06/30/2008 12:33
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
06/30/2008 12:46
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
06/30/2008 12:59
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
07/01/2008 00:29
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
07/04/2008 18:53
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
07/04/2008 20:43
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
07/01/2015 11:15
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.
07/01/2015 11:53
Hi Jacques, I asked, we'll see if he will oblige, if he does I'll repost it here.
Cheers,
Vlad.
