shawn
Veteran
That makes more sense.
ddutchison2
Well-known
What are you talking about - the control levers are the cutest thing abut this camera ! 😁
On a serious note actually - although unconventional , they are.
Klunky doesn't exclude cute. I like them too, but on any production camera (except maybe an Alpa), you're not going to see drilled and machined control levers where simple sheet metal stampings will do.
Joao
Negativistic forever
The screw heads on the RF housing show oxidation/rust (other screw heads don't). This sugests that the RF housing could be a late adition to the camera...The distances written on the top of the RF housing bring to my mind the non-coupled rangefinders ...
In my ignorance I would bet on a "FrankenCamera" but I look forward for more knowledgeable opinions.
Regards
Joao
In my ignorance I would bet on a "FrankenCamera" but I look forward for more knowledgeable opinions.
Regards
Joao
Snapped
Member
Give that man a prize.
Snapped
Member
I agree , and have never believed this was/is a production item. It is clearly an engineer's pattern or prototype .
Snapped
Member
Most , not all , the screws on this camera are brass and do show natural aged patination .
Nb brass screws are used elsewhere on the camera , not just to the rangefinder housing.
Yes the scale is purely a reflection ( no pun intended 😇) of suggested distances on this un-coupled finder design.
In the assembly of this camera the rangefinder housing does indeed sit ' atop ' the top plate .
This naturally reflects the transition from un-coupled to coupled rangefinder designs.
In transferring ideas from paper into reality , this method of assembly is / was naturally far easier to achieve, in arriving at a working prototype.
However the housing for the 'separate' rangefinder is made from the same identical grade of aluminium (or alloy) used on the lower body ie the top and bottom plates , and also the outer lens cradle in which the Rodenstock lens sits .
All uncoated alum. alloys tarnish to some extent.
All the exteriors surfaces have been finished in the same way , and at the same time.
It is not an oft modified camera with later add-ons.
davidswiss
Established
The picture shouts (to me anyway) "home made". By a good engineer but still home made. I'd be interested to see what Jason Schneider thinks about it. Where did you find it and does it take good pictures ?
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
It has a Hungarian Momma vibe to it, the German made lens could have been re-purposed from a scrap camera.
Snapped
Member
I'll take a look at Momma so . 😁
That said the lens cradle has been fabricated to match the lens , and as mentioned the material and finish of this cradle matches the other components .
One BIG area of interest to me is this rangefinder design .
There are THREE optical windows - a la early Kwanon and Kodak . Not into optical theory but how and why dd some manufacturers streamline their rangefinders when others such as Kodak kept to using more glass than in the average greenhouse, as in ther 35 as illustrated by Hcompton79 earlier ? So when did rangefinder ' design' evolve to use less glass ?
That said the lens cradle has been fabricated to match the lens , and as mentioned the material and finish of this cradle matches the other components .
One BIG area of interest to me is this rangefinder design .
There are THREE optical windows - a la early Kwanon and Kodak . Not into optical theory but how and why dd some manufacturers streamline their rangefinders when others such as Kodak kept to using more glass than in the average greenhouse, as in ther 35 as illustrated by Hcompton79 earlier ? So when did rangefinder ' design' evolve to use less glass ?
The three optical windows ..... ? Why did Kodak follow this route so late in the day when others were managing to provide effective rangefinding capabilities with integrated finders requiring less glass and cost ?
Last edited:
Hcompton79
Established
Three optical windows would tend to indicate to me a split image rangefinder with a separate viewfinder. This certainly wasn't an unusual approach before and just after WWII, in fact it was the most common approach, with Kodak favoring it along with others like Argus, Perfex, Clarus and Leica doing the same. Leica was the odd duck out actually, using a separate RF and VF with three windows, but with the rangefinder was actually coincident image rather than split.
Before WWII, only the Contax II and III were using a two window combined coincident image RF/VF. I believe Kodak's first two window coincident image RF/VF was the Signet 35 in 1951:
By the way, fewer windows doesn't mean less complexity. It's often easier to build a simple rangefinder alongside a simple Galilean viewfinder than it is to integrate a coincident image rangefinder into the viewfinder, which then requires additional mirrors, or half silvered beam splitters which add to cost as well.
By the time integrated RF/VF assemblies with coincident image rangefinders start becoming common in the 1950s, you see a shift back towards three windows to add a diffuser window for projected framelines.
Before WWII, only the Contax II and III were using a two window combined coincident image RF/VF. I believe Kodak's first two window coincident image RF/VF was the Signet 35 in 1951:
By the way, fewer windows doesn't mean less complexity. It's often easier to build a simple rangefinder alongside a simple Galilean viewfinder than it is to integrate a coincident image rangefinder into the viewfinder, which then requires additional mirrors, or half silvered beam splitters which add to cost as well.
By the time integrated RF/VF assemblies with coincident image rangefinders start becoming common in the 1950s, you see a shift back towards three windows to add a diffuser window for projected framelines.
Hcompton79
Established
Oh, and lest you think two window rangefinders are always simpler. Don't try taking apart the rangefinder of a Kodak Retina IIIS. A two window coincident image rangefinder with automatic parallax correction and automatic projected frameline indexing for 35mm, 50mm, 90mm, and 135mm lenses depending on which is attached to the body.
One mirror, one half silvered mirror, four lenses (one of which has a hole bored through the middle), a diffuser sheet, two metal sheets with framelines cut in them and a menagerie of small levers to actuate it all.
Anyway, I now digress from this tangent and back to speculating about this interesting mystery camera.
One mirror, one half silvered mirror, four lenses (one of which has a hole bored through the middle), a diffuser sheet, two metal sheets with framelines cut in them and a menagerie of small levers to actuate it all.
Anyway, I now digress from this tangent and back to speculating about this interesting mystery camera.
Snapped
Member
"By the time integrated RF/VF assemblies with coincident image rangefinders start becoming common in the 1950s, you see a shift back towards three windows to add a diffuser window for projected framelines"
That makes interesting sense and explains the late ie post War Heligon and not some much earlier optic.
Oddly I have a whacky Corfield rangefinder of the type they marketed to wear on your wrist that needed attention .
By nature I don't like headaches.
Actually with it all apart , it made sense , in its model-like miniaturism .
Only you need goggles with thick +10 Dioptre glass to try to fix small issues of this size 🥺
That makes interesting sense and explains the late ie post War Heligon and not some much earlier optic.
Oddly I have a whacky Corfield rangefinder of the type they marketed to wear on your wrist that needed attention .
By nature I don't like headaches
.Actually with it all apart , it made sense , in its model-like miniaturism .
Only you need goggles with thick +10 Dioptre glass to try to fix small issues of this size 🥺
Gordon Moat
Established
Tried a multitude of different search and AI search methods. Lots of suggestions, including Nihon (yes, spelling) and Ranger. Then Google Gemina thinks it is a SEM Orenac camera made briefly in France. At the point, I tried finding images to compare, but didn’t see anything really close.