Bessa Titanium...wouldn't it be cool?

[sper]

I'm surprised people are so resistant to the idea.

I like CV because they seem dedicated to supply people who can't afford luxury equipment to artists and amateurs who could only once look at them in the shops. My R4A isn't the best bang for my buck, it's the ONLY bang for my buck. That camera is a godsend to all the great wide angle lenses available for M mount.

Special Editions don't have to be evil.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I'm surprised people are so resistant to the idea.

I like CV because they seem dedicated to supply people who can't afford luxury equipment to artists and amateurs who could only once look at them in the shops. My R4A isn't the best bang for my buck, it's the ONLY bang for my buck. That camera is a godsend to all the great wide angle lenses available for M mount.

Special Editions don't have to be evil.

No, but start making 'em out of titanium instead of generic light alloy diecastings, and they DO have to be expensive!

Cheers,

R.

 

[sig]

If a proper titanium camera was made people would complain that there was no feeling of quality due to the weight of the camera. You could probably get a upgraded version with an added lead weight.........

 

[segedi]

I might give my R4A a Hammertone finish! Thanks for the idea.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Parts of the much-reviled M9 Titan, such as the top plate, are actually made of solid titanium (CNC millled, I think). The weight saving is negligible because it's slightly thicker than a normal M9 and because the titanium is a fairly minor proportion of the overall weight of the camera.

Cheers,

R.

 

[robklurfield]

or a 1965 275GTS NART Spyder...

So, yeah, it would be cool, but so is a 1965 Ferarri 275GTB.
Phil Forrest

I'll take the Kryptonite Bessa.

 

[robklurfield]

as to ltd editions, CV seems to have done okay with those Heliars.

 

[literiter]

Titanium Barnack maybe a iiif. Matching Elmar/Heliar f2.8 50mm.

Let me know.

 

[Wcarpenter]

Ken Rockwell was my first exposure to photo gear related websites. As a then 14 year old, I could tell how full of crap the guy was. His mindless bashing of the M8 (which he refuses to actually review) and shamelessly self congratulatory tone come most prominently to mind.

What a horrid introduction to photography. I'm glad I found more tolerable places for discussion!

 

[Bavaricus]

Depleted uranium seems to be popular these days. 😉

I'm sure it adds a funny look to your pictures, the so called Tschernobyl-Look :angel:

 

[Tom A]

Titanium is the current "fad" metal for cameras. Not particularly good, unless you plan to re-enter earths atmosphere at Mach 10. It is a bitch to machine, doesn't flex enough it hit hard (cracks) and is very slippery if polished (M9 Titanium is like a wet bar of soap).
Modern metallurgy has come up with far better alternatives, alloys can be made to handle stress, heat and noxious environments much better - and they are easily machinable.
Oh, as to fuel economy - used to have a late 40's Packard Straight Eight Pullman - 8mpg (imperial) was when it was idling!!!!!! Smooth as silk though and it could handle about 12-15 twenty year olds.

 

[umcelinho]

Voigtlander could have a gold and red special edition R3A with engravings to celebrate their bad decision of making special edition, if it would be the case.

 

[biomed]

Make mine unobtainium!
Mike

 

[Tom A]

Hi Tom, Years ago I did some design work that was photo industry related. My employer liked titanium and had a lot of money. I can remember taking drawings to my favorite machinist for a bid on a prototype and, I would always be warned that there would be a separate charge for “tool-ware”. Titanium took a serious toll on cutting tools. Most consumers have no idea about such things. I actually think some plastics and carbon fiber materials make good camera bodies. My main issue with these materials is the lack of shielding (RF Shielding) they provide for the electronics in the newer cameras. pkr

Years ago I did a series of custom Rapidwinders for a couple of Nat'l geo guys. All the drive components were stainless and titanium.
Machining the titanium involves trying to keep solid carbide cutters from melting and spattering you with small, very hot drop-lets. Titanium does not dissipate heat very well and kept "feeding" it back into the tool - which promptly turned white hot and disintegrated!
Modern CNC works better, but even so tool-life is about 0.1% of a 7075 alloy! You need solid carbide, plenty of coolant and a very precise set-up.
In the end, you have a titanium part that is more brittle than a proper alloy and you used up all your cutter's in the process!
There are some interesting material's out there, carbon fiber - except that baking it is tricky and it is sensitive to 'strand" orientation - a cross scratch can break it. Some of the new high strength ceramics would be useful for gears and drives though.
Still, for a camera, brass and stainless steel is more than sufficient unless you work involves space missions, jumping into volcanoes and wading through toxic waste dumps - in which case your survival is more of a problem than that of the camera.

 

[le vrai rdu]

I worked some titanium, stainless and aluminium, the two first were quite hard to work and take time and tools.
The carbon is also troublesome cause it delaminate with the vibrations caused by the cutting tool, and when it work it makes some hazardous dust that is no that easy to get rid of.

I have contax G2 wich is in molded titanium. It is beautiful, rewarding , but a simple aluminium body would be enought 😀

 

[noimmunity]

my understanding is that the process of mining and refining titanium is unfriendly for the environment...anybody have any further information?

 

[Tom A]

I've had a question, that I'm sure you can answer: has anyone powder coated Leica bodies? I'm not talking about collector cameras, but working cameras. I've been considering a M6, but because I can get one in black. I think I would rather have a M2 (I miss my old M2) but want it black. I don't care about the lettering. I have a friend who makes professional telescopes and powder coats the tubes. They look great. What do you think? p.

I have done some powder coated top-plates (the infamous "Purple Haze" M4P and some glossy black ones - years ago). Powder coating is very strong, resists scratches - but can chip.
It also is very difficult to apply evenly on a surface with sharp corners and edges as it will build up and "roll" on the edge. You spend a lot of time scraping, grinding and "de-burring" it. It also will go on thick enough to play havoc with re-wind and advance lever tolerances and the eyepiece threads of a M top-plate. You can, theoretically "mask" threads and through holes, but areas like the viewfinder window and rangefinder window needs to be masked and cleaned several times during the process.
Having had it done - I would advice against it - but check with your friend - maybe he can use a different process for the coating.

 

[Livesteamer]

I'm a retired machinist with 23 years in the aerospace industry. Tom is right about titanium. It's tough to machine and you have to watch it carefully because you never know when your tool will dull and screw things up. Still, it's much easier to machine than the high temperature alloys like nickel, inconel or nimonic. Those are really nasty. I don't like titanium for cameras. Yes, it's cool but it's so hard that it transmits shock to internal components. A brass shell, when hit, will deform and absorb the shock. That may be why my old M3 still works. Joe