TSVVS / VTS-VS Camera Discussion

As long as we're talking numbers.....

1. The number 8 is located as Vlad described, in the body as well as centered under the film spacing bar of the baseplate.

2. Would someone please add the serial numbers of my camera to the WIKI? The Body #816, and the 50mm F.2 Jena Sonnar #2019243. Can this be correct? Seems very low for the higher body number. Could have been exchanged at one time.

Steve

Here you can see close-up photos of the impressed number (in this case "63" that Milos was talking about, on one of my TSVVS ( No. 577).

On the bottom plate:


On the bottom of the shutter cage assembly:


Here you can see those and other close-ups of the same camera (click on photos to enlarge):
http://www.nightphoto.com/TSVVS.html



Regards, Bill

Bill,

thank you very much for these!

I am extremely happy to say I have also received an email from Dr. Milos Mladek with some pictures and very interesting information!

Here it is, the pictures follow:

quote:

---

it is of course tempting to draw some conclusions from the fact that the TSVVS is a very well made camera, unexpectedly well made for a Soviet camera, but I do not think that it was indeed German (Zeiss) or Japanese. I still consider the TSVVS a Soviet camera.

The history of Carl Zeiss Jena, prewar, wartime and postwar, is very well documented. There still are witnesses of the time from the factory, and as there never was a policy of secrecy in Germany comparable to the veil of secrets that covered all important things in the Soviet Union, the details of camera and lens design, patents, manufacturing data and sales are well documented and accessable.
Zeiss Historica merits all our thanks in this connection. If Zeiss really had made the TSVVS it would not have been possible to keep it secret, at least nowadays. Even the most minute details of camera and lens design history are now common knowledge among Zeiss enthusiasts. The eye witnesses would have talked about it, as they have given interviews to Larry, who unveiled the details of the Jena Contax history talking with the men who built it. Yes, there were some who were displaced to Krasnogorsk and to Kiev, but in most cases finally they returend to Germany and were able to report what they had done and experienced. I find it completely unlikely that such a well designed camera would have been manufactured secretly in Germany completely without leaving traces. Unthinkable.

The TSVVS is a very special camera. I have been admiring the TSVVS from the first moment I saw pictures of it. It must have been about 20 years ago, after the breakdown of the Iron Curtain, or slightly earlier, when the first examples of this uncommon camera were offered in a German auction house. They were exotic, not very high- priced, rather moderate, and we European collectors did not know what to think about them (oh, had I bought them!). And of course no one of us here in Austria had ever seen this hybrid of a Leica-shaped body and a Contax-inspired mount ever before, despite the fact that Soviet photo gear was definitely common here: Mashpriborintorg had a contract with the biggest foto dealer here, Foto Niedermeyer, for at least about thirty years, and they sold a big many of photo stuff from Lubitel over Smena, Zorki 4 and Kiev to the various Zenits and the Sputnik. Only the Leningrad (the most expensive of them all) was never sold here officially.

Then, in the second half of the 1990s, some examples of this rare beast turned up here in Vienna, and I was able to buy some of the most beautiful. I was able to see about two dozens of them, examine them, repair two of them (most are completely functional - the repairs were necessary because of mistreatment only). I agree with Vlad that the TSVVS is really very well made, and if you take one in your hand you feel a feeling of worthy craftmanship, of value, of precision. By the
way: if you have ever had a TSVVS in your hands you will never mix it up with a TSVVS forgery based on a FED (quite in contrary to some statement I have read in some forums years ago where someone questioned that something like a true TSVVS really existed - he considered them all forgeries, which of course is nonsense. Once you have got familiar with this great camera you can tell it from a distance (even from a small photograph) whether it is a forgery or not. It is outstanding in every detail and cannot be mixed up. Repicating all details would surmount the possibilities of even the most skilled forger precision mechanic.

The camera design details, yet, are also quite unique, and show no relations with any major brand like Leica, Nikon or Contax. An
example: Did you all notice that the built-in helicoid, while very inspired by the Contax Helicoid, is in fact totally different? If you turn a Contax lens (be it a Dredsen Contax from the 1930s or its replica, a Jena Contax from the late 1940s) from infinity to 0,9m it will take you a turn of 280 degrees, while in a TSVVS (even in the better of the forged examples) it will only require a turn of 190 degrees. This is a whole world! Even if there were the outer bayonet lugs to mount it, a tele lens would never focus properly on a TSVVS. It is highly unlikely that a workshop even if only distantly related to Zeiss Ikon would so to say invent the Contax bayonet a second timeworsening the original!
Not to speak of the Japanese, who copied the Contax mount in a much better way. There are also other details on the mount that make a relation with Zeiss unlikely. The clip that holds the lens in its place is a mass-produced part, and no one with access to such a part would dare to redesign it in a way so that it costs manyfold the money of the original, with no noticeable advantage. But that is what the TSVVS manufacturers did. The original clip of the TSVVS is different to that of any Contax (from I to IIIa), it is made of fragile, thin sheet metal and has a riffled little knoblet riveted to its end. Regrettably enough this part has been broken in nearly each and every example of the TSVVS. You can see the shape of the original in the attached pictures.
And: even if the manufacturers would have tried to mount a Contax clip on their lens helicoid, this would not have worked. The distance of the two screws that hold the clip in place is different from Contax to TSVVS (the screws are about 0,7mm farther apart in the TSVVS which means that you have to enlarge one of the holes in a Contax clip to mount it to a TSVVS - this modification can be seen in nearly every TSVVS). Can one believe that anybody manufacturing a camera with a Contax inspired mount who has access to the mass produced lens retaining clips would refuse to use them, unless for some special reason, total autonomy of manufacture, for instance?

In the course of the decades we all have developed some gut feeling of an unnamed cameras origin. And my guts tell me that the TSVVS is indeed Soviet. Let me tell you some few further details, why I think so.

Look at the screws. They are definitely bigger than you would expect in a German camera (not to speak of a Japanese camera!). And they are somewhat roughly made, very very slightly differing an size and the shape of its heads from piece to piece. The cut in the heads of a TSVVS screw is not always in the exact middle of the head. Yes, in an early FED all these characteristics are far, far more obvious. But if you keenly look for such small things with a magnifying glass, you see them. That does not mean that the TSVVS is crudely made - but it is different in a way from a German camera that I exclude a German manufacture. In a Viennese camera, by the way, things would be different (think of the a Wica, the world record holder in crudeness - but I love it . . . ). But the German camera industry got screws from specialised screw manufacturers, they did not make them on their own (I do not speak of the Pentacon years - then they more or less manufactured all in their own house, beginning from the screws, I speak of the years before). Precision screws in Germany always were a mass product of highest precision, and the TSVVS screws to me look like very well made domestic-made screws, with some strength- reserves against over-tightening.

You see, a simple camera, and so many different opinions on it. Here we say: ask three doctors, and you will get four opinions. Mine you have got now, and I am looking forward to the day when we all will learn "All trust on the TSVVS" as our collectors colleague Yuri Davidenko calls it. Or the whole prawda.

O.k., If I would have to the bet, I would probably bet that Yuri is right.
The story he tells us is so nice, that I like it.

But the day of the whole prawda will come!

Best greetings from Vienna, Milos

---

2. Would someone please add the serial numbers of my camera to the WIKI? The Body #816, and the 50mm F.2 Jena Sonnar #2019243. Can this be correct? Seems very low for the higher body number. Could have been exchanged at one time.

That serial number 2019243 would be a early prewar sonnar (probably collapsible or even black nickel)... is it T coated ? (send a picture)

Stephan

Vlad,

Thank you for relaying the letter from Milos Mladek. We know each other well and I always respect his ideas and opinions to the very highest degree! And, also the letter from Larry Gubas who is very knowedgable about the history of Zeiss. The TSVVS is a fascinating subject and although in some ways the mystery of its unknown origin is appealing to me, I would also be so happy to know the answer for sure!

I don't have any definitive answers to the origin of the TSVVS and my own speculations are only created by observations of the two examples I have in my collection, the photos I have seen on the internet of other examples, and my general knowledge of Soviet cameras and German cameras. Any ideas that I have are really questions since there has been no actual documents about the camera that I have seen or heard of and I don't believe anyone so far has proven where the origin actually was.

I agree with Milos that the story of Yuri Davidenko, with the origin placed at the Almaz factory, sounds good and is possible. But we have also just heard another story from a source that Alexey Nitikin that also sounds true and has some rather convincing details:

"The owner had told him that when he was still a boy, his family lived in Germany and his father was an army man in Soviet army in the division that was stationed in Germany. His father had made a deal with some other ensign about buying an illegal camera TSVVS from warehouse there. And the camera No756 was bought in Germany for 15 soviet rubles in some military base. From the conversation Alexey understood that from that warehouse you could buy more than one TSVVS camera. The owner said the camera didn't take really good pictures, later his Zenit was better. "

Of course 60 years has gone by and recollections, whether from a former worker at the Almaz factory or from the son of a Soviet soldier stationed in Germany, can be wrong in the details and actual facts, however the story from the Soviet soldiers son is direct and a TSVVS was on hand during the relaying of the story. When I reviewed the Alamz story (many times over the past few years, since published) I actually found little to back up any of the story and remember feeling that maybe either the whole story was not told by Yuriy, who I believe is telling it to his son to translate, or the story is mixed up in some way by the person who worked at Almaz and told it to them.

As well, I have often felt that the materials used were not so Soviet. For example we can see the unusual gray and green vinyl or plastic covering that some of these cameras had with the beautiful abstract designs in the photos of Milos' cameras. To me, I don't believe it is a Soviet or Russian material. Also, the type of leather used seems different than Soviet leathers that I have seen. To me, both of these coverings are more European and their identification and origin may be a key fact in identifying the origin of the camera itself.

I also agree with Milos that the camera was probably not made at Zeiss Jena, pretty much for all the reason he stated ... the Zeiss history experts and collectors have not found anything about it and also why would they change the mount so much when they already had Contax mounts or at least were prepared to make them (possibly).

As unlikely that it might be that a distantly related German (to Zeiss) factory would redesign the Contax mount which would no doubt be available to them to replicate, it seems that also it is unlikely that a Soviet factory would not have the same Contax mount to copy since they were making KIEV II cameras at Arsenal since 1947 and also must have had many captured examples of the Contax since 1945. Whoever made the camera, German, Soviet, or elsewhere knew that they would be using Zeiss lenses with Contax mount. So why is the mount different ... because the front of the camera is different, especially the top plate.

Also, if made in the Soviet Union, why is the body of the TSVVS different in length than FED body? The TSVVS is several millimeters longer than a FED and the Fed bottom plate will not fit a TSVVS. Seems like the Soviets would have used the measurements of a FED ... but maybe in Germany it was not thought of to find a FED to copy exactly.

One question that I have, and which would probably be helpful to know the answer, is: Do the serial numbers (on the whole) of the Zeiss lenses match up to the serial numbers on the early KIEV cameras. In other words, is it possible to make a correlation between the lenses on the TSVVS cameras and prove by these numbers that they come from the groups of lenses which are known to have been transported to the Soviet Union from Germany? To me that would be some very convincing proof that TSVVS was made in the USSR and also give more weight to the Almaz theory.

But I'm quite sure that there were places in East Germany (or the Russian Zone) during the late 1940s until 1950 that didn't have access to the manufactured screws. Remember, much German industry was destroyed by bombing and war, and no doubt things like miniature screws were hard to get and in demand for other things as well. Maybe some small workshop or factory would not have those perfect screws if a commission from
the Soviet Military was made.

So, do the lenses match the groups that were brought into the USSR after the war? And where is the origin country of that really cool vinyl green and gray covering that Milos' cameras have? Those are my questions before I make a bet too!





Regards, Bill

So far there has been talks about Russia=Almaz, Germany=Zeiss and Ukrainia=Kiev.
But what if it was made in another occupied European country? There was camera factories in other countries that got behind the iron curtain also.
And what is the soldiers "Germany"? Was it what most of us know as DDR? Or Germany during WWII which was pactically everything up to the USSR borders? Or Germany before war, eg what we now call Chech republic is old Germany?
A completely different factory could explain the odd mount, wrong length of body etc as it has no history of making FEDs or Contaxes or Kievs.
And being occupied Europe could explain the materials & screws. Not all Europeans are as thorough & precise as Germans in a tiny thing like screws...
Also a country like Hungary or Chech could be nicely in between DDR and Ukraina, giving possibility to use both Jena people and Arsenal people when needed.

Now I don't know much of the camera industry of eastern parts of Europe other than Baltic Minox and some after WWII Leica-copies, so please destroy this possibility with knowledge.

Best regards,
Juhani

And now Jacques M. discovered that the lens have to be tweaked to fit a TVSS (something that makes the normal contax lenses uncompatible... we are trying to see what ... may be the size of the locking pin...)...
it's clear that who designed the TVSS was not very much aware of contaxes... and don't forget that most of the earliest TVSS are equiped with prewar lenses... so why not an attempt from somewhere else ;-) to make something like a leica but working with contax lenses
(Zeiss was asked to build lens that were leica mount, why not another order somewhere to make a leica that fits contax lenses...? but who ever answered that order failed for some details...)


Stephan

Someting about Zeiss Historica.
Finished the WWII, There were a great hope in relaunching Contax RF cameras. Instead there were produced Contax S. The transference of the Contax RF facilities to Ukraine closed all plans in rebuilting the Contaxes II and III in Germany. The upcoming of the Cold War and the decision of make the new Contaxes IIa and IIIa in Sttutgart, in the American Germay Sector, was an agreement with the American Government who warranted buys to turn feaseable the enterprise.Europe was not a good market at the time. There were LARGE AMOUNTS of Jena Sonnars in 1949 and 1950 just when the TSVVS was produced. The upcoming of Contaxes IIa and IIIa moved Jena to produce several optics like Herar Flektoskop and others. which were shown in USA Contaxes catalogues but not in German issues.
In the first years the official USA importers was the American Government once Zeiss was a State firm and was nationalized by the USA Government during the war. That way, East and West factories of Zeiss Trade mark were owned by the USA government. After the split, Zeiss East had representatives with Ercona Camera Co and Zeiss West with Carl Zeiss Co.
In Brazil happed the same. The Zeiss East became represented by Corema industrial and Zeiss West by Vitronac Material de Laboratorio, just were I began my love with cameras in 1956.
Several Jena Sonnars were produced and Exported; but suddenly, (1951) began operating the Zeiss-Opton of Oberkochen which supplied the new Sonnars and other lenses, including the new turret finder. Although with a smaller variety of items than Jena optics, those last became restricted to the Eastern cameras.
One can note that these TSVVS lenses does not begin with a number higher than 30XXXXXXX meaning production around 1949/1950 years.

Let us note two interesting facts: the exceeding supply of Jena Sonnars led American people in importing No-Name Kievs.

And what about the un-named and un-known origin camera I call the 1954/55 TSVVS-2 also with Jena Sonnar lenses?
My best Regards
LP

About TSVVS Manufacture
I have no doubts in being from Russian manufacture.
1) They were made in small batches. This proves (enhaces) their high quality
2) They were built towards a selected group of the society.
3) They were built in Stalins' era when there was launched a plan to built the best in world -together watch manufacture.
4) This is the main reason to use Jena lenses. Z.K. lenses and Jupiter were in their beginings.
5) Internal pictures of the camera shown in Davidenko's site clears as being of Russian manufacture.
Regards
LP

Luiz, et all.

Luiz, thank you this is very enlightening and does put a lot of things into context.

I think I may be swayed to the Soviet origins of this camera, the only think that I want to say that these cameras must be made by some manufacturer who had VAST experience building cameras, so best of the best at the time. Or some egineers from Germany. This cannot be a camera that was made by the factory or people who never built cameras before. So if it was in fact Almaz, they must've had some German or other highly qualified engineers brought in. This camera besides the feel of being hand-made, quality-wise of mechanism feels like an Leica M3.

Cheers,
Vlad

Oberkochen was in West Germany, Jena was in DDR. Two TOTALLY different countries, one controlled by west (divided into sectors, one for USA) and one actually a part of USSR. Mixing DDR-Jena and western Contax means poor knowledge of European history.

Best regards,
Juhani

I believe Mr RicK Oleson can clear everything I exposed and more:
Before 1947 there were NO COLD WAR and that year Germany expected his unification.
LP

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

After the war, the Eastern part of Carl Zeiss continued to produce lenses for the Contax, in alloy versions:
• Topogon 25mm f:4 (rare)
• Biogon 35mm f:2.8 (large rear element, does not mount on Contax IIa or IIIa)
• Biometar 35mm f:2.8 (rare)
• Sonnar 50mm f:1.5 (rigid)
• Sonnar 50mm f:2 (rigid)
• Tessar 50mm f:3.5 (rigid)
• Biotar 75mm f:1.5 (rare)
• Sonnar 85mm f:2
• Triotar 85mm f:4
• Sonnar 135mm f:4
• Sonnar 180mm f:2.8, first Flektoskop mount, then Flektometer mount
• Sonnar 300mm f:4, first in Flektoskop mount, then Flektometer mount
• Fernobjektiv 500mm f:8, only Flektometer mount

Someone may think this as OT but if we are trying to close out some possibilities it is good proof.
In 1945 West-Germany was ruins, with practically no industrial production. In 1946 most vital production were lines just starting up. In 1947 a huge leap ahed in industrial production, also thanks to policy change in the west controlled parts. Before that West-Germany was intended to be a quiet rual country, with so ittle industry that it simply can't start one more war. Please see VW-history as an example, as a well documented case it is hihgly interesting. Also see the link about the industrial plan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen#History
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgenthau_Plan

In East Germany things went quite other ways. The ruined country was robbed of most factories and skilled workers to USSR and what was left became a part of USSR soon closed from west. Already in 1945 communist party was founded and 1946 first "elections". Political systems were more important than bread or factories or people... The state itself was founded as late as in 1949, but it is astonishing how fast "the Soviet Occupation Zone" began its own path from the rest of Allied Control Council.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Germany

Was there factories in eastern Europe that could have produced a camera like this, with engineering help from DDR or Kiev? That is my question.

Best regards,
Juhani

Hi all!
About the lens track, I tried to mount my normal Zeiss lenses - all 5cm- on the TSVVS: Tessar 3,5 (1930), Sonnar f2 (1933), Sonnar f2 (1936), ZK f2 (1950) and Jupiter 8 (1950 too).
All these lenses fall correctly on position, but it is impossible to lock them, except for the Sonnar of 1933. Some of them cannot be moved at all when in position, others make more or less half way towards locking.

On the contrary, the Sonnar-TSVVS fits all my cameras: Contax I, II, and Kiev (1950)

One could think that the mount of the TSVVS is only an "unfinished" copy of the Zeiss' one. If it had been made by Zeiss (or Zeiss tools, even somewhere in USSR), all the lenses would fit the TSVVS?

Another remark about lenses. When looking at the wiki, there is an important concentration of 305xxxx and 306xxxx 2/5cm Sonnar lenses for the TSVVS. And I found on eBay two lenses, with numbers amongst the Sonnar-TSVVS ones, which equipped two different Contaxes:
- the 3060569 for the Contax Jena serial number 11874 (1947?),
- the 3060235 for the Contax IIa P 98520: one of the very first!!

Of course, all that doesn't say anything sure, as lenses can have been changed. But is is interesting to notice that four cameras with the same mount were made -or at least delivered- at the same period in Europe: the Contaxes Jena and IIa, the TSVVS and the first Kiev II...

Amitiйs. Jacques.

to be clear :

Until the creation of DDR, there is only one Germany with one law and one commercial system... even if the land is divided in occupation sector. Even after the creation of DDR there is a sort of compromise situation that allows to have commercial exchange without custom fees. This was active until the end of the DDR... a lot of goods were imported into Europe through west germany using that "gray" german import law... it even has been said that a product of East Germany imported in West Germany could be exported then as a EU product...

The wall was for people... not for goods, or money...




Stephan

Always about the lens track, I found some other early IIa (end 1949, beginning 1950)equipped with Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnars between 3000xxx and 310xxxx.

So I think there is no doubt now: we had three different cameras with Sonnars in the same range, made in Jena. And Zeiss Ikon Stuttgart was buying lenses from Carl Zeiss Jena for their first IIa...

But it doesnt really solve the problem of the TSVVS: where and by whom it was built...

Amitiйs. Jacques.

quote:

---

Originally posted by cedricfan

In East Germany things went quite other ways. The ruined country was robbed of most factories and skilled workers to USSR and what was left became a part of USSR soon closed from west.

---

You are not correct.

quote:

---

Originally posted by cedricfan

Already in 1945 communist party was founded...

---

You are not correct.

quote:

---

Originally posted by stephanvdz

Until the creation of DDR, there is only one Germany...

---

You are not correct.

I see that you learn another history. In your version it was only one goody-goody West and an innocent Germany. And the evil-terrible Russia... :(

Dear Zoom,

About the camera TSVVS or VTS-VS, what do you think about where and which factory made it? I would be very interested as to your opinion because your knowledge about the camera production history of the USSR is very good. Even if you don't know for sure, what is your opinion or the opinions of others that you may have heard?

And, as we all know or should know after a hindsight viewpoint into history of 65 years, the West was not goody-goody at all, nor was Germany, or the Soviet Union, or many of the other smaller countries in Europe, not to even mention Japan and China! And history has always been taught with a unique viewpoint in all or most countries and cultures that favors themselves to an larger or smaller extent!

Regards, Bill

TSVVS ????
why not a "built junction" between FED and LOMO ???

please do not be blind by ideologies...

Alain