of
> >sheets of film to check for light leaks and test lens/shutter. Image seem
> >pretty crisp with a 25a filter on Bergger 220. Looks like it could go to mush
> >on contrast due to flare though
> >
> >Any information on this lens would be appreciated and I promise to light a
> >candle at St. Ansel's temple.
> >Regards
> >Dave Nicholson
>
> Would it be the Rapid rectiliner F/8 ? I found brief mention of it in
> the Large Format Optical Reference Manual, only info is it was made by
> Bausch & Lomb.
FWIW, the Rapid-Rectilinear is a famous lens. It is a
symmetrical lens with two cemented elements in each cell.
Symmetry is important because a symmetrical lens is
automatically corrected for coma, lateral color, and
distortion. Coma is a fault similar to spherical aberration
except it exists off axis and gets worse the further off
axis you get. It looks like a tear-drop shaped smearing of
points. The R-R type lens was one of the first reasonably
fast and reasonably good performing lenses to become
available.
It was invented simutaneously and independantly by
Dallmeyer of England, who used the name Rapid-Rectilinear,
and by Steinheil of Germany, who sold the lens as the
Aplanat. Both names refer to the good correction for
geometrical distortion. Both lenses appear about 1866.
The Rapid-Rectilinear was made by nearly all manufacturers
of lenses under a huge varitey of names. Rapid-Rectilinear
was used by Bausch & Lomb for their version.
Rapid Rectilinear lenses were made in huge quantities from
1866 to about 1930, an astonishingly long life. B&L; made
millions of them for use on Kodak's medium priced cameras.
The Rapid-Rectilinear is not an anastigmat. After high
index-low dispersion glass was developed by Schott and Zeiss
in Germany about 1892 it became possible to design
anastigmatic lenses so the R-R was replaced by other types.
However, it continued to be used for lower priced cameras
for many years.
Astignatism is a fault in lenses which prevents them from
sharply focusing radial lines and tangential lines
simutaneously. A spider web can be focused so that the
circular threads or radial threads are in focus but not both
at once. I order to correct a lens for astigmatism and also
for color and flat field glass characteristics are needed
that were not available before the development of so called
Jena glass by Schott. The development of lenses was rapid
after that and earlier types, like the R-R pretty much
disappeared.
R-R lenses are not cheap to make. The cemented surfaces
must be individually polished to match each other and there
is a lot of hand work in the centering and cementing, still
true today.
When stopped down the depth of field compensates somewhat
for the astigmatism and also for the field curvature which
is introduced in some versions to help correct the
astigmatism. R-R lenses are capable of very sharp images
within limits.
Its probable that most photographs taken between about
1866 and about 1895 were made with some form of R-R lens.
A few asymetrical R-R's were made as convertible lenses, I
think there were even sets of cells offered by some
manufacturers. There were also wide angle R-R lenses, but
they were considerably slower than the typical f/8 R-R.
A note: Bausch & Lomb used Uniform Scale system, or US
stops on most of its R-R lenses, even up to the 1930's. The
US system was proposed by the Royal Photographic Society of
London about 1890. The stops are proportional to exposure
time. The US stops are sometimes confusing because we tend
to interpret them as f/stops and think these old lenses are
faster than they are.
US = N^2/16 where N = the ratio of the opening to the
focal length, in other words the bottom of the f/stop
fraction. US 1 = f/4 and US 16 = f/16. This system was not
very widely used and is found today mostly on these old B&L;
lenses.
From camera fix mailing list:
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002
From: Rolfe Tessem rolfe@ldp.com
Subject: Re: [Leica] Tilt-all history (was Parts Problem)
Stan Yoder vze2myh5@verizon.net wrote:
> I understood that the story went like this: when the Marchioni brothers
> (of NJ) died, the widows EACH sold the production rights, one to Leitz
> USA, the other to Davidson/Star-D, which at the time was an American
> firm. But that may be partly apocryphal. Leitz USA published a pamphlet
> on the Tiltall that states that it approached the brothers in 1973 about
> an "affiliation." The brothers then decided to retire from tripod
> production, Leitz moved their machinery to Rockleigh NJ, and the brothers
> trained the Leitz staff. It could be, then, that Leitz subsequently (what
> year?) sold the Tiltall to the entrepreneur who owned Star-D. OR, maybe
> the story is partially correct after all, and Davidson was producing its
> version concurrently (but after the bros. died?)
>
> The Star-D could be had in at least two models, the better/best of which
> (the "Professional") had the brass collets in the leglocks, like the
> original. I own (and prize) one of these and the only difference I can
> detect is that the two tilt handles have black plastic grips rather than
> the aluminum knobs of the Marchioni bros. original. Otherwise, built like
> the proverbial brick s---house, and NOT lightweight. Sturdy is as sturdy
> does.
>
> I dunno about the current Tiltall, having neither seen nor handled one.
> I've heard that it's not made like the older ones. "They don't build 'em
> like they useter, Horace!" :-)
>
> Can anyone shed conclusive light on this history?
The Star-D and the Leitz branded Tiltall were definitely produced
concurrently. The Star-D was cheaper, both in price and in fit and feel.
The current Tiltall seems to be somewhere in between, IMHO. I can't get the
legs tight enough on my modern Tiltall -- they want to screw right off the
head up at the top. Also, the redesign of the feet was certainly a
questionable one. On my Leitz, there is no way you are going to lose a foot
but on the modern tiltall, it only seems a matter of time before one comes
unscrewed without being noticed.
- --
Rolfe Tessem
Lucky Duck Productions, Inc.
rolfe@ldp.com
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003
To: Russiancamera-user russiancamera-user@mail.beststuff.com
From: Paul Shinkawa pshinkaw@yahoo.com
Subject: [Russiancamera] Another published history of Soviet expropriation
Several months ago I found an Adobe Acrobat (PDF) file which is a reprint of
a paper describing the history of the Soviet appropriation of the Jenaer
Glaswerke Schott & Genossen plant to Russia. The title is:
"Deportation - dismantling - expropriation
Jenaer Glaswek under Soviet command (1945 to 1948)
Jurgen Steineer, Schott Glaswerke, Mainz (Germany)"
And it was apparently originally published in,
"Glastech. Ber. Glass Sci. Technol. 69 (1996) No. 11
Page 368 - Page 375"
It is in English with a German and English Abstract. However, I cannot
remember where I obtained the download and I lost the bookmark file
containing the URL in a glitch. I have searched, but have not been able to
locate the website again. All I have been able to find is a reference in
Alta Vista to:
www.wolfgang-diez.de/downloads/ pkv-infos-pdf/Sonstiges7.pdf
However this site only locks up my browser.
All I remember is that it was available in both English and German and I
downloaded the English version. The file name was sonstiges7.pdf. Does
anybody else have this file or can tell me where the original site is
located? I wonder if a copyright violation resulted in the information being
removed?
-Paul
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003
To: Russiancamera-user russiancamera-user@mail.beststuff.com
From: "Robert L." contact@russianplaza.com
Subject: [Russiancamera] Re: Another published history of Soviet expropriation
Is this it???
Steiner, J.: Deportation - dismantling - expropriation:
Jenaer Glaswerk under Soviet command (1945 to 1948). Glass Science and
Technology - Glastechnische Berichte 69. 1996 (11), S. 368-375
Jenaer Glaswerk under Soviet command (1945 to 1948)
http://www2.schott.com/ft/german/products/research_reports/other.html
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003
To: Russiancamera-user russiancamera-user@mail.beststuff.com
From: Martin Luerkens m.luerkens@web.de
Subject: [Russiancamera] Re: Another published history of Soviet expropriation
I think so,
Just made a google search with the title given by Paul and inserted an "r"
into Glaswek to Glaswerk. pdf download is here
http://www.schott.com/ft/german/download/
(among others there is the Jnrgen Steiner file somewhere in the middle)
Still I did not, you`re asked there to fill out who you are, what profession
and so on..., but encircled! Quick comrades here ;-))
Martin L
From: Le Grande Raoul raoul@olympus.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: How to shot LF handheld?
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003
Marv Soloff
From: sydney_guy99@yahoo.com.au (Sydney Guy)
Newsgroups: sci.astro.amateur
Subject: Re: Info/Books on DIY binocular repair?
Date: 5 Mar 2003
Hi Peter,
thanks for your informative reply. Love your website BTW. Here's a
couple of articles you might be interested in re Australia's
development from scratch of an optical industry during WW2:
"Optical instruments in Australia in the 1939-45 war: successes and
lost opportunities"
http://www.asap.unimelb.edu.au/bsparcs/exhib/papers/bolton2.htm
"'Optical Munitions'"
http://www.asap.unimelb.edu.au/bsparcs/exhib/papers/mellor.htm
A couple of interesting observations:
- one of the key people in the production of optical glass was E.J.
Hartung. Professor of Chemistry at Melbourne University. In his bio on
that site it mentions that Hartung was a keen amateur astronomer. If
I'm not mistaken, he was the original author of Hartung's Astronomical
Objects for Southern
Telescopes.
- as related in the second article, after getting the cold shoulder
from the major British & American optical firms, the major source of
technical information turned out to be the US Govt's National Bureau
of Standards. to quote from the article:
" 'it is the only scientific institution in the world which has,
entirely within its own organisation, complete facilities for making
an optical instrument beginning with the raw materials and producing
in turn the glass, the optical design, lenses and prisms, the
mechanical parts and finally the finished instruments'[20]. Moreover,
during the years between the wars the bureau had conducted extensive
series of investigations on the relation between the optical behaviour
of glass and its chemical composition - investigations which were
published in great detail in its Journal of Research and were of
considerable help to makers of optical munitions."
Hope this is of interest to you.
Regards
SG
From: glasair470@yahoo.com (flyer)
Newsgroups: sci.optics
Subject: Frazier lens patent invalidated
Date: 16 Apr 2003
As many of you may know, a federal judge has invalidated the patent of
the James Frazier "Wide Angle, Deep Field, Close Focusing Optical
System", patent number 5,727,236. This is the lens licensed to
Panavision and very successfully rented. It is used to make about
half of the commercials shot and also used on feature films. Not
getting into all the details of the invalidation, which allege that
the inventor presented to the patent examiner some "doctored" films
supposedly shot with this lens setup but allegdly with another lens, I
have some questions about how it works. The judge also said that the
lens has the same depth of field of any other lens of equivalent focal
length, and I certainly believe that. But I believe that the reason
that this lens captures a very compelling image is because of other
things, that Iain Neil of Panavision tries to explain.
It is a relayed optical system, with a taking lens relayed at about
70% demagnification to the focal plane. There are also some great
elbows in the optical train allowing the lens to be bent and swivlled
and an image rotation prism, which by themselves make the lens
abundantly useful to close quarters work even without the large depth
of field.
Iain Neil of Panavision, in an interview published on the web by the
American Society of Cinematographers
(http://www.theasc.com/magazine/feb99/panavision/pg1.htm),
describes the lens.
I am having some trouble following everything, maybe because some of
the optical terms were used loosely by the publisher of the interview.
For example, Neil is quoted ...
"Although this unusual lens seemingly defies the laws of physics, it
actually achieves its expanded depth through natural means. "This
device does have a very large depth of field, but it is not infinite,"
notes Neil. "The depth that is created does not break the laws of
physics; it occurs because of the design of the optical relay system
that is used. If you were to take a 10mm fixed-focal-length lens and
put it on a camera, you'd get a certain field of view and depth of
field at, say a T8 aperture. If you were to put the equivalent lens on
the Frazier - which in this case would be the 14mm, which delivers
about a 9.9mm field of view - you would actually have a similar depth
of field. Now you may say, 'Wait a minute! If that's so, why do people
talk so much about the depth of field with this lens? Why wouldn't
they just rent a 10mm instead?' The reason is that with a 10mm lens,
the diameter of the front element is about six inches. If you were to
take a bumblebee and put it on that lens's front glass, it would only
fill about five percent of your frame. Because of the Frazier system's
optical configuration, when you put the bumblebee on the front of the
14mm taking lens - which is about an inch and a half in diameter - the
bee will fill about half of your frame. Yes, you'd have a large depth
of field, but more importantly, you're able to get objects really
close to the front of the taking lens to get into macro
magnifications. So in a practical sense, the Frazier system's depth of
field is more available and useful."
I don't follow how the size of the objective lens relates to how much
of the frame the object fills. Isn't that a function of field-of-view
and not aperture?
And then, Neil goes on to talk about perspective thus ...
"Another problem with other lenses has to do with the entrance pupil
of the lens," Neil expands. "With a lens that has a six-inch diameter,
the entrance pupil is actually some distance inside the lens. So as
you bring your face in close to the lens, your nose will start to
bulge and your ears do something weird with perspective distortion.
With a smaller-diameter lens, the entrance pupil is still inside the
lens, but at a much smaller distance [from the front]. If you look at
the mathematics, it turns out that you could then bring someone's face
all the way up to the lens and not see any perspective distortion.
This relationship has a lot to do with how the taking lenses, the
field lenses and the system have been optimized, which in this case is
in the area between six inches and three feet. When you can't see the
perspective, you can't tell the size of an object or the distance it's
at, so a sort of optical illusion is created."
How does the location of the entrance pupil relate to perspective?
Isn't the distance of various parts of the object (nose, ears, etc)
from the Principal Plane related to the lens magnification and how
these parts are rendered at different sizes at the focal plane. It is
this apparent size distortion that alerts the viewer that some funny
perspective thing is going on, and Neil claims that the Frazier system
avoids that perspective cueing.
Any one able to make sense of this?
Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.equipment.large-format,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.advanced
Subject: Cole Weston 1919-2003
From: "Tom Thackrey" tomnr@creative-light.com
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003
I am sad to report that Cole Weston died last Sunday (4/20).
He was the last of Edward Weston's sons. I took one of his workshops a
couple of years ago. He was an interesting speaker, very knowledgable and
eager to talk about his work and his fathers. He showed us a lot of prints
and looked at ours. He printed one of Edward's negatives of Charis on the
Dunes at Oceano. We took a tour of Point Lobos where Cole pointed out many
of the rocks and trees that Edward photographed. Later we sat on the rocks
at Weston Beach and Cole answered our questions about photography, Edward,
Brett, Charis, and printing Edward's negatives. It was a great workshop. I
feel like it's the end of an era.
RIP Cole
--
Tom Thackrey
www.creative-light.com
From nikon mailing list:
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003
To: nikon@photo.cis.to
From: John Albino jalbino@jwalbino.com
Subject: Re: [Nikon] Re: Weddings - Film Vs Didital
Jayanand Govindaraj wrote:
>The first 35mm Colorama was Ernst Haas - but in 1977 - according to the
>Kodak site...
Actually, that is a bit ambiguous. Leica-philes say 1970, shot with a
Leica. The Kodak site describes how Coloramas first were done using 8x10
cameras, later shifted to a special Linhof Technorama camera which used 120
film producing an image about 2-1/4 inches by 6 inches, and then even went
to *cropped 35mm from Kodachrome.* See
<
From SLR manual mailing list: (forwarded post)
Date: Sun, 18 May 2003
From: Stephen Gandy leicanikon@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: [RF List] Japan by way of Germany -- Pentax
some of the guesses introduced names I had not considered. While there are
new Voigtlander cameras, there is no Voigtlander camera company, so I doubt
that would fit the trivia question.
today I bought a book by Alexander Schultz called "Contax S, A History of
the World's first 35mm Prism SLR Camera." the first version was in Germany
only, this is in English and available at www.camerabooks.com
Camerabooks sells at the same monthly camera show which I attend, which is
also the largest monthly camera show in the US. It's in Buena Park only a
few miles from the original Disneyland -- www.cameraexpo.com
although it is well known "Pentax" was Asahi's model name for their first
prism SLR, what is not so well known is that Asahi bought the trademarked
name from the East German camera manufacturer VEB Zeiss Ikon Dresden. it
was a nice surprise to learn something new about such a well known name as
Pentax. Looking backwards, it was not one of VEB's best decisions.
Apparently it originally derived from PENTaprism and contAX, before the
East Germans lost the court battle with West German Zeiss to use the Contax
name world wide.
overall the Contax S book is very well done, and certainly the best source
of Contax S info available in English that I have seen. ISBN:
3-89506-236-7 $29.00 It contains detailed info about the Contax S design
which started before W.W.II, as well as Contax S variations unknown to many
collectors.
Stephen
From: Peter Abrahams telscope@europa.com
Newsgroups: sci.optics
Subject: Albert Koenig, lens designer for Zeiss
Date: Fri, 09 May 2003
Albert Koenig was a lens designer for Zeiss, who was responsible for their
legendary 'B' apochromatic telescope objective circa 1930; the many types
of Koenig eyepiece; and was co-designer of the Abbe-Koenig prism.
There has been no English language information on him; and a text has been
posted with a summary of his optical work; and a translation, by Chris
Plicht, of Horst Koehler's tribute to Koenig.
http://home.europa.com/~telscope/koenig.txt
Any further information on Koenig would be very welcome.
Peter Abrahams, telscope@europa.com
--
Peter Abrahams
The history of the telescope & the binocular:
http://www.europa.com/~telscope/binotele.htm
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: This May Depend on WHICH Kodachrome...
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003
Steve Gombosi wrote:
> >The original Kodachrome was introduced in the
> >early 40's, I believe.
Actually, the first and original 'Kodachrome' film was introduced in 1914.
It was not the Mannes and Godowsky film, but a two (!) colour subtractive
colour transparency film, made by exposing two B&W; negatives, one through a
green filter, the other through a red filter. The negatives were developed,
bleached, and then dyed in complementary colours, and finally attached face
to face on a piece of glass.
This thing was invented by John Capstaff. His work on colour photography was
noticed by Eastman's talent scouts, and he was subsequently persuaded to go
and work for Kodak in Rochester.
;-)
From: "Ed Senior" eseniors@earthlink.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: This May Depend on WHICH Kodachrome...
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003
Not all Kodachromes were/are created equal.
This is my short-form Kodachrome history,
which I believe to be substantially correct.
(Big-time film historians may pick some nits.)
The original Kodachrome was introduced in the
early 40's, I believe. I know I have some 1943
Kodachromes that are awesome... they look like
they were shot yesterday. (Longevity is one of
Kodachrome's OUTSTANDING attributes that
doesn't get enough credit.) I believe that stuff
was ASA 10.
At some point, I'm going to guess early 60's,
Kodachrome was replaced by Kodachrome II,
ASA 25. This was the die-for stuff, the best
color film I've ever seen. Great, wonderful,
perfect, if you could live with the speed.
Then came the sad day that Kodachrome II was
replaced by Kodachrome 25 and 64... completely
different stuff. I'm going to guess late 70's or
early 80's. Many photographers frantically bought
up remaining stocks of K-II, and froze it.
Although Kodak presented the K-25 and K-64 as
"new and improved," only the "new" was correct.
The stuff still had fine grain, but the color was
all over the place. I especially hated the cyan skies.
And the K-64 was too contrasty for good results in
direct sun.
Rumour had it that the real reason for the change
was that K-II processing presented some intractible
pollution problems at the processing plants, and that
K-25/64 was formulated to solve those problems.
I limped along with the K-25 in those days, cursing
the cyan skies, because I wanted fine grain.
Now that I've seen the new generation(s) of E-6
transparency films, I'm no longer interested in K-25.
The E-6's are now remarkably fine grained for their
speeds, and the colors are quite pleasing.
But I wouldn't bet the farm that E-6 longevity has
been substantially improved. So if I get any great
E-6 shots, I plan to scan 'em while they're fresh.
Oh sigh... Kodachrome II... those were the days...
|:-(
From: rick5347@aol.com (RICK5347)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 19 Jun 2003
Subject: Re: When Ansel Adams got old.....
I think Ansel worked more than a bit throughout his life at elevations
higher than sea level.
He kept a home in Yosemite, right behind the gallery. If memory serves me the
valley is at about 4000 ft elevation. He also climbed virtually every peak in
the area and photographed from many of them. His trusty mule (Buttercup, if
memory serves me) was used frequently to carry his equipment. In his later
years the mule was replaced by many willing and eager asistants.
Ansel used a view camera until the very end of his life, his last one was a
Horseman 4x5 L monorail. He also loved his Hasselblad system and was personal
friends with Victor Hasselblad so he had all the goodies. When you saw him out
on his own in his later years it was usually with the Hasselblad.
Best regards,
Rick Rosen
Newport Beach, CA
www.rickrosen.com
From: Le Grande Raoul raoul@olympus.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: When Ansel Adams got old.....
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003
ArtKramr artkramr@aol.com wrote:
> Whne Ansel Adams got too old he no longer had the strength to work large
> format. He switched to Hassleblad.
Hmm... By the time Ansel got old, he had assistants to handle all his
stuff. Ansel had been using Hasselblad long before he got old. I've
seen Hassy images he made in 1960. He would have been 58 then. That's
younger than *you*, Arthur! ;)
He has stated that he really liked the Hassy for lots of reasons. It
really fit into his style of doing things. Fine Zeiss glass,
interchangable backs, easy handling and , yes lighter than LF.
I believe he still worked in LF right to the end.
Jeff
[Ed. note: an interesting note re: Eliot Porter...]
From: artkramr@aol.com (ArtKramr)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 19 Jul 2003
Subject: Re: Congrats View Camera Magazine
>Subject: Re: Congrats View Camera Magazine
>From: "Alec Jones" alecjspam@bellsouth.net
>Date: 7/18/03
>
>I agree. Steve, it was a great issue. Look forward to the "rest of the
>story" about E. Porter and his B&W; work. I have his one B&W; book - those
>images were just as exceptional as his color work - too bad all the
>attention is paid just to his color work.
And ol' Elliot loved Protars.
Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
From photography Teachers mailing list:
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2003
From: "Caroleigh" caroleigh@calphoto.com
Subject: Instruction guide for teaching about Eliot Porter
I came across a website this morning designed to help teachers of
grades 5-8 present instruction about photographer Eliot Porter. Don't
know if this would be of interest to anyone on this list or not . . .
[I received an error message first time I tried to post this. If it
comes through twice, my sincere apologies and I know that BugBob will
delete the redundancy!]
The web address is:
http://www.cartermuseum.org/edu_guides/porter/
Here's the description, copied from the website:
This site is written for fifth through eighth grade students.
Students can explore the artist's life and photography in three
sections under Student Activites: Becoming an Artist, The World of
Eliot Porter, and Making a Statement.
An additional Activity Log encourages students to look carefully both
at Porter's work and at their own environment and communities as
inspirations for creating works of art.
Eliot Porter combined his love of art and nature to establish an
important model for looking at the natural world.
Porter began making color photographs in 1939, when most
photographers were working in black and white. He showed them the
value of working in color.
The artist made a fundamental contribution to environmentalism by
showing the beauty of wild places around the world. His work is
widely imitated, as can be seen in many of today's calendars, coffee-
table books, and posters.
While best known for his details of nature, Porter also photographed
landscape views, architecture, and even people.
Carol Leigh, Publisher, "Photo Explorations Magazine"
http://www.photoexplorations.com
carol@photoexplorations.com
From rangefinder mailing list:
ate: Mon, 28 Jul 2003
From: FarronB@aol.com
Subject: Re: [RF List] Dzerzhinsky - partly OT
"Rather definitive" is an understatement. This article will satisfy anyone's
curiosity about the FED itself and its curious links to the Soviet secret
police. Thanks for the posting.
Farron
schub@tradenets.com writes:
> Subj:RE: [RF List] Dzerzhinsky - partly OT
> Date:7/26/2003
> Sent from the Internet
>
> Here is a rather definitive article on the Dzerzhinsky commune:
> http://www.fedka.com/Useful_info/Commune_by_Fricke/commune_AP8.pdf
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Wallage [mailto:peterwallage@btinternet.com]
> Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2003
> To: rflist@topica.com
> Subject: [RF List] Dzerzhinsky - partly OT
>
> Hi,
> I suppose this is only partly OT as FEDs are, after all, RF cameras.
> Some years ago I came across a Russian propaganda spiel for FED written
> in the late 1930s. In this, Dzerzhinsky was described as an
> 'educationalist' in the department of internal affairs (I seem to
> remember it was at that time called the OGPU, but I may be wrong).
> Apparently, the orphans whose parents had been killed in the revolution,
> and post-revolution 'cleansing', were causing all sorts of trouble in
> the major cities of the Soviet Union and were described as 'marauding
> gangs of criminals'. Dzerzhinsky was given the job of dealing with the
> problem, and his solution was to round them up and put them in work
> communes where they could learn to become 'decent Soviet citizens' by
> taking a pride in their work. As someone said, they started by making
> furniture, and then moved on to assembling copies of Western electrical
> goods like electric drills and so on. I believe the commune had been
> established quite some time before it undertook producing cameras copied
> from the Leica but 'suitably modified to make assembly by trainee labour
> easier'. Before long, everything except the cameras had been dropped.
>
> The piece was translated from a feature in Pravda, and the writer made
> no apologies about copying a Leica product. It was in keeping, he said,
> with Stalin's dictum of taking whatever the Capitalists have to offer
> and modifying it to suit Soviet production methods.
>
> Peter
>
> RFList Home Page: http://www.cameraquest.com/rflist.htm
From contax mailing list:
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003
Subject: Re: [Contax] OT: What was it?
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
To: contax@photo.cis.to
Jakob Groes wrote:
> That's interesting, 'cause the site
> (http://www.galerie-photo.com/plaubel.html) is even more specific on
> this
> issue.
>
> It says that Plaubel went into cooperation first with Japanese company
> Kimio
> Doi to design the camera (and build a joint factory?), but in 1981
> manufacturing was taken over by Mamiya (along with the joint
> manufacturing
> plant?).
>
The Doi group bought Plaubel some time in the 70s and I think still
owns the company today. All manufacturing of Plaubel folding cameras
was done at the factory Doi built until the end of production. The
factory was sold a few years later, but I have forgotten which company
bought it, but think it may have been Yashica/Kyocera.
The person who wrote this web site seems to have confused Plaubel with
Koni-Omega.
> Production of MP 67 eventually ceased a few years later as result of Mamiya
> bankrupcy in 1984, the site says.
The bankruptcy in 1984 only shut down Mamiya's 35mm camera and lens
production facilities. That was the bankruptcy of Asanuma Trading
Company, which owned a big chunk of Mamiya at the time, and controlled
their distribution as a middle man. It had no effect on their medium
format production.
Plaubel Makina production ceased due to poor sales. The company never
had good distribution in the USA, for example, and problems with the
first version of the camera gave them a black eye via. word of mouth.
Bob
From: Bob Salomon bob_salomon@mindspring.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Postive News on HP Marketing
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003
"Mark A" ma@switchboard.net wrote:
> If HP Marketing ever tried to import photo scanners or digital cameras,
We do. Braun scanners and Kaiser digital cameras. We introduced the
first digital scan back in the late 80's as well, The Rollei ScanPack
for the Rollei 6008 SRC 1000 camera.
MAybe you should look at this differently.
We have been importing cameras and accessories for more then 30 years as
HP Marketing Corp (H.P. was the initials of the founder of the company -
Herbert Peerschke). Prior to forming HP Marketing he was the President
of Zeiss Ikon Voigtlander, USA and formed HP from that company when
Zeiss Ikon decided to get out of the camera business.
Over those 30+ years we have always been known as HP Marketing Corp.
Now a company from Palo Alto, CA that made test instruments, calculators
and computers has, in the last few years, begun to market cameras. An
area that we have specialized in for 30+ years.
--
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@tiscali.nl
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Ektars for Hassy - do they really exist?
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004
Lassi Hippel,inen wrote:
> [...] My
> main point was that the chain Zeiss-B&L-Kodak-Hasselblad; existed.
I doubt that. Where's the evidence?
> Hasselblad's use of Kodak lenses didn't come out of blue sky.
Indeed it did not.
There was a longstanding friendship between the Hasselblad family and George
Eastman, which began when Victor Hasselblad's grandfather met George Eastman
while honeymooning in London, England (Hasselblad, that is. Eastman never
married), in the year 1885. At that time, Geroge Eastman was not yet the
large industrialist he would turn out to be, the "Eastman Kodak" company did
not yet exist. Eastman was still trying to make it as the "Eastman Dry Plate
and Film Company".
This meeting must have been a pleasant one, for it not only resulted in
Hasselblad representing Eastman Kodak in Sweden, but also in Victor
Hasselblad going to both Eastman Kodak in Rochester and Eastman Path, in
France to "learn a trade".
Victor severed the ties with Eastman Kodak
That tie, combined with the impossibility to get Zeiss lenses for his civil
camera, will have been decisive in Victor Hasselblad's choice for Kodak
lenses. Not a supposed Zeiss-B&L-Kodak-Hasselblad; chain.
From: Lassi lahippel@ieee.orgasm-research.invalid
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Ektars for Hassy - do they really exist?
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004
Lassi Hippel,inen wrote:
> Zeiss didn't make the lenses. They licenced their technology to B&L; and
> a few others, but the licences didn't include Zeiss labels. The only
> exception that I can remember is Rollei - but they sent babysitters to
> the Rollei production line to make sure the quality was right.
I'll have to correct myself. Zeiss permitted Bausch&Lomb; to use the
Tessar label, but when B&L; further licensed the design to Kodak, the
label wasn't included. So those lenses had Kodak labels. Zeiss also
licensed their technology to some German lens makers who had to use
their own markings (typically "Anastigmat").
A bit more Zeiss lens history:
http://www.camerastore.com/kallityp/Rollei-9.html
-- Lassi
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@tiscali.nl
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: question about mf aspect ratio
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004
Bob Monaghan wrote:
> Speaking of which, the original kodak images were circular, making full
> use of the lens coverage I guess? ;-)
Well, no. The simple lens they used covered the rectangular format quite
well.
But rather than show their customers that they could not produce a camera
with sufficient stray light reduction, they inserted a circular mask to hide
how light bouncing off camera parts was marring the edges and corners (there
in particular) of the frame.
From: Willem-Jan Markerink [w.j.markerink@a1.nl]
Sent: Wed 3/17/2004
To: panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au
Subject: Re: Seitz history online!
Willem-Jan Markerink wrote:
> http://cms3-roundshot.backslash.ch/xml_1/internet/de/application/d583/f585.cfm
>
> Or, for the copy&paste-challenged....;))
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?G258141B7
>
> Werner Seitz promised an English version soon....;))
English:
http://www.roundshot.ch/xml_1/internet/de/application/d583/f585.cfm
Also nice, company-history:
http://www.roundshot.ch/xml_1/internet/de/application/d583/f584.cfm
Bye,
Willem-Jan Markerink
w.j.markerink@a1.nl
[note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!]
From: danielwfromm@att.com (Dan Fromm)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Ektars for Hassy - do they really exist?
Date: 7 Feb 2004
Lassi Hippel,inen wrote:
>
> Zeiss didn't make the lenses. They licenced their technology to B&L; and
> a few others, but the licences didn't include Zeiss labels.
>
Come on, Lassi. B&L;, Wray, and Krauss (Paris, I believe) all made
Zeiss lenses under license and all badged them "Zeiss" and the lens
type, e.g., Tessar or Protar. When Zeiss' patents expired the
licensees went their own ways and stopped crediting Zeiss.
As for "Kodak Anastigmat", the words were applied to triplets,
dialytes, some tessar types, heliar types, and still others rather
more complex. The words mean anastigmatic lens made by or for Kodak,
and that's all.
"Ektar" was EKCo's word for "the best lens we make in this category"
and covered many designs.
I typed "tessar type" because if you look closely at the design you'll
see that in detail Kodak's lenses aren't quite tessars as originally
patented. And I typed "heliar type" because Altman's five element
lenses' designs as patented really aren't quite the same as Booth's
Pentac as patented and neither is quite the same as Harting's Heliar
as patented.
We have to be careful not to misuse words that have quite precise
meanings.
Cheers,
Dan
From manual minolta mailing list:
Date: Mon, 03 May 2004
From: "jasnhopper" jasthopper@hotmail.com
Subject: Minolta Archival Material Gone
It seems that KonicaMinolta has dumped most, if not all, of its
archival reference, promotional and instructional literature that
did not relate to current or digital production. A dealer and
collector friend had approached a KMPI VP at PMA about aquiring some
of this literature, and was later told by this VP that it had been
dumped when KM moved out of the building where it been stored.
The dealer could not find out how far back or how extensive this
material was, only that Minolta had had plans for archives for this
material. An archive, physical or cyber, would have been a great
resource, but plans changed with the merger.
Here's hoping the Minolta Gallery wasn't affected.
Date: Tue, 25 May 2004
Subject: Re: [Contax] 35mm Distagon (distortion and stuff)
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
To: contax@photo.cis.to
Andy Bilewycz wrote:
> Bob Shell at bob@bobshell.com wrote:
>
>> The famous Voigtl,nder Apo-Lanthar lenses used a
>> Lanthanum salt to achieve apochromatic correction.
>
>> No lenses made today use radioactive salts because of concerns with the
>> health of the factory workers.
>>
>> Bob
>
> I thought that the Apo-Lanthar lenses are current.
>
> Andy
Here's the "Readers Digest" version of the history:
No, the real Apo-Lanthar lenses were made in Braunschweig, Germany, in
the 50s and 60s. That was when Voigtl,nder was an independent company.
I don't know the date, but at some time in the 60s Voigtl,nder was
absorbed by Zeiss-Ikon, which then became known as
Zeiss-Ikon/Voigtl,nder. When that company went out of the camera
business in the early 70s the Voigtl,nder works were bought by Rollei,
who were also in Braunschweig, and were used to make lenses and
cameras. Then when Rollei went bankrupt in the early 80s, the
Voigtl,nder name was bought by RingFoto, a German merchandising firm
which still owns the name today. They also own all Voigtl,nder product
names. They have licensed those names to Cosina, who currently make
the Bessa cameras and lenses. However the lenses made by Cosina under
the Apo-Lanthar name have nothing to do with the old ones which used
Lanthanum in some of the glass. Today Apo-Lanthar, Ultron, etc., are
just arbitrarily applied with no reference to the optical formulae they
once described. Purists consider this an abomination.
Real Apo-Lanthar lenses are rare and much prized. I sold a 300mm f/5.6
Apo-Lanthar on eBay a few months ago for close to US $ 2,000.00 !
Bob
From bronica mailing list:
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004
From: steve w sunbeams_are_yellow@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Re: 120 film in 220 back
listen to the person that invented 220 film not the
a$$ hole who thinks they know everything....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sure you can use 120 in a 220 back, no problem at all.
the extra thickness with the paper simply makes the
film lie flatter against the aperture plate. The only
problem is that you have to keep watch on the counter
since the magazine thinks there are lots more
exposures.
The only reason for separate magazines for the two
film sizes is to get an extra 500 to 750 bucks from
you. Mamiya, Yashicamat, Rollei SLR's and others
have had a simple switching mechanism for this since
we introduced 220 in August of '66 (I'm the co-creator
of 220 with Bill Ryan at Calumet and Kodak agreed to
adopt it as a product).
(Edited by Lynn Jones at 11:39 pm on Feb. 17, 2002)
-----
Lynn
Prof. H. Lynn Jones
ACC Photo Technology
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Questions about olde tyme lens
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2004
"David Nebenzahl" nobody@but.us.chickens wrote
> My latest find from *Bay just arrived: an old brass-n-chrome Bausch & Lomb
> lens in shutter. Actually, I'm not sure just what to call it. There are three
> names on it: "Victor" at the bottom on the aperture scale, Bausch & Lomb Opt.
> Co. around the bottom of the lens, and R.O. & C. Co. on the shutter speed
> dial. So is it a Victor, a B&L;, a Rochester Optical, or what? (The B&L; patent
> date is '91.)
>
> Anyhoo, I got it for my Rochester 5x7 field camera, and it looks to be just
> the ticket. The only markings on the lens barrel, "SYMMETRICAL" and "5x7"
> suggest it to be the right lens for this size camera.
>
> The shutter is simple, one might even say primitive--pneumatic, with the two
> characteristic cylinders on the front--but elegant. Nice range of speeds:
> 1-2-5-25-100. Works, not accurately, and the blades (all both of them) don't
> close completely at all speeds, but I'm confident I can easily put it back in
> working order. (The diaphragm may actually be more work than the shutter, as
> it forms a quite ugly pointy shape at small apertures (goes down to f/64).
> Hopefully this is fixable.)
>
> My questions are these:
>
> 1. What kind of lens is this? what focal length? (I'm guessing "normal" for
> 5x7, around 210mm or so.) The glass is very clean, with only the smallest
> apparent separation right around the edge of the front cell.
>
> 2. I need a retaining ring. The threads seem to be about 33mm. Where would I
> find one?
>
> 3. The lefthand cylinder seems to have a socket for a cable release, maybe,
> but a standard modern release won't fit in the hole in the bottom. Is this why
> there's a hole at the bottom? Without this, it'll be hard to use this shutter
> without jarring the camera, as it takes a bit of force to trip the shutter
> release.
>
> Any other comments on the history and construction of this old lens & shutter
> would be appreciated.
I can't be absolutely sure without a book which is eluding
me at the moment but think the lens is an ROC lens and the
shutter Bausch & Lomb. The Rochester Optical and Camera
Company was formed by a merger of about nine companies in
1899. It was aquired by the Eastman Kodak Co. in 1903. From
the time of the purchase by Kodak the company was called the
Rochester Optical Co., in 1907 to Rochester Optical
Division, and in 1918 to Rochester Optical Department, of
Eastman Kodak. So, the R.O.& C suggests the shutter and lens
was made between 1899 and 1903. I suspect the lens is some
version of a Rapid-Rectilinear. Counting the reflections
will help, a R-R should have two bright and one dim
reflection for each cell. Somewhere I have more info on the
Victor shutter and remember seeing the "Symmetrical" lens in
a catalogue list. FWIW, B&L; called their Rapid-Rectilinear
bu that name. I will look more tomorrow and post again if I
find more.
B&L; and some other companies listed lenses by format
size. "Normal" for 5x7 is around 8 inches.
I suspect the shutter would respond to cleaning but
beware that the shutter and diaphragm blades may be made of
hard rubber or hard fiber. The first are heat sensitve,
latter won't stand getting wet.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From zeiss interest group
Date: Tue, 11 May 2004
From: Marc James Small msmall@infionline.net
Subject: Re: Carl Zeiss Jena Kiev 2?
tigerarm2000 wrote:
>Hello everyone,
>
>I saw a photo of a strange Kiev 2 with Carl Zeiss Jena engraved in
>the accessary shoe and a Sonnar 50/2 lens but a front plate with
>block letters of Kneb nameplate.Is there such a camera ever been
>made in Jena? I saw a Carl Zeiss Jena Contax II before but not aware
>that they also have Kiev nameplates.
Zhang
There is a surviving New York TIMES article on Jena in 1947; one of the
illustrations shows a German worker assembling a camera clearly marked with
the KIEV (in Cyrillic) nameplate. A Japanese scholar has pursued this
connection to a point where his conclusions seem irrefutable: Sasaki,
Minoru. Contax to Kiev: A Report on the Mutation. Tokyo, Japan: Office
Heliar, 2000. ISBN: 4-901241-02-8.
Charlie Barringer charzov@comcast.net is also a most worthy source on
this, being a student of great learning on the Jena Contax and the early Kiev.
Marc
msmall@infionline.net
From: rflist-bounces@cameraquest.org on behalf of Marc James Small
Sent: Thu 4/29/2004
To: RFLIST
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [Rflist] Werra 35mm
khmiska wrote:
>Hello Marc,
>Thanks for your e-mail. I'm curious. Who made the Werra, when and what
>market was it aimed at?
>
>How does one get on the Leica group mailing list.
On the first, the Werra cameras and accessories were manufactured at the
Eisfeld works owned by Carl Zeiss Jena, the same factory which produced CZJ
binoculars from 1943 until 1989 and which is now owned by Docter Optic
Technology. This is as close as can be to a real "Carl Zeiss Jena" camera.
To join the Leica User Group, check out
http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug
Marc
msmall@infionline.net
From: rflist@cameraquest.org on behalf of Jim Williams
Sent: Sun 6/13/2004
To: RFLIST
Subject: Re: [Rflist] RE:Request for information
> I've never heard of "Quinar", but non-coupled 135mm lenses are common.
> (And not only from oddball companies, either. Seiki, which later
> became Canon, made a non-coupled 135mm "Serenar" lens.) I suppose
> people appreciated them when coupled alternatives were unavailable or
> prohibitively expensive.
>
> Is it Leica-compatible? Well, open it up and try it out at infinity
> and a shorter distance, and see what you get.
"Quinar" was one of the lens-family names of Steinheil of Munich, a
very old (founded 1855) and very prestigious optical house.
(How prestigious? Founder C.A. von Steinheil, a Swiss-born physicist,
had begun making scientific instruments in the 1830s; he was one of the
first to improve telescopes by applying silver to their mirrors. An
Italian expedition took one of his telescopes to India to observe the
transit of Venus in 1874. He also contributed to the development of
telegraphy -- he invented a recording telegraph in 1836, and more
significantly was the first to demonstrate that a ground connection
could be used as a substitute for one of the wires in the circuit. He
built the first electric clock in 1839, and contributed to the
development of many other physics instruments including the
spectroscope.)
Steinheil's lenses had a good reputation, and they also made a few
interesting cameras (see the CameraQuest article on their Casca II.)
If the lens doesn't focus at infinity on a Leica-mount camera, it's
possible it may have been designed for a Leica-threaded reflex housing.
From bronica mailing list:
Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2004
From: "David A. Goldfarb" dgoldfarb@barnard.edu
Subject: Linhof and Bronica
I just read an interesting historical tidbit in _The Linhof Camera
Story_ (2nd ed., p. 84). Apparently Linhof was working on a modular
645 SLR prototype from 1966-68, which never went to mass production,
but, "Ten years later Linhof became the German importer of the 4.5x6
cm Zenza Bronica which had similar features of this Linhof prototype,"
which I presume would have been the ETR in 1978. While the Linhof
prototype may not have had any direct influence on the ETR, Linhof's
decision to become the distributor is an interesting endorsement of
the product.
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Two Odd Films
Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2004
"John Bartley" oldrad@sympatico.ca wrote ...
> Richard Knoppow wrote:
>
> >The speeds may still be the old ASA system. If so the ISO
> >rating would be double this.
> >
>
> Sorry to go off thread topic a bit, but....I wonder if you could expand
> a bit on the difference between ASA and ISO and the how the numbers relate?
>
> thanks and cheers
> --
> regards from ::
> John Bartley
The original ASA system, introduced in the mid 1940's was
based on a method developed at Kodak. This method based the
speed point on that part of the toe of the film curve where
the "gradient" or contrast was 1/3rd of the contrast of the
main straight-line portion of the curve. This point was
decided after a very extensive survey of what viewers called
"first excellent prints" from a series of increasing
exposures. The idea was to find the minimum exposure which
had enough shadow detail to result in an "excellent" print.
The reason for using a minimum exposure is that film tends
to be less grainy and sharper when less dense. There were
two problems with this method. One was that it was just hard
to measure since points on two gradients had to be measured.
The second problem was not with the method itself but the
application of it by the ASA. They added a 2.5X safety
factor. Presumably, this was done to insure printable
negatives despite errors in exposure meters, shutters, stop
calibration, film development, etc. Kodak found that the
latitude for over exposure of most film was tremendous.
While overexposed film was not as sharp or grain free as a
correctly exposed negative the tonal rendition would remain
good over a very long range of error.
The safety factor resulted in overly dense negatives.
In 1958 the ASA changed the standard and adopted the DIN
method of measurement. They also dropped the large safety
factor. The DIN method is the one currently used although
there have been some changes in detail over the years. The
DIN standard measures speed from a point where the density
is log 0.1 above the base density and fog to a point where
the density is log 0.8 greater than this for an exposure
range of log 1.2 This corresponds to about the contrast
recommended for contact printing or diffusion enlarging. The
ASA ran a lot of tests and found that the effective speed of
most films came out about the same when DIN and Kodak
methods were compared. The DIN method is much easier to
measure so it was adopted. The biggest effect on published
film speeds was the change from a 2.5X safter factor to a
1.25X safety factor, the same as is spplied now. This had
the practical effect of doubling film speeds. Both sets of
speeds were called ASA speeds but the standard for them had
been changed.
The original ASA speed series was intended to be useful
on the existing exposure meters of the time, mainly those
made by Weston and General Electric. Both companies had
their own methods of speed measurement. The new ASA speeds
were designed so they fell in between the two sets of
speeds. An ASA speed (or an ISO speed) can be used on these
old meters without serious error. For a closer approximation
an old Weston meter, calibrated in Weston speeds, should be
set for the next lower numeber than the ISO speed, for old
G.E. meters, calibrated in the G.E. system, use the next
higher speed. Actually, you will find that Weston meters
underexpose about a stop. Why, well, evidently, Weston
included a safety factor in their speeds which was removed
by the calculator! I find my old Westons agree with modern
meters when half the ISO speed is used. My G.E. meters are
all calibrated in the ASA sytem and work fine with modern
ISO speeds.
The ISO is an international standards organization. The
U.S. member is NIST, or the National Institute for Standards
and Technology. This was formerly the ASA or American
Standards Association, same group. Modern ISO speeds are
directly related to the 1958 ASA and DIN systems.
If you have old Weston speed charts the ISO speeds are
approximately equal to double the next higher Weston speed.
For example, a film rated at Weston 80 would be about ISO
200. Since the speeds are measured by different methods this
is only approximate plus Weston lumped films with similar
speeds into groups with the same published speed.
Kodak published Kodak speeds beginning about 1939. These
have no safety factor. To translate these to ISO speeds
devide 2.5.
I am sure this is more than you really wanted to know.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Sat, 07 Aug 2004
From: Gordon Moat moat@attglobal.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Henri Cartier-Bresson, one of the world's most important
Jay Bala wrote:
> What camera did he use?
He started out using a Krauss camera, which was either called a Peggy or
Eka . . . cannot recall which one. After not having much luck with the
Krauss, he got an early Leica rangefinder. When the M3 came out in the
1950s, he largely changed from the older screwmount Leica to the M3, and
other bayonet mount Leica rangefinders.
> He used a 50 mm most of the time. What else did he use?
Largely several different 50 mm Leica lenses. I think in one or two
books of his he mentions using a 35 mm Leica lens, and perhaps a few
times a 90 mm, though I think the vast majority of images you would see
of his were taken using a 50 mm.
Also, he is often shown using an external viewfinder for composing,
rather than the viewfinder built into the camera. As long as an area is
pre-focused at a certain distance, and enough DoF is available, it
should provide a sharp enough image.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html Updated!
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000
From: Peter Marshall petermarshall@cix.co.uk
To: panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au
Subject: Panorama patented
Photography guide at About.com http://photography.about.com/
email: photography.guide@about.com
The Buildings of London
etc: http://www.spelthorne.ac.uk/pm/default.htm
Also on Fixing Shadows: http://www.people.virginia.edu/~ds8s
and elsewhere......
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 1999
From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net
Subject: [Rollei] Prism finders?
>bob, this is unlikely. kiev has an extensive optical industry that made optics for
>both military and civilian uses. cutting a camera prism is peanuts compared to the
>other sofisticated optics fitted on soviet spy airships and satellites. there is a
>company selling flower vases made from defective lenses and prisms made for soviet
>satellites. they certainly made their own prisms.
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999
From: Dirk-Roger Schmitt Dirk-Roger.Schmitt@dlr.de
Subject: Re: [Rollei] "final warning" change to: 6006 Prism finders?
>bob, this is unlikely. kiev has an extensive optical industry that made optics for
>both military and civilian uses. cutting a camera prism is peanuts compared to the
>other sofisticated optics fitted on soviet spy airships and satellites. there is a
>company selling flower vases made from defective lenses and prisms made for soviet
>satellites. they certainly made their own prisms.
From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999
From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net
Subject: [Rollei] Zeiss Lens Designations
>How can you tell a Jena Tessar from an Oberkochen? I also have a
>mid 50's MX/EVS.
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999
From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Jena "Werk U" -- Dirk
>What is now being built by the former Jena optics factories? How
>about the old Ihagee and Pentacon werks? I am a long time user of Jena lenses.
>I have an OLD Praktina
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 199
From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net
Subject: RE: [Rollei] German Workers in the USSR, US, and UK
>Some of that is propaganda. When the Soviets moves much of what remained of
>Zeiss works (after the Americans moved a lot of it and people to Oberkochen)
>and its people, the people were not given much choice to move. After years
>living in a place, it eventually becomes home and yes there may have been
>some perks, but when a gun is pointing at you you generally do what your are
>told.
Date: Thu, 07 Oct 1999
From: Dirk-Roger Schmitt Dirk-Roger.Schmitt@dlr.de
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Jena "Werk U" -- Dirk
>The Carl Zeiss Jena plant is now controlled by the Carl Zeiss Foundation,
>which has resumed using that as its legal address, together with Heidenheim
>(this is important under German law, as the Foundation by the terms of its
>creation had to be based at Jena, an impossibility under Communism). The
>Jena works is the site of most optical research being conducted by Zeiss;
>I believe the only significant production there today is astronomical
>equipment.
> The former Carl Zeiss Jena facility at Eisfeld was sold to
>Docter Optics Technology of Wetzlar who produced binoculars and spotting
>scopes there for some years; I have recently heard that the sports optic
>division is now spurlos versunkt but haven't had this confirmed.
Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2000
From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net
Subject: RE: [Rollei] Automat????
>Is all this information available somewhere? I would love to be able to tap
>into this collected knowledge to apply to camera dealers everywhere...
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT C-76
>From: Jacques-Bertrand Pichette jbpichette@photozone.org
>To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
>Subject: [Rollei] OT C-76
>Date: Fri, Sep 24, 1999, 7:52 PM
>
> Hello
>
> I read an article about using a product named "Crone-C additive" and mixing
> it to Kodak D-76 to obtain a new developer named C-76
>
> The original "stuff" was made by Richard Crone in 1965 until he sold his
> rights to "Brandes".
>
> Does that ring any bells ? I am trying to find more infos on this topic
> and maybe buy some of this "chrone-c additive".
> Any clues ?
>
> Thank you
> J.B.P.
> ( jbpichette@photozone.org )
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei and motorcyles
>At last the perfect newsgroup!! Bikes and photography.
>
>I ride a Honda Pan European, known in the USA as an ST1100.
>
>I carry a 35S in my pocket and use it for snaps en route, always with B&W;
>film, occasionally Tech Pan. I can use the 35S without taking off my full
>face helmet, great when it's raining.
>
>In my top box I fit a camera bag with my Rollei 2.8F or a Hasselblad outfit
>and when touring I fit a tripod bag across the carrier. Got everything I
>need.
>Last week I returned from a 2300 mile photo tour of the Scottish highlands
>and it was great fun. Travelling between locations is much better than in a
>car.
>
>Gary
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] 150 and 180 lenses
> Folks,
>
> I saw some B&W; negs and 16x20s from them that a friend just took with his
> 180mm Mamiya KL lens tonight (RB), and they BLEW ME AWAY. Incredibly sharp,
> this lens. Incredible. Just about made me feel like running out and
> throwing my Rollei lens budget at an RB system. Has anyone here used this
> particular lens? Any comments, thoughts, criticisms, comparisons?
>
> I guess, too, that neg size played a factor in the enlargements, but still,
> I was amazed by the definition this lens is capable of.
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999
From: Martin Taureg mtaureg@ns.arc.sn
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: Origin of the Arsenal Plant: Long!
>Shell repeats the Party Line, that the Kiev 88 is an outgrowth of design
>work emenating from the "Handkammer Hk 12.5/7x9", a product of the Fritz
>Volk concern in Berlin during the early war years. (This was an aerial
>recon camera produced for the Luftwaffe; it was equipped, I have just
>delightedly discovered from an exemplar which was captured on a Japanese
>recon plane in New Guinea in 1944 -- and just HOW did this camera get THERE
>at THAT time? -- with an ISCO lens, though most sources credit the camera
>with a JSK lens. ISCO is a subsidiary of JSK -- "Ioseph Schneider
>Goettingen".)
>Germany became concerned over the supply of military cameras
>and asked Hasselblad, in neutral Sweden, to consider the production of the
>Volk camera in case the German plants were destroyed by bombing. This
>camera was the basis for the later 1600F. The Soviets contended that the
>designs and tooling for the Volk Handkammer were seized by them in '45 and
>that they independently developed the '88 from the same roots whence sprang
>the 1600F/1000F.
>Some of this can be found in that fount of all Hasselblad wisdom, List
>Member Nordin's HASSELBLAD SYSTEM COMPENDIUM, and some can be found in
>another worthy tome, Barringer and
Martin Taureg
E-Mail: mtaureg@ns.arc.sn
Mail Address: B. P. 6063, Dakar, SENEGAL (West Africa)
From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999
From: John Coan jcoan@alumni.duke.edu
Subject: [Rollei] Lens Names
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999
From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Question about 2000/3000 series
>A small German optical firm named Weber bought the dual automation
>design, although I have never found anyone who knew for certain
>whether this was from Z/I or Rollei, and showed a really nice SLR
>camera with interesting modular design and the modified Contarex
>lens mount for the automation. They had this at a couple photokinas
>and claimed it was ready to go into production, but so far as I have
>been able to find out, it seems that all they ever really did was
>show the rebadged Z/I prototypes. Ultimately, when they realized
>how much this camera would have to sell for they dropped the project
>and the prototypes seem to have vanished, at least the times I asked
>no one at Weber knew what had happened to them. Weber is now long
>gone, absorbed into Braun.
>This whole episode is very interesting historically and I hope that
>someone thoroughly researches it and writes it up one day.
From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei][OT]- Re: Unsharp lenses
>From: lclark@isp800.com
>To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
>Subject: Re: [Rollei][OT]- Re: Unsharp lenses
>Date: Mon, Apr 10, 2000, 4:57 PM
>
> I got a kick out of this. I wonder whether we're the only two owning
> one of these relics?
From: Bob Salomon robertsalomon@mindspring.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Need informations of Ihagee Dresden/Exakta?
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000
From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Some advice please !
>Nikon is "backwards" because they copied Zeiss Contax cameras. Marc says that
>Zeiss is the reverse direction of Leica because they wanted to prove that they
>were
>superior,whatever that means.
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000
From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: [Rollei] Kilfitt
>This is the first I've heard of a Kilfitt/Zoomar adapter for
>Hasselblad 2000FC. When was the 2000FC introduced? I thought it
>was well after Zoomar went bust and the factory was closed.
Professor Robert S Ketzner
6409 Park Hills Drive
Loves Park Illinois 61111
815/654-4122
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000
From: "Bob Shell" bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] rumor
>From: "Bob Walkden" bobwalkden@hotmail.com
>To: contax@photo.cis.to
>Subject: Re: [CONTAX] rumor
>Date: Wed, May 10, 2000, 12:37 PM
>
> Hi,
>
> Because of the Pentax LX.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Bob
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Kilfitt
>From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net
>To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
>Subject: [Rollei] Kilfitt
>Date: Thu, May 11, 2000, 11:02 AM
>
> Well, first, Zoomar didn't 'go bust': they restricted themselves to
> government and military work and left the commercial market in 1988. I
> know a fellow who was at the fire sale in their American plant on Long
> Island that year and scarfed up a zillion handy-dandy adapters.
> Second, the WEHE adapter was made for the Hasselblad 2000 series. These
> are all but impossible to find today. Mike Fletcher has been making noises
> for years about having a run of them made.
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000
From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Kilfitt
>The Munich factory was shut down, and they went out of the
>photographic business. I didn't ever hear that they continued on
>in military production. Toward the end of things in Munich they had
>just finished development of a high speed modular shutter which could
>have gone into a new generation of German cameras.
>
>Is your 1988 a typo for 1978?? That I would believe.
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Another one of my Questions
>From: Javier Perez japho@cunyvm.cuny.edu
>To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
>Subject: [Rollei] Another one of my Questions
>Date: Fri, May 26, 2000, 8:16 AM
>Date: Fri, May 26, 2000, 8:16 AM
>
>Hi All
>
>Started wunderin
>
>Rolleiflex, Praktiflex, Leicaflex, Ikoflex, Contaflex, Asahiflex etcetera
>
>Was Rollei the first to add a flex to their name?
>
>They are certainly the last.
>
>Curious
>
>Javier
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000
From: "John A. Lind" jlind@netusa1.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] What is Rolleimetric?
>Could someone tell me what Rolleimetric is.
>I noticed they are making both a 3003 and 6008
>I think. But the refer to them as surveying cameras.
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000
From: Bill Lawlor wvl@marinternet.com
Subject: [Rollei] Re:Rollei at The Wall
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000
From: Jim Brick jimbrick@photoaccess.com
Subject: [Leica] Re: Oscar Barnak -MORE-
>Oscar Barnack died on the 16th of January 1936, the last camera design he
>worked on was the IIIa. Professor Max Berek was responsible for the design
>(based on other people's earlier work of course) of all the Leitz camera
>lenses until his death on the 15th of October 1949.
>
>John Collier
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000
From: calciua@hn.va.nec.com
Subject: [Rollei] First Twin Lens camera
Andrei D. Calciu
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Kilfitt
>From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net
>To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
>Subject: Re: [Rollei] Kilfitt
>Date: Thu, May 11, 2000, 1:46 PM
>
> No, it was in 1988. Heinz Kilfitt sold the business to Frank Back in 1968,
> who then changed the name to Zoomar. Back closed the Munich plant in 1976
> or so and consolidated all operations at his original plant on Long Island.
> The friend I have who was at the fire sale in 1988 is Mark Wallace, the
> The friend I have who was at the fire sale in 1988 is Mark Wallace, the
> Ferrari photographer.
> Mike Fletcher could tell you more, Bob: a close friend of his is one of
> the fellows Back brought over to Long Island when the Munich plant was
> closed.
> Folks keep bugging me to write a book on Kilfitt. Maybe I will, after I
> win the lottery! It is a breed -- as is Novoflex! -- deserving
> commemoration.
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000
From: bigler@jsbach.univ-fcomte.fr
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT Angenieux
Emmanuel BIGLER
bigler@lpmo.univ-fcomte.fr
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000
From: "Bob Shell" bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Filter
>From: muchan muchan@promikra.si
>To: contax@photo.cis.to
>Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Filter
>Date: Fri, May 12, 2000, 12:51 PM
>
> I read somewhere on Japanese group that
> "Mamiya glasses are made in the factory of Tomioka, so the same as
> the Zeiss lenses"... I don't know what it exactly means, but I suppose
> There is a company called Tomioka, (it's a Japanese lastname or place name)
> who produce glasses for Mamiya and Carl Zeiss... Then it's not coming from
> Hoya? I don't know... It was on the thread about something about macro
> lenses...
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000
From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei 2.8B
>I was trying to figure out why the Biometar was used on the 2.8B and no
>other Rollei.
>Is it a poorer quality lens than say the Planar/Xenotar? I understand the
>Biometar was used following problems encountered with the 2.8A Carl Zeiss
>Jena Tessar which is reputed to be a little 'soft'. I'm not sure I would
>understand Sauer's formulation....so keep it simple!
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Another one of my Questions
>Javier Perez wrote:
>
>> Rolleiflex, Praktiflex, Leicaflex, Ikoflex, Contaflex, Asahiflex etcetera
>>
>> Was Rollei the first to add a flex to their name?
>>
>> They are certainly the last.
>
>Javier,
>
> "Flex" refers to the reflex mirror such as in "twin lens reflex" or
>"single lens reflex". (You probably already knew this.)
> Rolleiflex 1928-29; Praktiflex 1938; Leicaflex 1964; Ikoflex 1934:
>Contaflex (Marc knows the date); Asahiflex 1951.
>
>--
>R. J. Bender (A Nikon, Mamiya and Rollei user)
>mailto:rjbender@apci.net
>http://homepages.go.com/~rjbender/home.htm
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000
From: Stanley E Yoder syoder+@andrew.cmu.edu
Subject: [Rollei] Re: 2.8B Biometar
Stan Yoder
Pittsburgh
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000
From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] QBM lenses - Wherefore art thou Sonnar?
>The Sonnar was designed specifically for the original Zeiss Ikon Contax I
>in 1930 by Ludwig Bertele of Carl Zeiss. Herr Bertele was one of the
>finest lens designers of the 20th Century and came to Carl Zeiss as a lens
>designer from Ernemann. Bertele went to Carl Zeiss when Ernemann was
>combined with several other German camera firms in 1926 (Ica,
>Contessa-Nettel and Goerz) to form Zeiss Ikon under the direction of
>Emanuel Goldman. Zeiss Ikon was established by the Zeiss Stiftung to
>compete with Ernst Leitz and the Leica (which had turned into a runaway
>sucess by mid-1920's standards).
Date: Wed, 31 May 2000
From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net
Subject: RE: [Rollei] Rollei 2.8B
>Perhaps I should have said it was the only model to use
>a newly designed lens from Zeiss Jena (allegedly a recomputed Planar) and
>the first to use Bay 3.
From: "Raimo Korhonen" raimo.korhonen@pp2.inet.fi
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000
Subject: Vs: OT:Pentacon
Raimo
photos at http://personal.inet.fi/private/raimo.korhonen
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000
From: "Bob Shell" bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] about Contax S
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000
From: "Bob Shell" bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] OT: how rare is Exakta VX IIA version 4
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000
From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net
Subject: RE: [Rollei] lens manufacturing
>I have heard a story that right after WWII, the Russian took the complete
>German camera factory (I think it was Leitz) to Russia and start building
>cameras there. Soon they found out that the cameras couldn't match the
>quality it had when it was build in Germany and decided to return the whole
>thing. So, having the right people behind the right machine has also its
>influence on the quality of the final product.
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000
From: ralph fuerbringer rof@mac.com
Subject: Re: Swing Lens cameras from 1974
>
> Hi there, I'm coming in a bit late on this but my Horozont was built in
> 1970, and the factory had been producing them since around 1967 to the best
> of my memory. I'm sure there were some around the Whitehouse on that
> fateful day..Hmmmm?? Russian camera on lawns of America's most sacred
> lawn? No disrespect meant to anyone..Kiwis just have a wierd sense of
> humour. Cheers Julian Clothier
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT: Info on modern Voigtlander Vito C
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: Balda, was Vito C
>From: Matthew Phillips mlphilli@hsc.vcu.edu
>Subject: [Rollei] Re: Balda, was Vito C
>Date: Mon, Jul 17, 2000, 9:58 AM
>
>I'd read reports that the Minox 110 cameras were also made by Balda, which,
>along with the news that the Vito C was from their plant, comes as a
>suprise to me.
From: Ooffy@aol.com
To: rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu
Subject: 30mm Nikkor
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000
From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Capa on D-Day -- No Mystery At All!
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000
From: QWhoZeiss@aol.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Capa on D-Day -- No Mystery At All!
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000
From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Capa on D-Day -- No Mystery At All!
QWhoZeiss@aol.com wrote:
>No Mystery--The editor was John Morris, Life Magazines....
[Editor: snipped as duped above..]
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Re: Cosina's Voigtlander SLR..
> From: Henry Posner/B&H; Photo-Video henryp@bhphotovideo.com
> Reply-To: contax@photo.cis.to
> Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000
> To: contax@photo.cis.to
> Subject: [CONTAX] Re: Cosina's Voigtlander SLR..
>
> The Voigtlander name is owned by a German holding company. They have
> owned the name since is was discarded by Carl Ziess after they bought
> Voigtlander out of bankruptcy in the late 1960's and dismantled the
> company so there would be less competition for their other 35 mm
> cameras.
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2000
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Re: Cosina's Voigtlander SLR..
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000
Subject: Re: ~~How is silk for focal-plane shutters treated?
>IKoltunov wrote:
>>
>> >From: "Nicholas O. Lindan" nolindan@ix.netcom.com
>> >
>>
>> >Another problem with silk that is dyed black is that it rots. The black
>> >(well, actually very deep purple with a bit of brown) dye reacts with
>> >the silk over time and the silk disintegrates. The silk is OK until it
>> >is creased and then the crease turns into a hole.
>> >
>> Don't think mine is to this point... It's a *huge* shutter, remenescent of a
>> guiliotine. I'm surprised that no spray/liquid treatment is available...
>> Thanks for your responce. I guess I'll have to spend some time and
>> special-order shutter material of the required mamouth dimentions. Thanks
>> again,
>
>I read Ihagee as Exakta. Is this one of the 127 size SLR's or did they
>make a Graflex SLR like camera.
>
>The rubber has no strength in the shutter. A thin coat is applied to make
>the shutter light-tight. The strength is in the fabric - and if the fabric
>gives way the rubber will tear.
>
>I am sure you have natural rubber on your curtain. The rubber should be
>good as new. There are old Aztec playing balls made from natural latex and
>the juice of the Morning Glory vine - these are still bouncy 400 years later!
>Neoprene will rot in a few decades. The early US space suits from the '60's
>are falling apart, while the old Soviet suits, that used natural rubber,
>are as good as new.
>
>Modern shutter curtains are made of nylon or rayon and coated with urethane.
>In these shutters it is the urethane that rots.
>
>This rotting of shutter curtains is the reason for the use of metal in the
>Contax, professional Nikons and the early Hasselblad (and still in the Kiev).
>It is also a factor in the popularity of the metal bladed Copal shutters
>- though these are not entirely light-tight.
>
>--
>Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio nolindan@ix.netcom.com
>Technical Management Consulting & Engineering Services:
>New Product Development; Electrical Engineering;
>Software, System and Circuit Design. Oh, & Photography
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000
From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net
Subject: Zeiss and Zeiss Ikon, Single Coating and Multi-Coating
>[Austin] Very interesting. What's the distinction between Zeiss and Zeiss
>Ikon? Did the Zeiss Hasselblad lenses have T coating prior to T*, and they
>just weren't marked?
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000
From: todd todd_belcher@telus.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] MF Nikon
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000
From: todd todd_belcher@telus.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] MF Nikon
R. J. Bender (A Nikon, Mamiya and Rollei user)
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000
From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] O. T. Colmont binoculars
>The Dialyt is the Hensoldt brand name for the roof or Abbe-Konig prism. And
>Hensoldt is a Group of the Zeiss organization for a good 50 years now.
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000
From: "John A. Lind" jlind@netusa1.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT standard focal length
(a) 24mm x 36mm frame size using "Edison size" film (see below)
(b) film cannisters nearly identical to those used today
(c) a frame counter
(d) an accessory shoe dimensionally exactly like today's (albeit not "hot").
(e) winder on right with takeup; film supply and rewind on left
(f) shutter release on top deck positioned for the right index finger
(g) shutter speed dial on top deck next to shutter release
(h) aperture ring (settings) on lens
Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2000
From: simon nathan simonwide@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: Can you keep a secret?
when he worked with WeeGee at Acme News Service in New York. He
has too many stories to tell. Simon will even tell you about his
experiences when he worked for Acme and the U.S.Air Force
B-24 (or B-25) flew into the Empire State Building.
He may tell you that he shot the pictures with a Kodak Medalist.
plane fly into the Empire State Building because you thought it would
make a
good story?
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000
From: "John A. Lind" jlind@netusa1.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] reversal v. negative film for enlargements
>I know that. Who OWNS ILFORD nowadays? A couple of years ago it was part of
>International Paper, but I seem to remember it was spun off. I may be wrong!.
>
>Lucian
1969: CIBA acquires all of ICI's shares in Ilford becoming sole owner
1970: CIBA merges with JR Geigy becoming CIBA-Geigy
1989: CIBA-Geigy sells Ilford to International Paper
1997: International Paper sells Ilford to Doughty Hanson
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] reversal v. negative film for enlargements
Date: 15 Sep 2000
From: bg174@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael Gudzinowicz)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Book on Antique Lenses
> I recently have started to use antique brass lenses for some of my
>work. Wet plate lenses and so forth. Is there a guide out there to these
>lenses? Coverage and focal lengths and so forth? Any sort of guide at
>all would be a help.
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000
From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net
Subject: Re: C-series lens spares
>I thought the older lenses had Compur shutters, the CF series has Prontor?
msmall@roanoke.infi.net
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000
From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net
Subject: Re: C-series lens spares
msmall@roanoke.infi.net
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2000
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Zeiss vs Schneider Diaphragms
>At 01:01 11/5/00 , Jerry Lehrer wrote:
>>Richard et al;
>>
>>YES, there is a great difference in the iris shape between my Tessar and
>>Xenar
>>lenses, due to the number of blades in the diaphragm! I have not yet
>>checked
>>the irises in my Planar and Xenotar lenses, as there is film in those
>>cameras. I
>>leave it to others to do that. The lenses are all in Rolleiflex TLRs
>>and ALL
>>produce superb results. I will not quibble any relative merits of any
>>of these.
>>I am firmly in Marc's camp in this regard.
>>
>>Jerry Lehrer
>
>Keep in mind that any difference in the diaphragms such as the number
>blades, the shape of their edges (straight or curved), or exact location
>within the lens may only affect a lens' "bokeh" characteristics. However,
>for most people, this affects only a very limited number of their
>photographs, and to see the diaphragm outline in the bokeh, you must have
>pinpoint highlights that are widely separated enough for it.
>
>IMO, Schneider Kreuznach is an "unsung hero" among the German lens makers.
>For some reason only Carl Zeiss has the mystique, and it deserves it for
>creating some of the world's finest lenses. Why there isn't a mystique
>tied to Schneider's name is a mystery to me. They have also made some of
>the world's finest lenses. I'm with Marc and Jerry on this. It's
>reminiscent of the Leica versus Contax 35mm Holy War.
>
>-- John
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Where is Rodenstock anyways?(was Re: zeiss vs
schneider)
>So where are the Rodenstock lenses for the Rollei 600X series? This,
>for me, was a real heartbreak, especially since I have grown accustomed
>to their other products. I'm sure that they have the optics to
>technically make it work. Maybe there is no demand for this sort of
>product? Or possibly they just like sitting back and watching the CZ/SK
>wars? Who knows for sure - I just miss my Rodies.
>
>j
>--
>Jeffrey L. Bromberger ----- System Manager ----- Tramway Unix Systems
>jeffrey@liii.com
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000
From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net
Subject: Re: Biotar Vs Biometar
>What's the difference formula-wise between a Biotar and a Biometar
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] IS (was Suggestions welcomed)
> From: "Mikhail Konovalov" m_konovalov@mail.ru
> Reply-To: contax@photo.cis.to
> Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 03:18:11 +0300
> To: contax@photo.cis.to
> Subject: Re: [CONTAX] IS (was Suggestions welcomed)
>
> Is it true that the first attempts were to get them gyro-stabilised??
> (I mean for the consumer market). Those must have been monstrous
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: RE: [Rollei] uv filter (exposure compensation?)
>on 11/08/00 at 10:05 AM,
> "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" peterk@avaya.com said:
>
>>Marc, Interesting comment about F&H; maintaining since 1933 that that
>>UVs were for B&W; film only since color transparency film came out in
>>1935 (Kodakchrome) and Color Print in 1942. Guess they were planning
>>for the future.
>
>They could well have been talking about DufayColour.
>
>les clark / edgewater, nj / usa
>lclark@lynxus.com
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: "M. N. Yutiae" minutiae@bogus.org
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Trivia questions (a)fastest lens (b)sharpest lens
>> >(There certainly have been faster lenses -- Carl Zeiss, for example, made
>a
>> >45mm f/0.85 R-Biotar for radiographic recording, and an f/0.7 lens for
>> >astronomical use
>>
>> Add a Leitz 50mm f/0.7 made for x-ray photography.
>
> A lens to do X-ray photography??????
From: Barry@netbox.com (Barry Twycross)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Trivia questions (a)fastest lens (b)sharpest lens
Barry
Barry@netbox.com http://www.netbox.com/barry
From: bc1959@my-deja.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Trivia questions (a)fastest lens (b)sharpest lens
> Just out of curiousity I was wondering about this. To my knowledge the
> fastest lens ever made was the Canon f.0.95 50mm screw mount for the
> Canon 7/7s rangefinders. Is this correct? Is there also a lens that
> would universally be regarded as the sharpest ever made or is this open
> to opinion?
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001
From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Looking for Zeiss Serial numbers
>Does anyone here have the serial numbers list for Zeiss optics? I have only
>the pre-war part in my Rollei Report 1.
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001
From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net
Subject: Re: Ikonta/Moskva
>I had thought that the original Super Ikonta C was made at the
>Contessa-Nettel factory, which was in the
>Western or US Zone of divided Germany. Princelle further states that the
>Russians came into Berlin
>where Zeiss also had factories.
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001
From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net
Subject: Re: Why So Many More Telephotos?
>Due to design obstruction of the Contax IIA and IIA a different lens (not as
>good?) had to be
>made which did not project deep into the camera.
msmall@roanoke.infi.net
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001
From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net
Subject: [Rollei] Manufacturing Processes
> Also, the manufacturing process at Zeiss Jena is covered very completely
>by post war reports by American and Brittish intellegence teams. I have
>some citations, but would have to really dig for others. These reports are
>hard to find. AFAIK the only complete (?) set is at the Library of Congress
>and you need to find a knowlegible librarian to help find them. These teams
>investigated all German industry.
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl
Subject: Re: Wotsinaname
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei Words
>Hello,
>I am new to the list, well, sort of, been watching and
>learning.
>I can't seem to find out why do they use 'mat, 'flex,
>'cord in some camera names?
>I have to say that the magical names of the lenses
>(plural form of lens according to my Pocket Oxford)
>distagon, variegon (sp?!) and other "on" ending ones
>are kind of poetic.
>I like "anastigmat" I saw on a lens in a camera shop.
>I have astigmatism, hmmm.
>What does Compur mean?
>
>curiously,
>Johanna Zamora
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT: Ennagon lens
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Praktiflex
> From: Bjorn Petter Hernes bjoernph@online.no
> Reply-To: contax@photo.cis.to
> Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001
> Subject: [CONTAX] Praktiflex
>
> Hello:
> I just came across one of these at an antique shop yesterday. What made me
> stop and look was the Zeiss Tessar lens on it. Am I right in assuming that
> the Praktiflex is the Eastern Germany cousin of Contax?
> Many thanks,
> Bjorn Petter Hernes
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001
From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] RE: 2.8B Biometar
>Marc may have some idea of how much
>communication there was between Jena and Oberchoken.
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001
From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Zoomar
> FWIW, Zoomar was a trade name of the Zoomar Corporation founded by Frank
>G. Back for zoom lenses of his design. These were made originally for TV
>cameras but eventually for motion picture and still cameras. For a time
>Zoomar was licensing Voigtlander to make Zoomar lens and use the name. Its
>quite possible Kilfit or others may also have been licensed.
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001
From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net
Subject: RE: Zoomars
>> So what is a Zoomar? Sounds degrading (image wise that is...)
>>
>> Jim
>
>I don't know either, Jim.
Date: Mon, 28 May 2001
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] zoom lens advice
> From: "Larry Zasitko" l.zasitko@sk.sympatico.ca
> Date: Sun, 27 May 2001
> Subject: RE: [CONTAX] zoom lens advice
>
> Ok in looking at the lens it says on the front " MC Macro Jenazom Carl Zeiss
> Jena f=35-135mm 1:3.5-4.5" On the underside of the lens it has "Lens made in
> Japan under licence from VEB Carl Zeiss Jena" so possibly you are correct. I
> have no idea who makes it then and I guess I really have one less Zeiss lens
> :-( In either case the pictures are almost as good as the REAL Zeiss lens
> that I have so for the money...
>
> I would like to find out more about quality controls for these lens.
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT Stenheil Culminar
>While looking through some used Rollei gear at a local shop my eyes
>wandered over to the Leica shelf and fell upon an 85mm f/2.8 Steinheil
>Culminar in LTM. It was in very good shape -- clean glass, smooth focusing
>-- so I went for it, thinking it might be a good cheap portrait lens. I
>snapped it onto my M6 (with M-adapter) and shot a roll of Sensia. I was
>pretty amazed at the results -- this lens is a fine performer, easily equal
>to my long-focus Elmars and Hektors of the same vintage (1950s). I'm a
>little surprised because when I was a LTM user I always avoided the
>Steinheils, thinking they were somehow second or third tier products. Does
>anyone know the formula for the Culminar? Is it a Tessar-type? I really
>like it. Also, did I mention that it was cheap?
>....
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001
From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT Stenheil Culminar
> I have a couple of Steinheil lenses for my Exakta and I've found them to
>be excellent lenses. Steinheil is an old company.
Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2001
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Kodachrome 25 discontinued
>Richard Knoppow wrote:
>>I believe all current color products use the Agfa method
>>of anchoring the couplers.
>
>Richard
>
>I understand that Kodak obtained access to Agfa patents following the end
>of the War, as war booty. Comment?
>
>Marc
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: Ilja Friedel ilja@inky.caltech.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: ziess
> The recent history of the East German part of Zeiss is somewhat
> complex and I'm not sure of the details. Parts of it were reacquired
> by Zeiss in Oberchoken and parts sold off.
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: RE: [Rollei] Rolleiflex 2.8D
>Marc,
>
>Why American Defaulter? Was he a cheat of some sort?
>
>Peter K
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: ralph fuerbringer rof@mac.com
To: panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au
Subject: history of photography
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Multi-Coatings
> From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net
> Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001
> Subject: [Rollei] Multi-Coatings
>
> The
> deal fell through (Asahi did not feel that the Japanese market would accept
> "Zeiss" lenses made in Japan, and Zeiss really wanted to get out of the
> photographic optics business, as this was costing them money by diverting
> resources from more lucrative items, such as medical lab gear and submarine
> periscopes), and Asahi got the Zeiss-designed K BM, while both shared their
> pooled multi-coating research.
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001
From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Multi-Coatings
>The stated reason at the time of the breakup of the Zeiss/Asahi relationship
>was that Asahi was not sufficiently advanced in electronic camera
>development and could not achieve the level of quality required by Zeiss.
>Zeiss then almost immediately made an agreement with Yashica. Yashica had
>a great deal of experience in electronically operated cameras, and Zeiss
>engineers were pleased when Dr. Sugaya showed them his ideas for a new
>shutter for a top end SLR. Thus was born the Contax RTS.
msmall@roanoke.infi.net
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001
From: Henry Posner/B&H; Photo-Video henryp@bhphotovideo.com
Subject: Re: Black or Chrome?
> At one period of time the black version of a camera was considered
> the cheaper version -- the chrome version actually cost more, especially
> with European cameras. It was only after professional photographers
> opted for the black versions that the general public decided that you
> could not be a pro unless you had a black version.
--
regards,
Henry Posner
Director of Sales and Training
B&H; Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com
From: "Tom Coates" tecoates@home.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: The best SLR ever produced
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001
From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net
Subject: Re: Zoomars
>We share an ancient haze: I beleive that Zoomar were the very first zoom
>lenses fitted to TV cameras.
>Either the lens was named after the newly found ability to zoom or the
>effect was named after the lens. ;-)
msmall@roanoke.infi.net
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001
From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net
Subject: [Rollei] Re: Vs: [Leica] OT Rollei advice sought
msmall@roanoke.infi.net
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001
From: Andre Oldani aoldani@datacomm.ch
Subject: Re: WRONG!
>The trademark "Contax" is 100% owned by the Carl Zeiss Foundation,
>successor-in-interest to Zeiss Ikon. It is licensed to a joint venture
>between the Zeiss Foundation and Kyocera.
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: AA and VHB award 1982 Re: Ansel and Hasselblad re design?
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001
Robert Monaghan wrote:
> from Feb 1982 p. 58-9 Modern Photography magazine, AA gets VHB award and
> gold medal, also approx $20,000 award plus visit with Swedish royalty and
> wife of VHB at ceremony. No mention of any part in designing hasselblad
> cameras, looks more like a lifetime achievement in photogr. type of
> award...
It certainly is that. And he was not the first, nor last to receive this
award:
1980: Lennart Nilsson, Stockholm, Sweden
1981: Ansel Adams, Carmel, California, USA*
1982: Henri Cartier-Bresson, Paris, France
1983: No award granted
1984: Manuel Alvarez Bravo, Mexico City, Mexico
1985: Irving Penn, New York City, New York, USA
1986: Ernst Haas, New York City, New York, USA
1987: Hiroshi Hamaya, Tokyo, Japan
1988: Edouard Boubat, Paris, France
1989: Sebastipo Salgado, Paris, France
1990: William Klein, Paris, France
1991: Richard Avedon, New York City, New York, USA
1992: Josef Koudelka, Prague, Czechoslovakia
1993: Sune Jonsson, Umes, Sweden
1994: Susan Meiselas, New York City, New York, USA
1995: Robert HSusser, Mannheim, Germany
1996: Robert Frank, New York City, New York, USA
1997: Christer Str"mholm, Stockholm, Sweden
1998: William Eggleston, Memphis, Tennessee, USA
1999: Cindy Sherman, New York City, New York, USA
2000: Boris Mikhailov, Charkov, Ukraine
2001: Hiroshi Sugimoto, Tokyo, Japan
So it is still being awarded on a regular basis, and perhaps you could be
the next recipient. ;-)
*[Ed. note: see Modern Photography of Feb. 1982 pp.58-9 about the $20,000
grant and gold medal to Ansel Adams from Hasselblad.]
From: Rei Shinozuka shino@ubspainewebber.com>
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Tripod threads Who wood?!
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001
> From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com>
>
> Fred's wood tripod was simply a surveyor's tripod which he modified to
> accept the Bogen head. You can buy a surveyor's tripod yourself and
> have a machinist make the modification. They were making surveyor's
> tripods out of carbon fiber tubes a good ten years before Gitzo caught
> on, also.
yes, but they were in the catalog "the best damn tripods in the world!" :-)
those old catalogs are priceless; i have some old ones which are
good reading even now.
just in case anyone is wondering what he's up to now, he's selling
his own prints by subscription at:
http://www.sover.net/~fredpick/
i've got a lot of admiration for mr picker; he built up a business
based on his love of photography, and put his personal mark on his
products (and catalogs!). i hope he made his millions when he finally
sold out to calumet.
-rei
From: Struan Gray struan.gray@sljus.lu.se>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Ansel and Hasselblad re design?
Date: 27 Sep 2001
Robert Monaghan, rmonagha@smu.edu writes:
>an interesting list, thanks for sharing it ;-)
There's more here:
http://www.hasselbladfoundation.org/indexe.html
The gallery is worth a visit if you're ever in Gothenburg, and the
San Michele Stipend isn't too shabby as gigs go.
Struan
To: camera-fix@yahoogroups.com>
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2001
Subject: Re: [camera-fix] Kalimar Reflex
> From: "Jeff Wewers" jwewers@hotmail.com>
> Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2001
> To: camera-fix@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [camera-fix] Kalimar Reflex
>
> I just bought a Kalimar Reflex SLR on Ebay. Would be willing to pay
> you for a copy or scan of the user manual, if anyone has one. Thanks.
The question is what camera is it really? Kalimar put their name on all
sorts of cameras over the years, so there really isn't one Kalimar Reflex
SLR, but many. Is this one 35mm or medium format, as they sold both?
The most common Kalimar reflex in 35mm is a Zenit B or E. It could also be
a Regula Reflex rebadged, or a number of Japanese models. In medium
format the Kalimar reflex is a Fujita (not Fujica) camera. Kalimar was a
marketing company in Chicago, not a manufacturer.
Bob
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net>
Subject: [Rollei] Do I Have a Wajsman Camera to sell you! Quality Galore!
Nathan Wajsman wrote:
>I realize from your posts that you have some kind of emotional attachment to
>the Voigtlaender company. But the reality is that it went bust and its assets
>were sold to others; one of those assets is the brand.
ARGH! Can ANYONE get this tale correct? Voigtlaender NEVER "went bust"!
In 1924, Friedrich Ritter von Voigtlaender passed on. He was the last
direct male heir of the name and had daughters as heirs. His will set up a
family trust and the trust sold the company -- with lots of restrictions on
the use of the name -- to the Schering drug company. In 1951, Schering,
going through the same hard times as were most drug companies at that point
(!), threatened to close the Voigtl=E4nder works. The Zeiss Foundation --
with its duty to preserve deserving German optical concerns -- intervened
and purchased the company from Schering. In 1966, the Zeiss Foundation
merged it with Zeiss Ikon, which then "went bust". So, Zeiss sold most of
the sellable shards of Zeiss Ikon to Rollei Fotowerke (back on topic, mind
you!), though they purloined the Voigtlaender optical folks to Oberkochen.
Finally, in 1979, Rollei Fototechnic "went bust"; out of the bankruptcy,
they kept the Voigtlaender assets less the name. Thus, the name, in course,
passed to Ringfoto.
Note that the family gave permission for the use of their name, with great
restrictions, to Schering, which restrictions Zeiss respected and, in fact,
guaranteed in the 1950's. Rollei Fototechnic respected these restrictions.
However, German bankruptcy law wiped these restrictions out. The primary
of these restrictions was that the name was never to be licensed nor sold
to a third party.
The morality of this? Consider the following:
-- Ringfoto has the legal right, despite a half-century of promises to the
contrary, to license the name.
-- The family attempted to ensure that their name would not be licensed nor
sold to a third party. (Per reports in the German press, incidentally,
the family DOES object to Cosina's use of their name. Several members of
the family, by the way, work for Rollei.)
-- Cosina is a perfectly good brand name in its own right. Why are they
scared to use their OWN high reputation on quality products? "Lack of
self-esteem" is big with the psycho-babble crowd in the US at present, but,
heavens!, we don't often witness "corporate lack of self-esteem"!
-- Cosina is being directly dishonest in putting "Made in Germany" on at
least some of the boxes in which this gear is sold. (Per both the IDCC and
the Lug.)
-- There is absolutely NO connection between Voigtl=E4nder -- a camera and
lens works in Braunschweig, Germany, which ceased independent existence a
third of a century back -- and Cosina, a fine producer of quality gear
based a half a world away, other than Cosina's legal right to use the name.
Cosina is NOT Voigtlaender and has no connection with Voigtlaender. For them
to use the name is simply wrong.
Marc
msmall@roanoke.infi.net
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: [Rollei] slight OT : standard lens = tessar
you wrote:
>From Gene:
>
>> ...I'm inclined to agree with your basic premise....So I guess there
>> is some natural magic that conspires to make the 'Normal" lens the
>> happiest medium. There seems to be something like this at work for
>> the number of elements too. For normal lenses again, it seems that
>> the law of diminishing returns starts clamping down pretty heavily
>> past four. Especially if those four comprise a Tessar.
>
>Yes, this is exactly what I meant, and I was trying to imagine whether
>this was a pure historical fact, that Zeiss found the Tessar design so
>early, or if there was some more profound reason of technical optics,
>something as fundamental as, say, the diffraction limit when you stop
>down your lens at f/22 and above.
>
>About the field angle seen by the eye, I realized that my old
>Voigtlaender Bessamatic has a viewfinder setup so that when you put a
>50mm lens you have a magnification close to 1 with respect to what you
>see outside the camera. So somebody using this camera would say that
>the 50mm gives a "normal" perspective simply because what you see in
>the viewfinder through the 50mm is the same as what you see without
>the instrument. But on my wife's Canon EOS, the focal length giving a
>1:1 ratio vs. the naked eye is *not* 50mm, I do not know why. And on a
>Leica RF camera, you can now chose 3 different magnifications for the
>viewfinder !! so "what the eye sees through an eyepiece" is not the
>good reference to tell what a standard lens is.
>
>And what painters have used as an equivalent angle of view varies from
>an ultra-wide panoramic to a telephoto angle. So no such thing as the
>"standard painter's focal length" exists, either.
>
>I think there is a story about the reason why Herr Barnack chose a
>50mm ("f=5cm") on his elmar for the fisrt leica and not a 43mm. A good
>question for the LUG of course.
>
>--
>Emmanuel BIGLER
>bigler@ens2m.fr>
Its hard to guess at why Barnak chose 50mm for the Leica lens. Perhaps it
was simply that the slightly narrower coverage made it easier to correct.
The Elmar is essentially a Tessar with the diaphragm in the front air space
instead of the rear air space.
Paul Rudolph came up with the Tessar design as a modification of his
earlier Protar. The Protar, which was the first commercially made
anastigmat lens (1890), had cemented groups in front and back. The front
group was composed of "old" glass, the rear of "new" glass. Rudolph
attempted to make a lens where both components were air spaced. This lens
was called the Unar and was not very satisfactory. He then went back to the
cemented pair in back and air spaced the front pair. The result was the
Tessar. In the Tessar, as in the Protar, the front component has little
power but has most of the corrections.
For any lens the angle of view will be duplicated when the print is
viewed from the same distance as the lens was when the picture was taken.
The distance is of course multiplied by the enlargement ratio when pictures
are enlarged. Generally the idea is that the viewing distance is about the
diagonal of the print for a "normal" view. However, the "distortion" from
wide angle lenses is due to the improper viewing distance. When such a
print viewed from the right distance the "distortion" disappears.
The best history on lens development is:
_A History of the Photographic Lens_ Rudolf Kingslake, 1989, San Diego,
Academic Press, Inc ISBN 0-12-408640-3
It may still be in print. It was reprinted a couple of years ago. At any
rate its worth finding.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net>
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Do I Have a Wajsman Camera to sell you! Quality
Galore!
Nathan Wajsman wrote:
>Presumably the Scherin company was considering closing the Voigtl=E4nder=
works
>because the operation was losing money. Why close a profitable operation=
?
>
ARGH! Voigtlander was, at the least, breaking even at this time: Schering
was losing money hand-over-fist from their pharmaceutical operations. ALL
drug companies, world wide, were slugged dramatically in the wake of the
end of World War II and ALL German companies, bar none, were struggling in
1945 until the early 1950's. Schering sold off all of its subsidiaries at
this time to concentrate on its core business of drugs. The Zeiss
Foundation served as a savior on the camera-and-optics front; other
companies picked up the other pieces. Schering survived, of course, and is
today one of the world's major drug companies.
Voigtlander was NOT going to be "closed" -- Schering just did a fire sale
on all their non-drug assets.
Marc
msmall@roanoke.infi.net
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei history and 3rd Reich
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com>
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
> From: "J Patric Dahlaen" jenspatricdahlen@hotmail.com>
> Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001
> To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei history and 3rd Reich
>
> Wow! I looked up "Ho-229" and found this page:
>
> http://popmail.stud.uni-hannover.de/user/67700/ho229.htm
>
> VERY futuristic plane to be from WWII ! :-O
>
> /Patric
I mentioned the Loedding patents, but no one seemed interested. To
see the possible ancestor of the HO-229 look at this patent:
http://patimg2.uspto.gov/.piw?Docid=3D02118254&homeurl;=3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fpat=ft.uspt
o.gov%2Fnetacgi%2Fnph-Parser%3FSect1%3DPTO1%2526Sect2%3DHITOFF%2526d%3DPA=LL%
2526p%3D1%2526u%3D%2Fnetahtml%2Fsrchnum.htm%2526r%3D1%2526f%3DG%2526l%3D5=0%2
526s1%3D'2118254'.WKU.%2526OS%3DPN%2F2118254%2526RS%3DPN%2F2118254&PageNu;=m=3D&
Rtype=3D&SectionNum;=3D&idkey;=3D250545474A4E
If the link wont work, go to this page:
http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html
and enter patent number 2118254
To see the one that I think may explain the "Roswell event" look at:
http://patimg1.uspto.gov/.piw?Docid=3D02619302&homeurl;=3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fpat=ft.uspt
o.gov%2Fnetacgi%2Fnph-Parser%3FSect1%3DPTO1%2526Sect2%3DHITOFF%2526d%3DPA=LL%
2526p%3D1%2526u%3D%2Fnetahtml%2Fsrchnum.htm%2526r%3D1%2526f%3DG%2526l%3D5=0%2
526s1%3D'2619302'.WKU.%2526OS%3DPN%2F2619302%2526RS%3DPN%2F2619302&PageNu;=m=3D&
Rtype=3D&SectionNum;=3D&idkey;=3D257D2518CD3E
or search for patent number 2619302
Interesting stuff from the time when airplanes had wings and propellers!
Bob
Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2002
Subject: [Rollei] Re: Dynar lens?
From: Eric Goldstein egoldstein@usa.net>
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Richard Knoppow wrote:
> Taylor wrote a classic book on lens design using entirely algebraic
> methods rather than ray tracing. Kingslake comments on the difficulty of
> actually designing a practical lens by this way.
> I don't have Taylor's book but I will have to try to find it. I think
> Kingslake is quoting from it when he talks about finishing the design by
> the use of actual models made up in an optical shop. This procedure was
> used by other designers before computers made thorough evaluation of
> proposed designs relatively easy, but, from what Kinglake implys, Taylor
> went resorted to modeling at an earlier stage than usual because he
> eschewed ray tracing.
Much earlier, as in pretty much from the get-go, as algebra does not get you
very far in this process. My source for this particular bit regarding Taylor
and the design of the Triplet is Mark Craig Gerchman, Chief Optical Designer
of Cooke Optics Limited and the man behind the brilliant, Acadamy
award-winning S4 Prime motion picture lenses currently so highly favored by
Hollywood...
I heard Gerchman present on the history of the company about a year ago here
in Boston (he lives in new Hampshire) and had the chance to spend some time
with him one on one... he is clearly a man deeply reverential of those who
preceded him at Cooke, particularly Taylor and Lee (Opic and Speed Panchro)
and his research into their methods and accomplishments is impressive and
scholarly to say the least, and he has access to some choice documents which
would be amazing to get a look at...
Eric Goldstein
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2001
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rolleiflex Exposure Chart Error?
you wrote:
>
>--- Rich Lahrson tripspud@transbay.net> wrote:
>> Now, is this only true on the T? Do other
>> models show the
>> correct progression?
>
>Rich,
> I suspect what you are seeing is the progression
>chart of the "old" ASA. There were two such, one
>supplanting the other, with less of a "fudge factor"
>built into the film speeds of the latter. It had been
>assumed that the user was less than ideally
>experienced in the use of meters and in how to apply
>the film speed properly, therefore, most films were
>under-rated in speed to insure that the films didn't
>end up under-exposed (a very common occurence, back
>then). The change-over, as I recall, was sometime in
>the early '50s or so, and I am sure Rollei wasn't
>about to recall all their unsold cameras to change the
>plates, sooo, most, if not all made with the old ASA
>charts got to market even long after the change. Has
>anyone explored this correlation before? If so, does
>it coincide with the accepted serial number
>progression, specifically, the time of the change and
>the accepted date of camera/lens manufacture? It would
>be interesting to see if they agree. Of course, it
>could just be a collosal waste of time and energy,
>too.
>Just some idle noodling.
>
>Jon
>from Deepinaharta, Georgia
The first ASA speed system was an adaptation of the Kodak system worked
out by Lloyd A. Jones of Kodak labs. Speeds in Kodak numbers were published
by Kodak beginning about 1940.
Jones system was based on long research on how much exposure was needed
for an "excellent print". Some very large double blind tests were done to
judge what consitituted an excellent print.
Jones system was based on a a minimum gradient in the toe. This point was
measured on the basis of the toe contrast rather than on a fixed minimum
density. The minimum was the point where the gradient or gamma of the tow
was 1/3rd that of the average gradient over a log 1.5 density range. So,
the system took into account the shape and extent of the toe region.
This tended to set exposure at a level where adequate shadow detail was
produced at a minimum exposure.
The reason for setting minimum exposure was that grain is reduced and
sharpness is increased over negatives with greater exposure. Jones found
that increasing exposure from this point had little or no effect on tonal
rendition up to very large overexposure.
When the Kodak system was adopted by the ASA a 2.5X safety factor was
included. The reason given in Kodak literature is that it was to compensate
for underdevelopment in photofinishing plants, evidently very a very common
problem at the time. Probably the idea was that, since overexposure by this
much had no effect on print quality, it would insure that an image was
gotten by amateur photographers. This system was adopted by the ASA in
about 1943 and modified somewhat in 1946. The safety factor tended to
result in excessively dense negatives. Kodak's literature of the time
specifies that speed can be doubled without loss of quality when exposure
and processing is done carefully.
Kodak speeds do not have the safety factor. Old Kodak speeds translate
into modern speeds by dividing by two, and into the old ASA speeds by
deviding by four.
The Jones minimum usable gradient method of speed measurement is very
difficult to do reliably. In about 1958 the ASA adopted the DIN method of
speed measurement. This is essentially the system in current use.
The DIN system is based on a fixed minimum density (Log 0.1 above fog and
base density) and is based on a fixed gamma. The 1958 system had an 1.5X
safety factor effectively doubling the speeds of all films.
The ASA did a survey of films made at that time to determine the
difference in measureed speed between the DIN system and the Kodak system.
They decided that the differences were too small to warrent the substantial
additional difficulty of the Kodak system measurements.
Since that time there have been a number of changes in the ASA, later ISO
system. The original specified a developer, the formula for which was
included in the standard. The current version does not specify a developer.
The manuacturer can use any developer desired but it must be specified with
the resulting speeds.
Since the ISO system is based on a fixed average gradient it is not valid
for other degrees of contrast. The speed will be found to go down when the
film is developed to a lower contrast and to go up when developed to higher
contrast.
This system is used only for B&W; negative films for still cameras.
Reversal film, color film, motion picture films, all have separate standards.
Its interesting that c.1946 there were a lot of "magic" developers
advertised which claimed to increase film speed by two stops.Well, they
did, but so would any good developer. Based on the original ASA speed they
could double or quadriple speed because the film was already a stop faster
than the speed indicated plus all films have about a one stop underexposure
latitude from the speed without a safety factor. All of these developers
disappeared quickly after the second ASA system, without the large safety
factor, was adopted.
Now, progression the original ASA speed, Kodak speeds, Weston speeds,
General Electric speeds, are all arithmetic so the numbers are the same.
ASA or current ISO speeds can be used on old meters by knowing the off-set
to use on the calculator. For Weston meters use the next lower number, for
old GE meters use the next highest number. GE adopted the ASA method in
1946 so even their older meters work on it. Weston continued to use their
own method for some time, don't have a date. I think the Weston Master III
is the first one with ASA speeds.
Older meters with ASA speeds use current ISO speeds, the correction is in
the speed number not the calulator. However, its easy enough to check using
the "sunny 16" rule.
The DIN sytem can be expressed in either arithmetic or log values. Log
values are common in Europe, arithmetic values in the USA and UK.
There have been a very large number of speed measuring methods proposed
and actually used over something over a century. The first reliable meters
used small bits of printing out paper. The exposure was made for a fixed
time and the paper compared with a standard chart. The next step was the
photoelectric meter, introduced about 1931. There is some controversey over
who exactly marketed the very first but the first one to become popular was
the Weston c.1935. Probably because Weston also introduced a workable speed
measuring method along with the meter and supplied the film speeds
themselves rather than relying on the manufacturers. These meters were easy
to use and had logical calculators. However they were rather expensive so
it took some time, and cheaper models, for them to become wide spread in
use.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
To: camera-fix@yahoogroups.com>
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001
Subject: Re: [camera-fix] Stupid gold "PASSED" stickers
Those oval gold stickers were a brilliant idea of the JCII, Japan Camera
Inspection Institute. At the time they were thought up, in the mid-60s
if my memory is right, Japanese products had a bad reputation in the rest
of the world. JCII was formed to institute uniform quality standards for
the whole Japanese photo industry, and those stickers were put on equipment
which met those standards. The result was an overall improvement in
quality, and more importantly in consistency, of Japanese photo products.
The stickers were a badge of honor.
Some time ago the program was ended since its goals were long since
achieved, which is why you no longer see those stickers on Japanese photo
products.
The JCII is still in business, though. One of the most fascinating days
I have spent was at the JCII camera museum in Tokyo, where they have an
amazing collection of cameras, lenses, prototypes, etc., on display.
Bob
> From: "James Jones" junebug1701@yahoo.com>
> Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001
> To: camera-fix@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [camera-fix] Stupid gold "PASSED" stickers
>
> What's with these gold "PASSED" stickers on Japanese cameras? Why do
> people leave these things stuck to their camera bodies and lenses? Is
> it some kind of badge of honor? Is it like the "Not to be removed
> under penalty of law" matress tags? I just got through peeling one
> from my "new" X-700 and cleaning the sticky residue from the prism
> housing. I have acquired 30 or 40 year old cameras in my collection
> that still had these stickers affixed. I got a used lens once that
> had the sticker on the barrel and it would interfere with the
> focusing ring. My policy has always been to remove these blasted
> things from any new or used equipment I get. My chrome XG-7 still has
> a discolored oval mark from where the sticker was, and nothing I've
> tried can get it off. I'm wondering if the adhesive turns acidic
> after a while?
To: camera-fix@yahoogroups.com
From: "Mark Stuart" madfamily at bigpond.com
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001
Subject: [camera-fix] Re: Stupid gold "PASSED" stickers
Hi all,
The body initially started out as the Japan Camera and Optical
Instruments Inspection and Testing Institute in the 50's. It was
formed by the government to set standards for things like shutter
speed accuracy etc. Goods without the gold seal couldn't be exported.
You might also notice that there were two types of sticker - one
with 'passed' and the other with 'inspected'. The 'inspected' ones
were the ones from a batch actually submitted to the Institute. If it
passed, the rest in the batch received a 'passed' sticker.
BTW the name was only changed to the Japan Camera Industry Institute
last year. The process was dropped in 1998 as the industry was
considered such a high standard, leaving the museum mentioned by Bob.
Hope this was of some interest!
Stuey
--- In camera-fix@y..., Bob Shell bob@b...> wrote:
> Those oval gold stickers were a brilliant idea of the JCII, Japan Camera
> Inspection Institute. At the time they were thought up, in the mid-60s
> if my memory is right, Japanese products had a bad reputation in the rest
> of the world. JCII was formed to institute uniform quality standards for
> the whole Japanese photo industry, and those stickers were put on equipment
> which met those standards. The result was an overall improvement in
> quality, and more importantly in consistency, of Japanese photo products.
> The stickers were a badge of honor.
>
> Some time ago the program was ended since its goals were long since
> achieved, which is why you no longer see those stickers on Japanese photo
> products.
>
> The JCII is still in business, though. One of the most fascinating days
> I have spent was at the JCII camera museum in Tokyo, where they have an
> amazing collection of cameras, lenses, prototypes, etc., on display.
>
> Bob
>
>
> > From: "James Jones" junebug1701@y...>
> > Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001
> > To: camera-fix@y...
> > Subject: [camera-fix] Stupid gold "PASSED" stickers
> >
> > What's with these gold "PASSED" stickers on Japanese cameras? Why do
> > people leave these things stuck to their camera bodies and lenses? Is
> > it some kind of badge of honor? Is it like the "Not to be removed
> > under penalty of law" matress tags? I just got through peeling one
> > from my "new" X-700 and cleaning the sticky residue from the prism
> > housing. I have acquired 30 or 40 year old cameras in my collection
> > that still had these stickers affixed. I got a used lens once that
> > had the sticker on the barrel and it would interfere with the
> > focusing ring. My policy has always been to remove these blasted
> > things from any new or used equipment I get. My chrome XG-7 still has
> > a discolored oval mark from where the sticker was, and nothing I've
> > tried can get it off. I'm wondering if the adhesive turns acidic
> > after a while?
To: camera-fix@yahoogroups.com>
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001
Subject: Re: [camera-fix] Stupid gold "PASSED" stickers
> From: Jim Brokaw jbrokaw@pacbell.net>
> Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001
> To: camera-fix@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [camera-fix] Stupid gold "PASSED" stickers
>
> I bet they do... imagine if everything that ever had the sticker, they got a
> few samples from the manufacturer, then saved them...! There is a store
> locally that is a long-time Leica dealer, and I think they save one of
> everything Leica comes out with. They have about five large glass cabinets
> full of Leica gear, all of it absolutely mint. I'd guess the value is 1/4
> million $$ or more...
I believe that is exactly the case with JCII, that they kept samples of
everything they ever inspected and approved. They have a large suite of
offices and storage in downtown Tokyo, and the ground floor of their
building is the museum. If you ever go to Tokyo, this museum is a
recommended visit. But don't expect to do it in an hour!!
Bob
To: camera-fix@yahoogroups.com>
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001
Subject: Re: [camera-fix] Re: Stupid gold "PASSED" stickers
Thanks for the web link. I didn't know this site was up. It gives
you a sort of glimpse of the museum.
Bob
> From: "James Jones" junebug1701@yahoo.com>
> Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001
> To: camera-fix@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [camera-fix] Re: Stupid gold "PASSED" stickers
>
> Thanks for the tip, Bob. Next time I find myself in Tokyo, I'll plan
> on spending time there. I found some information on the museum here:
>
> http://www.nikon.co.jp/jcii/index_e.htm
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net>
Subject: RE: [Rollei] Can someone describe the Rollei 2.8 FX?
Austin Franklin wrote:
>That still goes back to my initial question, why no one else used it, or a
>similar mechanism, or why Rollei didn't adapt it to the GX etc.?
Austin
Please read ALL the messages in a thread: I posted the answer to the above
more than 12 hours back. The factory lost the F series tooling in their
bankruptcy but managed to hold on to the T series tooling. Thus, when they
decided to bring out an updated TLR, it was Hobson's Choice as to which
body to use as a base, and the Automat mechanism was gone, lost with the
tooling, melted down for scrap somewhere or other.
The Franke & Heidecke patent on the Automat mechanism expired in 1957
unless they made no protected improvements which might have extended this.
By 1957, TLR's were on the wane and every significant rival design (the
Minolta Autocord, the Zeiss Ikon Ikoflex, the Yashica line, and the Mamiya
line) was already established. I guess the other manufacturers just
decided not to retool, as this is a VERY expensive proposition, once the
F&H; patents had expired. Had TLR's enjoyed a resurgence of sales in the
1960's or '70's, one of them might have chosen to do a major redesign and
to add the feeler mechanism, as Hasselblad did when they changed over from
the 12 back to the A12 back. But Zeiss Ikon and Minolta left the TLR field
in 1960 due to slumping TLR sales, and neither Yashica nor Mamiya ever made
a substantive redesign of their models after 1957.
Marc
msmall@roanoke.infi.net
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rolleicord III
you wrote:
> you wrote:
>>Marc-- I can't recall whether you're interested in sr nrs of JSK lens users,
>>but in case yes, here is the stuff:
>>Body sr nr 1317179
>>Taking lens sr nr 3115833 (JSK xenar)
>>Viewing lens sr nr 244888 (Heidosmat 3.2)
>
>For many years, Joan McKeown was accumulating Schneider numbers but I
>believe this has now been superseded by Prochnow's REPORTS. I never sent
>her mine, but all of the ones I have listed fall within Prochnow's limits.
>
>Now, ZEISS numbers I want, as Zeiss has been, well, less forthcoming with
>its production records than has JSK.
>
>Thanks!
>
>Marc
>
>msmall@roanoke.infi.net
Schneider has a complete serial number list on its web site, or at least
the Schneider of America web site at: http://www.schneideroptics.com No
breaks from the very first lens, its really complete. There is also some
data on discontinued lenses on the same site.
The Zeiss serial number list which appears in McKeown's Guide goes back
a little further than Prochnow's list, which dates from the first F&H;
cameras. Its helpful but obviously not complete. It also stops at the
early 1940's (I think without looking). Again obviously, Oberchoken had its
own serial numbering system. I've never seen anything on this, or on the
Jena system after WW-2. Perhaps the Zeiss Historica Society has some data.
Its nearly impossible to get serial number information on other makes of
lenses. Kodak lenses can be dated from 1940 because they have a two letter
prefix based on the key word CAMEROSITY for 1,2,3, etc., for the last two
digits of the year of manufacture. I've never seen any data for Kodak
serial numbers before this. There is a partial list of Goerz American
serial numbers. Again, its helpful but very incomplete. I've never seen any
serial number information for other manufacturers. Not long ago several of
us who frequent the large-format news group tried to ferret out enough info
to figure out Bausch & Lomb's system, but to no avail. In any case, B&L;
seems to have used at least two systems at various times, one using a two
letter prefix similar to Kodak's system, but no permutations of known
manufacturing dates could come up with a key word.
If anyone on this list has any serial number data, or knows of a source,
I would be glad to have it.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net>
Subject: [Rollei] Serial Number Data
Richard Knoppow wrote:
> The Zeiss serial number list which appears in McKeown's Guide goes back
>a little further than Prochnow's list, which dates from the first F&H;
>cameras. Its helpful but obviously not complete. It also stops at the
>early 1940's (I think without looking). Again obviously, Oberchoken had its
>own serial numbering system. I've never seen anything on this, or on the
>Jena system after WW-2.
The Prewar Jena sequence in McKeown was generated by the noted optical
designer and theoretician, Ed Kaprelian. We have only managed to improve
upon this in recent years with one more bit of data -- from some
information posted here on this List a few years back, we know believe that
1938 runs from 2266087 to 2527984.
The Postwar Jena numbers are a continuation of the Prewar numbers but our
understanding of them is quite soft. I would guesstimate something along
the following lines:
late 1945 3,000,000
1950 4,000,000
1955 5,000,000
1960 6,000,000
1965 7,000,000
1970 8,000,000
1975 9,000,000
1980 10,000,000
1985 50,000 (Jena deleted "10,00" from the serial numbers at arou=
nd
10,040,000)
1990 750,000 (production ended in 1990)
The Postwar Oberkochen serial number run is vastly complicated by their
apparent custom of assigning number blocks to specific lenses, so that a
consecutive number run might take several years to see the light of day.
Further, there are several large blocks in the middle of the 2,000,000
range which should fall into the late 1950's but which clearly do not, as
these are on SL66 lenses introduced in 1966. There is good data available
in Kuc's CONTAFLEX-CONTAREX and in Nordin's HASSELBLAD SYSTEM COMPENDIUM,
data obtained from Zeiss, but the two schemata do not agree for the period
1959 to 1966. It is all most complex!
I have a rough table for Postwar Oberkochen lenses developed but it needs a
LOT more work!
Marc
msmall@roanoke.infi.net
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net>
Subject: [Rollei] Rollei-Werke and Rollei Group
you wrote:
>Is there a difference between Rollei Group and Rollei Fototechnic?
>
>I posed this question the other day and didn't get a response. Anyone
know? Marc?
Rob
I believe this is the way the corporate history worked:
1921 - 1962 Franke & Heidecke
1962 - 1981 Rollei-Werke Franke & Heidecke
1970 Rollei Singapore (Pte) Ltd founded
1971 Rollei of America and Rollei of Canada founded=20
1972 Rollei France SA and Rollei UK Ltd founded
1973 Rollei Schweiz AG and Rollei Austria Gmbh founded
1975 Rollei Nederland BV and Rollei Japan Co Ltd founded
1980 Singapore plant closed and Rollei Singapore (Pte) Ltd dissolved
1981 Rollei-Werke Franke & Heidecke in receivership and bought=20
out by United Scientific Holdings Ltd
1982 Company renamed Rollei Fototechnic
So, from 1970 to 1980, I would guess that the Rollei Group included the
mother company of Rollei-Werke Franke & Heidecke and its national daughter
companies.
Marc
msmall@roanoke.infi.net
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Lens names
you wrote:
>Hello,
>
>why do the names of lenses or lens groups finish by R (Tessar, Sonnar,
>Sekkor, Nikor...)?
>Sorry for possible OT posting.
>
>Jose Royo
>Logrono
>Spain
>
Many lenses have names ending in "ar" or "tar" but many do not. I am not
sure what the origin of this is. The "at" ending somtimes found is from
Anastigmat". Many lenses have names made up of Latin or Greek roots,
sometimes a mixture of both.
Tessar comes from its having four elements. Sonnar means "like the sun"
meaning a bright image. Other lens names often indicate some property the
lens is supposed to have such as Planar (flat field) Rapid Rectilinear,
meaning no geometrical distortion and a fast lens (f/8 was fast in 1866),
Orthometar (correct measurement) originally an aerial mapping lens. Many
Zeiss lenses are named this way. Gon endings (Biogon) usually indicate a
wide angle lens, gon coming from a root for angle.
Some lenses are named after the manufacturer. Dagor means Dopple
Anastigmat- Goerz. Kodak Ektar is simply Eastman Kodak + tar.
Boyer, an old French company, named their lenses after jewels, i.e.,
Saphir, Topaz, etc.
Some companies, Canon for example, don't name specific lenses, they are
all just Canon Lens.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net>
Subject: [Rollei] Voigtlander
Jerry Lehrer wrote:
>Way back, in my day, Voigtlander was considered
>as a second rate company (maybe third), with Zeiss
>and Leitz vying for first and Franke& Heideke in
>second place.
Now, Jerry, that's really odd. Zeiss lusted after the lens design team
Voigtlander had. The only significant none-Zeiss lenses in the Prewar
Zeiss Lens Collection of significant designs were Voigtlander lenses.
Zeiss BOUGHT Voigtlander precisely to gut their lens guys, and did so.
Doesn't really sound much like a second-rate company!
Marc
msmall@roanoke.infi.net
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net>
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Voigtlander
Jerry Lehrer wrote:
> I'm only considering the demand/worth
> these companies' products in the
>war-time and early post war market.
Hmm. There is an element of truth in this, Jerry. After the last direct
male Voigtlander heir died in 1925, the family trust sold the business to
the Schering drug company, who were hoping to increase sales of film and
paper. So, they insisted Voigtlander build a lot of really inexpensive
cameras which rather horrified the company's management. The eventual
result was a line which began with the Bessa folder -- certainly on par
with the Zeiss Ikon Nettar though a bit cheaper -- and peaked with the
Prewar Prominent and the really fine Superb TLR. The better Voigtlander
cameras sold in numbers to advanced amatuers, especially in Europe and on
the US West Coast, but, I will agree, were in third place behind Zeiss Ikon
and Franke & Heidecke both in numbers sold and in market estimation. Leica
was numerically not all that significant at this time and didn't become a
major player until the later 1940's.
Schering, close to bankruptcy, sold Voigtlander to the Zeiss trust in the
early 1950's. By then, Voigtlander had left the LF and MF field and
concentrated on miniature-format (35mm) gear. I suspect there was an
understanding between the management of the two Braunschweig concerns to
have Voigtlander do 35mm and to have Rolleiflex do 120, a pact which held
for 15 years.
Marc
msmall@roanoke.infi.net
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002
From: Jacques bread_water@go.com
Subject: "Look-A-Leica" FYI
To: rmonagha@mail.smu.edu
Hi,
I just noticed your very nice, I may add, web page. Please be advised that the name
"Look-a-Leica" was invented by me in 1971 and after the article came out in the Wall
Street Journal Feb 12 1975, I went to a Patent attorny in Providence, RI and had the
Name: "Look-a-Leica" copywrited for Leica clone products.
I have no problem anyone using the name and today it is all quite ancient history.
I just would like to dampen the cavalier use of this product trademark.
Further, I have built nearly 1000 Leica cameras that people still use and that do not
correspond to any Leica model using Leica Parts and my parts. When a strange unit is found
out there it is usually mine.
jacques-
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001
Subject: [HUG] lenses and manufacturing dates
From: Rick Nordin nordin@bc1.com>
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net>
> From: "Frank Filippone" red735i@earthlink.net>
> To: hasselblad@kelvin.net>
> Subject: RE: [HUG] Lenses and numbers
>
> This IS interesting.. Hasselblad traditionally denied being capable of doing
> this.... I wonder if the HUG email is somehow getting over there and being
> regurgitated to us? Or if they have found new information that could assist
> us? Rick Nordin.. do you have any idea?
My experience has been that the factory never kept records of such data for
any length of time nor was much interest ever expressed in this by
outsiders. My inquires were never very fruitful and this was why I went to
the effort of trying to answer the question of "when was this lens made?"
and compiling the (imperfect) table that is in the Hasselblad Compendium.
After the book came out, Torbjorn told me that they used the book as a
reference for many of the questions that they received from Hasselblad users
where historical questions were involved (which I was quite astonished by).
However the dates that Tjorbjorn quoted for two of the three lenses of Pete
Schermerhorn in his response are not the same as are listed in the book, so
perhaps Torbjorn made a special effort (as he often did) to obtain the dates
he provided from another source. I wish he were still with us to ask - he
had a wealth of knowledge and was a very pleasant man.
Rick
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net>
Subject: RE: [HUG] lenses and manufacturing dates
It is important to remember that the lenses in question are not Hasselblad
products, but Zeiss lenses mounted to fit Hasselblad cameras. Thus, Zeiss
records still exist for these lenses though Zeiss is certainly not very
forthcoming with their material.
Marc
msmall@roanoke.infi.net
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 0400
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net>
Subject: Re: [Rollei] MC v. coated lenses
Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter) wrote:
>You guys have me going here. DID Rollei employ any multicoated lenses?
>I mean multi-coating was in the 60s if I am not mistaken first employed =
by
>Pentax.
It all depends on how you count or how precise you want to be. Zeiss and
Asahi pooled their research in 1967. By 1969, Zeiss was marketing lab and
medical test gear that was "T*" coated. I believe Asahi beat Zeiss into
the marketplace by a month or two in '71 or '72. So, Zeiss has priority
for getting it to the field first, while Asahi was the first to market
multi-coated camera lenses.
It really doesn't matter: the processes, coming from pooled research, were
identical.
Marc
msmall@roanoke.infi.net
From: "Tom Coates" tecoates@home.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: The best SLR ever produced
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2001
The predecessor to the Spotmatic, the Pentax K (not to be confused with the
K-mount), was introduced in 1958 and by 1960 Time and National Geo were
using it. The K was the first camera to contain the features of the modern
SLR (except the bayonet lensmount, interchangeable finder, and of course,
lens-coupled metering). The Spotmatic provided metering when it was
introduced in 1965. Pentax pioneered most of the features of what we think
of as the modern SLR. Once the feasibility of a design is demonstrated and
it is tested in the market, competitors may apply it more effectively than
the originators did. It's happened before. Unlike many pioneers, Pentax
continues to thrive. Details of the history are at
http://spotmatic.web-page.net/.
Tom
"Tony Polson" tony.polson@btinternet.com> wrote
> "Tom Coates" tecoates@home.com> wrote:
>
> > Where did the Pentax Spotmatic fit into this story?
>
> Hi Tom,
>
> There's little doubt that the Spotmatic *was* the leader, at one time.
> However Asahi Optical's failure to offer a bayonet lens mount until
> after most Pentax SLR users had converted to other systems was a major
> blow to their prestige.
>
> Nikon was an obvious choice for most former Pentax M42 users.
>
> I'm neither a Nikon fan nor a Pentax M42 basher; I use both systems.
> But I still maintain that the Spotmatic has just about the best handling
> of any 35mm SLR, excepting the M42 lens mount. But the mount was such a
> major issue that the camera's other virtues were overshadowed by it.
>
> --
>
> Best regards,
>
> Tony Polson
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Kalart Focuspot for Rolleiflex
you wrote:
>Did any of you fellows see this on eBay? It is described as "a rare
>Kalart Focuspot attachment for the Rollei Automatic reflex TLR
>camera.". It must be some automatic or manual focus gadget. I never
>heard of it.
>
>http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item;=1264350501
>
>This fellow put 14 items for sale today .. mostly Rollei stuff,
>including Carl Zeiss Jena Duonar Lens.
>
>Roger
>Whitewater, WI
>
>PS Anyone familiar with the Graflex 22 TLR? I just acquired one. I
>know it won't replace my 2.8 F that I sold!
This is the first one I've ever seen. It truely is a focuspot for a
Rollei. The original Focuspot was an attachment for Kalart side mounted
rangefinders as used on Speed Graphics. It has a small lamp and a lens
which projects the light through the rangefinder (many models of RF were
made to take it). I guess this thing is meant to be used with the sports
finder in dim light. Maybe worth the price as a collector's item.
The Graflex 22 is the old Ciroflex under another name. Graflex bought out
the Ciroflex company, whatever it was called at that time (went through a
lot of changes). The also had an inexpensive 35mm camera which Graflex sold
under its own name.
The Ciroflex was a relatively inexpensive TLR featuring Wollensak lenses
and shutters. It has a simple red-window film winding system, absolutely
nothing automatic.
There was a choice of lenses and shutters at various prices. The lenses
were so-so. Wollensak shutters are rugged and reliable.
My first camera, other than a box camera, was a Ciroflex, bought used at
a place on Western Ave. Mine was one of the earlier ones built in Detroit,
my long ago home town. Ciroflex's were built in at least two other places
at various times.
It took decent pictures and I was glad to have it. After my parents
figured out I was really serious about photography I was able to promote a
Rolleicord IV, brand new but just discontinued, so discounted. I remember
how it smelled when the box was opened. I had that camera for many years
until a burglar got it. I have another now and still think it is one of the
cleanest and easiest to use cameras ever. However, the Ciro has a special
place in my heart.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net>
Subject: The Contax RTS System and Its Predecessors
Joe Codispoti wrote:
>Contarex, Contaflex, were Zeiss products made in Germany. Contax is the
>result of collaboration between Zeiss and Yashica, Yashica being a leader in
>camera electronics at the time was "chosen" as the producer of the Contax
>line. Later, when Yashica fell in economic hard times, it was purchased by
>Kyocera.
>The first Contax model (RTS) appeared in 1976. It was designed by the
>Porsche Group in Germany.
>The early lenses (AE) were made in Germany, later ones made in Germany and
>assembled in Japan. Now most are made in Japan, only specialty lenses are
>manufactured entirely in Germany.
Ouch!
First, Zeiss does not make cameras; the Contax RF, Contaflex, Contarex,
&c;, were the products of Zeiss Ikon, a separate company not at all
identical to the Zeiss lensworks, though it did share corporate ownership
by the Carl Zeiss Foundation.
When the Zeiss Foundation pulled the plug on Zeiss Ikon's camera
production, they sought an Oriental partner to produce cameras and lenses
of Zeiss heritage. The initial partner was Asahi, but they bowed out and a
new deal was cut with Yashica. The end result was the Contax RTS. The
camera body was a joint development of Zeiss and Yashica -- it was
assuredly NOT designed by the Porsche Design Studio, though they did
perform some ergonometric work on the design. All subsequent camera bodies
have been joint efforts of Zeiss and either Yashica or Kyocera.
Lens production for all lenses begins in Germany but then switches to
Kyoto, with the exception of extreme wide-angles and long-focal length
lenses. Final inspection at Kyoto is performed by inspectors from the Carl
Zeiss lensworks as insisted on by Kyocera to ensure that there is no
question that these lenses are produced to Zeiss standards.
And, of course, there IS a 1.2/55 Planar, a low-volume lens produced in
1996 to celebrate the centenary of the original Planar design.
(The Contarex SLR was introduced in 1958 when Zeiss Ikon decided to phase
out the Contax RF design after corporate management fell out of love with
the Contax IV. The Contarex was in production for 15 years but was a
constant, bleeding, agony to both Zeiss Ikon and the Zeiss Foundation, who
had to bankroll the losses it caused Zeiss Ikon. The camera was simply too
well built to be capable of economic pricing in a market where it competed
with the Praktina and the Nikon F and the like but, the long and short of
it is that the Contarex remains the absolute paragon of SLR design and
development. We shall not see its like again! Most of the Contarex lenses
survive for the Contax RTS and Rollei 3003 systems, and the 3.5/15 Distagon
was badge-engineered for many years into the Leica Super-Elmar of even
specification.)
Marc
msmall@roanoke.infi.net
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Scanning negs and Minolta Autocords
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com>
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Fox, RobertRFox@aarp.org9/18/01 8:46 AM
> I know that the Autocords are Japanese copies of Rolleicords, but the
> quality of the results speak for themselves. I think the 3.5/75mm Rokkor
> lens in the Autocords is based on the Tessar design.
Interestingly enough if you take some Autocords apart you will see Rollei
marking on the body casting. We ran an article about this years ago in
Shutterbug showing photos which proved the castings were made with
Rollei-supplied dies. Whether Rollei sold Minolta tooling when they made
a model change or licensed them to duplicate the castings from a current
camera is something no one seems to know now.
Bob
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Tripod threads was: Hello and Question
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com>
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
> From: Mark Rabiner mark@rabiner.cncoffice.com>
> Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001
> To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Subject: Re: [Rollei] Tripod threads was: Hello and Question
>
> Gitzo heads are 3/8. I'm standardized on that I guess. So i think is
> Bogan/Manfrotto. Lester was American wasn't he?
Lester was very American. Lino Manfrotto is very Italian. Lino was working
as a commercial photographer and was frustrated by the lack of quality and
poor design of the light stands available and so he designed and made his
own. Friends saw them and wanted ones like them, and so he found himself in
business making light stands without ever really intending it. One year he
took a trip to photokina and was carrying his sample light stands around
looking for someone to sell them. He met Lester Bogen, and the rest, as
they say, is history. The tripods came after the light stands, and then
other studio accessories followed.
Today Gruppo Manfrotto is a large company based in Bassano del Grappa and
with factories in several towns in the area. Actually, these days the photo
business is just a small part of their overall business. Their major money
maker is department store display fixtures and mannequins.
When Gitzo was in serious financial trouble and looked to go out of
business, Manfrotto bought them, and now some of the Gitzo products are made
in Manfrotto's Italian factories and some still in the Gitzo factory just
outside of Paris.
Bob
From leica mailing list:
ate: Thu, 10 May 2001
From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net
Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: RE: Konica fiction
apbbeijing@yahoo.com wrote:
>As for the product's
>heritage, I think you will find Konica have been in the photo business
>longer than any of the companies you mention: Hasselblad, Linhof and
Leica.
I believe we've been through this before. Karl Kellner (he of the Kellner
Eyepiece design) founded what is now the Leica company in 1849. Is Konica
older than this? I believe it IS older than Hasselblad and Linhof.
Marc
msmall@roanoke.infi.net
From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002
From: "J-2" nikitakat@edsamail.com.ph
Subject: Re: Fw: Re: Back to Kodachrome
Hi Bob
Jack Coote wrote in his book "The Illustrated History of Colour Photography"
(Fountain Press, 1993), Japanese film manufacturers were already making colour
reversal films prior to WWII. Konishiroku (now Konica) made a Kodachrome-type
colour film in 1940. Fuji made something similar(at least in emulsion make-up
and processing) in 1948.
When captured Agfa coupler-incorporated technology was released by the
Allies for everyone to pick, Oriental Photo Industry used this as basis
for their colour films in 1953, Fuji followed suit by 1958, and
Konishiroku (aka 'Sakura') by 1959. [ref. pages 149, 156,& 170] No
mention was made when the Japanese makers decided to make their films
Kodak process compatible.
Interestingly, Agfa colour technology in both negative and positive types
became the basis of so many colour materials made by other manufacturers.
Original Agfa colour or its modification did live to a longer extent in
the former east bloc well into the 1990s- as "ORWO" colour. Sound like
the Kiev rf, doesn't it?:)
Jay
>Interesting. I first encountered Fuji slide film in the
>late 60s and didn't know it existed before then.
>
>Bob
From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002
From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net
Subject: Re: Carl Zeiss Jena 135mm lens opinion
tigerarm2000 wrote:
> I know Carl Zeiss Jena made some excellent lenses for 120 format.
>What about their 135mm lenses? Are lenses with Zeiss brand bettet
>than pentacon lenses?
>
>I know this is not a Russian topic but I don't know other place to
>ask the question.
Well, other possible fora for this would be the Zeiss Ikon Collectors Group
and the Praktica Users Group.
Zeiss has always been the one company that will never chintz on quality,
which is why they dominate the top-end optical field. In the US, many
hospitals insist on using Zeiss gear in their laboratories, simply because
no attorney in a malpractice suit would ever fault them for this choice.
Zeiss is the cutting edge, the absolute best, the chevalier sans reproche.
But beware of the Law of Diminishing Returns: to get that extra 1% in
quality, you pay three or four times as much. (And that is why SPS gear is
such a superb buy: you get Zeiss-derived optical quality in, well, less
than Zeiss-quality mounts!)
I have a slew of Zeiss gear, from Contax and Praktina and Praktica and
Contaflex and Contarex and Ikoflex and Icarex gear, all with lenses, plus
Zeiss lenses on my Rolleiflex and Hasselblad cameras. I have a Whole Damn
Bunch of binoculars, and all but a few are Zeiss -- and the ones which
aren't Zeiss are Zeiss-derived, either Docter or Russian.
Carl Zeiss split into two entities between 1945 and 1990, Carl Zeiss Jena
-- East German -- and Zeiss-Opton and Carl Zeiss -- West German. The West
German gear is certainly preferable in terms of mounting but the East
German gear is often of stunningly fine optical qualities -- the absolute
finest, best, most marvelous binoculars I have ever used are my 7x40 DF
BGA's, the sort of glasses which put tears in your eyes, so good are they.
Damn, but I love Zeiss!
Marc
msmall@roanoke.infi.net
From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002
From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net
Subject: Re: Why Russian didn't copy Leica M series cameras?
Javier Perez wrote:
>I think they may have signed something agreeing to respect
>western patents after a certain year. The M mount was patented in the
>50s I think
>and could not be stolen for war reparations by any of the allies.
By definition, "war reparations" are not theft. They are the legal
property of the winning powers. Kodak's Ektachrome, for instance, is the
result of Agfa's color-film technology as seized in 1945.
The M39 mount was patented in 1929, so any patents on it expired in 1949.
The M mount was patented in 1949, so any patents on it expired in 1969.
I have never heard of a Soviet agreement to respect non-Warsaw Pact
patents, and they certainly did not do so even if they agreed to this.
Check out the lens diagrams for SPS MF lenses against their Zeiss
exemplars!
Marc
msmall@roanoke.infi.net
From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: Why Russian didn't copy Leica M series cameras?
Marc James Small at msmall@roanoke.infi.net wrote:
> Kodak's Ektachrome, for instance, is the
> result of Agfa's color-film technology as seized in 1945.
Are you sure? I know that the Ansco (later GAF) color films were derived
from Agfa's color technology, but the Kodak films are quite different.
Bob
From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002
From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net
Subject: Re: Why Russian didn't copy Leica M seriescameras?
Bob Shell wrote:
>Are you sure? I know that the Ansco (later GAF) color films were derived
>from Agfa's color technology, but the Kodak films are quite different.
Yes, I am certain of this. Kodak sent a team to debrief the AGFA techs in
1945 and visited the Wolfen plant before the Soviets locked it up. I am
certain that Kodak had known the details of the process before this and
that they improved upon it, but Kodak's E-1 process was derived from AGFA
technology.
Marc
msmall@roanoke.infi.net
From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002
From: "J-2" nikitakat@edsamail.com.ph
Subject: Re: Re: Why Russian didn't copy Leica Mseriescameras?
Marc
Jack Coote's book, THE ILLUSTRATED HISTORY OF COLOUR PHOTOGRAPHY says the
same thing too. He lists Ilford, ORWO, Ferrania, Fuji, Konishiroku,and
Ansco/GAF as the companies who benefitted from AGFA colour technology.
ORWO apparently held on the original Agfacolor until the late 80's. The
processing given in a 1980's edition of their book ORWO-FORMULAE is
similar to that of early Agfacolor.
Konishiroku was said to have a Kodachrome-type colour film in 1940, and
Kodak didn't seem to mind. Eastman was even said to have visited their
company in the '30s. Fuji had one too after the war, but abandoned it in
favour of the AGFA type materials.
But did Kodak use the 'long-chain' coupler anchors which AGFA used for
their first Ektachrome materials?
AGFA was also first to make colour negative/positive materials, using a
cine version for "Munchausen". How did Kodak develop their Kodacolor
rollfilm in the 1940's?
Jay
From: "C.Phillips" phillips_sager@starpower.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Tiltall/Star D Tripod History - A Genetic Mutation?
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2003
So some of you folks thought that you had the provenance of the
Tiltall/Star D line of tripods down pretty good, did you? You know -
Marchioni brothers, then Leitz, then Star-D and now after a long pause
a company in China? Well here's something that I stumbled upon while
looking through ebay's [recently] past auctions. Take a look at: