Shanghai Porn

[Nick De Marco]

I've been collecting Shanghai cameras for a while, got a few 58s now (35mm rangefinder based on the Leica-III) and a recent medium format rangefinder, the shanghai 203. A fascinating camera.

Here are some sexy pics

Shanghai 58s:



Shanghai 203 MF


For more photos and information please visit my gallery

http://www.pbase.com/nickdemarco/shanghai_cameras

Thanks

Nick

 

[ishpop]

Hey Nick, cool stuff. I like the photos in the background n the second photo, those yours?

 

[Keith]

They sure look pretty ... how do they compare build quality wise to the FSU clones?

 

[Nick De Marco]

Oh no, I can't claim credit for those. They are from a very nice book of photography in China over the years (China, Fifty Years Inside the People's Republic' published by Aperture). Those two (both of which I really like too) are by Liu Heung Shing

Keith - they feel better made than most of my Russians, but I shall post results when I get them soon

 

[rlouzan]

Nick,

Nice site. Post some pictures.

Regards,
RLouzan

 

[Seele]

The Shanghai 203 is better known as Seagull 203; while meant to be comrades in bellows and optics, Shanghai and Beijing had always got that inter-city rivalry for ages, a Beijinger would have considered it a faux pas to be seen using a camera marked "Shanghai". That's the reason why the Shanghai and Beijing photographic industries adopted the "Seagull" and "Great Wall" names respectively.

An interesting side-note: the Shanghai photographic industries adopted somewhat arbitrary type numbers for specific camera types. "Type 4" refers to 120 rollfilm twin-lens reflex cameras, "Type 58" refers to Leica-derived 35mm cameras (with the exception of 58-III which was a derivative of the Isolette III), "Type 20x" refers to Isolette derivatives, etc.

 

[Steve M.]

Darn, a teaser. Not what I expected from the title.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Anyone else ever used a Seagul DF-1 35mm SLR? I have one. The build quality is horrid, everytime you wind the film you feel like its gonna break, but it does work and the lens that came with it is VERY good.

 

[Nick De Marco]

Seele, I'm not sure if you are right about the shaghai 58. I have read it was so named (in 1958) after the year 1958, the year of the 'Great Leap Forward', and many other Chinese goods were so-called then too. I mention that in my article in the gallery

 

[Austerby]

...the shaghai 58...

Maybe the title wasn't so misleading 😱

 

[Nick De Marco]

Update - Posted my first shots with my latest Shanghai-58. Absolutely delighted I found a Shanghai that works very well after much trying.

Here are some of the images:

With Shanghai 50mm f3.5 lens (shot, I think at f5.6)

And 2 with the lovely Summaron 35mm f3.5 tiny cutie (f5.6-f8)




Please take a look at them all and let me know what you think:

Shanghai cameras Photo Gallery by Nick De Marco at pbase.com


The Shanghai 50/f3.5 lens is pretty soft and has a light patch, plus it's very hard to get the focus right (maybe misaligned), despite a brighter than usual viewfinder on this 58 than all my others - but it is far better than any other Shanghai lens I have so far used.

Many of the pics are taken with a Leitz Summaron 3.5cm f3.5 screw fit from 1953 I recently picked up. Very happy with these.

It's most pleasing to produce colour images which match many a DSLR (but have more atmosphere for me) on a 1958 Chinese Leica copy and a 1953 Leica lens. The two black and white shots at the en of the gallery are testing the same Shanghai 50mm lens on a Bessa R3M camera and show it is the lens which is not perfect.

Which leads me to a question - I still have an ambition /obsession t use the original Shanghai camera and Shanghai lens to make some decent (albeit with a certain date look) photos. I realise that the optics may have never been that good, and with ageing uncoated lenses like this can get pretty nasty (I have a 50mm Summicron from the same time which is softer than than the Shanghai!). But is there any servicing I can do - or get someone else to do, that would improve the lens?

Comments appreciated.

Nick

 

[John Robertson]

The lens on the Shanghai, the Elmar look alike, is actually a three element lens as opposed to the Elmar/Industar four elements. This might explain the poorer performance wide open. There is a book on Chinese cameras which I have somewhere.
I had a Great Wall 120 SLR camera, a copy of the KW Pilot. It promised much but delivered little. The build quality was dire!!!! The mirror was glued in place with what looked like impact adhesive, and strings of dried glue were on its surface. Try as I might I could not get the thing light tight, The lens also three element, was front element focussing, and a Holga would have produced better results!!
Not a happy experience!!