| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| uwittehh |
Posted - Dec 27 2016 : 5:12:04 PM
Just on 24.12. a packet arrived here :-) It contains a Jena Contax II made in 1950 concerning to the "conkie" documents. I was very exited and after having a nice XMas with the family I inspected it yesterday and today.
Let's start with this picture, the camera just out of the packet. Ugly and full of dirt and green rust.
Look at the feather of the rewinding knob. It looks different as on all my other Contaxes and Kievs:
Under the top plate. Looks like new, as if it was made on a new production line:
Inside is an engraved "55":
Inside of the front mask there is blue/white ribbon arount the viewfinder window hole:
The shutter. No scratched number like on early Kievs. Looks the same as on my other Jena Contax. On the first two pictures you can see something like a C combined with an A scratched in:
Inside the shutter back there is a number engraved:
The feather on the selftimer release knob:
Removing the green rust from the back and the leather. The back is much heavier than a back of a Kiev, it's made of brass:
After reassembling all:
Bill, you said in the TSVVS thread that you would not clean such old and rare cameras because of devaluating them. I don't think that I devaluate the camera when I remove the green rust, sand and old dirt from the cameras. I reuse all parts of the particular camera and do not mix any parts from later cameras. I only replace missing or wrong parts.
What do the others think? Is a careful CLA devaluating an old camera?
Ulrich
http://fotos.cconin.de |
| 32 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Zoom |
Posted - Jan 13 2017 : 04:54:25 AM
quote:
Originally posted by SteveA
Maybe some of the Zeiss Historica folks and Zeiss Ikon Collectors Group could assist as well?
Unfortunately, judging from the open published materials, they do not have accurate information about everything that is connected with the USSR.
(For me, if a "published" information is not free -- is like the information is not published at all.) |
| SteveA |
Posted - Jan 13 2017 : 04:35:24 AM
Would be great if someone who knows the real story could pull it together into a web page. There are so many threads and accounts of what happened. Maybe some of the Zeiss Historica folks and Zeiss Ikon Collectors Group could assist as well? |
| cedricfan |
Posted - Jan 12 2017 : 11:07:19 AM
That FED-Arsenal thread should be simplified. I just read it (third time I think) and still it is hard to get a complete picture of how things went.
Best regards,
Juhani |
| Zoom |
Posted - Jan 12 2017 : 01:02:54 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Zoom
Then he wanted to make Exaktas in Arsenal instead of FEDs. But managed to get only the blue prints...
In addition:
"Exakta" = Kine Exakta (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kine_Exakta)
"blue prints" = the full drawing set (without lenses), this set was fully assembled and ready to send April 1, 1946.
But Krushchev needed the working production line, rather than any drawings. So then he turned his attention to Contax. Therefore, he twisted Ministry's arms (it took about six months) and as a result the line redirected to Kiev, instead Kazan.
quote:
Originally posted by Luiz Paracampo
A very important information Zoom!
FED cameras made in Arsenal factory under Krushchev's order.
This story has already been discussed here (see the FED-Arsenal thread http://ussrphoto.com/Forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2884). I thought that everyone already knows it... ;) |
| Luiz Paracampo |
Posted - Jan 11 2017 : 4:34:48 PM
A very important information Zoom!
FED cameras made in Arsenal factory under Krushchev's order.
That means that most of Arsenal FEDs are authentic and not fakes
as once considered.
Regards
LP |
| Jacques M. |
Posted - Jan 10 2017 : 07:30:56 AM
Yes, we had already discussed a part of this story.
Thanks for your explanations, Zoom. Impressive!
Jacques. |
| Zoom |
Posted - Jan 10 2017 : 05:14:33 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Jacques M.
Why was the decision changed?
You have erased the question: who? The name is known: Nikita Khrushchev as a mover of this alterations.
Why? This is a more difficult question.
He wanted one thing, then wanted another, and the narkomat/ministry (NKV, MV — vooruzheniy, weapons) was forced to redraw all the plans. In the end he was called as "a voluntarist" and sent into retirement, as you know.
This story has already been discussed here -- in a discuss about FED-Arsenal.
quote:
Originally posted by Jacques M.
But why Arsenal rather than KOMZ?
Why rather then? Later then...
At first Khrushchev wanted to make FEDs in Kiev (not in Arsenal). Therefore, he requested to transfer FEDs from Kazan (KOMZ) to Kiev.
To this end, a new optical factory was organised: Arsenal in Kiev.
Then he wanted to make Exaktas in Arsenal instead of FEDs. But managed to get only the blue prints...
Then he wanted to transfer Contaxes production line to Arsenal.
Also he wanted to restore production of FEDs on the FED plant...
And all of this is contrary to the state and Narkomat/Ministry's plans, GKO orders, contrary to common sense, not caring at all... |
| Jacques M. |
Posted - Jan 09 2017 : 12:02:07 PM
Hi Zoom,
Why was the decision changed?
It is interesting to note that Bernd K. Otto gives too the date of november 1946 for the apparition of "Kiev", as the name of the future Russian Contax. If I understand well (it's in German!)...
But why Arsenal rather than KOMZ?
Jacques. |
| nightphoto |
Posted - Jan 09 2017 : 11:08:19 AM
Zoom,
Believe me, compared to any Russian I have learned, your English is very good! Thanks very much for writing with the correct information. Very important and helpful. I think it is very obvious that those who controlled Soviet industry were very intelligent and did a most amazing job of reviving and improving the Soviet camera factories and their production.
Regards, Bill
|
| Zoom |
Posted - Jan 09 2017 : 06:53:52 AM
quote:
Originally posted by nightphoto
Your English is very good!
Do not flatter me. ;) I began to forget the language. Can't link more than two words without an online help. :(
quote:
Originally posted by nightphoto
But, if the "Volga" was not planned to be made at Arsenal, then where was it planned to me made?
Plant number 237 in Kazan, of course (better known as KOMZ) -- Volzhskiy opticheskiy zavod (it's its first 'open' name: Volzhsky, Volga optical plant). So: "Volga". The decision to change the factory from KOMZ to Arsenal was taken November 28, 1946.
quote:
after the failed attempt by the Russians to start production from components/tooling recovered from Dresden, Carl Zeiss Jena were tasked with producing parts and tooling plus complete cameras before the new facilities were moved to Arsenal
There was no attempt. Everything was planned in advance: pre-production, production of pilot batches in Saalfeld, etc. Of course, not everything was easy*, but, please, do not think that idiots controlled Soviet industry...
*) -- Few people know that the Zeiss Ikon has worked in the Basic shaft system, but Soviet industry in the Basic hole system. That was The Problem, as you understand... |
| nightphoto |
Posted - Jan 08 2017 : 6:02:49 PM
Hi Zoom,
Your English is very good! But, if the "Volga" was not planned to be made at Arsenal, then where was it planned to me made?
Regards, Bill
|
| Zoom |
Posted - Jan 08 2017 : 3:37:28 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Jacques M.
I don't see what is false in his very brief abstract...
What is false? This:
quote:
after the failed attempt by the Russians to start production from components/tooling recovered from Dresden, Carl Zeiss Jena were tasked with producing parts and tooling plus complete cameras before the new facilities were moved to Arsenal
"The camera was originally to be called 'Volga'" -- indeed. But this camera was not for Arsenal.
Sorry my English is very poor and bad to write more... |
| SteveA |
Posted - Jan 03 2017 : 1:48:00 PM
Hi, nope, I have read this in various publications - some interesting information including the blueprints with VOLGA on them are at www3.telus.net/public/rpnchbck/zconrfKiev.htm
There are a number of different representations of what happened, hence why I said 'evidence suggests' :) |
| Jacques M. |
Posted - Jan 02 2017 : 3:13:03 PM
Hi Zoom,
I am not Steve. 
But frankly, I don't see what is false in his very brief abstract...
Could you explain what you mean, please?
Amitiés. Jacques. |
| Zoom |
Posted - Jan 02 2017 : 2:59:39 PM
quote:
Originally posted by SteveA
Re. Jena production, evidence suggests that after the failed attempt by the Russians to start production from components/tooling recovered from Dresden, Carl Zeiss Jena were tasked with producing parts and tooling plus complete cameras before the new facilities were moved to Arsenal. The camera was originally to be called 'Volga' (âîëãà)and the blueprints show this. They also provided engineers to support the Arsenal workforce. Its an interesting story...
Steve, sorry, you yourself have come up with this story? Some phrases, separately, are true, but together they are false. Sorry again.
|
| seany65 |
Posted - Jan 01 2017 : 4:50:55 PM
I think a good, careful CLA of a camera that brings a non-working camera back to life adds to the value.
If a camera has particular story to tell, such as a bullet hole in the front which did not go all the way through and so shows that the camera stopped someone dying, then a CLA (especially if it removed the bullet hole), would ruin the 'value'. |
| SteveA |
Posted - Jan 01 2017 : 09:13:11 AM
Sorry the Cyrillic for VOLGA did not come out properly in my last post! |
| SteveA |
Posted - Jan 01 2017 : 09:12:18 AM
Re. Jena production, evidence suggests that after the failed attempt by the Russians to start production from components/tooling recovered from Dresden, Carl Zeiss Jena were tasked with producing parts and tooling plus complete cameras before the new facilities were moved to Arsenal. The camera was originally to be called 'Volga' (âîëãà)and the blueprints show this. They also provided engineers to support the Arsenal workforce. Its an interesting story of triumph-over-adversity, considering the destruction both Germany and Russia suffered during the latter years of WW2.
Cheers,
Steve |
| Valkir1987 |
Posted - Jan 01 2017 : 06:04:10 AM
Very nice find indeed! I haven't got that much Contaxes and Kievs to compare. Bit of a pity is the afterwards build in flash-sync, you find them too often on these camera's.
Henry Sherer keeps persisting that Contax production never took place at Jena. While there is plenty of evidence. |
| Vlad |
Posted - Dec 31 2016 : 3:02:37 PM
Ulrich, Jacques, thank you for the information regarding the reverse Contax stamp! Good to know, I thought those came from Jena and not Dresden, thus my question.
Altix - wow! That is an amazing bit of history right there, blown away! Thank you for that post!
Best regards and Happy New Year!
Vlad
|
| uwittehh |
Posted - Dec 31 2016 : 05:31:16 AM
Steve, thanks for the detailled information. The lens is according to Thiele from a batch of 1400 2.0/50mm Sonnars that was ready made on 4.12.1947.
And yes, it's a good idea to put a roll of film into the camera. I have some Ilford films in the fridge. When the weather gets better I will try it out.
Ulrich
http://fotos.cconin.de |
| SteveA |
Posted - Dec 30 2016 : 2:46:33 PM
Hi there - some observations.
Your rewind knob engraving is the same as Jena Contax 27868, illustrated in 'Contax to Kiev' by Minoru Sasaki. Also Jena Contax 6070/47010, and Jena Kiev 5905/47030.
The shutter appears to be a Dresden original, based on the shape of the casting and angle of the shutter curtain latch release lever. Also the shutter curtain is Dresden with the leather heal.
The focus mount is I think Jena as it has a '3' with a rounded top rather than a flat top as per Dresden originals.
The chrome shroud with 'Contax' is most likely Jena as the engraving matches other Jena examples.
The self-timer release is Dresden; the Jena ones were quite narrow at the base where they screw to the mechanism.
The flash sync is a typical installation; my Contax III shutter was similarly modified.
The lens serial number appears to be in keeping with the camera - 1945 - 1949.
Chrome was in short supply around this time and possibly the coating was thinner/softer causing it to rub through. The chrome on my 1948 Kiev is very thin.
You can only have improved the camera with the servicing; it looks fine in the second photo. Is the shutter accurate enough to make it useable? With a coated Sonnar you should get some great results.
Cheers,
Steve |
| Jacques M. |
Posted - Dec 30 2016 : 10:48:00 AM
Congrats, Ulrich! And happy you had it!
And you are right: the arrow on the rewind button is very curious...
To Vlad: The covers which have "Contax" on the reverse (and Kiev on the front) were originally made at Dresden and used by Arsenal in 1947/48 for their first Kievs.
The Jena-Contaxes used parts only made at Jena. We find some of these parts too in 1948 for Kievs: the black disc under the selftimer, for example, is a typical Jena made part.
Amitiés. Jacques. |
| altix |
Posted - Dec 29 2016 : 2:58:15 PM
Dear Ulrich,
I highly recommend the Lawrence J Gubas book "Zeiss and Photography". You can find the photo there and a lot of interesting information about Zeiss cameras and lenses. Believe me, this book is worth of its price.
Happy New Year to everybody!
altix |
| uwittehh |
Posted - Dec 29 2016 : 2:41:05 PM
Altix, wow, that's an amazing information. So we can be sure that this is a real Jena Contax. Where have you found the information about the people who have worked there and the picture?
Ulrich
http://fotos.cconin.de |
| altix |
Posted - Dec 29 2016 : 08:18:58 AM
Dear Ulrich,
thank you for the opportunity to have a look in your Contax Jena. The letters CA stand for the personal seal of Coutandin August (marked on the photo). He was a member of the Contax Jena assembling team.
http://www.ussrphoto.com/UserContent/29122016_1.jpeg
with best regards
altix
|
| uwittehh |
Posted - Dec 28 2016 : 05:46:19 AM
Jean, I have noticed that there is a missing part on the lower curtain. I think it was removed during the installation of the additional flash sync, I have seen this on other early Kievs or Contax before. And by the way, the shutter works fine. There were only some small film pieces in the shutter housing and beneath the gears that I have to remove.
Ulrich
http://fotos.cconin.de |
| uwittehh |
Posted - Dec 28 2016 : 05:43:08 AM
Vlad, as far as I know the front masks for the Jena Contax were made for these cameras. The "Contax" engraving is a bit different compared to the Dresden Contaxes. But on both of my Jena Contaxes it looks the same.
Another thing that I have noticed on both of my Jena Contaxes is that the chrome seems to be very thin. On some parts it looks as if the brass shines through the chrome, there is a slightly yellowish color that can be seen.
What about other Jena Contaxes here? Can anybody see the same thin chrome?
Ulrich
http://fotos.cconin.de |
| uwittehh |
Posted - Dec 28 2016 : 05:37:39 AM
Bill, thanks for your opinion. The covering of the back was partially loose and the green rust comes out of it. As far as I know the bumps filled with green rust are a process of the interaction of the brass and the glue that was used in that days. For re-glueing I used a simple glue like an UHU stick (used for paper and also useful for leather). This can be removed easily if neccessary. The interesing thing will be if the bumps come back now or stay away.
Ulrich
http://fotos.cconin.de |
| jed |
Posted - Dec 28 2016 : 03:23:36 AM
Hi Ulrich,
Glad you've got the camera, I was on the list ;)
The lower curtain has a broken latch pin (left side). So the shutter won't work correctly.
Jean |
| Vlad |
Posted - Dec 27 2016 : 9:09:26 PM
Thank you Ulrich for the great illustrations! You have a photo there of the backside of the front plate but this camera does not have the Contax stamped on the reverse side like the early Kievs. Can you or someone else comment to this fact?
Thanks,
Vlad. |
| nightphoto |
Posted - Dec 27 2016 : 8:56:08 PM
Hi Ulrich and Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to you and your family!
Actually I was just giving my opinion and advice to Ad with his TSVVS cameras because I thought he did not know how to work on them himself and might give them to someone (a repair person) who did not understand the historical significance of these particular cameras. Someone who might put in a new set of shutter curtains or parts from a different camera. My profession for the past 35 years has been as an art dealer in antique paintings (and also antique objects of many kinds), and I have learned to be very careful with having old things restored, especially if they are very rare, valuable, or historic. I have seen many good paintings ruined from poor or medium restoration at sometime in the past. Of course cameras are different, but this is the experience where my perspective on restoration comes from.
I think you probably know what you are doing with the disassembly - assembly process and have an understanding of the historical significance too. But I am concerned a bit about the removing of the covering (where I can see scratches on the metal of the exterior of the back plate, if they were caused by the removing of the covering) and also whether or not once glued in place again, after cleaning, the covering still has the same 'Contax bumps' that are common on Contax cameras, as well as on Kiev and TSVVS cameras.
That being said, of course an owner can clean and repair his own cameras. But .. I think this Contax Jena camera is very beautiful in your first photo!
Regards, Bill
|
