| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| okynek |
Posted - Nov 10 2007 : 6:13:09 PM
Luiz, does anyone actually have this camera or only pictures remain?
What is second speed like dial for?(whatever located next to the revind button) |
| 31 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Vlad |
Posted - Jul 01 2015 : 11:53:51 AM
Hi Jacques, I asked, we'll see if he will oblige, if he does I'll repost it here.
Cheers,
Vlad. |
| Jacques M. |
Posted - Jul 01 2015 : 11:15:19 AM
Thanks, Vlad! A mythic camera!
I don't know if it is possible, but could you ask Boris Jamchtchik other photos, more detailed, especially from the mechanism?
Jacques.
|
| Vlad |
Posted - Jul 01 2015 : 10:50:20 AM
Boris Jamchtchik just posted this camera in my Vintage Camera Collectors facebook group:
http://www.ussrphoto.com/UserContent/172015_tsvvs2.jpg
|
| nightphoto |
Posted - Jul 04 2008 : 8:43:21 PM
Hi Luiz,
1. Only Boris has said this camera is from Leningrad. I don't think anyone else thinks it is from Leningrad. Boris is not an expert on these cameras.
2. I know you are experienced, but many of us here on the forum are also very experienced in the details of the manufacturing of these cameras. You may have convinced yourself, in spite of many details that do not point to the conclusion that this unknown prototype is related to TSVVS in any way, however the details that you state do not convince me at all. I have two TSVVS cameras (1949 and 1950) and I am very familiar with the details of them since I have largely taken them apart and examined them closely, under magnification. I am also very familiar with the details of many early Kiev cameras from this era and have also disassembled them. Although I don't own one of the two or three known examples of this camera, I do have some very fine photos of it from one of the owners, and have made many comparisons with the details between the prototype and both Kiev II and TSVVS, so my own opinion is based on good knowledge and observation. I know of no one else that believes that this unknown prototype is related to TSVVS in any way except for you. Even the person who I know that owns one of these unknown prototypes has expressed to me that they were surprised to see it featured under the title "TSVVS-2"!
3. Although you are correct that Kiev cameras are far from this unknown prototype, they are closer in more ways than the TSVVS which is very far from close to this model under question.
4. The engravings of these different cameras can not be compared successfully with the detail shown n these photos. A detailed study of the engravings of the focusing mount and other areas of engraving might be very helpful in finding the true origin of this camera, or at least some of it's parts, but, the photos would have to be closely taken (hopefully with a good macro lens) and compared using large size files to make any meaningful comparisons, hypothesis, or to reach solid conclusions. The photos (both mine of TSVVS and of the unknown prototype) are not good enough quality to reach any definite comparisons or theories.
5. I appreciate your suppositions and I respect very much your knowledge and opinions. However, I don't believe it is responsible to publish an article entitled "TSVVS-2 The Challenge" which can lead someone to believe that this camera has been proved to be related to the TSVVS. In fact, it has not been proved that and perhaps a better title for your articles on this camera would be something to the effect of " A Theory Regarding the Origin of an Unknown Prototype". This would make it clear to interested parties that the article is only your researched opinion rather than a fact. So, although it does not matter to me personally what your opinion or theory regarding the origin of the camera is, and I actually find your article and observations interesting, I find it necessary to write on this subject just so that it is clear to any interested parties that your theory is not an accepted theory, but just your own personal idea.
My own opinion is that the camera may have something to do with Arsenal, and that it is probably correct that it was put in Jean Loupe's book in that chapter. Having said that, I would also have to say that in my mind, it is also possible that TSVVS has something to do with Arsenal, in some way, even though there is a theory that it has something to do with FED or with a factory named Almaz (Yuriy Davidenko's idea). I also think that the camera we are discussing, which I can only call an unknown prototype, is probably a prototype. And, my best guess, so far would be from Arsenal ... and having little or nothing to do with TSVVS besides having a similar body covering and Contax style lens mount.
To me, the good thing about your article is that it may be drawing attention to the camera and maybe others will do more comparisons based on detailed comparisons of photographs and an objective mind set, rather than a somewhat preconceived idea. The high price of Boris' example is also drawing attention, I think.
Regards, Bill
|
| Luiz Paracampo |
Posted - Jul 04 2008 : 6:53:34 PM
Bill
Very good arguments you posted but :
1) I want to show -certainly this is not a camera from Leningrad.
2) My experience convinced myself that this camera has the same or near the same origin of TSVVS.
3) Kiev cameras are far from this model under question
4) the engravings of the cameras you named are close but nor so close as the model under question
5) Finally I said that all that was exposed is my own supposition, but a strong suspicion based under various clear technical proofs. Only that; and the lens serial number indicates the near-by manufacturing date .
It is important to remember that when the camera was manufactured, no one would intend to make any details equals to A or B but follow their own resourses, the available tools.
Regards
LP |
| Zoom |
Posted - Jul 02 2008 : 5:50:05 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Luiz Paracampo
Facts:
...
Rodina prototype 1952
1950--1951.
See http://www.zenitcamera.com/archive/history/our-tasks-in-1951.html
|
| nightphoto |
Posted - Jul 01 2008 : 12:29:26 AM
Hi Luiz,
I know you will not like my answer, but like you, I am not shy to share my strong opinion. I think that right now there is no good information about where this prototype was made and as well, it is not even known where the TSVVS was made ... but, I can see very little relationship to the TSVVS cameras and until there is some better proof of where the camera was made, it is wrong to call it "TSVVS-2"!
So... Thanks for the diagrams (and for using my photos ;-))! Looks good! But:
1. I would say that the dial engravings are not exactly matching. The "0"s are rounder on the prototype than on TSVVS. The "B"s have a slightly different shape. and the rest of the numbers are similar but would take a closer photo to compare them.
2. Although the prototype camera and TSVVS accessory shoes may both be machined, it does not mean anything since they are totally different in shape and many cameras with small production (such as TSVVS) and many prototypes from different factories have machined parts, including accessory shoe!
3. The arrow engravings that look like this can be seen on many cameras, even including VOOMP, Zorki-1, FED-1, Kiev IIIa, etc. This means nothing.
4. The ocular ring is different between the two, with the prototype ocular ring having, on the inner part, a cone-shape with black-painted concentric rings. TSVVS does not have this.
5. I agree that the leather quality and type looks the same or very similar, but this would be something produced outside of the factory and ordered, so a number of companies may have bought this covering. This is the case with some prototypes that were produced by GOMZ and KMZ but have the same (or very similar) high quality covering.
6. The engraved numbers on the focusing mounts are similar, but so are both similar to the Kievs from this time. And, if you look closely you will see that the prototype camera has a lens locking button and the whole mechanism more similar, or the same as a Kiev than to TSVVS. Please compare it to the 1949 Kiev II on my site.
7. The overall finishings are very nice on both cameras, just as they are on many handmade, hand-engineered prototypes or small edition cameras where molding and mass production techniques are not used. The photos you show here just show that the prototype has a very similar back and interior to the Kiev II. Closer to a Kiev than to TSVVS!
Regards, Bill
|
| Luiz Paracampo |
Posted - Jun 30 2008 : 2:42:21 PM
Continuing my exposition of facts I want to show my basement in the suspition of a TSVVS2
At first I had years of experience as technical engeneer in production of parts, this gave me seeing more than commom people in areas of manufacturing processes. Generally speaking it will be clear why factories that produce similar products enjoy different configurations. Treating processes are different and also machine and tools employed in the manufacturing processes. That way TSVVS and TSVVS2? have several similarities as some employed materials end mainly on engraving tools the normograph of each factory.
I include pictures from Bill site DVD and Arsenal for comparison.
These detailed pictures are unvaluable for the explanation of my clearly proven hypotesis.
http://www.ussrphoto.com/UserContent/comp1.JPG
http://www.ussrphoto.com/UserContent/comp2.JPG
http://www.ussrphoto.com/UserContent/comp3.JPG
PS Vlad can remove them if properly found
|
| Luiz Paracampo |
Posted - Jun 30 2008 : 12:59:53 PM
Conjectures
Note that in 1947 Rusians knew exactly the Contax lens pinch.
1n 1952 they were employed in Rodina Cameras.
In the same 1947 KMZ manufactured ZK85 and ZK136 in 1948 They manufactured BK35 All Contax compatible.
in 1949 TSVVS Did no use the Zeiss Standard
Nikon cameras have the same Contax mount but not the same pintch!
GOI and GOMZ, probably were the most Zeiss influenced enterprises.
Remember the Progress Factory! made with Zeiss people staff
and GOI and GOI Leningrad cameras made together with Zeiss staff!
There was proposed a completely new mount!
"Boris Leningrad" stands out of those standards.
So probably it was not even done at Leningrad city!
LP |
| Luiz Paracampo |
Posted - Jun 30 2008 : 12:46:12 PM
Note: Acording to information From the Lens Collector's Vade Mecum: this lens is transitional from 1952 1953 production . According information of Dan Fromm / photo.net forum.
This reinforces production date post original TSVVS (1949-1950)
LP
|
| Luiz Paracampo |
Posted - Jun 30 2008 : 12:33:06 PM
Carefully looking this camera we can see:
1) The rewind button has a film reminder system that is similar to GOMZ Leningrad spring driven cameras, which were also employed in Smena 5,6,7 and 8 cameras.
2) The numbers are in DIN scale not GOST nor H&D This means a transition between the two systems
3) Carefully looking the speed dial you find the "Z" alsoussed in old FEDs
4) Carefully looking the Bayonet you will see that it is not compatible with Zeiss accessory lenses because the helicoid evolves in a different pintch - the meter angles are not placed in equal grades-
5) large base view finder with frame cover at Contax I style
6) The camera is Synchonized.
7) Internal construction reminds (at some extent) the Contax Speigel.
8) Similar layout of FED 2.
Now let us compare with the KMZ Rodina .
1R) the helicoid evolution is the same as Contax and Kiev.
2R) large base viewfinder with diopter adjustment
3R) similar synchro pin type.
Kiev 3 had first series of exposure meters grades in DIN SCALE.
Facts:
Kiev 3 with Din scale 1950-1952
Rodina prototype 1952
Gomz Leningrad Prototype 1954
GOI camera and GOI Leningrad 1947-1949
TSVVS 1949 1950
Standartization of PC synchro in Russian cameras 1955
Date of first GOST film sandartization 1953
These facts induces the production date of this "TSVVS2?" camera around 1950-1953
More. All cameras with Jena lenses have its numbers begining with 35XXXX.....See manufaturing date.
More to come...........
LP |
| okynek |
Posted - Jun 24 2008 : 11:43:34 PM
Yes, it does not look like Leningrad at all. It look to me great influence from Arsenal |
| Vlad |
Posted - Jun 24 2008 : 11:11:32 PM
Well according to Boris at Photo-arsenal, this is a GOI Leningrad prototype
http://cgi.ebay.com/GOI-Leningrad-prototype-camera-with-contax-mount_W0QQitemZ370063366756QQihZ024QQcategoryZ15234QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
One thing I'm confused about though, it does not seem to have the spring drive and the thick spool?
Vlad |
| nightphoto |
Posted - Apr 30 2008 : 4:08:07 PM
And of course, all camera designers, in the USSR, at any factory or workshop, would have examples of current cameras from other factories and probably from other factories in other countries as well. That is a very standard practice. So, of course someone at GOMZ can be looking at a FED-2 and adding features, forms, or designs. And they can use the more non-descript parts from other factories, such as knobs, screws, etc. for making their prototypes.
To me, this camera does not look that much like TSVVS in construction, it reminds me mostly of KIEV-Arsenal work, and as Vlad says, knobs and stuff from GOMZ. May even be GOMZ. Although it has some basic features of FED-2, such as wide rangefinder windows, etc. many cameras from all over had those features as well. Probably could have been influenced ny Japanese cameras just as easily.
But "TVVS The Next Generation" ... probably not in my opinion.
The real question is still ... where was TSVVS made? DVDTech says Almaz Zavod, but offers no proof, even anecdotal! Does Viktor Suglob have a theory? And if so, do we have to wait for his book?
Regards, Bill
|
| Vlad |
Posted - Apr 30 2008 : 2:55:35 PM
You do present a convincing argument Luiz, but I don't know Luiz, I see KMZ and I see GOMZ stuff in it... knobs are VERY GOMZ, but it has that similarity to Rodina.. what you think of that comparison though? I really don't see any basis or derivation from the original TSVVS short of it having a Contax mount, which KMZ did experiment with as well... True there are elements of FED, KMZ and GOMZ in this camera but to jump to conclusion that it's related to TSVVS based on the mixed base+mount, I honestly don't really buy it  No offense.
Vlad |
| Luiz Paracampo |
Posted - Apr 28 2008 : 1:41:52 PM
Vlad
Looking to this camera one will see a clear derivation of the FED 2.
The same way as TSVVS comes from FED 1, this new model has a Kiev bayonet mount mounted in a new FED body (derivative). You can even see the large Range/view finder of the Fed 2.
Now take a look to the knobs positioning and distance between them. You will see the same lay-out of FED 2. Different knobs, a mask in the entire front for the focusing wheel and a vertical sliding frame for the 85 and 135mm lenses ...reminiscent form the black Contax I. The slow speed mechanism uses the hollow part of the top of FED 2 and is a reminiscent of the British Agiflex. You must cock separately the slow speeds once the camera main shutter is set in "B". For sure this is not a daughter from KMZ once all parts are not used in any KMZ camera. Really, the machining is more close to the original TSVVS than any other camera, probably, strongly reinforcing the theory of being built at the same factory,
Tools and machinist people let their personality the same way as a digital impression when you study a crime!
My best regards
LP
|
| Vlad |
Posted - Apr 26 2008 : 3:31:06 PM
I'm sorry I didn't finish my thought there and posted prematurely, I was saying that the advance dial reminds me of Leningrad dial so that may put a hole in my theory about KMZ since it will now point to GOMZ... but I still feel some kind of relationship of this camera to Rodina...  |
| Vlad |
Posted - Apr 26 2008 : 3:20:18 PM
The more I look at this piece, the lines, the design, the overall look and feel of it, the more I keep thinking this is some kind of KMZ experimentation... the closest camera I can think of is Rodina... Almost seems like a variation on a theme of Rodina.. The advance dial reminds me of a Leningrad camera design too much... the slow shutter dial is definitely something new, maybe a modified mechanism from Zorki 3?? Maybe a failed over the top complicated first attempt at creating what in the end became Rodina? Maybe another prototype by I.M. Marensov?
Vlad |
| Luiz Paracampo |
Posted - Nov 12 2007 : 11:41:15 AM
My People
Mr Mladek cordially authorized placing this first picture in the forum. He promised to send more detailed pictures of this camera.
As soon as he send them, I will do a full description of the parts with diagrams.
A debate on this item is very fascinating and very healthy once each of us begin an independent reseach. Remember that we are the right people to do such a research. I have some friends in Russia and up to this date, no one has found the real origin of this camera, although there are strong points in being a continuation of the original TSVVS. This camera was built around 1955, and had the same constructional phylosophy and materials of the previous TSVVS camera. AS the original FED was the basis for the original TSVVS, the FED 2 was the basis of this new one. Improvements were added as slow speeds etc. But this prototype series originally used Sonnar lenses still remained as War payements. Another important point is that at that time, the experienced staff who built the previous TSVVS wanted to show a better camera.
All of you go ahead.... |
| nightphoto |
Posted - Nov 11 2007 : 7:59:46 PM
Yes Okynek,
Sorry to be unclear. Black dial on the front for focusing,second dial on the top for slow speeds. I have never seen the camera in person, but this is what I think.
Regards, Bill
|
| Vlad |
Posted - Nov 11 2007 : 7:51:06 PM
All right, I've added a disclaimer to the beginning of this article, hope that closes the issue. |
| okynek |
Posted - Nov 11 2007 : 7:26:10 PM
So this big black handle on the front is for focusing and second speed dial on the top is for slow speeds. Make sense now. Appreciate you help Bill!!! |
| okynek |
Posted - Nov 11 2007 : 7:04:27 PM
Bill, are you talking about black dial on the front of the camera or about dial on the top of the camera,(located next to the rewind handle)? Because this, second dial, I did not find on any other Soviet camera and I wonder what it for? Also I was thinking that big dial on the front is slow speeds. Are you thinking it only to focus lens? |
| nightphoto |
Posted - Nov 11 2007 : 6:38:23 PM
okynek,
Or if you mean the second dial on the top of the camera, it is described as a slow speed dial in Princelle's.
Regards, Bill
|
| nightphoto |
Posted - Nov 11 2007 : 6:01:12 PM
Luiz,
My apologies if I offended you or was to hard on you. I'm sorry to have to bring the issue up at all.
Best regards, Bill
okynek,
I believe that is not a speed dial, but is the focusing wheel, like on a Contax or Kiev (but moved over closer to the users finger so that the users finger does not block the small rangefinder window, as it can on the Contax or Kiev).
What is your name and a belated welcome to the forum from me!
Best regards, Bill
Regards, Bill
|
| okynek |
Posted - Nov 11 2007 : 5:46:46 PM
I agree, Bill. Copyright is complicated issue and should be used with caution. Usually it rise when money involve. But no one answer on my initial question, what second speed like dial is for on this camera? |
| nightphoto |
Posted - Nov 11 2007 : 5:17:08 PM
okynek,
I don't mean to be hard on Luiz. It's ok with me, and of course everybody's right, to make fantasy articles, or part fantasy-part fact, about the cameras or anything they want. But if it is a fantasy or unproven theory, not fact, it would be very helpful if it was identified as that. For example, in Luiz's article there is a graphic symbol that looks like a real graphic of a logo. No problem there if in the article it says that maybe if there ever was a TSVVS-2, this is what the logo might look like.
So, I don't say no fantasy ... no theories, just to identify it clearly so that people will understand what they are reading about.
If Milos Mladek ever wants to post to this forum, I'm quite sure he will. I do not try to convince him of anything, and I don't want to convince anyone of anything! I am a serious collector and I like all aspects of this field, including the fantasy stuff, as long as it is clearly identified as that in some manner.
I know Luiz through e-mail, and I know he is very knowledgeable too, and I have even given him permission to use some of my own photographs, of the Zorki-35M, when he asked me. But, with photographs and copyrights, it is important to ask and get the owner's permission, in my opinion.
I have a web site and I try to give accurate information on it, make corrections, etc. Also, when someone wants to use my photos, I almost always say it is fine, but I would not expect them to weave a fantasy theory around one of my own photos. I am always hesitant to post about these kind of issues because I know everybody wants to have fun, but when the subject of the post became "TSVVS-2 The Challenge!", then this starts to make a fantasy-theoretical article look like there actually is a TSVVS-2 ... which there is not as far as anyone knows.
The issue of copyrights of photographs has been brought up before here and on other sites, and is also a matter of law. So I don't know what else to say about it. If Luiz or anyone else has direct permission from the owner of a photo to use it and manipulate it, then no problem.
Regards, Bill
|
| okynek |
Posted - Nov 11 2007 : 2:46:32 PM
Bill, you may be right about many things said above . But you shouldn’t be so hard on Luis. We do not trying to rewrite history here, we trying to have fun!!!. Many things is uncertain about history of photographic in whole and about Russian cameras in particular. And I believe it’s a good thing! We have room to research, speculate, predict, and sometimes make up stories, base on best of our knowledge, expertise, and intentions. Take for example FED – Yura. Most likely one of the first “fake” cameras is made so good fairy tale. History about Khruschev and Photosniper is probably also fake. How about new one: Putin and digital Zenit?
Camera is a first machine what able to stop time, it make us get back to the past via pictures it created, relieve all beautiful or scary moments. It made people far away feel like home. It made us think and fantasize. May be this is why so many people collecting them. Do you know many who collect computers? So if some of us did not have precise data about any cameras let just politely correct this data. It will benefit whole society of camera collectors. I have big favor to ask you. May be you can convince Mr. Milos Mladek to share with us his version of events and share pictures of this so mystic and beautiful camera what he has such honor to poses?!
|
| nightphoto |
Posted - Nov 11 2007 : 1:50:45 PM
Luiz,
I am friends with Milos Mladek and he has expressed to me, in one of our recent e-mail conversations, that he did not give permission for his photograph to be used, and that he was not pleased that it was being used in a misleading way on this site!
I would suggest that if you want to use his photograph, which is copyrighted by him and by Princelle, then you contact him directly and tell him how you are planning on using it.
While you may be correct that the camera may not be by Arsenal, the origin is unknown at this time. It may be an Arsenal "project", an Almaz "project", or some other private or Zavaod project. Some day maybe we will know, however I can not see that even if it was made by Almaz that it would ever be called a "TSVVS-2", so your article is misleading and a bit of "fantasy", in that respect.
Of course you can write whatever you want about cameras ... and fortunately a forum like this, especially coupled with the Catalog of cameras and articles on the same site, gives the chance for others to criticize and help to correct some false impressions readers may have about things where the answers are not yet clear. This is all I'm doing.
To me it is important that the facts be clear, as to what is known and what is not known. Also, I do not think it is very ethical to use other peoples photographs without their direct permission. In fact it is known as copyright infringement!
Regards, Bill
|
| Luiz Paracampo |
Posted - Nov 11 2007 : 10:06:50 AM
In the pictures there are two different "TSVVS-2?" cameras one in owned by Mr Mladek and the other by Mr Kampf. they appeared in the Princelle's book second edition pg 210. In the discriptions there are no correct data about this camera only hypotesis. I contacted Mr Mladek through his friend Mario Cavina, that promised a series of pictures of the first camera. It is sure that this camera was not made by Arsenal once its bayonet although capable of receiving some Kiev lenses have completely different finishings and is also differently machined, as are for instance, Contax and Nikon S. |
| nightphoto |
Posted - Nov 10 2007 : 7:54:28 PM
This camera has nothing at all to do with the TSVVS ! To say that it is a TSVVS-2, or lead anyone to believe that is not accurate and unfortunately could lead collectors and historians of Russian cameras to the wrong conclusion.
The camera pictured in this article is in the collection of Dr. Milos Mladek of Vienna. The photograph of this camera is in Princelle's (2nd edition, page 210). I believe the photograph in the article on this site by Luiz Paracampo was used without permission, and it is a copyrighted photograph.
This camera is thought to be a prototype or development model made by Zavod Arsenal and has nothing to do with the TSVVS (possibly made by the Almaz Zavod)! The article "TSVVS-2 The Challenge" is quite misleading, especially with the creative graphics ... leading to the wrong conclusion that this is a TSVVS-2.
Of course you can find similarities in any Leica or Contax copies, but so what? That does not mean that any theory is true, just because it is said or published on the internet.
This is an interesting camera, an has some importance in Russian camera development history, but a more accurate description of what it may be can be found in the original article about it in Princelle's.
Regards, Bill
|
|
|
