Shanghai 58-2

zhang

Established
Local time
1:12 PM
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
71
Hello everyone,

Most of the time photos of Shanghai 58-2 cameas are not clear enough on auction sties for anyone interested to see the fine details.
Now, I post a couple FYI.


Cheers, :p

Zhang
 
Kin Lau said:
Beauty! Do you also have a 58-1 ?

Thanks Kin and Doug, you both have some very beautiful photos. I don't have a Shanghai 58-1. It is rare and expensive, and is impossible to find in such a good condition. A worn 58-1 still cost 5-6 times of a 58-2 and more expensive than a Leica M3 body.
 
Zhang, ni hao

Can I ask how the built and function quality of the Shanghai differs from the russian counterparts?
Or are they essentially the same camera?

nick
 
taffer said:
A true beauty ! And in incredible good shape, when was this preciouss born ?

Hi,

The Shanghai 58-2 cameras were built from 1958-1964? for a total of about 70,000 cameras. This particular one could have been built in 1960-61?

I also have a rare 1st-2nd version also in excellent+ condition that I think was built in 1958 or 1959. It has strap lugs and other minor details variation. The early version camera cost 2-3 times more to a collector.
 
nickchew said:
Zhang, ni hao

Can I ask how the built and function quality of the Shanghai differs from the russian counterparts?
Or are they essentially the same camera?

nick

Nick, Ni hao!

Who is the little nice girl in the picture? Your daughter?

The finish of Shanghai 58-2 is much better than most Russian Leica copies and about equal to that of the real Leica. A well serviced camera could be a good performer if you replace the horrible 50/3.5 lens with a Russian or German optics.
They don't feel as smooth as a Leica IIIF or a well serviced Fed or Zorki. :)

Zhang
 
Yes that is my younger daughter.

Is the Shanghai 58-2 hard to find in China?
They don't seem to be that many on the market compared to the russian ones.
I still have my Seagull TLR, great camera.

Nick
 
Some details difference between type (a,b) and C.

Type a,b has stainless steel eyepiece, type c,d,ehas brass ones.
 
Type a,b has finer patterns on the slow speed dial. There are also other detail changes. Generally it is a cost-down process like many Soviet rangefinder cameras. While selling price remained unchanged at RMB 200 or 4-5 monthly salary of a young worker's.

Zhang
 
张,你好,
请问一架海鸥58-2 会卖都少钱?
谢了

Nick


(Just trying to see if Chinese characters work on this board)
 
Hmm I was browsing the link from Zheng and I see the used 58-2 is around 1500...

Oooooh rangefinderforum turning Chinese...




Flowen
 
nickchew said:
张,你好,
请问一架海鸥58-2 会卖都少钱?
谢了

Nick


(Just trying to see if Chinese characters work on this board)

NICK,你好,

后期的800-1200元,早期的2000+元.上海58-1 5000-8000元. RED-FLAG 20 30000元.这些相机的价格这几年一直上涨.80年代上海58-2只要20-30元.可惜我没有感兴趣. :bang: In the 80's a Shanghai 58-2 only cost 20-30yuan.

 
张,
对不起,是上海58-2 不是海鸥。

Typing Chinese is too tedious.
I'm surprised that it is so expensive. Are the earlier cameras better shooters compared to the later ones or are they more expensive because they are collectable?
2000yuan is about US$250.

Nick
 
nickchew said:
I'm surprised that it is so expensive. Are the earlier cameras better shooters compared to the later ones or are they more expensive because they are collectable?
2000yuan is about US$250.

Nick

Nick,

Shanghai 58-2 are not good user cameras. The prices reflect their collectables value just like those $10000 Canon Hansas. But later versions are better shooters as the factory gained experience and corrected some problems.

Zhang
 
zhang said:
Nick, Flowen,

Check this site. Right now there are a couple for sale. But I never buy on-line because it is hard to tell the conditions.

http://www01.fengniao.com/forum/sec...bsid=-1&stid=-1&uid=&tkey=&ukey=&pagenumber=1

Zhang
Thanks for the link, Zhang! I don't read/speak Chinese but I used Babelfish to translate the site and that made things a little more understandable. Lots of cool cameras there.
Is that site strictly for domestic trading? The Babelfish translator is not good enough for anything but a word for word rendition which is interesting but not always very informative.
Rob
 
Back
Top Bottom