OT:Walter Voss Diax cameras

[CarlosMFreaza]

I have received yesterday a 1954/55 Diax IIa 35mm camera with Xenon
Schneider 2/50 lens, manufactured in the Walter Voss factory at "Ulm
an der Donau" city, southwestern Germany, a real mechanical beauty. My
father had the newer model Diax IIb with the same Xenon lens plus a
Tele-Xenar 3.5/90 and a Xenagon 3.5/35mm with the additional
viewfinder, this was the camera system that made me to think, from
teenager, there were no true reasons for the Leica cameras price (my
father also had a Leica IIIf that he sold in 1964 when he decided to
leave the photography hobby, he kept the Diax IIb outfit and the 2.8C
I'm still using, he afterwards lent the Diax to a friend of him and we
no longer saw the nice outfit, but I could shoot with the camera).

My "new" camera has coupled rangefinder with built-in viewfinders for
45-50mm and 85-90mm lenses, a dedicated Diax lens mount for
interchangeable lenses, central leaf Synchro-Compur shutter similar
regarding the Synchro- Compur used for the 2.8C but CR 000 size: B 1s
to 1/500, built-in self timer, MX flash synchro. The Diax IIa and IIb
have a very compact design closer to the Rollei 35 than to
contemporary Leica and Contax models, the main difference for the two
models is that the IIb has an elegant quick lever stroke to advance
the film designed by Hans Logé, the engineer that also designed the
Rolleimeter and the Stereo TLR camera prototype and the Rolleimarin
for this model working for F&H.
The Xenon 2/50 is an excellent lens derived from the original Planar 6
elements design directly, the Xenon also has 6 elements with a very
similar diagram regarding the original Rudolph's Planar diagram (it
does not mean they are identical lenses, however the design concept is
identical) and BTW it's excellent for color shots.

I wrote to Peter Geisler, "Das DIAX-KAMERA-WERK Walter Voss
Kleinbild-Kameras aus Ulm an der Donau 1947-1957" book author, that in
spite of prices difference "... Diax cameras design look more compact
and modern than some Leica and Contax contemporary models...", he
answered: "I fully agree".

Carlos

[Elias Roustom]

An now we await illustrations for this entertaining and informative
text.

E.

On Oct 21, 2009, at 7:18 AM, CarlosMFreaza wrote:

> I have received yesterday a 1954/55 Diax IIa 35mm camera with Xenon
> Schneider 2/50 lens, manufactured in the Walter Voss factory at "Ulm
> an der Donau" city, southwestern Germany, a real mechanical beauty. My
> father had the newer model Diax IIb with the same Xenon lens plus a
> Tele-Xenar 3.5/90 and a Xenagon 3.5/35mm with the additional
> viewfinder, this was the camera system that made me to think, from
> teenager, there were no true reasons for the Leica cameras price (my
> father also had a Leica IIIf that he sold in 1964 when he decided to
> leave the photography hobby, he kept the Diax IIb outfit and the 2.8C
> I'm still using, he afterwards lent the Diax to a friend of him and we
> no longer saw the nice outfit, but I could shoot with the camera).
>
> My "new" camera has coupled rangefinder with built-in viewfinders for
> 45-50mm and 85-90mm lenses, a dedicated Diax lens mount for
> interchangeable lenses, central leaf Synchro-Compur shutter similar
> regarding the Synchro- Compur used for the 2.8C but CR 000 size: B 1s
> to 1/500, built-in self timer, MX flash synchro. The Diax IIa and IIb
> have a very compact design closer to the Rollei 35 than to
> contemporary Leica and Contax models, the main difference for the two
> models is that the IIb has an elegant quick lever stroke to advance
> the film designed by Hans Logé, the engineer that also designed the
> Rolleimeter and the Stereo TLR camera prototype and the Rolleimarin
> for this model working for F&H.
> The Xenon 2/50 is an excellent lens derived from the original Planar 6
> elements design directly, the Xenon also has 6 elements with a very
> similar diagram regarding the original Rudolph's Planar diagram (it
> does not mean they are identical lenses, however the design concept is
> identical) and BTW it's excellent for color shots.
>
> I wrote to Peter Geisler, "Das DIAX-KAMERA-WERK Walter Voss
> Kleinbild-Kameras aus Ulm an der Donau 1947-1957" book author, that in
> spite of prices difference "... Diax cameras design look more compact
> and modern than some Leica and Contax contemporary models...", he
> answered: "I fully agree".
>
> Carlos
> ---
> Rollei List
>
> - Post to ***@freelists.org
>
> - Subscribe at rollei_list-***@freelists.org with 'subscribe'
> in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-***@freelists.org with
> 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into
> www.freelists.org
>
> - Online, searchable archives are available at
> http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
>

[CarlosMFreaza]

Hi Elias,:
I was trying to take some photographs with my P&S
digital yesterday, but it became without battery charge after the
first shot, now I'll take photographs with film cameras for the
week-end probably and I'll upload some images to the web.

Carlos

2009/10/21 Elias Roustom <***@comcast.net>:
> An now we await illustrations for this entertaining and informative text.
>
> E.
>
> On Oct 21, 2009, at 7:18 AM, CarlosMFreaza wrote:
>
>> I have received yesterday a 1954/55 Diax IIa 35mm camera with Xenon
>> Schneider 2/50 lens, manufactured in the Walter Voss factory at "Ulm
>> an der Donau" city, southwestern Germany, a real mechanical beauty. My
>> father had the newer model Diax IIb with the same Xenon lens plus a
>> Tele-Xenar 3.5/90 and a Xenagon 3.5/35mm with the additional
>> viewfinder, this was the camera system that made me to think, from
>> teenager, there were no true reasons for the Leica cameras price (my
>> father also had a Leica IIIf that he sold in 1964 when he decided to
>> leave the photography hobby, he kept the Diax IIb outfit and the 2.8C
>> I'm still using, he afterwards lent the Diax to a friend of him and we
>> no longer saw the nice outfit, but I could shoot with the camera).
>>
>> My "new" camera has coupled rangefinder with built-in viewfinders for
>> 45-50mm and 85-90mm lenses, a dedicated Diax lens mount for
>> interchangeable lenses, central leaf  Synchro-Compur shutter similar
>> regarding the Synchro- Compur used for the 2.8C but CR 000 size: B 1s
>> to 1/500, built-in self timer, MX flash synchro. The Diax IIa and IIb
>> have a very compact design closer to the Rollei 35 than to
>> contemporary Leica and Contax models, the main difference for the two
>> models is that the IIb has an elegant quick lever stroke to advance
>> the film designed by Hans Logé, the engineer that also designed the
>> Rolleimeter and the Stereo TLR camera prototype and the Rolleimarin
>> for this model working for F&H.
>> The Xenon 2/50 is an excellent lens derived from the original Planar 6
>> elements design directly, the Xenon also has 6 elements with a very
>> similar diagram regarding the original Rudolph's Planar diagram (it
>> does not mean they are identical lenses, however the design concept is
>> identical) and BTW it's excellent for color shots.
>>
>> I wrote to Peter Geisler, "Das DIAX-KAMERA-WERK Walter Voss
>> Kleinbild-Kameras aus Ulm an der Donau 1947-1957" book author, that in
>> spite of prices difference "...  Diax cameras design look more compact
>> and modern than some Leica and Contax contemporary models...", he
>> answered: "I fully agree".
>>
>> Carlos
>> ---
>> Rollei List
>>
>> - Post to ***@freelists.org
>>
>> - Subscribe at rollei_list-***@freelists.org with 'subscribe'
>> in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>>
>> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-***@freelists.org with
>> 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>>
>> - Online, searchable archives are available at
>> http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
>>
>
> ---
> Rollei List
>
> - Post to ***@freelists.org
>
> - Subscribe at rollei_list-***@freelists.org with 'subscribe'in the
> subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-***@freelists.org with'unsubscribe' in the
> subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Online, searchable archives are available at
> http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
>
>

[CarlosMFreaza]

This is the only digital image I took yesterday with my P&S, you can
see from left to right the Contax II, Diax IIa and Rollei 35, the
direct flash light caused some strange reflections, I hope to take
better images with a better light to show the Diax IIa some
interesting details:

http://itarphotos.blogspot.com/2009/10/diax-iia-and-other-cameras.html

Carlos




2009/10/21 CarlosMFreaza <***@gmail.com>:
> Hi Elias,:
>              I was trying to take some photographs with my P&S
> digital yesterday, but it became without battery charge after the
> first shot, now I'll take photographs with film cameras for the
> week-end probably and I'll upload some images to the web.
>
> Carlos
>
> 2009/10/21 Elias Roustom <***@comcast.net>:
>> An now we await illustrations for this entertaining and informative text.
>>
>> E.
>>
>> On Oct 21, 2009, at 7:18 AM, CarlosMFreaza wrote:
>>
>>> I have received yesterday a 1954/55 Diax IIa 35mm camera with Xenon
>>> Schneider 2/50 lens, manufactured in the Walter Voss factory at "Ulm
>>> an der Donau" city, southwestern Germany, a real mechanical beauty. My
>>> father had the newer model Diax IIb with the same Xenon lens plus a
>>> Tele-Xenar 3.5/90 and a Xenagon 3.5/35mm with the additional
>>> viewfinder, this was the camera system that made me to think, from
>>> teenager, there were no true reasons for the Leica cameras price (my
>>> father also had a Leica IIIf that he sold in 1964 when he decided to
>>> leave the photography hobby, he kept the Diax IIb outfit and the 2.8C
>>> I'm still using, he afterwards lent the Diax to a friend of him and we
>>> no longer saw the nice outfit, but I could shoot with the camera).
>>>
>>> My "new" camera has coupled rangefinder with built-in viewfinders for
>>> 45-50mm and 85-90mm lenses, a dedicated Diax lens mount for
>>> interchangeable lenses, central leaf  Synchro-Compur shutter similar
>>> regarding the Synchro- Compur used for the 2.8C but CR 000 size: B 1s
>>> to 1/500, built-in self timer, MX flash synchro. The Diax IIa and IIb
>>> have a very compact design closer to the Rollei 35 than to
>>> contemporary Leica and Contax models, the main difference for the two
>>> models is that the IIb has an elegant quick lever stroke to advance
>>> the film designed by Hans Logé, the engineer that also designed the
>>> Rolleimeter and the Stereo TLR camera prototype and the Rolleimarin
>>> for this model working for F&H.
>>> The Xenon 2/50 is an excellent lens derived from the original Planar 6
>>> elements design directly, the Xenon also has 6 elements with a very
>>> similar diagram regarding the original Rudolph's Planar diagram (it
>>> does not mean they are identical lenses, however the design concept is
>>> identical) and BTW it's excellent for color shots.
>>>
>>> I wrote to Peter Geisler, "Das DIAX-KAMERA-WERK Walter Voss
>>> Kleinbild-Kameras aus Ulm an der Donau 1947-1957" book author, that in
>>> spite of prices difference "...  Diax cameras design look more compact
>>> and modern than some Leica and Contax contemporary models...", he
>>> answered: "I fully agree".
>>>
>>> Carlos
>>> ---
>>> Rollei List
>>>
>>> - Post to ***@freelists.org
>>>
>>> - Subscribe at rollei_list-***@freelists.org with 'subscribe'
>>> in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>>>
>>> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-***@freelists.org with
>>> 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>>>
>>> - Online, searchable archives are available at
>>> http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
>>>
>>
>> ---
>> Rollei List
>>
>> - Post to ***@freelists.org
>>
>> - Subscribe at rollei_list-***@freelists.org with 'subscribe'in the
>> subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>>
>> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-***@freelists.org with'unsubscribe' in the
>> subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>>
>> - Online, searchable archives are available at
>> http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
>>
>>
>

[Elias Roustom]

A great line-up!

What a wonderful time in history for photographers (except for the
loss of K64).
On the way out for one method, on the way in for the other, and both
useful and enjoyable.

I have a very similar Rollei 35 to yours. I've been giving my Rollei
35 a lot of attention lately.
It adequately meets the needs of a very wide range of 35mm photography.

Thanks for posting the photos. It's always interesting to learn about
other cameras.
Thanks Roger for the wiki search results.

Elias

On Oct 21, 2009, at 3:25 PM, CarlosMFreaza wrote:

> This is the only digital image I took yesterday with my P&S, you can
> see from left to right the Contax II, Diax IIa and Rollei 35, the
> direct flash light caused some strange reflections, I hope to take
> better images with a better light to show the Diax IIa some
> interesting details:
>
> http://itarphotos.blogspot.com/2009/10/diax-iia-and-other-cameras.html
>
> Carlos
>
>
>
>
> 2009/10/21 CarlosMFreaza <***@gmail.com>:
>> Hi Elias,:
>> I was trying to take some photographs with my P&S
>> digital yesterday, but it became without battery charge after the
>> first shot, now I'll take photographs with film cameras for the
>> week-end probably and I'll upload some images to the web.
>>
>> Carlos
>>
>> 2009/10/21 Elias Roustom <***@comcast.net>:
>>> An now we await illustrations for this entertaining and
>>> informative text.
>>>
>>> E.
>>>
>>> On Oct 21, 2009, at 7:18 AM, CarlosMFreaza wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have received yesterday a 1954/55 Diax IIa 35mm camera with Xenon
>>>> Schneider 2/50 lens, manufactured in the Walter Voss factory at
>>>> "Ulm
>>>> an der Donau" city, southwestern Germany, a real mechanical
>>>> beauty. My
>>>> father had the newer model Diax IIb with the same Xenon lens plus a
>>>> Tele-Xenar 3.5/90 and a Xenagon 3.5/35mm with the additional
>>>> viewfinder, this was the camera system that made me to think, from
>>>> teenager, there were no true reasons for the Leica cameras price
>>>> (my
>>>> father also had a Leica IIIf that he sold in 1964 when he decided
>>>> to
>>>> leave the photography hobby, he kept the Diax IIb outfit and the
>>>> 2.8C
>>>> I'm still using, he afterwards lent the Diax to a friend of him
>>>> and we
>>>> no longer saw the nice outfit, but I could shoot with the camera).
>>>>
>>>> My "new" camera has coupled rangefinder with built-in viewfinders
>>>> for
>>>> 45-50mm and 85-90mm lenses, a dedicated Diax lens mount for
>>>> interchangeable lenses, central leaf Synchro-Compur shutter
>>>> similar
>>>> regarding the Synchro- Compur used for the 2.8C but CR 000 size:
>>>> B 1s
>>>> to 1/500, built-in self timer, MX flash synchro. The Diax IIa and
>>>> IIb
>>>> have a very compact design closer to the Rollei 35 than to
>>>> contemporary Leica and Contax models, the main difference for the
>>>> two
>>>> models is that the IIb has an elegant quick lever stroke to advance
>>>> the film designed by Hans Logé, the engineer that also designed the
>>>> Rolleimeter and the Stereo TLR camera prototype and the Rolleimarin
>>>> for this model working for F&H.
>>>> The Xenon 2/50 is an excellent lens derived from the original
>>>> Planar 6
>>>> elements design directly, the Xenon also has 6 elements with a very
>>>> similar diagram regarding the original Rudolph's Planar diagram (it
>>>> does not mean they are identical lenses, however the design
>>>> concept is
>>>> identical) and BTW it's excellent for color shots.
>>>>
>>>> I wrote to Peter Geisler, "Das DIAX-KAMERA-WERK Walter Voss
>>>> Kleinbild-Kameras aus Ulm an der Donau 1947-1957" book author,
>>>> that in
>>>> spite of prices difference "... Diax cameras design look more
>>>> compact
>>>> and modern than some Leica and Contax contemporary models...", he
>>>> answered: "I fully agree".
>>>>
>>>> Carlos
>>>> ---
>>>> Rollei List
>>>>
>>>> - Post to ***@freelists.org
>>>>
>>>> - Subscribe at rollei_list-***@freelists.org with 'subscribe'
>>>> in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>>>>
>>>> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-***@freelists.org with
>>>> 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>>>>
>>>> - Online, searchable archives are available at
>>>> http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
>>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Rollei List
>>>
>>> - Post to ***@freelists.org
>>>
>>> - Subscribe at rollei_list-***@freelists.org with
>>> 'subscribe'in the
>>> subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>>>
>>> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-***@freelists.org
>>> with'unsubscribe' in the
>>> subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>>>
>>> - Online, searchable archives are available at
>>> http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
>>>
>>>
>>
> ---
> Rollei List
>
> - Post to ***@freelists.org
>
> - Subscribe at rollei_list-***@freelists.org with 'subscribe'
> in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-***@freelists.org with
> 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into
> www.freelists.org
>
> - Online, searchable archives are available at
> http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
>

[CarlosMFreaza]

2009/10/21 Elias Roustom <***@comcast.net>:
....
> I have a very similar Rollei 35 to yours. I've been giving my Rollei 35 a
> lot of attention lately.
> It adequately meets the needs of a very wide range of 35mm photography.
...

Thank you Elias.
The only difference is your Rollei 35 has a S-Xenar 3,5/40 lens and
this is not a difference because it's a Tessar 3,5/40 copy.
I'll never forget the excellent way my Rollei 35 captured several
Spaniard-colonial churches inner light working at 1/15 f4 and f3,5
camera handheld when I visited Córdoba city -the second largest city
in my country- two years ago, The photographs are in my Flickr gallery
and I think several of the members have seen them. Knowing the very
difficult conditions to take those photographs, I only can think the
Rollei 35 is an excellent camera.
Some people don't like the 40mm focal length saying it is not
"normal" for the 35 mm format and it is not a wide angle lens yet,
however it increases the lens DOF regarding a 50mm lens and the images
still don't have the "wide angle" look.

Carlos

[Richard Knoppow]

----- Original Message -----
From: "CarlosMFreaza" <***@gmail.com>
To: <***@freelists.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 7:42 PM
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: OT:Walter Voss Diax cameras


2009/10/21 Elias Roustom <***@comcast.net>:
....
> I have a very similar Rollei 35 to yours. I've been giving
> my Rollei 35 a
> lot of attention lately.
> It adequately meets the needs of a very wide range of 35mm
> photography.
...

Thank you Elias.
The only difference is your Rollei 35 has a S-Xenar 3,5/40
lens and
this is not a difference because it's a Tessar 3,5/40 copy.
I'll never forget the excellent way my Rollei 35 captured
several
Spaniard-colonial churches inner light working at 1/15 f4
and f3,5
camera handheld when I visited Córdoba city -the second
largest city
in my country- two years ago, The photographs are in my
Flickr gallery
and I think several of the members have seen them. Knowing
the very
difficult conditions to take those photographs, I only can
think the
Rollei 35 is an excellent camera.
Some people don't like the 40mm focal length saying it is
not
"normal" for the 35 mm format and it is not a wide angle
lens yet,
however it increases the lens DOF regarding a 50mm lens and
the images
still don't have the "wide angle" look.

Carlos
---

Mostly "normal" means a lens which is equal in focal
length to the diagonal of the format. For 35mm that comes
out to about 44 mm, but, if you assume that most 35mm images
will be cropped to about 1.33:1 format the focal length come
out to 40mm! 1.33:1 is the old standard motion picture
format and is about an average of common paper formats. I
suspect 50mm became "normal" because it may have been easier
to design an adeqate lens if the focal length was slightly
longer.

--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
***@ix.netcom.com

[Eric Goldstein]

On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Richard Knoppow <***@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

The diagonal for 66 is neither 75 nor 80 mm, either. So I doubt that
most normal lenses are truly the diagonal fo the film format, but they
are close...


Eric Goldstein


>   Mostly "normal" means a lens which is equal in focal length to the
> diagonal of the format. For 35mm that comes out to about 44 mm, but, if you
> assume that most 35mm images will be cropped to about 1.33:1 format the
> focal length come out to 40mm!  1.33:1 is the old standard motion picture
> format and is about an average of common paper formats. I suspect 50mm
> became "normal" because it may have been easier to design an adeqate lens if
> the focal length was slightly longer.
>
> --
> Richard Knoppow
> Los Angeles, CA, USA
> ***@ix.netcom.com
>
>
>
>
> ---
> Rollei List
>
> - Post to ***@freelists.org
>
> - Subscribe at rollei_list-***@freelists.org with 'subscribe' in the
> subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-***@freelists.org with 'unsubscribe' in the
> subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Online, searchable archives are available at
> http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
>
>

[Richard Knoppow]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Goldstein" <***@gmail.com>
To: <***@freelists.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 12:19 PM
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: OT:Walter Voss Diax cameras


On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Richard Knoppow
<***@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

The diagonal for 66 is neither 75 nor 80 mm, either. So I
doubt that
most normal lenses are truly the diagonal fo the film
format, but they
are close...


Eric Goldstein

The measured dimensions of a Rollei negative are
exactly 2-1/4 x 2-1/4 so the diagonal comes out to slightly
more than 80mm. If the negative is cropped to 8x10
dimensions it comes out slightly more than 73mm.
I suspect the reason for using the 80mm focal length
for the f/2.8 cameras was simply to make it easier to
correct the marginal rays.
Kodak made some 35mm cameras with shorter than 50mm
lenses, the Kodak 35 being an example. I think the lens was
44mm.

--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
***@ix.netcom.com

[Marc James Small]

At 04:20 PM 10/22/2009, Richard Knoppow wrote:
>

> The measured dimensions of a Rollei negative are
>exactly 2-1/4 x 2-1/4 so the diagonal comes out to slightly
>more than 80mm. If the negative is cropped to 8x10
>dimensions it comes out slightly more than 73mm.
> I suspect the reason for using the 80mm focal length
>for the f/2.8 cameras was simply to make it easier to
>correct the marginal rays.
> Kodak made some 35mm cameras with shorter than 50mm
>lenses, the Kodak 35 being an example. I think the lens was
>44mm.

The Ektar produced in LTM, "a dinky little button
of a lens" in Peter Dechert's words, was 43mm.

Marc


***@aya.yale.edu
Cha robh bàs fir gun ghràs fir!

[Richard Knoppow]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Marc James Small" <***@comcast.net>
To: <***@freelists.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 1:28 PM
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: OT:Walter Voss Diax cameras


At 04:20 PM 10/22/2009, Richard Knoppow wrote:
>

> The measured dimensions of a Rollei negative are
>exactly 2-1/4 x 2-1/4 so the diagonal comes out to
slightly
>more than 80mm. If the negative is cropped to 8x10
>dimensions it comes out slightly more than 73mm.
> I suspect the reason for using the 80mm focal length
>for the f/2.8 cameras was simply to make it easier to
>correct the marginal rays.
> Kodak made some 35mm cameras with shorter than 50mm
>lenses, the Kodak 35 being an example. I think the lens
was
>44mm.

The Ektar produced in LTM, "a dinky little button
of a lens" in Peter Dechert's words, was 43mm.

Marc
I just looked at several editions of the Kodak lens
book included in the _Kodak Reference Handbook_. I evidently
mis-remembered the Kodak 35 lens, its listed as a Kodak
Anastigmat Special f/3.5, 50mm. This is a front element
focuser of the Tessar type but with the order of power in
the cemented rear component reversed. Kingslake says
somewhere that this is advantageous where high index glass
is used. Kodak does show an Anastigmat Special of f/4.5,
47mm on the Bantam. The very first Ektar lens was on the
Bantam Special and is a six-element Biotar type, f/2.0,
45mm. This is probably the lens I was thinking of. I have a
Kodak 35, with rangefinder somewhere but have never tried
it.

--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
***@ix.netcom.com

[Eric Goldstein]

83 mm is the diagonal for 2-1/4 square.

I also read somewhere in the deep dark past that the f/2.8 lenses for
the Rollei TLRs were taken from 75 to 80mm because the slightly longer
lenses would be easier to correct as faster optics. It is reasonable
to assume that this was the case, as it makes sense from a design POV.


Eric Goldstein

--

On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 4:20 PM, Richard Knoppow <***@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>    The measured dimensions of a Rollei negative are exactly 2-1/4 x 2-1/4 so
> the diagonal comes out to slightly more than 80mm. If the negative is
> cropped to 8x10 dimensions it comes out slightly more than 73mm.
>    I suspect the reason for using the 80mm focal length for the f/2.8
> cameras was simply to make it easier to correct the marginal rays.
>    Kodak made some 35mm cameras with shorter than 50mm lenses, the Kodak 35
> being an example. I think the lens was 44mm.
>
> --
> Richard Knoppow
> Los Angeles, CA, USA
> ***@ix.netcom.com

[Richard Knoppow]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Goldstein" <***@gmail.com>
To: <***@freelists.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 5:24 PM
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: OT:Walter Voss Diax cameras


83 mm is the diagonal for 2-1/4 square.

I also read somewhere in the deep dark past that the f/2.8
lenses for
the Rollei TLRs were taken from 75 to 80mm because the
slightly longer
lenses would be easier to correct as faster optics. It is
reasonable
to assume that this was the case, as it makes sense from a
design POV.


Eric Goldstein

Exactly what I said:-)
I measured a couple of Rollei negatives (also a
Rolleicord IV film gate) and found they were exactly 2-1/4 x
2-1/4 so the calculated diagonal comes out about 81 mm. If
you use 6x6 cm it will come out nearly 85 mm but that is not
the size of the actual negatives.
There are cases where the "nominal" film size is not the
actual film size. This is especially the case for sheet film
of 4x5 and larger. The film is smaller. I think this may be
due to the film being intended for use in plate holders with
adaptor sheaths but that would not explain why smaller sizes
are the same for nominal and actual. Perhaps its because
they came along later in the history of film. I think glass
plates are actually the nominal size but have none to
measure.
The difference is significant, for instance the
calculated diagonal of 4x5" is 6.4 inches (about 163 mm)
while the actual image diagonal is only about 152 mm.



--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
***@ix.netcom.com

[CarlosMFreaza]

there is a mix about two different measurement systems, I have
measured true negatives and slides using the same metric decimal
system, the size is 56x56mm, some negs has slight variations from 56mm
to 56.5mm (I think the film paper back has to do with these slight
variations) changing the diagonal from about 79 to 79.4 mm, my 220
negs have 56x56mm exactly. Rollei literature says 56x56mm and 79.2mm
for the diagonal according the Pytagoras theorem. 2 1/4 x 2 1/4 inches
are 57.15mm x 57.15mm and then slightly bigger than the real frame
size on the roll according my measurements.

Carlos


2009/10/22 Richard Knoppow <***@ix.netcom.com>:
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Goldstein" <***@gmail.com>
> To: <***@freelists.org>
> Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 5:24 PM
> Subject: [rollei_list] Re: OT:Walter Voss Diax cameras
>
>
> 83 mm is the diagonal for 2-1/4 square.
>
> I also read somewhere in the deep dark past that the f/2.8 lenses for
> the Rollei TLRs were taken from 75 to 80mm because the slightly longer
> lenses would be easier to correct as faster optics. It is reasonable
> to assume that this was the case, as it makes sense from a design POV.
>
>
> Eric Goldstein
>
>   Exactly what I said:-)
>   I measured a couple of Rollei negatives (also a Rolleicord IV film gate)
> and found they were exactly 2-1/4 x 2-1/4 so the calculated diagonal comes
> out about 81 mm. If you use 6x6 cm it will come out nearly 85 mm but that is
> not the size of the actual negatives.
>   There are cases where the "nominal" film size is not the actual film size.
> This is especially the case for sheet film of 4x5 and larger. The film is
> smaller. I think this may be due to the film being intended for use in plate
> holders with adaptor sheaths but that would not explain why smaller sizes
> are the same for nominal and actual. Perhaps its because they came along
> later in the history of film. I think glass plates are actually the nominal
> size but have none to measure.
>    The difference is significant, for instance the calculated diagonal of
> 4x5" is 6.4 inches (about 163 mm) while the actual  image diagonal is only
> about 152 mm.
>
>
>
> --
> Richard Knoppow
> Los Angeles, CA, USA
> ***@ix.netcom.com
> ---
> Rollei List
>
> - Post to ***@freelists.org
>
> - Subscribe at rollei_list-***@freelists.org with 'subscribe' in the
> subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-***@freelists.org with 'unsubscribe' in the
> subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Online, searchable archives are available at
> http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
>
>

[CarlosMFreaza]

This is from B&H NYC Rolleiflex 2.8 GX features:

" The Rolleiflex has a square 56 x 56mm image format capturing just 12
frames on 120 film. Handling is simple; two dials near the lens do
the adjustments of shutter speeds and apertures, and there is a focus
knob, wind knob, and shutter button on the sides."

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/223642-USA/Rollei_10718_Rolleiflex_2_8_GX_Twin.html#features

It coincides with my measurements.

Carlos






2009/10/22 CarlosMFreaza <***@gmail.com>:
> there is a mix about two different measurement systems, I have
> measured true negatives and slides using the same metric decimal
> system, the size is 56x56mm, some negs has slight variations from 56mm
> to 56.5mm (I think the film paper back has to do with these slight
> variations) changing the diagonal from about 79 to 79.4 mm,  my 220
> negs have 56x56mm exactly. Rollei  literature says 56x56mm and 79.2mm
> for the diagonal according the Pytagoras theorem. 2 1/4 x 2 1/4 inches
> are 57.15mm x 57.15mm and then slightly bigger than the real frame
> size on the roll according my measurements.
>
> Carlos
>
>
> 2009/10/22 Richard Knoppow <***@ix.netcom.com>:
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Goldstein" <***@gmail.com>
>> To: <***@freelists.org>
>> Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 5:24 PM
>> Subject: [rollei_list] Re: OT:Walter Voss Diax cameras
>>
>>
>> 83 mm is the diagonal for 2-1/4 square.
>>
>> I also read somewhere in the deep dark past that the f/2.8 lenses for
>> the Rollei TLRs were taken from 75 to 80mm because the slightly longer
>> lenses would be easier to correct as faster optics. It is reasonable
>> to assume that this was the case, as it makes sense from a design POV.
>>
>>
>> Eric Goldstein
>>
>>   Exactly what I said:-)
>>   I measured a couple of Rollei negatives (also a Rolleicord IV film gate)
>> and found they were exactly 2-1/4 x 2-1/4 so the calculated diagonal comes
>> out about 81 mm. If you use 6x6 cm it will come out nearly 85 mm but that is
>> not the size of the actual negatives.
>>   There are cases where the "nominal" film size is not the actual film size.
>> This is especially the case for sheet film of 4x5 and larger. The film is
>> smaller. I think this may be due to the film being intended for use in plate
>> holders with adaptor sheaths but that would not explain why smaller sizes
>> are the same for nominal and actual. Perhaps its because they came along
>> later in the history of film. I think glass plates are actually the nominal
>> size but have none to measure.
>>    The difference is significant, for instance the calculated diagonal of
>> 4x5" is 6.4 inches (about 163 mm) while the actual  image diagonal is only
>> about 152 mm.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Richard Knoppow
>> Los Angeles, CA, USA
>> ***@ix.netcom.com
>> ---
>> Rollei List
>>
>> - Post to ***@freelists.org
>>
>> - Subscribe at rollei_list-***@freelists.org with 'subscribe' in the
>> subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>>
>> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-***@freelists.org with 'unsubscribe' in the
>> subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>>
>> - Online, searchable archives are available at
>> http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
>>
>>
>

[CarlosMFreaza]

Yes Richard, you are right, but users and manufacturers assumed 50mm
like the "normal" focal length for 35mm from Oskar Barnack, the Leica
creator, took this decision as compromise between the theorical value
(43.3mm) and lens design issues at the the time as you wrote, a
slightly longer focal length allowed better sharpness for the lens.
The 3,5/40mm focal length was a decision taken by the Rollei 35
designer Heinz Waaske, at f 3,5 and 40mm the lens was small enough to
fit it in the sliding tube (it was redesigned for the Sonnar 2,8/40),
it was also considered that most viewfinder cameras at the time were
using 45mm lenses as normal lens, anyway 40mm to 58mm are considered
"normal" for 35mm, but 40mm lenses are rare despite I have seen some
of them.

In the other hand, the true 6x6 Rollei format is 56x56mm, the diagonal
is 79.2mm and then 80mm and 75mm are close to the diagonal.-

Carlos

2009/10/22 Richard Knoppow <***@ix.netcom.com>:
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "CarlosMFreaza" <***@gmail.com>
> To: <***@freelists.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 7:42 PM
> Subject: [rollei_list] Re: OT:Walter Voss Diax cameras
>
>
> 2009/10/21 Elias Roustom <***@comcast.net>:
> ....
>>
>> I have a very similar Rollei 35 to yours. I've been giving my Rollei 35 a
>> lot of attention lately.
>> It adequately meets the needs of a very wide range of 35mm photography.
>
> ...
>
> Thank you Elias.
> The only difference is your Rollei 35 has a S-Xenar 3,5/40 lens and
> this is  not a difference because it's a Tessar 3,5/40 copy.
> I'll never forget the excellent way my Rollei 35 captured several
> Spaniard-colonial churches inner light  working at 1/15 f4 and f3,5
> camera handheld when I visited Córdoba city -the second largest city
> in my country- two years ago, The photographs are in my Flickr gallery
> and I think several of the members have seen them. Knowing the very
> difficult conditions to take those photographs, I only can think the
> Rollei 35 is an excellent camera.
> Some people don't like the 40mm focal length saying it is not
> "normal"  for the 35 mm format and it is not a wide angle lens yet,
> however it increases the lens DOF regarding a 50mm lens and the images
> still don't have the "wide angle" look.
>
> Carlos
> ---
>
>   Mostly "normal" means a lens which is equal in focal length to the
> diagonal of the format. For 35mm that comes out to about 44 mm, but, if you
> assume that most 35mm images will be cropped to about 1.33:1 format the
> focal length come out to 40mm!  1.33:1 is the old standard motion picture
> format and is about an average of common paper formats. I suspect 50mm
> became "normal" because it may have been easier to design an adeqate lens if
> the focal length was slightly longer.
>
> --
> Richard Knoppow
> Los Angeles, CA, USA
> ***@ix.netcom.com
>
>
>
>
> ---
> Rollei List
>
> - Post to ***@freelists.org
>
> - Subscribe at rollei_list-***@freelists.org with 'subscribe' in the
> subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-***@freelists.org with 'unsubscribe' in the
> subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Online, searchable archives are available at
> http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
>
>

[RM WISER]

Carlos, sounds like an intersting camera. I note Elias was interested in a
picture. Please refer to:

http://www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Diax

http://sites.google.com/site/cameraclassics/diax-ia-and-diax-iib

Roger

----- Original Message -----
From: "CarlosMFreaza" <***@gmail.com>
To: <***@freelists.org>

[CarlosMFreaza]

yes Roger, the Ia shown in the Wikipedia is identical externally
regarding the IIa (my camera)but the difference is that the IIa has
coupled rangefinder and then they needed to eliminate the 35mm WA lens
viewfinder, due to the camera design compactness, to fit the
rangefinder, anyway both have the three windows. The Ib is also
identical externally regarding the IIb with the film rapid advance
lever, but again the IIb has coupled rangefinder witout the viewfinder
for the 35mm lens.
My camera does not look so pristine like the Ia in the Wikipedia
photograph, however it still looks very good and it's in perfect
working order for every item, I only need to check the rangefinder
exactness, the viewfinders for 50 and 90 mm are very clear and bright.

Carlos





2009/10/21, RM WISER <***@charter.net>:
> Carlos, sounds like an intersting camera. I note Elias was interested in a
> picture. Please refer to:
>
> http://www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Diax
>
> http://sites.google.com/site/cameraclassics/diax-ia-and-diax-iib
>
> Roger
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "CarlosMFreaza" <***@gmail.com>
> To: <***@freelists.org>
> ---
> Rollei List
>
> - Post to ***@freelists.org
>
> - Subscribe at rollei_list-***@freelists.org with
> 'subscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-***@freelists.org with
> 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Online, searchable archives are available at
> http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
>
>

[Mike Bischof]

 
 Richard,

I suspect you were thinking about the Kodak Signet 35 -- it has a 44m Ektar lens, which is an outstanding performer. The camera is a little quirky (max. shutter speed is only 1/300), but a real joy to use...

Mike
 
Mike Bischof
Phoenix, AZ
 
The Photo Blog of my Indian Adventure  
________________________________


________________________________



Marc
    I just looked at several editions of the Kodak lens
book included in the _Kodak Reference Handbook_. I evidently
mis-remembered the Kodak 35 lens, its listed as a Kodak
Anastigmat Special f/3.5, 50mm. This is a front element
focuser of the Tessar type but with the order of power in
the cemented rear component reversed. Kingslake says
somewhere that this is advantageous where high index glass
is used. Kodak does show an Anastigmat Special of f/4.5,
47mm on the Bantam. The very first Ektar lens was on the
Bantam Special and is a six-element Biotar type, f/2.0,
45mm. This is probably the lens I was thinking of. I have a
Kodak 35, with rangefinder somewhere but have never tried
it.

--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
***@ix.netcom.com


------------------------------

[Richard Knoppow]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Bischof" <***@yahoo.com>
To: <***@freelists.org>
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 8:54 AM
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: OT:Walter Voss Diax cameras




Richard,

I suspect you were thinking about the Kodak Signet 35 -- it
has a 44m Ektar lens, which is an outstanding performer. The
camera is a little quirky (max. shutter speed is only
1/300), but a real joy to use...

Mike

Mike Bischof
Phoenix, AZ

The Photo Blog of my Indian Adventure

That's it:-) thanks. I was looking at editions of the
lens manual that were too old. Its in the 1955 one. 44mm,
f/3.5 Tessar type.

--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
***@ix.netcom.com

[Don Williams]

At 10:54 AM 10/23/2009, Mike wrote:
> Richard,
>
>I suspect you were thinking about the Kodak Signet 35 -- it has a
>44m Ektar lens, which is an outstanding performer. The camera is a
>little quirky (max. shutter speed is only 1/300), but a real joy to use...
>
>Mike

In my high school days I used to covet the Kodak 35 but got an Argus
C4, which turned out just fine, that is until I got my 2.8C in Hong
Kong. I kept the Argus until 2007, in a home-made underwater
housing, at which time I just gave it to someone in this group, or
maybe the Exakta group.

I also wanted a Kodak Medalist- Is "Medalist" correct as a Kodak product?

Now I would go for a Rollei 35 as a favored classic camera. I was at
a lecture/book signing by David Breshears after he wrote his book
about filming Everest in Imax format. He spotted a Rollei 35 in the
audience and had the owner bring it up, saying it was a superb camera
for mountain climbing.

DAW

[Marc James Small]

At 04:30 PM 10/23/2009, Don Williams wrote:


>Now I would go for a Rollei 35 as a favored classic camera. I was
>at a lecture/book signing by David Breshears after he wrote his book
>about filming Everest in Imax format. He spotted a Rollei 35 in the
>audience and had the owner bring it up, saying it was a superb
>camera for mountain climbing.

The Rollei 35 was the Expedition camera on the '73 US climb of Everest.

Marc

[Richard Knoppow]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Williams" <***@cox.net>
To: <***@freelists.org>
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 1:30 PM
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: OT:Walter Voss Diax cameras


> At 10:54 AM 10/23/2009, Mike wrote:
>> Richard,
>>
>>I suspect you were thinking about the Kodak Signet 35 --
>>it has a
>>44m Ektar lens, which is an outstanding performer. The
>>camera is a
>>little quirky (max. shutter speed is only 1/300), but a
>>real joy to use...
>>
>>Mike
>
> In my high school days I used to covet the Kodak 35 but
> got an Argus
> C4, which turned out just fine, that is until I got my
> 2.8C in Hong
> Kong. I kept the Argus until 2007, in a home-made
> underwater
> housing, at which time I just gave it to someone in this
> group, or
> maybe the Exakta group.
>
> I also wanted a Kodak Medalist- Is "Medalist" correct as a
> Kodak product?
>
> Now I would go for a Rollei 35 as a favored classic
> camera. I was at
> a lecture/book signing by David Breshears after he wrote
> his book
> about filming Everest in Imax format. He spotted a Rollei
> 35 in the
> audience and had the owner bring it up, saying it was a
> superb camera
> for mountain climbing.
>
> DAW
>
>
Medalist is correct. Kodak made two versions of it, the
Medalist and Medelist II, the latter having a full synch
shutter and fully coated lens. The original Medalist lens
was coated only on inside surfaces since Kodak was using a
very soft coating at that time. The Medalist also appeared
in a military version, AFAIK exactly the same as the
civilian version.
The Medalist takes 620 film. It can be modified to take
120 but the job is reportedly difficult because of some
rather thin metal that much be machined. Ken Ruth, of
Photography on Bald Mountain does this mod.
The lens is one of a series designed by Fred Altman of
Kodak. It is a Heliar type but Altman states in his patent
that the extra element is used to control rim-rays so as to
improve correction at wider openings. Lenses based on the
same design were offered by Kodak as Kodak Enlarging Ektars,
and as a 105mm lens for small press cameras. There were some
others. Altman seems to be among only a few designers to
revisit the Heliar. One other was Lionel B. Booth with the
Dallmeyer Pentac. The Kodak lens is reputedly excellent but
the camera shares with other Kodak cameras rather poor
ergonomics. Also, while the rangefinder has a long base the
very small focusing window makes it difficult to use. The
camera is also nose-heavy but that may actually steady it
for some people.
It has always bothered me that Kodak did not make
cameras of equal quality to their lenses. I think they had
the means to do it but for some reason did not. They did
make very good view and studio cameras and a good motion
picture camera but their still cameras mostly left something
to be desired. I do not include the Retina series in this,
they were quite good cameras, but it was not a product of
Kodak in Rochester.

--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
***@ix.netcom.com

[Don Williams]

At 06:22 PM 10/23/2009, Richard wrote, in part:
> It has always bothered me that Kodak did not make cameras of
> equal quality to their lenses. I think they had the means to do it
> but for some reason did not. They did make very good view and
> studio cameras and a good motion picture camera but their still
> cameras mostly left something to be desired. I do not include the
> Retina series in this, they were quite good cameras, but it was
> not a product of Kodak in Rochester.

This may be a repeat of things I have posted in the past but I used
to have some contracts with Kodak when I worked for Cubic in San
Diego. Mostly things like high speed microfiche printers, fiche
handling systems, an the sort. I got to be friends with some of the
folks there and we exchanged monthly visits for the projects. A
couple of things stand out:

I used to bring Pringles chips home before they were introduced to
California, or they would bring them when they came.

I remember seeing the first version of their 110 camera assembly
line. It was oval and not more than 20' long and 10' across, sort of
like a model train layout. It was clear that the 110 camera was an
attempt to sell less silver for the same price. I don't remember
exactly how it died, I suppose just poor photo quality.

Finally, their winter golf tournament in the snow, using red golf balls.

I did get a couple of chances to walk through "Eastman House", would
like that chance again some time.

One more recollection, probably common to the East Coast folks on
this list, they had very nice houses and generally had a drain system
in the garage to allow them to wash their cars in the winter.

Now that's really off topic so I will stop before getting rapped on
the keyboard again.

[Marc James Small]

The Leica Thread-Mount Ektar was a 2/47mm
lens. Sorry for not getting this right. And
Dechert called it a "dinkly little bottle of a lens", as it is.

Marc




***@aya.yale.edu
Cha robh bàs fir gun ghràs fir!

[Richard Knoppow]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Marc James Small" <***@comcast.net>
To: <***@freelists.org>
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 9:06 PM
Subject: [rollei_list] Apologies to Richard Knoppow


The Leica Thread-Mount Ektar was a 2/47mm
lens. Sorry for not getting this right. And
Dechert called it a "dinkly little bottle of a lens", as it
is.

Marc

I've heard of this lens, perhaps you mentioned it
before, but don't know anything specific about it. Was this
a lens for the US clone of the Leica made during WW-2?
Kardan or some such name, I'm drawing a blank on it at the
moment. TT&H seems to have made the lenses for the British
copy.
Was Dechert expecting something like an Aero-Ektar?

--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
***@ix.netcom.com

[Jerry Lehrer]

Richard und Marc,

Dechert was talking through his distal orifice. I had TWO of those 47mm
Ektar for Kardon
lenses. (civilian and military). They were both superb, I made numerous
11x14 prints from B&W
negatives. I still have the Kodachrome slides.

That lens was superior to the f3.5 50mm Elmar.

Jerry Lehrer


Richard Knoppow wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marc James Small"
> <***@comcast.net>
> To: <***@freelists.org>
> Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 9:06 PM
> Subject: [rollei_list] Apologies to Richard Knoppow
>
>
> The Leica Thread-Mount Ektar was a 2/47mm
> lens. Sorry for not getting this right. And
> Dechert called it a "dinkly little bottle of a lens", as it is.
>
> Marc
>
> I've heard of this lens, perhaps you mentioned it before, but
> don't know anything specific about it. Was this a lens for the US
> clone of the Leica made during WW-2? Kardan or some such name, I'm
> drawing a blank on it at the moment. TT&H seems to have made the
> lenses for the British copy.
> Was Dechert expecting something like an Aero-Ektar?
>
> --
> Richard Knoppow
> Los Angeles, CA, USA
> ***@ix.netcom.com
>
>
> -

[Richard Knoppow]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry Lehrer" <***@san.rr.com>
To: <***@freelists.org>
Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2009 11:40 AM
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Apologies to Richard Knoppow


> Richard und Marc,
>
> Dechert was talking through his distal orifice. I had TWO
> of those 47mm Ektar for Kardon
> lenses. (civilian and military). They were both superb, I
> made numerous 11x14 prints from B&W
> negatives. I still have the Kodachrome slides.
>
> That lens was superior to the f3.5 50mm Elmar.
>
> Jerry Lehrer

Not surprizing. Kodak had considerable experience with
Biotar type lenses, including the lens for the Ektra (a
seven element lens) or the one for the Bantam Special (six
element lens) and the Aero-Ektar (again a seven element
lens). Since the Elmar was a modified Tessar (stop in the
front air space), its not surprizing the Biotar types would
have better performance.
I will add that whatever was lacking in the mechanical
design of Kodak cameras does not apply to their lens mounts,
which are excellent. Also, the Kodak Supermatic shutters
were well designed and well made.

--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
***@ix.netcom.com

[Peter K.]

I believe you Jerry. The Zeiss and Kodak lenses in the 40s and even 50s were
excellent. It was really not until the late 50s the Leica lenses became
really superb. (See I can say something nice about Leica). Prior to that
many Leica users like HCB used Zeiss glass like the 50mm Sonnar on their
Leica bodies.

Peter K

PS Have you seen the new M9. Looks really neat with a full frame sensor
(Kodak made). A little pricey for my blood at $5,995.



---
On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Jerry Lehrer <***@san.rr.com> wrote:

> Richard und Marc,
>
> Dechert was talking through his distal orifice. I had TWO of those 47mm
> Ektar for Kardon
> lenses. (civilian and military). They were both superb, I made numerous
> 11x14 prints from B&W
> negatives. I still have the Kodachrome slides.
>
> That lens was superior to the f3.5 50mm Elmar.
>
> Jerry Lehrer
>
>
>
> Richard Knoppow wrote:
>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marc James Small" <
>> ***@comcast.net>
>> To: <***@freelists.org>
>> Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 9:06 PM
>> Subject: [rollei_list] Apologies to Richard Knoppow
>>
>>
>> The Leica Thread-Mount Ektar was a 2/47mm
>> lens. Sorry for not getting this right. And
>> Dechert called it a "dinkly little bottle of a lens", as it is.
>>
>> Marc
>>
>> I've heard of this lens, perhaps you mentioned it before, but don't
>> know anything specific about it. Was this a lens for the US clone of the
>> Leica made during WW-2? Kardan or some such name, I'm drawing a blank on it
>> at the moment. TT&H seems to have made the lenses for the British copy.
>> Was Dechert expecting something like an Aero-Ektar?
>>
>> --
>> Richard Knoppow
>> Los Angeles, CA, USA
>> ***@ix.netcom.com
>>
>>
>> -
>>
>
> ---
> Rollei List
>
> - Post to ***@freelists.org
>
> - Subscribe at rollei_list-***@freelists.org with 'subscribe' in the
> subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-***@freelists.org with 'unsubscribe' in
> the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Online, searchable archives are available at
> http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
>
>


--
Peter K
Ó¿Õ¬

[Marc James Small]

At 02:40 PM 10/24/2009, Jerry Lehrer wrote:
>Richard und Marc,
>
>Dechert was talking through his distal orifice.

Jerry

You are the man speaking through his digital
orifice. And you obviously do not know Peter,
who loved the 2/47 Ektar and praised it to the
skies. Why would you think otherwise? Read his
entire commentary. He thought most highly of the Ektar.

Marc


***@aya.yale.edu
Cha robh bàs fir gun ghràs fir!

[David Sadowski]

Peter Dechert is still alive and active, as far as I know. This
thread is starting to make it seem like he's in the past tense.

I'm pretty sure that's him posting on a rangefinder forum, as recent
as a couple weeks ago:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=100&order=desc

[Peter K.]

I think the way Jerry may have interpreted your statement, as I did, was not
so much that Dechert used that term to describe the size of the lens, but in
a way to say it was not a good lens.

On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Marc James Small <***@comcast.net>wrote:

> At 02:40 PM 10/24/2009, Jerry Lehrer wrote:
> >Richard und Marc,
> >
> >Dechert was talking through his distal orifice.
>
> Jerry
>
> You are the man speaking through his digital orifice. And you obviously do
> not know Peter, who loved the 2/47 Ektar and praised it to the skies. Why
> would you think otherwise? Read his entire commentary. He thought most
> highly of the Ektar.
>
>
> Marc
>
>
> ***@aya.yale.edu
> Cha robh bàs fir gun ghràs fir!
>
> ---
> Rollei List
>
> - Post to ***@freelists.org
>
> - Subscribe at rollei_list-***@freelists.org with 'subscribe' in the
> subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-***@freelists.org with 'unsubscribe' in
> the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Online, searchable archives are available at
> http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
>
>


--
Peter K
Ó¿Õ¬

[Marc James Small]

At 08:01 PM 10/24/2009, Peter K. wrote:
>I think the way Jerry may have interpreted your
>statement, as I did, was not so much that
>Dechert used that term to describe the size of
>the lens, but in a way to say it was not a good lens.
>

How so? It is quite a small lens, as Jerry must
know. Dechert happens to think highly of the
lens. "Dinky little bottle" was by way of an
endearment. Trust me, when Peter meets junk
glass, he does not use endearments: he calls a junk lens a junk lens.

So, yes, Jerry was speaking loudly from his nether eye.

Marc



***@aya.yale.edu
Cha robh bàs fir gun ghràs fir!

[Mark Rabiner]

> At 08:01 PM 10/24/2009, Peter K. wrote:
>> I think the way Jerry may have interpreted your
>> statement, as I did, was not so much that
>> Dechert used that term to describe the size of
>> the lens, but in a way to say it was not a good lens.
>>
>
> How so? It is quite a small lens, as Jerry must
> know. Dechert happens to think highly of the
> lens. "Dinky little bottle" was by way of an
> endearment. Trust me, when Peter meets junk
> glass, he does not use endearments: he calls a junk lens a junk lens.
>
> So, yes, Jerry was speaking loudly from his nether eye.
>
> Marc


Was not the term close to "coke bottle bottom glass" a well known optical
pejorative only used by experts to mean only the crudest of optical pieces?


Mark William Rabiner

[Marc James Small]

At 09:32 PM 10/24/2009, Mark Rabiner wrote:

>Was not the term close to "coke bottle bottom glass" a well known optical
>pejorative only used by experts to mean only the crudest of optical pieces?

But that was not what Peter said. Nothing about
Coke bottle bottoms. Just that the lens was physically very small.

Marc


***@aya.yale.edu
Cha robh bàs fir gun ghràs fir!

[Eric Goldstein]

Marc -

Like Peter said, I think Jerry misunderstood. I did, too. I also thought
that the Coke bottle pejorative was being tossed up against this legendary
lens.

Was the 47mm/2 Ektar on the Retina the same as the LTM lens?


Eric Goldstein

--

On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 11:08 PM, Marc James Small <***@comcast.net>wrote:

> At 09:32 PM 10/24/2009, Mark Rabiner wrote:
>
> >Was not the term close to "coke bottle bottom glass" a well known optical
> >pejorative only used by experts to mean only the crudest of optical
> pieces?
>
> But that was not what Peter said. Nothing about Coke bottle bottoms. Just
> that the lens was physically very small.
>
> Marc
>
>
> ***@aya.yale.edu
> Cha robh bàs fir gun ghràs fir!
>
> ---
> Rollei List
>
> - Post to ***@freelists.org
>
> - Subscribe at rollei_list-***@freelists.org with 'subscribe' in the
> subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-***@freelists.org with 'unsubscribe' in
> the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Online, searchable archives are available at
> http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
>
>

[Marc James Small]

At 11:29 PM 10/24/2009, Eric Goldstein wrote:
>Marc -
>
>Like Peter said, I think Jerry misunderstood. I
>did, too. I also thought that the Coke bottle
>pejorative was being tossed up against this legendary lens.
>
>Was the 47mm/2 Ektar on the Retina the same as the LTM lens?
>

I suspect that you folks would better spend your
time in reading the voluminous writings of Peter
Dechert and coming to know him for the fine
scholar he is before jumping to absolutely
unwarranted conclusions about his praise for the
2/47 Ektar in a rather noted article in SHUDDERBUG, back in the day.

And buy my LTM lens book, where I cite Peter's
comment. Of the hundreds of folks who have read
the book, none have ever questioned the spirit
intended by Peter when he made the remark.

Marc



***@aya.yale.edu
Cha robh bàs fir gun ghràs fir!

[Peter K.]

Well, I for one may put it on my "reading to make me fall asleep" pile but I
would not waste much time in reading about antiquates lenses. I mean what's
the point? At least Shudderbug (as you call it) is a bit more current and we
may learn something about composing a photo. Now if Dechert talks about
lenses that are current like the Canon 70-200mm F2.8L zoom I may be
interested, but honestly the only antique I have any interest in is my
Rollei. I do not even like older cars.

Peter K

On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 7:34 PM, Marc James Small <***@comcast.net>wrote:

> At 11:29 PM 10/24/2009, Eric Goldstein wrote:
>
>> Marc -
>>
>> Like Peter said, I think Jerry misunderstood. I did, too. I also thought
>> that the Coke bottle pejorative was being tossed up against this legendary
>> lens.
>>
>> Was the 47mm/2 Ektar on the Retina the same as the LTM lens?
>>
>>
> I suspect that you folks would better spend your time in reading the
> voluminous writings of Peter Dechert and coming to know him for the fine
> scholar he is before jumping to absolutely unwarranted conclusions about his
> praise for the 2/47 Ektar in a rather noted article in SHUDDERBUG, back in
> the day.
>
> And buy my LTM lens book, where I cite Peter's comment. Of the hundreds of
> folks who have read the book, none have ever questioned the spirit intended
> by Peter when he made the remark.
>
>
> Marc
>
>
>
> ***@aya.yale.edu
> Cha robh bàs fir gun ghràs fir!
>
> ---
> Rollei List
>
> - Post to ***@freelists.org
>
> - Subscribe at rollei_list-***@freelists.org with 'subscribe' in the
> subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-***@freelists.org with 'unsubscribe' in
> the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Online, searchable archives are available at
> http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
>
>


--
Peter K
Ó¿Õ¬

[Robert Lilley]

I like reading about the old lenses - tis from whence we came. What I
don't like is all the "rivet counting" bickering - "Is to! Is not!.
That definitely puts me to sleep. By the way what day are we
referring to in the ubiquitous phase "back in The day"?

Rob


On Oct 25, 2009, at 2:08 PM, Peter K. wrote:

> Well, I for one may put it on my "reading to make me fall asleep"
> pile but I would not waste much time in reading about antiquates
> lenses. I mean what's the point? At least Shudderbug (as you call
> it) is a bit more current and we may learn something about composing
> a photo. Now if Dechert talks about lenses that are current like the
> Canon 70-200mm F2.8L zoom I may be interested, but honestly the only
> antique I have any interest in is my Rollei. I do not even like
> older cars.
>
> Peter K
>
> On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 7:34 PM, Marc James Small <***@comcast.net
> > wrote:
> At 11:29 PM 10/24/2009, Eric Goldstein wrote:
> Marc -
>
> Like Peter said, I think Jerry misunderstood. I did, too. I also
> thought that the Coke bottle pejorative was being tossed up against
> this legendary lens.
>
> Was the 47mm/2 Ektar on the Retina the same as the LTM lens?
>
>
> I suspect that you folks would better spend your time in reading the
> voluminous writings of Peter Dechert and coming to know him for the
> fine scholar he is before jumping to absolutely unwarranted
> conclusions about his praise for the 2/47 Ektar in a rather noted
> article in SHUDDERBUG, back in the day.
>
> And buy my LTM lens book, where I cite Peter's comment. Of the
> hundreds of folks who have read the book, none have ever questioned
> the spirit intended by Peter when he made the remark.
>
>
> Marc
>
>
>
> ***@aya.yale.edu
> Cha robh bàs fir gun ghràs fir!
>
> ---
> Rollei List
>
> - Post to ***@freelists.org
>
> - Subscribe at rollei_list-***@freelists.org with 'subscribe' in
> the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-***@freelists.org with
> 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Online, searchable archives are available at
> http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
>
>
>
>
> --
> Peter K
> Ó¿Õ¬

[Marc James Small]

At 02:20 PM 10/25/2009, Robert Lilley wrote:
>I like reading about the old lenses - tis from
>whence we came. What I don't like is all the
>"rivet counting" bickering - "Is to! Is
>not!. That definitely puts me to sleep. By the
>way what day are we referring to in the ubiquitous phase "back in The day"?
>

Before your time, I suspect, Rob!

Marc



***@aya.yale.edu
Cha robh bàs fir gun ghràs fir!

[Robert Lilley]

I've decided to home develop my 120 color film. Sending it out is
becoming costly and a bother. Walmart, the closest place that
processes 120 is 15 miles away and I don't make a habit of shopping
there.

Has anyone used the Tetenal Colortec Rapid Kit to process color print
film? If so, how did you find it and are there issues that someone
new to the process should know about?

Rob

[Marc James Small]

At 02:08 PM 10/25/2009, Peter K. wrote:
>Well, I for one may put it on my "reading to
>make me fall asleep" pile but I would not waste
>much time in reading about antiquates lenses. I
>mean what's the point? At least Shudderbug (as
>you call it) is a bit more current and we may
>learn something about composing a photo. Now if
>Dechert talks about lenses that are current like
>the Canon 70-200mm F2.8L zoom I may be
>interested, but honestly the only antique I have
>any interest in is my Rollei. I do not even like older cars.
>

Good for you. Dechert is retired but still does
an occasional write-up of current Canon lenses --
his works on Canon are the industry standard,
though a third Peter, Kitchingman, has recently
produced a fine work on Canon RF gear.

And I do not like "new" (post-1960) cars, though
I currently drive an '84 Audi 4000S.

Marc



***@aya.yale.edu
Cha robh bàs fir gun ghràs fir!

[Richard Knoppow]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Goldstein" <***@gmail.com>
To: <***@freelists.org>
Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2009 8:29 PM
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Apologies to Richard Knoppow


Marc -

Like Peter said, I think Jerry misunderstood. I did, too. I
also thought
that the Coke bottle pejorative was being tossed up against
this legendary
lens.

Was the 47mm/2 Ektar on the Retina the same as the LTM lens?


Eric Goldstein

I don't know how to determine this other than
disassembling a sample of each and measuring the curvatures,
etc. Unless one has access to the prescription there is no
way to know if very similar lenses are actually the exact
same design. I do know that some Ektar lenses were made for
the Retina but I don't know the dates. Most Retina lenses
were made by Schneider but, of course, both cameras and
lenses would have been unavailable during WW-2 and for a
time afterward.
Before the war the standard lenses on Speed Graphics
were Zeiss Tessars with some other makes being available
(like B&L Tessars). When Zeiss lenses and Compur shutters
became unavailable Kodak began making lenses and shutters
for these cameras. While Folmer & Schwing (Later the Graflex
Co.) had been owned by Kodak at one time is was independant
at this time but Kodak always had a close relationship with
F&S/Graflex who also made some cameras for Kodak so the
production of lenses and shutters to replace the German ones
seems natural.
I searched through the Kodak patents in LensView. There
are a number of Biotar derived designs, mostly by George
Aklin and Maxmillian Herzburger but its difficult to point
at any one as being a specific production lens.

--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
***@ix.netcom.com

[Eric Goldstein]

Absolutely true, Richard. I made the same point a few weeks ago on a
different thread. All too often you hear of one lens being a "clone"
of another based on no evidence other than a block diagram, some weak
documentation, or hear-say.


Eric Goldstein

--


On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 12:19 AM, Richard Knoppow
<***@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>    I don't know how to determine this other than disassembling a sample of each and measuring the curvatures, etc. Unless one has access to the prescription there is no way to know if very similar lenses are actually the exact same design.

[Marc James Small]

At 12:19 AM 10/25/2009, Richard Knoppow wrote:

> I don't know how to determine this other than
>disassembling a sample of each and measuring the curvatures,
>etc. Unless one has access to the prescription there is no
>way to know if very similar lenses are actually the exact
>same design. I do know that some Ektar lenses were made for
>the Retina but I don't know the dates. Most Retina lenses
>were made by Schneider but, of course, both cameras and
>lenses would have been unavailable during WW-2 and for a
>time afterward.

Richard

The record is a bit cloudier, and attention is
directed to Dr David Jentz for some
clarification. Prewar Retinas had a mix of
lenses but, in very broad terms, those sold in
the US had Kodak lenses and those sold elsewhere
had either JSK or CZJ lenses. During the War,
Retina production was suspended but when Dr Nagel
resumed Retina production after the War, the
general rule was to have US marketed Retinas
equipped with Kodak lenses and those sold
elsewhere to have JSK lenses, Zeiss lenses then
being unobtainable. By the 1950's, after Kodak
began to drop out of lens production, US-market
Retinas tended to have JSK lenses, and those sold
elsewhere to have Rodenstock lenses. But there
are exceptions throughout the life of the breed.

I own some Retinas and like the breed. The epic
shot of Tenzin Norgay on the peak of Everest --
"we knocked the bastard off!" -- was shot on a
Prewar 118 Retina with a 3.5/5cm CZJ Tessar by
Hillary, on Kodachrome, of course. That camera is now in a museum in EnZed.

Marc


***@aya.yale.edu
Cha robh bàs fir gun ghràs fir!

[CarlosMFreaza]

<***@comcast.net>:
> I own some Retinas and like the breed.  The epic shot of Tenzin Norgay on
> the peak of Everest -- "we knocked the bastard off!" -- was shot on a Prewar
> 118 Retina with a 3.5/5cm CZJ Tessar by Hillary, on Kodachrome, of course.
>  That camera is now in a museum in EnZed.

Marc:
According a close photograph taken at the Museum in Auckland,
New Zeland, Hillary's Retina I type 118 used on the peak of Everest
has the Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar number 1274240, other similar model
shown at the Retina Photo Gallery has the Carl Zeiss Tessar number
1274417, these numbers could be for lenses made about 1931 and the
Retina I type 118 cameras bodies are from about 1935 to 1936. Other
data is that according David L. Jentz from the Historical Society for
Retina Cameras, only 2% of the 40000+ cameras produced have the combo
Compur Rapid Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar 3,5/5cm and other 2% the combo
Compur and the same lens, and then Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar lenses are
rare for the Retina really.-

Carlos

[Marc James Small]

At 01:48 AM 10/25/2009, CarlosMFreaza wrote:
><***@comcast.net>:
>> I own some Retinas and like the breed. The epic shot of Tenzin Norgay on
>> the peak of Everest -- "we knocked the
bastard off!" -- was shot on a Prewar
>> 118 Retina with a 3.5/5cm CZJ Tessar by Hillary, on Kodachrome, of course.
>> That camera is now in a museum in EnZed.
>
>Marc:
> According a close photograph taken at the Museum in Auckland,
>New Zeland, Hillary's Retina I type 118 used on the peak of Everest
>has the Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar number 1274240, other similar model
>shown at the Retina Photo Gallery has the Carl Zeiss Tessar number
>1274417, these numbers could be for lenses made about 1931 and the
>Retina I type 118 cameras bodies are from about 1935 to 1936. Other
>data is that according David L. Jentz from the Historical Society for
>Retina Cameras, only 2% of the 40000+ cameras produced have the combo
>Compur Rapid Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar 3,5/5cm and other 2% the combo
>Compur and the same lens, and then Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar lenses are
>rare for the Retina really.-

Carlos, I really have not the slightest desire to
argue with you, but, pray, do not teach your
grandmother how to suck eggs. I was the guy who
got Sir Edmund to reveal the details of this
camera to me -- would you like a scan of the
letter he sent me? Dr Jentz has reproduced it as
did that Bastard British Photo Group, without
permission. In any event, note that the missive is addressed to me.

Marc



***@aya.yale.edu
Cha robh bàs fir gun ghràs fir!

[CarlosMFreaza]

Marc, it really was not my intention, it happened I was returning from
a party ( I wrote to the list about 2.30 AM) and after to eat good
meal and to drink some beers I still had no dream and saw your
message about the Retina, I recalled I had a photograph about the
camera with the visible lens serial number and wrote about it, my main
purpose was to get dream to go to the bed and I was not trying to
teach you anything or to argue with you.

I did not obtain the Hillary' Retina photograph from any Retina group
or Dr. Jentz (they show a similar Retina model with a comment about
the Hillary's Retina, but they don't say that is Sir Edmund's camera
specifically); I obtained the photograph at least four years ago from
a site about temporaries Auckland Museum exhibitions, one of them
showing the famous camera, I couldn't find that page again but I found
the Auckland Museum official web site and they have the Hillary's
Retina when it's at home, it often integrates exhibitions about
Hillary and the Everest around the world, the camera was shown in the
States some time ago and the last Auckland Museum incorporation is the
ice axe he used in part to climb the Everest.
http://www.aucklandmuseum.com/?t=907

Carlos






2009/10/25 Marc James Small
> Carlos, I really have not the slightest desire to argue with you, but, pray,
> do not teach your grandmother how to suck eggs.  I was the guy who got Sir
> Edmund to reveal the details of this camera to me -- would you like a scan
> of the letter he sent me?  Dr Jentz has reproduced it as did that Bastard
> British Photo Group, without permission.  In any event, note that the
> missive is addressed to me.
>
> Marc
>
>
>
> ***@aya.yale.edu
> Cha robh bàs fir gun ghràs fir!
>
> ---
> Rollei List
>
> - Post to ***@freelists.org
>
> - Subscribe at rollei_list-***@freelists.org with 'subscribe' in the
> subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-***@freelists.org with 'unsubscribe' in the
> subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Online, searchable archives are available at
> http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
>
>

[Marc James Small]

At 10:11 AM 10/25/2009, CarlosMFreaza wrote:
>Marc, it really was not my intention, it happened I was returning from
>a party ( I wrote to the list about 2.30 AM) and after to eat good
>meal and to drink some beers I still had no dream and saw your
>message about the Retina, I recalled I had a photograph about the
>camera with the visible lens serial number and wrote about it, my main
>purpose was to get dream to go to the bed and I was not trying to
>teach you anything or to argue with you.
>
>I did not obtain the Hillary' Retina photograph from any Retina group
>or Dr. Jentz (they show a similar Retina model with a comment about
>the Hillary's Retina, but they don't say that is Sir Edmund's camera
>specifically); I obtained the photograph at least four years ago from
>a site about temporaries Auckland Museum exhibitions, one of them
>showing the famous camera, I couldn't find that page again but I found
>the Auckland Museum official web site and they have the Hillary's
>Retina when it's at home, it often integrates exhibitions about
>Hillary and the Everest around the world, the camera was shown in the
>States some time ago and the last Auckland Museum incorporation is the
>ice axe he used in part to climb the Everest.
>http://www.aucklandmuseum.com/?t=907

Sorry, Carlos, for sounding a bit acid. I had a
huge fight over on the IDCC with Pritchard from
that Bastard British Club who refused to share an
article based on the letter Sir Edmund sent me on
the grounds it was "copy-righted". A member from
Oz did send me a scan. It was a direct theft of
the article from Dr Jentz HSRC's Journal. Yeah,
the camera is in the Auckland Museum. Anything
you want to know about the early Everest
expeditions? I'm part of the colloquy on the
study of these -- even got mentioned in the
Expedition Report for the '99 climb which found Captain Mallory's body.

Marc


***@aya.yale.edu
Cha robh bàs fir gun ghràs fir!

[CarlosMFreaza]

2009/10/25 Marc James Small
"... Anything you want to know about the early Everest
> expeditions?  I'm part of the colloquy on the study of these -- even got
> mentioned in the Expedition Report for the '99 climb which found Captain
> Mallory's body.
>
> Marc

Thank you Marc, the colloquy sounds very interesting; it would be very
good if the Vest- Pocket Kodak camera appears in spite of the time
from the photographs were taken, perhaps the images could be developed
with success yet.

Carlos

[Marc James Small]

At 12:33 PM 10/25/2009, CarlosMFreaza wrote:
>2009/10/25 Marc James Small
>"... Anything you want to know about the early Everest
>> expeditions? I'm part of the colloquy on the study of these -- even got
>> mentioned in the Expedition Report for the '99 climb which found Captain
>> Mallory's body.
>>
>> Marc
>
>Thank you Marc, the colloquy sounds very interesting; it would be very
>good if the Vest- Pocket Kodak camera appears in spite of the time
>from the photographs were taken, perhaps the images could be developed
>with success yet.

Kodak has promised to develop any film we
find. But the others have given up. I think
their conclusions -- that Irvine's body fell to
the Rongbuk Glacier -- are wrong. I am the
fellow who established the connection between
these cameras and Zeiss, incidentally. Zeiss was
on Everest in 1924. Leica didn't get there for sixty more years.

The two VP Kodaks are with Irvine's body and are
still on the North Slope waiting to be
found. Just an informed decision: I'm not going to go up to search!

Marc


***@aya.yale.edu
Cha robh bàs fir gun ghràs fir!

[Richard Knoppow]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Marc James Small" <***@comcast.net>
To: <***@freelists.org>
Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2009 9:41 PM
Subject: [rollei_list] Retina Camera Lenses


At 12:19 AM 10/25/2009, Richard Knoppow wrote:

> I don't know how to determine this other than
>disassembling a sample of each and measuring the
curvatures,
>etc. Unless one has access to the prescription there is no
>way to know if very similar lenses are actually the exact
>same design. I do know that some Ektar lenses were made
for
>the Retina but I don't know the dates. Most Retina lenses
>were made by Schneider but, of course, both cameras and
>lenses would have been unavailable during WW-2 and for a
>time afterward.

Richard

The record is a bit cloudier, and attention is
directed to Dr David Jentz for some
clarification. Prewar Retinas had a mix of
lenses but, in very broad terms, those sold in
the US had Kodak lenses and those sold elsewhere
had either JSK or CZJ lenses. During the War,
Retina production was suspended but when Dr Nagel
resumed Retina production after the War, the
general rule was to have US marketed Retinas
equipped with Kodak lenses and those sold
elsewhere to have JSK lenses, Zeiss lenses then
being unobtainable. By the 1950's, after Kodak
began to drop out of lens production, US-market
Retinas tended to have JSK lenses, and those sold
elsewhere to have Rodenstock lenses. But there
are exceptions throughout the life of the breed.

I own some Retinas and like the breed. The epic
shot of Tenzin Norgay on the peak of Everest --
"we knocked the bastard off!" -- was shot on a
Prewar 118 Retina with a 3.5/5cm CZJ Tessar by
Hillary, on Kodachrome, of course. That camera is now in a
museum in EnZed.

Marc

I looked over the lens sections of several editions of
the _Kodak Reference Handbook_. I could not find any Ektar
lenses for the Retina but they may be the wrong dates. There
are two Schneider lenses listed, one a Xenon for the Retina
II and the other a much more complex lens for the Retina
III. I have the second edition and later of the Handbook but
not the first edition, which was, I think, a war-time
edition.
I am puzzled about when Kodak would have had to use
Ektars in the Retina. Since the camera itself was not
available during the war the lens source would have made no
difference. There may have been a period right after the war
when Schneider could not supply lenses but that also does
not make sense since they were able to supply lenses to F&H
when Zeiss could not. Schneider was in the Western Zone and
would not have been affected by the convoluted politics
confronting Zeiss.
I do remember seeing Ektar lenses for the Retina but am
at a loss to know when. Its also possible that they were
Kodak branded Schneider lenses in the same way that many
Kodak folders have "Kodak-Zeiss" lenses. I don't know if the
latter were made by Zeiss or Kodak under license although I
suspect the latter.
FWIW, there is a good presentation of optical glass and
lens making on the Canon site, http://www.canon.com You
need a really high speed connection for this.

--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
***@ix.netcom.com

[Marc James Small]

At 03:29 PM 10/25/2009, Richard Knoppow wrote:

> I am puzzled about when Kodak would have had to use
>Ektars in the Retina. Since the camera itself was not
>available during the war the lens source would have made no
>difference. There may have been a period right after the war
>when Schneider could not supply lenses but that also does
>not make sense since they were able to supply lenses to F&H
>when Zeiss could not. Schneider was in the Western Zone and
>would not have been affected by the convoluted politics
>confronting Zeiss.
> I do remember seeing Ektar lenses for the Retina but am
>at a loss to know when. Its also possible that they were
>Kodak branded Schneider lenses in the same way that many
>Kodak folders have "Kodak-Zeiss" lenses. I don't know if the
>latter were made by Zeiss or Kodak under license although I
>suspect the latter.

Richard

I would have to look it up or ask Dr Jentz, but I
believe the Retinas with Ektars were made in the
immediate Prewar period for sale in the US.

Zeiss never licensed Kodak to make any lenses,
and I cannot find any record of a "Kodak-Zeiss"
lens. B&L acquired the rights to produce Zeiss
designs under the Alien Properties Act of 1917,
and many of the B&L "Anastigmat" lenses produced
by them for Kodak were actually CZJ Tessar designs.

Marc


***@aya.yale.edu
Cha robh bàs fir gun ghràs fir!

[Richard Knoppow]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Marc James Small" <***@comcast.net>
To: <***@freelists.org>
Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2009 12:36 PM
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Retina Camera Lenses


At 03:29 PM 10/25/2009, Richard Knoppow wrote:

> I am puzzled about when Kodak would have had to use
>Ektars in the Retina. Since the camera itself was not
>available during the war the lens source would have made
no
>difference. There may have been a period right after the
war
>when Schneider could not supply lenses but that also does
>not make sense since they were able to supply lenses to
F&H
>when Zeiss could not. Schneider was in the Western Zone
and
>would not have been affected by the convoluted politics
>confronting Zeiss.
> I do remember seeing Ektar lenses for the Retina but
am
>at a loss to know when. Its also possible that they were
>Kodak branded Schneider lenses in the same way that many
>Kodak folders have "Kodak-Zeiss" lenses. I don't know if
the
>latter were made by Zeiss or Kodak under license although
I
>suspect the latter.

Richard

I would have to look it up or ask Dr Jentz, but I
believe the Retinas with Ektars were made in the
immediate Prewar period for sale in the US.

Zeiss never licensed Kodak to make any lenses,
and I cannot find any record of a "Kodak-Zeiss"
lens. B&L acquired the rights to produce Zeiss
designs under the Alien Properties Act of 1917,
and many of the B&L "Anastigmat" lenses produced
by them for Kodak were actually CZJ Tessar designs.

Marc

B&L had a deal with Zeiss to make Zeiss designed lenses
in the US well before WW-1 and made a lot of Zeiss type
lenses for Kodak. B&L made at least Tessars and various
Protars. B&L may have been able to use the Zeiss patents
without having to pay a royalty after the war, at any rate,
the Zeiss name no longer appears on the lenses as it did
prior to about 1917.
The Vest Pocket Kodak and Speed Kodak No.1 both were
available with "Zeiss-Kodak Anastigmat" lenses. Perhaps made
by Zeiss for Kodak.

--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
***@ix.netcom.com

[Marc James Small]

At 03:56 PM 10/25/2009, Richard Knoppow wrote:

> B&L had a deal with Zeiss to make Zeiss designed lenses
>in the US well before WW-1 and made a lot of Zeiss type
>lenses for Kodak. B&L made at least Tessars and various
>Protars. B&L may have been able to use the Zeiss patents
>without having to pay a royalty after the war, at any rate,
>the Zeiss name no longer appears on the lenses as it did
>prior to about 1917.
> The Vest Pocket Kodak and Speed Kodak No.1 both were
>available with "Zeiss-Kodak Anastigmat" lenses. Perhaps made
>by Zeiss for Kodak.

Richard

B&L were the US agents for Carl Zeiss Jena before
WWI as Krauss was in France. The US Alien
Properties Act seized all CZJ intellectual
property rights in 1917 and B&L purchased these
from the US government in 1918. Obviously, B&L
did not use the Zeiss name -- why should
they? B&L continued to produce Tessar and
Micro-Tessar lenses through WWII and into the
1960's. They also produced Tessar designs for
Kodak which Kodak badged as Anastigmat lenses for
reasons now lost to history.

I can find absolutely no reference to any
Kodak-Zeiss lenses. Zeiss never had any business
relationship with Kodak save for the supply of
Tessar lenses for Retina cameras from Kodak
AG. Had Kodak been brazen enough to label a
lens, "Kodak-Zeiss", there would have been a
merry time in the Courts, and Kodak would have
had to pay some significant damages. Look what
Zeiss did to Leitz, after all. Zeiss always has
protected its brand names. Coe does record the
use of the "Zeiss Kodak" lens on the VP in
1909-1910 but then carefully notes that these
were not Zeiss or Kodak lenses at all, but were
purchased from B&L. I suspect the use of the
Zeiss Kodak name on the nummerschild caused
apoplexy at both B&L and Jena, and that explains
why the usage only lasted for 15 months, though
B&L Tessar-type Anastigmat lenses continued to be
supplied to Kodak for almost twenty years more.

That is the only reference I can find to such a
lens name, and it clearly was done illegally.

Marc




***@aya.yale.edu
Cha robh bàs fir gun ghràs fir!

[CarlosMFreaza]

2009/10/25 Richard Knoppow <***@ix.netcom.com>:
>>    I looked over the lens sections of several  editions of the _Kodak
> Reference Handbook_. I could not find any Ektar lenses for the Retina but
> they may be the wrong dates.

There was a Retina II with an Ektar f2/47mm from 1947, it was sold at
the auction site, look for the item 140352058712, and there was a
Retina I with an Ektar 3,5/50; you can see samples in the the top of
the page.

These are other samples:
Prewar Retina with Ektar Anastigmat 3,5/50
http://www002.upp.so-net.ne.jp/ebara/126ektar/index.html

Other Ektar Anastigmat 3,5/50 Retina I 1947
http://www.flickr.com/photos/***@N05/2388651179/sizes/o/in/pool-***@N00/

Other prewar sample 1937-1939
http://ldtomei.googlepages.com/kodakretinatype1411937-39

Carlos

[Eric Goldstein]

This is the camera and lens I had.


Eric Goldstein

--

On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 4:28 PM, CarlosMFreaza <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> There was a Retina II with an Ektar f2/47mm from 1947

[Marc James Small]

At 02:24 PM 10/24/2009, Richard Knoppow wrote:

> I've heard of this lens, perhaps you mentioned it
>before, but don't know anything specific about it. Was this
>a lens for the US clone of the Leica made during WW-2?
>Kardan or some such name, I'm drawing a blank on it at the
>moment. TT&H seems to have made the lenses for the British
>copy.
> Was Dechert expecting something like an Aero-Ektar?

The 2/47 Ektar is quite a bit smaller than a
normal LTM lens. It truly is a "dinky little
bottle of a lens". The Reid camera from the UK
had a choice of several lenses, but the Kardon
only had the Ektar and the PAM Britar as dedicated lenses.

Marc


***@aya.yale.edu
Cha robh bàs fir gun ghràs fir!

[Frank Dernie]

I think the optical design of the Kodak Ektra, the only quality Kodak
camera with which I am familiar, is exemplary. The mechanical design
is poor, it is complex and difficult to make and it has a couple of
weaknesses which make it inaccurate and unreliable. The rangefinder
optics look super but the mechanism connecting the optics to the lens
is awful.
FWIW,
Frank

On 24 Oct, 2009, at 00:22, Richard Knoppow wrote:

> . The Kodak lens is reputedly excellent but the camera shares with
> other Kodak cameras rather poor ergonomics. Also, while the
> rangefinder has a long base the very small focusing window makes it
> difficult to use. The camera is also nose-heavy but that may
> actually steady it for some people.
> It has always bothered me that Kodak did not make cameras of
> equal quality to their lenses. I think they had the means to do it
> but for some reason did not. They did make very good view and studio
> cameras and a good motion picture camera but their still cameras
> mostly left something to be desired. I do not include the Retina
> series in this, they were quite good cameras, but it was not a
> product of Kodak in Rochester.

[Richard Knoppow]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Frank Dernie" <***@btinternet.com>
To: <***@freelists.org>
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 10:03 PM
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: OT:Walter Voss Diax cameras


>I think the optical design of the Kodak Ektra, the only
>quality Kodak camera with which I am familiar, is
>exemplary. The mechanical design is poor, it is complex
>and difficult to make and it has a couple of weaknesses
>which make it inaccurate and unreliable. The rangefinder
>optics look super but the mechanism connecting the optics
>to the lens is awful.
> FWIW,
> Frank

I am reminded of a line from a Raymond Chandler story:
"She wore a hat that looked as if you could make it with one
hand from an old desk blotter."

--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
***@ix.netcom.com

[CarlosMFreaza]

The Kodak Ektra was a very serious Kodak attempt to build a 35mm
camera provided with the highest quality and more advanced features in
the market from 1941, in fact several of them were unique for 35mm and
Leica and Contax cameras never had them.

It was the 1st RF to have a parallax compensated finder,
it had lens coating on all lenses from 1941, this was a soft coating
and then it was applied on the lenses inner surfaces, it was a hard
coating after the war, it also was the 1st 35 RF with interchangeable
backs, each back was a complete film system and then you could change
backs at the middle of the roll, it was the 1st 35mm to offer built in
zoom finder; the 1st 35 RF to offer lever advance (back mounted) and
1st 35 RF to use a film rewind lever. The Ektra had a lot of
accesories like ground glass viewfinder, angle viewfinder, close-up
auxiliary lenses system, etc.

The Ektra had dedicated Ektar lenses,:1,9/50mm seven elements Biotar
type; 3,5/50mm Tessar type; 3,3/35mm WA; 3,5/90 short tele; 3,8/135
and a rare 4,5/153mm tele. These were excellent lenses, however they
had a very complicated lens mounting and the telemeter coupling
mechanism was very complex too, being these items serious camera's
weak points.
According Stephen Gandy, "...Ektra shutters are notoriously
unreliable. It probably has the dubious honor of having the most
unreliable shutter ever put into a quality 35 mm. Roughly 95% of all
the 2500 or so Ektra shutters stopped working decades ago. If you
want to shoot one on a regular basis, find yourself a good Ektra
repairman first."

This is a nice page on the Ektra camera; at the page bottom there are
other interesing links about Ektra cameras:
http://www.pacificrimcamera.com/pp/kodak/ektra.htm

Carlos










2009/10/24 FrankDernie<***@btinternet.com>:
> I think the optical design of the Kodak Ektra, the only quality Kodak camera
> with which I am familiar, is exemplary. The mechanical design is poor, it is
> complex and difficult to make and it has a couple of weaknesses which make
> it inaccurate and unreliable. The rangefinder optics look super but the
> mechanism connecting the optics to the lens is awful.
> FWIW,
> Frank
>
> On 24 Oct, 2009, at 00:22, Richard Knoppow wrote:
>
>> . The Kodak lens is reputedly excellent but the camera shares with other
>> Kodak cameras rather poor ergonomics. Also, while the rangefinder has a long
>> base the very small focusing window makes it difficult to use. The camera is
>> also nose-heavy but that may actually steady it for some people.
>>   It has always bothered me that Kodak did not make cameras of equal
>> quality to their lenses. I think they had the means to do it but for some
>> reason did not. They did make very good view and studio cameras and a good
>> motion picture camera but their still cameras mostly left something to be
>> desired. I do not include the Retina series in this, they were quite good
>> cameras,  but it was not a product of Kodak in Rochester.
>
> ---
> Rollei List
>
> - Post to ***@freelists.org
>
> - Subscribe at rollei_list-***@freelists.org with 'subscribe'in the
> subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-***@freelists.org with'unsubscribe' in the
> subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Online, searchable archives are available at
> http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
>
>

[Richard Knoppow]

----- Original Message -----
From: "CarlosMFreaza" <***@gmail.com>
To: <***@freelists.org>
Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2009 3:18 PM
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: OT:Walter Voss Diax cameras


The Kodak Ektra was a very serious Kodak attempt to build a
35mm
camera provided with the highest quality and more advanced
features in
the market from 1941, in fact several of them were unique
for 35mm and
Leica and Contax cameras never had them.

It was the 1st RF to have a parallax compensated finder,
it had lens coating on all lenses from 1941, this was a soft
coating
and then it was applied on the lenses inner surfaces, it was
a hard
coating after the war, it also was the 1st 35 RF with
interchangeable
backs, each back was a complete film system and then you
could change
backs at the middle of the roll, it was the 1st 35mm to
offer built in
zoom finder; the 1st 35 RF to offer lever advance (back
mounted) and
1st 35 RF to use a film rewind lever. The Ektra had a lot of
accesories like ground glass viewfinder, angle viewfinder,
close-up
auxiliary lenses system, etc.

The Ektra had dedicated Ektar lenses,:1,9/50mm seven
elements Biotar
type; 3,5/50mm Tessar type; 3,3/35mm WA; 3,5/90 short tele;
3,8/135
and a rare 4,5/153mm tele. These were excellent lenses,
however they
had a very complicated lens mounting and the telemeter
coupling
mechanism was very complex too, being these items serious
camera's
weak points.
According Stephen Gandy, "...Ektra shutters are notoriously
unreliable. It probably has the dubious honor of having the
most
unreliable shutter ever put into a quality 35 mm. Roughly
95% of all
the 2500 or so Ektra shutters stopped working decades ago.
If you
want to shoot one on a regular basis, find yourself a good
Ektra
repairman first."

This is a nice page on the Ektra camera; at the page bottom
there are
other interesing links about Ektra cameras:
http://www.pacificrimcamera.com/pp/kodak/ektra.htm

Carlos

Interesting pictures. The Ektra was released just before
the outbreak of WW-2 and was discontinued soon after. One
wonders what would have happened if it had been released
after the war when continued development was possible.
Nearly all, or maybe all, Kodak roll film and 35mm
cameras were aimed at the amateur market. They made some
good cameras but none competed head to head with Rollei,
Leica, Contax, etc. As I mentioned Kodak made some very good
studio and view cameras but none were aimed at the
non-professional market with the possible exception of the
Kodak 4x5 Master View camera, which was later reborn as the
Calumet CC-400 and also a version made by Burke and James.
What ever market they were intended for they were very
popular for pro work.

--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
***@ix.netcom.com








2009/10/24 FrankDernie<***@btinternet.com>:
> I think the optical design of the Kodak Ektra, the only
> quality Kodak camera
> with which I am familiar, is exemplary. The mechanical
> design is poor, it is
> complex and difficult to make and it has a couple of
> weaknesses which make
> it inaccurate and unreliable. The rangefinder optics look
> super but the
> mechanism connecting the optics to the lens is awful.
> FWIW,
> Frank
>
> On 24 Oct, 2009, at 00:22, Richard Knoppow wrote:
>
>> . The Kodak lens is reputedly excellent but the camera
>> shares with other
>> Kodak cameras rather poor ergonomics. Also, while the
>> rangefinder has a long
>> base the very small focusing window makes it difficult to
>> use. The camera is
>> also nose-heavy but that may actually steady it for some
>> people.
>> It has always bothered me that Kodak did not make cameras
>> of equal
>> quality to their lenses. I think they had the means to do
>> it but for some
>> reason did not. They did make very good view and studio
>> cameras and a good
>> motion picture camera but their still cameras mostly left
>> something to be
>> desired. I do not include the Retina series in this, they
>> were quite good
>> cameras, but it was not a product of Kodak in Rochester.
>
> ---
> Rollei List
>
> - Post to ***@freelists.org
>
> - Subscribe at rollei_list-***@freelists.org with
> 'subscribe'in the
> subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-***@freelists.org
> with'unsubscribe' in the
> subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Online, searchable archives are available at
> http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
>
>
---
Rollei List

- Post to ***@freelists.org

- Subscribe at rollei_list-***@freelists.org with
'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org

- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-***@freelists.org with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into
www.freelists.org

- Online, searchable archives are available at
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list

[CarlosMFreaza]

Yes Richard, the Ektra looked like a very promising camera, it seems
Kodak solved some of the main problems for the first model developing
the Ektra II prototype, but for some reason they stopped the project.
The built-in variable (zoom) viewfinder and built-in diopters
corrections for the viewfinder were nice features (it means the
viewfinder changed optically to fill the area according the lens focal
length used), but it seems they made some mechanisms complex too much
and prone to failures.

The Ektra Ektar 35mm and 50mm lenses had an interesting feature, they
could be focused up to 1 foot; drawing out a latch at the side of the
mount releases the focusing sleeves for movement beyond the normal
focusing scale, the telemeter no longer works but you a built in scale
window or you can use the ground glass viewfinder, very interesting
really, but again these features made very complex the mechanisms.-

Carlos

2009/10/24 Richard Knoppow <***@ix.netcom.com>:
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "CarlosMFreaza" <***@gmail.com>
> To: <***@freelists.org>
> Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2009 3:18 PM
> Subject: [rollei_list] Re: OT:Walter Voss Diax cameras
>
>
> The Kodak Ektra was a very serious Kodak attempt to build a 35mm
> camera provided with the highest quality and more advanced features in
> the market from 1941, in fact several of them were unique for 35mm and
> Leica and Contax cameras never had them.
>
> It was the 1st RF to have a parallax compensated finder,
> it had lens coating on all lenses from 1941, this was a soft coating
> and then it was applied on the lenses inner surfaces, it was a hard
> coating after the war, it also was the 1st 35 RF with interchangeable
> backs, each back was a complete film system and then you could change
> backs at the middle of the roll, it was the 1st 35mm to offer built in
> zoom finder; the 1st 35 RF to offer lever advance (back mounted) and
> 1st 35 RF to use a film rewind lever. The Ektra had a lot of
> accesories like ground glass viewfinder, angle viewfinder, close-up
> auxiliary lenses system, etc.
>
> The Ektra had dedicated Ektar lenses,:1,9/50mm seven elements Biotar
> type; 3,5/50mm Tessar type; 3,3/35mm WA; 3,5/90 short tele; 3,8/135
> and a rare 4,5/153mm tele. These were excellent lenses, however they
> had a very complicated lens mounting and the telemeter coupling
> mechanism was very complex too, being these items serious camera's
> weak points.
> According Stephen Gandy, "...Ektra shutters are notoriously
> unreliable.  It probably has the dubious honor of having the most
> unreliable shutter ever put into a quality 35 mm.   Roughly 95% of all
> the 2500 or so Ektra shutters stopped working decades ago. If you
> want to shoot one on a regular basis, find yourself a good Ektra
> repairman first."
>
> This is a nice page on the Ektra camera; at the page bottom there are
> other interesing links about Ektra cameras:
> http://www.pacificrimcamera.com/pp/kodak/ektra.htm
>
> Carlos
>
>   Interesting pictures. The Ektra was released just before the outbreak of
> WW-2 and was discontinued soon after. One wonders what would have happened
> if it had been released after the war when continued development was
> possible.
>   Nearly all, or maybe all, Kodak roll film and 35mm cameras were aimed at
> the amateur market. They made some good cameras but none competed head to
> head with Rollei, Leica, Contax, etc. As I mentioned Kodak made some very
> good studio and view cameras but none were aimed at the non-professional
> market with the possible exception of the Kodak 4x5 Master View camera,
> which was later reborn as the Calumet CC-400 and also a version made by
> Burke and James. What ever market they were intended for they were very
> popular for pro work.
>
> --
> Richard Knoppow
> Los Angeles, CA, USA
> ***@ix.netcom.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 2009/10/24 FrankDernie<***@btinternet.com>:
>>
>> I think the optical design of the Kodak Ektra, the only quality Kodak
>> camera
>> with which I am familiar, is exemplary. The mechanical design is poor, it
>> is
>> complex and difficult to make and it has a couple of weaknesses which make
>> it inaccurate and unreliable. The rangefinder optics look super but the
>> mechanism connecting the optics to the lens is awful.
>> FWIW,
>> Frank
>>
>> On 24 Oct, 2009, at 00:22, Richard Knoppow wrote:
>>
>>> . The Kodak lens is reputedly excellent but the camera shares with other
>>> Kodak cameras rather poor ergonomics. Also, while the rangefinder has a
>>> long
>>> base the very small focusing window makes it difficult to use. The camera
>>> is
>>> also nose-heavy but that may actually steady it for some people.
>>> It has always bothered me that Kodak did not make cameras of equal
>>> quality to their lenses. I think they had the means to do it but for some
>>> reason did not. They did make very good view and studio cameras and a
>>> good
>>> motion picture camera but their still cameras mostly left something to be
>>> desired. I do not include the Retina series in this, they were quite good
>>> cameras, but it was not a product of Kodak in Rochester.
>>
>> ---
>> Rollei List
>>
>> - Post to ***@freelists.org
>>
>> - Subscribe at rollei_list-***@freelists.org with 'subscribe'in the
>> subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>>
>> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-***@freelists.org with'unsubscribe' in
>> the
>> subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>>
>> - Online, searchable archives are available at
>> http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
>>
>>
> ---
> Rollei List
>
> - Post to ***@freelists.org
>
> - Subscribe at rollei_list-***@freelists.org with 'subscribe'
> in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-***@freelists.org with
> 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Online, searchable archives are available at
> http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
>
> ---
> Rollei List
>
> - Post to ***@freelists.org
>
> - Subscribe at rollei_list-***@freelists.org with 'subscribe' in the
> subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-***@freelists.org with 'unsubscribe' in the
> subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Online, searchable archives are available at
> http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
>
>

[Elias Roustom]

> it seems
> Kodak solved some of the main problems for the first model developing
> the Ektra II prototype, but for some reason they stopped the project.

They seem to have had an aversion to hardware that continues to this
day.
I heard someone say a very similar thing about their early digital
cameras.
Easier to sell film and then sensors. It's a better business model
perhaps.

Elias

[Frank Dernie]

I actually quite enjoy the Ektra, though, as a designer, the
shortcomings are very frustrating. I own 3 of the cameras, 2 of which
still work, and all of the lenses and most of the accessories. I am
not sure whether the shutter fails because the advance mechanism is so
flimsy, or just fails. I have a repair manual and had intended to get
the broken one working, but I need to make special tools, so it will
have to wait for retirement and the completion of my wife's list of
requirements after that...
cheers,
Frank

On 24 Oct, 2009, at 23:18, CarlosMFreaza wrote:

> The Kodak Ektra was a very serious Kodak attempt to build a 35mm
> camera provided with the highest quality and more advanced features in
> the market from 1941, in fact several of them were unique for 35mm and
> Leica and Contax cameras never had them.
>
> It was the 1st RF to have a parallax compensated finder,
> it had lens coating on all lenses from 1941, this was a soft coating
> and then it was applied on the lenses inner surfaces, it was a hard
> coating after the war, it also was the 1st 35 RF with interchangeable
> backs, each back was a complete film system and then you could change
> backs at the middle of the roll, it was the 1st 35mm to offer built in
> zoom finder; the 1st 35 RF to offer lever advance (back mounted) and
> 1st 35 RF to use a film rewind lever. The Ektra had a lot of
> accesories like ground glass viewfinder, angle viewfinder, close-up
> auxiliary lenses system, etc.
>
> The Ektra had dedicated Ektar lenses,:1,9/50mm seven elements Biotar
> type; 3,5/50mm Tessar type; 3,3/35mm WA; 3,5/90 short tele; 3,8/135
> and a rare 4,5/153mm tele. These were excellent lenses, however they
> had a very complicated lens mounting and the telemeter coupling
> mechanism was very complex too, being these items serious camera's
> weak points.
> According Stephen Gandy, "...Ektra shutters are notoriously
> unreliable. It probably has the dubious honor of having the most
> unreliable shutter ever put into a quality 35 mm. Roughly 95% of all
> the 2500 or so Ektra shutters stopped working decades ago. If you
> want to shoot one on a regular basis, find yourself a good Ektra
> repairman first."
>
> This is a nice page on the Ektra camera; at the page bottom there are
> other interesing links about Ektra cameras:
> http://www.pacificrimcamera.com/pp/kodak/ektra.htm
>
> Carlos
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 2009/10/24 FrankDernie<***@btinternet.com>:
>> I think the optical design of the Kodak Ektra, the only quality
>> Kodak camera
>> with which I am familiar, is exemplary. The mechanical design is
>> poor, it is
>> complex and difficult to make and it has a couple of weaknesses
>> which make
>> it inaccurate and unreliable. The rangefinder optics look super but
>> the
>> mechanism connecting the optics to the lens is awful.
>> FWIW,
>> Frank
>>
>> On 24 Oct, 2009, at 00:22, Richard Knoppow wrote:
>>
>>> . The Kodak lens is reputedly excellent but the camera shares with
>>> other
>>> Kodak cameras rather poor ergonomics. Also, while the rangefinder
>>> has a long
>>> base the very small focusing window makes it difficult to use. The
>>> camera is
>>> also nose-heavy but that may actually steady it for some people.
>>> It has always bothered me that Kodak did not make cameras of equal
>>> quality to their lenses. I think they had the means to do it but
>>> for some
>>> reason did not. They did make very good view and studio cameras
>>> and a good
>>> motion picture camera but their still cameras mostly left
>>> something to be
>>> desired. I do not include the Retina series in this, they were
>>> quite good
>>> cameras, but it was not a product of Kodak in Rochester.
>>
>> ---
>> Rollei List
>>
>> - Post to ***@freelists.org
>>
>> - Subscribe at rollei_list-***@freelists.org with 'subscribe'in
>> the
>> subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>>
>> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-***@freelists.org
>> with'unsubscribe' in the
>> subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>>
>> - Online, searchable archives are available at
>> http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
>>
>>
> ---
> Rollei List
>
> - Post to ***@freelists.org
>
> - Subscribe at rollei_list-***@freelists.org with 'subscribe'
> in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-***@freelists.org with
> 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into
> www.freelists.org
>
> - Online, searchable archives are available at
> http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
>