Let's see your gear

Let's get some camera porn up in here. Don't feel bad if you don't have a nice camera, these 2 cost me less than $15 each.

My "Зopkuǔ - Zorki 1c" with a 50mm f/3.5 Industar-22 lens. A pretty good copy of the Leica IId (1932) by the Soviets in Krasnogorsk. This particular camera was probably manufactured in the early 1950's. It is a model made for exporting to the West as it has markings both in Russian using Cyrillic letters and in English using Roman letters. I will soon be sending the body to Oleg Khalyavin in Moscow for a CLA. The shutter is currently unreliable. The curtains constantly get stuck open on low-speeds, especially if I aim the camera up at an angle. The focusing is also off at close range. It seems fine at a distance but off by 20cm at 1m. Fortunately, Oleg is legendary for turning old Soviet cameras into jewels and he's also cheap. The camera looks beautiful but it probably never been serviced properly in its lifetime.

The lens on the other hand is in extraordinary shape for its age and is of excellent quality. It\'s a marriage of Leica and Zeiss. The optical formula is a copy of the Zeiss Tessar 50mm f/3.5 but the lens-barrel is a copy of the Leica 50mm f/3.5 Elmar. Like the Elmar, the Industar-22 collapses into the body of the camera when not in use. It makes for a very compact camera that easily fits into a jacket pocket. The lens holds it own against my Elmars. The Elmar may have a bit more resolving power and gives better tones but the Industar has more contrast and give a more modern (perhaps better) colour rendition. The Industar is also 1/10th the price.

Ooh that's kind of nice looking. Don't think I've seen that one in person, maybe the 1st meeting?

Yep, I brought it to the our very first meeting. You were more interested in the M bodies.

Sounds like something I would do.

Here\'s the Zorki again but with the 35mm f/2.8 Jupiter-12 and Voigtlander 35mm external viewfinder in the shoe. The Zorki\'s built-in viewfinder is fixed for a 50mm lens so an external one is necessary. The lens came with a black one made from bakelite but the Voigtlander works and looks better.

The Jupiter-12 is a fantastic lens. It is a faithful Soviet copy of the Zeiss 35mm f/2.8 Biogon from the 1930\'s. The barrel is designed in such a way that it has a built-in lens hood, which makes this lens quite flare resistant. The only problem is that the aperture ring is on the front of the lens and inside the hooded area so its a bit cumbersome to adjust. The mushroom-shaped, rear element is freakishly huge and comes within just a few millimeters of the film. Unfortunately, the rear element is also completely unprotected and I sweat bullets every time I mount and dismount this lens. The vast majority of Jupiter-12\'s have scratched rear elements but mine is still perfect... for now.

Here\'s a photo of a black Jupiter-12 by Mario Groleau that shows the rear element.


The lens is very compact, it is sharp and it is contrasty. Best of all, there is no distortion in the photographs - well there is some but you have to be superhuman to see it. It demonstrates one of the key advantages to rangefinders over SLR\'s. Because there is no mirrorbox, lenses can protrude very deeply into the body of the camera, almost up to the film. This gives the engineers much more freedom in the lens designs. There is a huge advantage for wide-angle lenses. On SLR\'s, wide-angle lenses are all retro-focus designs - basically just a telephoto lens mounted backwards. Because of this, they are subject to a much higher degree of distortion and they are also huge lenses. For those that like wide-angle fov\'s, a mirrorless camera is definitely the way to go, in my opinion. It doesn\'t necessarily have to be a rangefinder either - a Hasselblad SWC, for example, is mirrorless.

This particular lens will only work on my screw-mount rangefinders (Zorki and Leica IIIf) and my M3. Unfortunately, its rear element will contact the metal shutter on my Voigtlander Bessa-T and will interfere with the metering system on my Leica MP. The Leica/Schneider 21mm super-angulon, which I can\'t stop thinking about, would also have the same problem.

EDIT: If anyone is interested, here's how the original 1936 Zeiss 35mm Biogon looked like:
http://www005.upp.so-net.ne.jp/chatvert/zeiss/contax/b35c.html

I was looking at the Canon P for sale on RFF and thinking I'd have to put on something like a Jupiter for starters and upgrade the glass later.

Canon P? What about the CL?

Don't forget that warning I gave you about the Soviets following the Zeiss Contax standards instead of the Leica standards for their screwmount lenses.

More into here:
http://www.dantestella.com/technical/compat.html

It usually doesn't pose that much of a problem with slower lenses but with the faster ones (e.g. 50f1.5 Jupiter-3, 50f2 Jupiter-8 or 85f2 Jupiter-9) there will likely be a problem. They will likely have to be taken apart and shimmed to work properly on camera that follows the Leica standard screwmount such as the Canon P. Once they're adjusted though, they're really spectacular - you may not want to get a 'better' lens. Don't rule out the Soviet 55mm f/2.8 Industar-61 L/D. This is a very highly regarded lens. It also uses radio-active glass elements like the early Leica Summicrons and Pentax Takumars.

Total cost for my Jupiter-3 50f1.5 was $130 (including shipping from Russia and adjustment for the Leica standard by a tech). This was 3-4 years ago though.

If you want a fast 50mm for a Canon P, I'd look for a Canon 50mm f/1.8. It is very highly regarded and relatively inexpensive. I'm not sure what they're going for now, but when I was considering one about 3 years ago, they went for about $50 more than a fast Soviet 50mm. Many Canon P's already often come with a Canon 50mm f/1.4 from the same era, which is also a good lens. Canon/Nikon copied their lenses from Zeiss designs too since German patents were declared void after WWII. The post-war Canon 50f1.5 Serenar, the Nikkor 50f1.4, and the Soviet 50f1.5 Jupiter-3 were all copies of the legendary Zeiss 50f1.5 Sonnar.

BTW: I think that the 35mm f/2.8 Jupiter-12 will work on a Canon P but its probably best to confirm it with some Canon P owners first.

That last one is a beautiful looking lens. From having never even considered using one, I'm really starting to consider these rangefinders.
Going to have to spend a little more time talking with you guys about them. Leica being an easy answer, but money is always an issue.
Nice shots guys.

I have 5 cheap ones that all cost me under $15 so if you ever want to put a roll or two through one over a weekend let me know. It won't be a Leica but it'll give you a feel for rangefinder shooting.

No problem Colin. I can talk forever about rangefinders. Contrary to popular belief, I truly feel that the Leica M-mount system is one of the most versatile for almost any budget. One has to assess costs a bit differently when it comes to rangefinders and Leicas in particular.

Nando wrote:No problem Colin. I can talk forever about rangefinders.

It's true, I've been on the receiving end so many times I have decided if I can't beat 'em, join 'em.

I was already shooting (cheap) rangefinders when I met him (actually it's how we met), they're a lot of fun. In this day and age I won't be giving up my digitals because they (sometimes) make me money, but when I'm out for no particular reason a little rangefinder is the perfect camera for me.

I'll rescind my rights to posting in this thread as I have nothing old and cool looking. My oldest camera is my 20D what a "newb" I am.

Nah, you should totally post the 20D with the 20mm lens. I loved that combo.

Nothing wrong with posting photos of new cameras.

My TLR:



A Meopta Flexaret VII made in the former Czechoslovakia during the 1960's. The lens is a Meopta 80mm f/3.5 Belar, which is similar to the Schneider 80mm f/3.5 Xenar on the Rolleiflexes. It has a prontor leaf shutter. It is quite capable of taking beautiful photographs.

Quite a complicated camera. It can take both 120 and 35mm film and has masks for 6x6, 645, 24x36, and 24x24. I got a pretty complete kit for it including all the masks, viewfinder for 35mm formats, 2 complete set of filters (6 filters/set), the lens-hood and two 'Flexpar' close-up lenses that allows me to focus down to 33cm. Unfortunately, I've had quite a few problems with it. First the winding knob isn't smooth and its difficult to turn. I accidentally broke off the dinky plastic lever for setting the shutter speed. Luckily, the tiny metal screws that held the plastic lever in place are still there and I can change the shutter speed by gripping those screws with my fingernails. I've been contemplating getting a machinist to fabricate a new metal lever for this camera but it may be more trouble than its worth. The last time I took it out, I screwed on the hood a bit too tightly and the lens itself started turning on the body. I turned it back back to the way it was but I'm afraid that I may have damaged the camera. This camera is pretty complicated for a TLR but unfortunately, its also fragile. If I ever get another TLR, I'm not going to mess around - its definitely going to be a Rolleiflex (either a 2.8F or GX model). Luckily, the Flexaret didn't cost me very much money.

Sorry about the crappy photo. I took it a few moments ago with my Canon SD1000 digital p&s. Noise in low-light conditions is a real problem with this sort of camera.

My dad sold all his cameras he collected over the years JUST as I was getting back into photography. I know a Rollei TLR was one of them but I imagine it wasn't in working condition because I never saw him use it. There are some beautiful medium format slides around, I assume from it.

I remember sitting in awe as a kid at my dad's medium format slideshows. For those who haven't had the experience it was hi-def before there was hi-def.

Nice camera Nando, and other than the noise you mentioned, great shot.
I haven't used one in a few years, but I used to love shooting with a Rollei my teacher had lent me. Great camera.

Too bad about your dad's stuff Ken.

Well he sold it all when he retired, I'm sure he put the money to good use.

Late last night I had an itchy mouse-finger and bought a Bessa R2A rangefinder. My first rangefinder that takes removable lenses. Now I just need some of those for it

This is the pic from the ad.

Congrats on the purchase. When does it show up?

I take no responsibility for Ken's gas attack.

Rightfully so. If it was an M6 or M3 then maybe you would have to. Not for a lowly Bessa though

Bessa's are not slouches. I love my Bessa-T. They're built on around a metal frame and are very reliable. My particular Bessa has polycarbonate plates and plastic controls but later ones have metal plates and metal knobs. I'm not sure about the Bessa R2A but it was released a few years after my Bessa-T.

This Cosina-made chassis is the basis of many other cameras including the Nikon FM10 and FE10. If you compare your rangefinder to the Nikon FM10 SLR, you'll see that they are basically the same except the Bessa has a rangefinder on the top and the Nikon has a mirrorbox on the front. There is a huge number of SLR's built on this chassis - the Olympus OM2000, Canon T60, Ricoh KR-5, and the Bessaflex of course. I think that I saw a list of them on Rangefinderforum.com - there were probably over 12 cameras listed.

Interesting. Oh to answer your question, Colin... whenever he sends it