Tessar on 1950s Exakta 66 precursor to Praktisix mount Tessar?

Hummel who was an Ihagee engineer later clearly states that there were
lots of internal discussions about reasons of failure of the wind
mechanism. The manufacturing department blamed the design staff and
vice versa. So they asked the nearby technical university for help,
and they stated that the wind mechanism would always be unreliable
without a major redesign.

Winfried

from: (Sam Sherman) 5-14-04

Hi Winfried,

I am not doubting that the engineers at Ihagee and/or
the academics felt the Exakta 66 ('54) needed a complete redesign, based on
reliability, but that was in theory only. However, here is my history with this
camera:

I purchased a broken Exakta 66 ('54) body in 1972 which had been stripped of
some parts, after never handling one and only seeing pictures of it in old
photography magazines. Alfred Bachenheimer could still get parts for it from
the Exakta Company and overhauled this camera for me with the new gears etc.
and it worked perfectly after that. I gave it quite a bit of use and it always
worked fine and was far superior to: Primarflex, Reflex-Korelle, Master Reflex
which I also used. Finding Praktisix/Pentacon 6 easy to use I then converted to
that system, which was far from problem-free and in my opinion, not as good as
the Exakta 66.

I still have my Exakta 66 and it works perfectly and that is more than 50 years
after it was made, certainly proving with its original design it could be
reliable. It did need extra features, including auto stopdown for auto lenses
and backs with dark slides
for changing in the light. It is such a good collector's item now that I have
more kept it for my Exakta collection rather than use.

I also have the 1938 Exakta Square which is a superbly
made camera with strong steel gears and works just fine (a 1938 camera!)- that
is proof of reliability.
I would like to get the uncommon 1950 version (remake) of this camera that also
featured strobe sync, interchangeable waist level finder and short
strong wind lever. Who has ever seen or handled one of those?

- Sam Sherman

Was this same crew of "experts" involved in the Praktisix design? If so
they were certainly masters of wind failure. Maybe Kowa used them as
consultants as well.

Winfried Buechsenschuetz wrote:

Hummel who was an Ihagee engineer later clearly states that there were
lots of internal discussions about reasons of failure of the wind
mechanism. The manufacturing department blamed the design staff and
vice versa. So they asked the nearby technical university for help,
and they stated that the wind mechanism would always be unreliable
without a major redesign.

Winfried

(FLEXARET2) wrote in message ...
from: (Sam Sherman) 5-14-04

Hi Winfried,

I am not doubting that the engineers at Ihagee and/or
the academics felt the Exakta 66 ('54) needed a complete redesign, based on
reliability, but that was in theory only. However, here is my history with this
camera:

A good camera is a camera which yields good results. However, the
original issue was why the production of the post-war Exakta66 was
stopped, and from the source I know this had nothing to do with the
introduction of the Praktisix.

Winfried

Winfried Buechsenschuetz wrote:

A good camera is a camera which yields good results. However, the
original issue was why the production of the post-war Exakta66 was
stopped, and from the source I know this had nothing to do with the
introduction of the Praktisix.

Winfried

No, just the opposite, I'm proposing that the Praktisix was designed as a "replacement" for the Exakta
66.

no, AFAIK, both Kowa and Bronica adopted "soft" gears independently, and
probably for the same reason. Namely, it was judged better to strip a soft
gear to protect the guts of the shutter and winding mechanics than to have
a steel gear that let an overeager or rushed user destroy the camera ;-)

In other words, the soft gearing was a design feature to protect the
camera and user from excessive damage and repair costs.

It was only later in the design cycle for new models that it was realized
that this protection feature was causing additional failures from soft
gear wear under heavy pro usage well beyond that expected by the
designers.

That's when steel gearing came in, along with other complex mechanics in
some cases (e.g., bronica s2a), which permitted you to continue winding
vigorously past the fully wound/advanced point, without breaking the
camera guts. Here again, the later S2 and all S2a models had the steel
gearing, which along with dozens of other improvements made them a very
popular model with many high volume pro users.

fyi bobm
--
************************************************** *********************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************

wrote in message ...

No, just the opposite, I'm proposing that the Praktisix was designed as a "replacement" for the Exakta
66.

I am not sure about that. In the early 50s there were several 6x6 SLRs
in production in GDR - the Primarflex and the Meister Korelle. The
Praktisix maybe was derived from the latter in some points. But many
camera manufacturers still were quite independent in the early 50s in
former east Germany, and I do not think that VEB Pentacon and Ihagee
had close connections then.

Winfried