View Full Version : compound #4 analouge
I was wondering if there were any other shutters out there that matched the dimensions of the compound #4. I noticed the alphax #4 is damn close but maybe not exactly correct. I am trying to mount a zeiss tessar 165 2.7 and am having one hell of a time finding a compound #4 to use.
Let me know.
Hollis
try to find a symmar 5.6/360. it is mounted in compound IV .
try to find a symmar 5.6/360. it is mounted in compound IV .
The Compound IV was made with at least 3 different tubes. So the Compound V/10 for the Symmar 360 differs from Compound IV/9 in front- and back-lens-thread and total lenght.
Emmanuel BIGLER
1-Jul-2009, 09:03
a symmar 5.6/360
The 5.6/360 Symmar was also mounted on a Compur 5FS with suitable reducing rings.
i need the compound IV/9 i believe with the 62mm thread. There was a symmar that had one of those shutters that I was out bid on the other day, not cool.
Ole Tjugen
1-Jul-2009, 17:03
The dimensions for the various Compound shutters are in the post linked to in my signature. That doesn't tell you which version you need, though...
Jim Galli
1-Jul-2009, 18:16
American shutters are US thread and Compound is metric. No interchangeability unless you own a lathe and have some skills.
Well, clears that one issue up. I shot the lens today with the ol stack a bunch of ND and wave a darkslide in front of the lens method and damn, swirly, swirly. Im glad I bought the lens and really want to find a shutter for it now.
H.
Darren Kruger
1-Jul-2009, 21:40
I am trying to mount a zeiss tessar 165 2.7 and am having one hell of a time finding a compound #4 to use.
According to the 1929 Zeiss catalog (http://www.cameraeccentric.com/html/info/zeiss_2.html) at cameraeccentric.com, the following lenses have the same tube as a 16.5cm f/2.7 Tessar from that year.
36cm f/6.3 Tessar
30cm f/6.3 Tessar
25cm f/4.5 Tessar
21cm f/3.5 Tessar
21cm f/3.5 Triotar
Double Protar (total, rear, front cell)
11in/16in/23in f/7.7
12.25in/19in/23in f/7
13.5in/23in/23in f/6.3
These would be a good place to start. I would compare measurements before buying in case Zeiss decided to change barrel sizes over the years.
-Darren
Ole Tjugen
2-Jul-2009, 04:47
American shutters are US thread and Compound is metric. No interchangeability unless you own a lathe and have some skills.
The Compound threads aren't exactly "metric"...
29 1/13 thread per inch is the official thread pitch, given in the Compur-Werke repair manual. It's a result of an uncommon thread angle, later replaced by "proper" metric threads.
David Lindquist
2-Jul-2009, 21:11
The Compound threads aren't exactly "metric"...
29 1/13 thread per inch is the official thread pitch, given in the Compur-Werke repair manual. It's a result of an uncommon thread angle, later replaced by "proper" metric threads.
According to circa mid to late 1960's Rodenstock and Schneider literature the mounting threads on the following lenses were all 29 1/13 T.P.I. (different major diameters, of course): 210mm Ysaron; 180, 210, 240 and 300mm Componon; 210 and 300mm Comparon and the 305mm G Claron. Also the dial set Compur II mounting thread was 29 1/13 T.P.I.
So why in the world 29 1/13 T.P.I.??? And what lathe cuts that?
For some reason Leica used 26 T.P.I. rather than a metric pitch, at least that's a whole number.
Incidentally the S.K. Grimes website gives 0.9mm pitch for the mounting thread for the Compound shutters rather than 29 1/13 T.P.I. 29 1/13 T.P.I. works out to a pitch of 0.8735mm. Their flange fits my circa 1928 No. IV Compound fine.
Chauncey Walden
2-Jul-2009, 21:39
Just a guess, but the British made a lot of thread cutting machinery that got exported back in the heyday of the industrial revolution and perhaps this is a remnant of the Whitworth thread system.
Just a guess, but the British made a lot of thread cutting machinery that got exported back in the heyday of the industrial revolution and perhaps this is a remnant of the Whitworth thread system.
Lensmakers often made microscopes too. And the Royal Microscopy Socienty standard - 0.9173 inches - is the thread for microscopical lenses up to now.
Also the "Leica thread", 39mm x 26tpi from 1931, is such a mixture of metric and Whitworth.
Peter
Arne Croell
3-Jul-2009, 07:29
Lensmakers often made microscopes too. And the Royal Microscopy Socienty standard - 0.9173 inches - is the thread for microscopical lenses up to now.
Peter
aka the "Royal Screw".... ;-)
what the hell is the deal with such obtuse measurements? Why can't we all be on base-ten metric? For that matter, why can't we have universal health care? About the same up-hill battle I guess.
Arne Croell
5-Jul-2009, 04:16
what the hell is the deal with such obtuse measurements? Why can't we all be on base-ten metric? For that matter, why can't we have universal health care? About the same up-hill battle I guess.
I agree (easily, being German)that we would all be better off metric. Why these strange measurements exist, I can only guess, somewhat in the same direction as Chauncey did: Taking m, kg, and s as the basic international units goes back to only 1889. At that time, photographic lenses and parts had been in existence for a while. Both Compound and Prontor shutters appeared in 1904, just 15 years after that. Before, during and after that time, inches were used, BUT: what an inch was, depended on where you lived. The international official number of 1"=25.4mm only goes back to 1959, but is based approximately on the English Imperial inch, which was either defined as the width of a mans thumb or as the length of three grains of barley! Other countries had different length for an "inch". In Germany inches ("Zoll" in German) even depended on the state in the 19th century. A Prussian inch was 26.1 mm, an inch in Baden was 30mm, in Bavaria it was 24,3216 mm or as the "decimal inch" (10 in=1ft) it was 29,18592 mm and so on. A common size in watchmaking was (and still is sometines) the "line", which means in this case 1/12 of a French inch (elsewhere it can also be 1/10 or 1/12 of whatever inch), with the French inch = 27.069948mm. Since watchmaking and shutters have commonalities this might be a basis. The size of really old lenses like Voigtländers from the mid-1800's is given in lines. If some common thread sizes for lenses were based on one of these systems, the lens manufacturers as well as F. Deckel (Compound and Compur shutters) and A. Gauthier (Prontor shutters) might have kept the established threads. Since both Deckel and Gauthier made their own machines for their shops there was no problem with standard metric lathes (later on this was actually Deckel's main business). There was also no real competition in Germany, as from 1910 on Zeiss held controlling interests in both Deckel and Gauthier and they signed a contract where Zeiss agreed to not produce any shutters of their own except really simple ones and guaranteed both Deckel and Gauthier to buy a certain number or percentage of their shutters. It was essentially a monopoly. So its probably based on some ancient obscure measurement (and has then been converted to the standard measurements), the same way that the Space Shuttle booster size is supposedly based on the size of two horse butts http://www.bpccs.com/lcas/Articles/horsebut.htm!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.