Anyone remember these

[ajohnw]

This is all Xpat Ted's fault. I have wished I had a copy stand a few times and he mentioned converting an enlarger. I always intended to get one of these a long time ago but didn't. Amazing Russian technology really. Twin condenser lenses with the filter draw in between the lenses plus a diffusion filter as there should be. The auto focus adjustment screws have red paint on which suggests it might even have been set up properly. The way it's held together and the adjustments suggest a real optical person was involved in the design. Plus the case forms the base and it can all be put in there. All for 15 quid. It's rigid too and built to have zero play. Like most the foam in the case was in an awful state and had stuck to the parts. No idea what sort of foam they used but the residue was easily wiped off with a damp cloth.



Image from ebay as it's the one I bought. Even the bulb still works.

John
-

[JR1]

I had one and used it

[ajohnw]

Having it now I wish I had too, rather than gnome and patterson.

John
-

[Manfred M]

I finally threw out my old Durst M600 after we had a basement flood and it got damaged a few years ago.

Photoshop is a lot "cleaner" to use than the wet darkroom, but has a much longer learning curve...

[IzzieK]

Good find!

[ajohnw]

I don't think I can bring myself to throw the bits I don't need away. I suspect these are one of the last examples of good Russian engineering from days before they joined "the club" to keep prices down. My 1st film camera was a Zenith E. Another good example as is a 60's Biolam microscope I have. The more recent version of that is close to being tat. I doubt if people on the other side of the pond realise how good some of the things they produced were. Most things went off the UK market as the prices went up to more realistic levels. Later the names came back cheaper but quality dropped.

Only risk for me is that the weight of a camera makes the support drift down. I doubt if it will but .................. back on ebay "restored". Keeps me amused. That's the main thing.

John
-

[bambleweeney]

My first enlarger, bought in the 60's a few weeks after I got my first camera - a Zenit B
Built to last ... titanium, aluminium and magnesium weren't on the Russian periodic table when these were made. Russian assault cameras - enjoy and pass it on to your grandchildren.

[xpatUSA]

This is all Xpat Ted's fault. I have wished I had a copy stand a few times and he mentioned converting an enlarger.
John
-

I have to admit that I don't recall mentioning that BUT, seeing as you sound quite chuffed, I'll take the blame

[rpcrowe]

I don't know but, suspect that this is a knock-off of the Leica 35mm enlarger. It is certainly similar in looks. The Russians sold a lot of Leica copies, cameras, lenses and very likely; this enlarger.

I also had a urst Enlarger. I don't regret going from a film based photo system to digital one bit. Unless you had a full-time darkroom setup, processing and printing film was a big PITA.

Even with a full-time darkroom, you were always looking at cleanup at the end of a processing/printing session...

[lukaswerth]

I still have several enlargers, among them my about 2-ton 8x10" machine, also bougt from Ebay. I will be damned if I through it away. It is entirely feasible to print out digital negs and enlarge them, to make, for instance, bromoils (even though I find oil prints more interesting). Also, I have always liked to use pinhole cameras (also sold many pictures from them), and digital pinhole seems to me boring, seeing the limitations of sensor size and distance hole-sensor. Well, I might scan in analog negs, but I don't have yet a scanner which I could use for that.

Lukas

[ajohnw]

I don't know but, suspect that this is a knock-off of the Leica 35mm enlarger. It is certainly similar in looks. The Russians sold a lot of Leica copies, cameras, lenses and very likely; this enlarger.

I also had a urst Enlarger. I don't regret going from a film based photo system to digital one bit. Unless you had a full-time darkroom setup, processing and printing film was a big PITA.

Even with a full-time darkroom, you were always looking at cleanup at the end of a processing/printing session...

I've never seen mention of it being a copy of anything. A quick google image didn't show anything from Leitz that is remotely similar either. Enlargers that automatically focused as the head was moved were a bit thin on the ground as I remember things as well. Understandably. On this enlarger the column is a 5mm thick tube with a slot in the front. There is an adjustable slideway fitted into that which slopes. A heavily spring loaded wheel runs up and down that which transfers the focus changes to the lens board via levers. This is nothing like the Leitz autofocus arrangement which I understand they stopped producing early on - these sort of things need very careful adjustment. The spring loaded wheel also removes play as the head runs up and down on 2 collars and the friction height adjustment mechanism. The later is formed by a round steel bar that runs up the back of the column and engages with a steel wheel with a radial depression round it's rim. The net effect is zero play in any direction even as the parts wear. Steel on steel drives like this work well. Similar ideas are used in Crayford focusers on telescope these days rather than rack and pinions. The diameter of the wheel sets the drive rate and they are easier to make.

Have to be careful what I say here about Russian copying but having come across opinions in various places there is definitely a North American attitude in that direction. Sometimes they have sometimes things aren't so clear. There are also some very well known instances where they very definitely have been first.. Cameras are rather difficult to bottom out. I have read in the past that the basis for a certain famous medium format camera was smuggled out of Germany by American troops. The Russians may have done the same thing. Optics in general are much simpler. Zeiss Jena finished up on the wrong side of the wall and Zeiss as we know it had to more or less start again. Under these circumstances it's understandable that some microscopes for instance are identical. Zeiss Jena microscopes were rather like this Russian enlarger. Lot's of adjustments and rather labour intensive as a result. Fine if everybody is employed and excess is greased up and stored in salt mines. It seems this is what they did in some areas. In Europe importers should have cleaned them up etc. Did initially and then stopped.

Cameras are more difficult to bottom out - it's interesting to read about the Kiev here. The prisoner aspect is interesting. Not agreeing with it but a better way of explaining would be conquered people. Can't expect them to be happy about it. Hasselblad - pass and I doubt if anyone could bottom that out now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiev_(brand)

As an aside as it's a subject that has always interested me. Russia seems to be the first country to have used mass production and interchangeable parts - arms as the Tsar had such a huge army.

No doubt some aspects are clearly copying and Concordski demonstrated industrial espionage but it's also clear they often went in their own direction as well. During the cold war period people in Europe could buy some of there products. I wouldn't knock them personally. The sad aspect really is that they were produced by rather cheap labour which largely explained the price. Not the quality of the product at that price or even compared with things from elsewhere that costed a great deal more. Since they have gone "free market" things ain't so simple any more!

John
-