Introducing the Medium Format camera Zenobia in its luxurious Gold Edition

[fabulousrice]

Yes, the black coating on the metal housing at the edges, where the gold embossed cardboard doesn't cover. There are threads on this sub-forum about what to use to repair or redo the coating, how to remove the old (which often leaves a pleasing brass, though that will turn green with handling if not coated with something). Most pre-1960 cameras use a black lacquer similar to old school nail polish. More acetone exposure.

If you don't care to make the body edges look "new", that's up to you. My own preference for one of these would be a soft real leather with the lacquer restored and damaged plating at least polished up. Then again, the leatherette on mine is in reasonably okay condition, most likely because it's spend the past sixty years inside the velour line leather case.

Thank you for the feedback, I appreciate it. The Zenobia showed here is for my personal use, but I do take into consideration your ideas if I wanted to turn up my restoration skills (I would love to - but again, acetone exposure... polishing metal exposes to metal dust... that's where my limit is at for the moment!). Maybe just using the camera in my neighbourhood will spark interest in film photography to some people who've never done it - that would be a good start. Or inspire people to restore old cameras. If such services started appearing I might definitely use them... not that I wish chemical exposure on my fellow human though, but it could be a decent living for a bit.

 

[Donald Qualls]

At my age, I'm not all that worried about exposure to substances, and further, I work with some stuff daily (repairing power tools) that I should be protected from. I figure it this way -- I don't smoke, I don't ride a motorcycle (though I would, again, if I could afford a vehicle that's impractical for daily commute), and I don't drink heavily. A little exposure to hydrocarbons, acetone, and similar probably won't kill me any sooner than simple age will...

 

[Helge]

Sorry to disagree, there's a difference between fixing something and destroying it in my book... I bought the camera in an unusable condition from someone who was gonna throw it (pics here in case you didn't click the link). I merely fixed the coverings that were dead, destroyed, gone. Nothing I did cannot be reversed, and if they fall again I will repair it again...
And I'm going to use this camera as one of my 5 main shooting cameras... as opposed to the jerks who put cameras on a shelf and let them rot for months on end.
What else would you have done, pray tell?

What I consider vandalism is a**hats who literally destroy a functioning camera to turn it into something absolutely hideous that will never ever take a picture again; exhibit A, exhibit B, exhibit C. When I see these clowns at flea markets it fills me up with rage, especially when people come to them and literally give them Leicas or valuable cameras to be destroyed into shitty looking lamps... you wanna talk about vandalism, let's talk about these guys instead.

I agree that camera lamps and flowerpots is a pest that needs to stop now.

Since you asked our opinion I gave you mine.

I doubt the faux leather was completely gone. It’s quite rare that that happens with the kind of material used on Japanese cameras in the 50s. It mostly flakes off in smaller pieces.
You’d have been able to patch the missing pieces in with replica or real leather for larger symmetrical pieces, with less work and a more dignified result.
A good repair can look more noble than a perfectly kept object.

I think the gold looks tacky and not fitting with the camera. And not in a cool postmodern/casual way.

The tatty metal surface does not compliment the Connie West jam aesthetic either.
I’d have lifted the top and bottom off. Very lightly sanded them and spray painted with a nice semi gloss colour. Then found leather in a color that either complimented or was a grade of the metal parts colour.

 

[BobD]

Well, the original condition was without leather and very close to the seller's trashcan.

I think you need to look up the word "original."

I'm assuming the one you have doesn't need repair ...

When I received it the lens was hazy and the shutter was sticky. I fixed both issues.

... but would love to know what you'll do when the terrible-quality peel starts flaking off...

If you are referring to paint, I have gotten good results touching up or repainting such areas. If you mean, the leather, it is easy to re-attach and can often be replaced without too much trouble.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

If you have tips on restoring the parts I don't know yet how to restore, feel free to share them here! My main goal was to have a usable folding MF and since the leathers had fallen out it was less pleasant to use (too cold and slippery to handle). I'm less into my Pentax 67 and Bronica ETRS and more going back to these undying folding cameras lately (recent problems with the ETRS and 67 systems shared here are one of the reasons... but also portability)

That's something I don't have the skills to do- I'd have to leave that to a professional. In the end, what matters is that you enjoy using the camera and it is attractive to you.

 

[fabulousrice]

I agree that camera lamps and flowerpots is a pest that needs to stop now.

Since you asked our opinion I gave you mine.

I doubt the faux leather was completely gone. It’s quite rare that that happens with the kind of material used on Japanese cameras in the 50s. It mostly flakes off in smaller pieces.
You’d have been able to patch the missing pieces in with replica or real leather for larger symmetrical pieces, with less work and a more dignified result.
A good repair can look more noble than a perfectly kept object.

I think the gold looks tacky and not fitting with the camera. And not in a cool postmodern/casual way.

The tatty metal surface does not compliment the Connie West jam aesthetic either.
I’d have lifted the top and bottom off. Very lightly sanded them and spray painted with a nice semi gloss colour. Then found leather in a color that either complimented or was a grade of the metal parts colour.

I asked for opinions but yours are either too detached from reality or simply lacking the kind of tangible feedback I could actually use in a future project.
It sounds to me like you have no experience in doing the kind of repairwork that I shared here, but yet feel like criticizing it in a way I personally find slightly offensive. I'd really like to see you rescue these cameras from the trashcan they'll be in in a week or less, or these ones, or these ones, and then maybe share some constructive comments. My guess is that you won't. So what are you going to do about these people who are gonna throw these cameras away, these "vandals"? Nothing? Passively sit there? And I'm the "vandal", because I tried to fix and use a camera...

Turns out that the materials used to make faux leather coverings 70 years ago - surprise, surprise! - are not manufactured anymore! The few remaining pieces that were left on chipped like crazy, didn't glue on the camera anymore (obviously one of the reasons to get rid of that nasty stuff altogether), and even if I had been wanting to patch it together like a puzzle (please note that some chips were smaller than 1 millimeter and that I don't own a microscope), what should I have done with areas that missed large pieces of the junk? Also, you're dead wrong about leather - most leathers coming from animals are 2-10 millimeters thick (metric), very difficult to fold precisely, and most vinyl leather is 1mm thick or more, while the material used 70 years ago is much thinner, paper thin. Another entry in my blog shares my experience trying to use "faux" leather on a Kodamatic - go read it and you'll see it's not an acceptable substitute.

Not to mention the fact that leatherwork is a practically extinct crafts field nowadays, with plastic being the one and only dominant poison with which humans are force-feeding themselves and the planet along with it.

Instead of making up asinine theories out of nowhere - thus ignoring the reality of what materials can be found and used in 2021 to repair machines almost 100 years old - it would be a much better feedback to suggest viable alternatives to the materials I used, instead of imagining that someone, somewhere, is manufacturing very thin leather for camera repairs (out of what soon-to-be-extinct animal?) or that the shattering crumbs of what might have been once an early attempt at stable plastic are worth preserving and reusing (especially from a long gone era where health standards in manufacturing were practically non-existent!).

I have no idea who Connie West is either, and neither does google. And spray painting metal would also not be a satisfying solution since it would be way too thin and might not dry properly or bump or be sticky to the touch.

 

[fabulousrice]

I think you need to look up the word "original."



When I received it the lens was hazy and the shutter was sticky. I fixed both issues.



If you are referring to paint, I have gotten good results touching up or repainting such areas. If you mean, the leather, it is easy to re-attach and can often be replaced without too much trouble.

Well, it looks like you need to look up the word "without" I wouldn't use paint because my issue was that the metal was too cold to the touch, paint would have been the same and not comfortable or pleasant to touch. There's absolutely no "leather" on this camera... it was always a sort of plastic. Leather doesn't "break" or chip...

 

[fabulousrice]

That's something I don't have the skills to do- I'd have to leave that to a professional. In the end, what matters is that you enjoy using the camera and it is attractive to you.

There doesn't seem to be enough "professionals" out there for it to be worth it sending a $30 camera that looks like a piece of junk - versus doing it yourself!

 

[Helge]

I asked for opinions but yours are either too detached from reality or simply lacking the kind of tangible feedback I could actually use in a future project.
It sounds to me like you have no experience in doing the kind of repairwork that I shared here, but yet feel like criticizing it in a way I personally find slightly offensive. I'd really like to see you rescue these cameras from the trashcan they'll be in in a week or less, or these ones, or these ones, and then maybe share some constructive comments. My guess is that you won't. So what are you going to do about these people who are gonna throw these cameras away, these "vandals"? Nothing? Passively sit there? And I'm the "vandal", because I tried to fix and use a camera...

Turns out that the materials used to make faux leather coverings 70 years ago - surprise, surprise! - are not manufactured anymore! The few remaining pieces that were left on chipped like crazy, didn't glue on the camera anymore (obviously one of the reasons to get rid of that nasty stuff altogether), and even if I had been wanting to patch it together like a puzzle (please note that some chips were smaller than 1 millimeter and that I don't own a microscope), what should I have done with areas that missed large pieces of the junk? Also, you're dead wrong about leather - most leathers coming from animals are 2-10 millimeters thick (metric), very difficult to fold precisely, and most vinyl leather is 1mm thick or more, while the material used 70 years ago is much thinner, paper thin. Another entry in my blog shares my experience trying to use "faux" leather on a Kodamatic - go read it and you'll see it's not an acceptable substitute.

Not to mention the fact that leatherwork is a practically extinct crafts field nowadays, with plastic being the one and only dominant poison with which humans are force-feeding themselves and the planet along with it.

Instead of making up asinine theories out of nowhere - thus ignoring the reality of what materials can be found and used in 2021 to repair machines almost 100 years old - it would be a much better feedback to suggest viable alternatives to the materials I used, instead of imagining that someone, somewhere, is manufacturing very thin leather for camera repairs (out of what soon-to-be-extinct animal?) or that the shattering crumbs of what might have been once an early attempt at stable plastic are worth preserving and reusing (especially from a long gone era where health standards in manufacturing were practically non-existent!).

I have no idea who Connie West is either, and neither does google. And spray painting metal would also not be a satisfying solution since it would be way too thin and might not dry properly or bump or be sticky to the touch.

connie west gold chains

https://japanhobbytool.com/collections/camera-leather

http://www.cameraleather.com

https://cameramill.co.uk

https://www.halcyoncameras.com/cover-options

I find your work slightly offensive.
If this camera was picked up by you, obviously it was not going to be thrown out.
There is not an infinite supply of these things out there, and the herd is shrinking at a worrying rate. You just found out one reason why.
You could pass on the camera to someone else who'd do the work properly, or split it into useable parts for a camera shop.
If the camera only lacks pleader, obviously it's not junk. Otherwise you'd not have gone trough the trouble.

You came here apparently expecting unconditional applause and backslapping, but got something else.
Well, that's how forums (and life often) work.

 

[BobD]

Well, it looks like you need to look up the word "without" I wouldn't use paint because my issue was that the metal was too cold to the touch, paint would have been the same and not comfortable or pleasant to touch.

Huh?

There's absolutely no "leather" on this camera... it was always a sort of plastic. Leather doesn't "break" or chip...

"Leather" is a term that refers to the covering on film cameras whether it is actual animal leather, leatherette or some other material. Hence the popular web site cameraleather.com which sells camera coverings. Some real leather, some not.

Look, I didn't mean any insult to your camera. I said I prefer restorations to original appearance, that's all. It's my preference and it's also my right to state my preference. Some people liked your camera and some didn't. Why don't you just get over it and move on?

 

[fabulousrice]

connie west gold chains

https://japanhobbytool.com/collections/camera-leather

http://www.cameraleather.com

https://cameramill.co.uk

https://www.halcyoncameras.com/cover-options

I find your work slightly offensive.
If this camera was picked up by you, obviously it was not going to be thrown out.
There is not an infinite supply of these things out there, and the herd is shrinking at a worrying rate. You just found out one reason why.
You could pass on the camera to someone else who'd do the work properly, or split it into useable parts for a camera shop.
If the camera only lacks pleader, obviously it's not junk. Otherwise you'd not have gone trough the trouble.

You came here apparently expecting unconditional applause and backslapping, but got something else.
Well, that's how forums (and life often) work.

It's just the attitude of someone who can't spell "Kanye" or hasn't done the work themselves or measured the extent of what it represents that I scoff at.
You think that gold is too "bling-bling" for you but have no problem sharing a link selling pink leather? Or these atrocities? Eventually I'd go with plain boring black if I absolutely hated originality, if I was a hardcore conservative or didn't think that "upgrading" means "making more appealing". Some of these "fake snake glitter" leathers are not far from the level of absolute bad taste of smashing a camera to make it into a lamp...
I'd never be caught dead with a camera with green, blue, orange, fake snakeskin or red leather applied on it.
The cameraleather website needs to get its s**t together because currently "Links below will be active soon" means the website doesn't work yet means I'll take my business to trustable sources.
As for the website that says to use "double-sided tape" - I'd love to see what's left after a day of use or how you put it back on after some corners start peeling off... (and again, the choice between "crocodile" and red or black is ridiculous...).

Also - $40 for a sheet of the material? Sorry for sounding like a miser, but that's more than the camera's worth.

I didn't say it was junk to me - I said, like in the links I shared, that it was junk in the eyes of the people selling it. And since they haven't been taking care of the stuff they sell it's junk in their eyes and in mine until I make something better out of it.

I didn't come here for applause but wanton criticism without constructive elements isn't how most websites I use work. I could criticize anything all day from the way modern cars look (utter garbage!) to how this forum works (oh wait I've done this recently already...) - it won't have any worth until I can actually prove some expertise in said domains to make my criticism constrictive...

 

[fabulousrice]

Huh?

"Leather" is a term that refers to the covering on film cameras whether it is actual animal leather, leatherette or some other material. Hence the popular web site cameraleather.com which sells camera coverings. Some real leather, some not.

Look, I didn't mean any insult to your camera. I said I prefer restorations to original appearance, that's all. It's my preference and it's also my right to state my preference. Some people liked your camera and some didn't. Why don't you just get over it and move on?

I agree with your comment and I accept your explanation. The whole approach was to buy a camera sold for parts and make it shine again, through the way it looks and by using it, not seek a mint camera in the original, straight out of the factory condition. Tastes and trends evolve and black fake leather might have been really popular a hundred years ago, it's also sadly a design field lacking any kind of originality...

 

[Helge]

It's just the attitude of someone who can't spell "Kanye" or hasn't done the work themselves or measured the extent of what it represents that I scoff at.
You think that gold is too "bling-bling" for you but have no problem sharing a link selling pink leather? Or these atrocities? Eventually I'd go with plain boring black if I absolutely hated originality, if I was a hardcore conservative or didn't think that "upgrading" means "making more appealing". Some of these "fake snake glitter" leathers are not far from the level of absolute bad taste of smashing a camera to make it into a lamp...
I'd never be caught dead with a camera with green, blue, orange, fake snakeskin or red leather applied on it.
The cameraleather website needs to get its s**t together because currently "Links below will be active soon" means the website doesn't work yet means I'll take my business to trustable sources.
As for the website that says to use "double-sided tape" - I'd love to see what's left after a day of use or how you put it back on after some corners start peeling off... (and again, the choice between "crocodile" and red or black is ridiculous...).

Also - $40 for a sheet of the material? Sorry for sounding like a miser, but that's more than the camera's worth.

I didn't say it was junk to me - I said, like in the links I shared, that it was junk in the eyes of the people selling it. And since they haven't been taking care of the stuff they sell it's junk in their eyes and in mine until I make something better out of it.

I didn't come here for applause but wanton criticism without constructive elements isn't how most websites I use work. I could criticize anything all day from the way modern cars look (utter garbage!) to how this forum works (oh wait I've done this recently already...) - it won't have any worth until I can actually prove some expertise in said domains to make my criticism constrictive...

Yeah, spelling...
Point was, that there is a variety of options. Loads more than I listed. If my initial reaction is "yuck!", then the constructive criticism I can give is to get that shit off, and start over.
But of course talk is cheap. I know projects like this are always 10x more work than you think initially.
That's why it's important to consider if it's really worth the time at all, if it could be done more easily, and make a careful plan.

 

[Vaughn]

The gold bit on top of the winder knobs makes it. Your yellow leather Autographic is another eye-catcher!

But to answer the question, "Would I buy it?". No. Being tall, I might be mistaken for a disco ball and be trapped in a dance party.

 

[reddesert]

It's a bit Leica-esque for my taste but that's fine. There are plenty of cameras out there, no need to get crazy worried about so-called vandalism.

I once got some SX-70s at a yard sale in Los Feliz (LA neighborhood that was like "hipster" before people overloaded the word "hipster") and one of them had been covered in stick-on fake black-and-white fur. I like to think of whatever party kid had been out having fun taking pictures of their friends with that SX-70.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

There doesn't seem to be enough "professionals" out there for it to be worth it sending a $30 camera that looks like a piece of junk - versus doing it yourself!

Oh, you're right about that. I don't think anyone who would take money for the task would take on the job because it would cost far more than the camera was worth even when the work was completed. The simple version of what needs to be done, from looking at the photos you posted, is that you'd have to completely disassemble the camera, strip the finish down to bare metal, straighten out any dents, re-paint it with an enamel paint, then re-assemble and re-cover the body. And at that point, you'd really need to find a new top deck for it because it looks like that silver colored top deck is pot metal and the finish damage is not something you could buff out- you'd only expose the base metal layer. You might be able to get it nickel-plated with a satin finish, so it looked more original, but that alone might cost you over $100. So restoration might be over $500 once you factor in labor, parts and materials, for a camera that you can buy all day long in good condition for under $80.

If the camera works, then use it. Ugly doesn't mean non-functional. You should see the scratches (on both front and rear elements) of my Cooke Series II 10.4" Anastigmat, not to mention the barrel of the lens. It looks like something the dog gave up on chewing on. But the images it produces? Amazing!

 

[Donald Qualls]

I agree. Some of my old folders are pretty ugly, but they're light tight and the shutters work and the focus scales (or rangefinders) are accurate, and the advance systems work. They produce nice negatives if I do my part -- and I don't particularly care how they look, other than preferring the understated black and nickel to something flashy. On the other hand, if you like flashy, then more power to you.

 

[warden]

If the camera works, then use it. Ugly doesn't mean non-functional. You should see the scratches (on both front and rear elements) of my Cooke Series II 10.4" Anastigmat, not to mention the barrel of the lens. It looks like something the dog gave up on chewing on. But the images it produces? Amazing!

That's so cool! Old cameras rock.

 

[fabulousrice]

Yeah, spelling...
Point was, that there is a variety of options. Loads more than I listed. If my initial reaction is "yuck!", then the constructive criticism I can give is to get that shit off, and start over.
But of course talk is cheap. I know projects like this are always 10x more work than you think initially.
That's why it's important to consider if it's really worth the time at all, if it could be done more easily, and make a careful plan.

I did everything according to plan the result matches what I was expecting. Until "cameraleather" fixes their website and offers better looking materials than ones that would belong in East Germany in 1975, I'll try their material.
Not sure what I was expecting coming on such a conservative platform to share something new and original... at the same time, I'm pretty sure no one under 30 let alone 20 thinks your camera collection looks good or is inspired to take on analog photography looking at it...

 

[fabulousrice]

The gold bit on top of the winder knobs makes it. Your yellow leather Autographic is another eye-catcher!

But to answer the question, "Would I buy it?". No. Being tall, I might be mistaken for a disco ball and be trapped in a dance party.

At least someone with some humor! Thanks for the kind words. Your reason not to do it would be a good reason to! I'd dance under that ball

 

[fabulousrice]

It's a bit Leica-esque for my taste but that's fine. There are plenty of cameras out there, no need to get crazy worried about so-called vandalism.

I once got some SX-70s at a yard sale in Los Feliz (LA neighborhood that was like "hipster" before people overloaded the word "hipster") and one of them had been covered in stick-on fake black-and-white fur. I like to think of whatever party kid had been out having fun taking pictures of their friends with that SX-70.

OMG that's amazing!! Do you have any pictures of this thing?
I'm inspired to make one like that now... hopefully it'll pull some horrified gasps and screams outta the older folks here

 

[fabulousrice]

Oh, you're right about that. I don't think anyone who would take money for the task would take on the job because it would cost far more than the camera was worth even when the work was completed. The simple version of what needs to be done, from looking at the photos you posted, is that you'd have to completely disassemble the camera, strip the finish down to bare metal, straighten out any dents, re-paint it with an enamel paint, then re-assemble and re-cover the body. And at that point, you'd really need to find a new top deck for it because it looks like that silver colored top deck is pot metal and the finish damage is not something you could buff out- you'd only expose the base metal layer. You might be able to get it nickel-plated with a satin finish, so it looked more original, but that alone might cost you over $100. So restoration might be over $500 once you factor in labor, parts and materials, for a camera that you can buy all day long in good condition for under $80.

If the camera works, then use it. Ugly doesn't mean non-functional. You should see the scratches (on both front and rear elements) of my Cooke Series II 10.4" Anastigmat, not to mention the barrel of the lens. It looks like something the dog gave up on chewing on. But the images it produces? Amazing!

These are beautiful! And lots of people out there are selling scratched lenses for almost nothing...
Thank you for the words of wisdom, you are absolutely right. I did as much as could be done to replace the parts that fell off, redoing the whole thing like you described would be a very different project, and I'd have to rebuild the bellows, etc.
But who knows, if there was someone servicing cameras like this I would save up and work with them maybe once a year to "pimp" one of my oldest machines... Someone down my street does it, but with classic cars! Somewhat comparable...

 

[fabulousrice]

I agree. Some of my old folders are pretty ugly, but they're light tight and the shutters work and the focus scales (or rangefinders) are accurate, and the advance systems work. They produce nice negatives if I do my part -- and I don't particularly care how they look, other than preferring the understated black and nickel to something flashy. On the other hand, if you like flashy, then more power to you.

Hey, I'm not saying I'll do all my cameras like that!
I also have a black material that looks like leather, but it was less exciting to use that one than the gold one because (shocker) I already have plenty of cameras with black leatherettes - but no gold one!
At least I made a few people under 30 who saw the camera want to shoot film now.

 

[Helge]

I did everything according to plan the result matches what I was expecting. Until "cameraleather" fixes their website and offers better looking materials than ones that would belong in East Germany in 1975, I'll try their material.
Not sure what I was expecting coming on such a conservative platform to share something new and original... at the same time, I'm pretty sure no one under 30 let alone 20 thinks your camera collection looks good or is inspired to take on analog photography looking at it...

How do you know I'm not under thirty? Anyhow "under thirty" often sounds like a synonym for slightly retarded airhead.
Bringing age into this is at least as stupid as using gold leather.
I've had to snag fifties folders and Rolleiflexes under the noses of teens, so don't even go there. Good taste after say 12, is surprisingly somewhat ageless. At least the visceral, instinctive part of it.

 

[takilmaboxer]

Hey, where are the sequins?