|
Post by conan on Nov 29, 2015 0:00:50 GMT -5
Maybe economic wobbles due to losses on the Nikkormat was why I managed to buy a very cheap 21\4 in the late 60es. It was reasonably, but not overwhelmingly sharp - but provided nice starburst decorations when the sun was in the picture. (I concocted an adapter for Leica, never had a Nikon) p. What makes you think Nikon lost money on the Nikkormat. It was a very profitable camera series for them even after problems with the EL.
|
|
|
Post by conan on Nov 4, 2015 4:39:58 GMT -5
Yes. the same model, the number on mine is 75.552G The more I collect cameras, the more it seems there was a disaster going on in the late 50's as many fine models from good makers were replaced with mediocre plastic trimmed rubbish. Costs came to the fore in Europe, but even the Japanese makers lost so many fine models, which were better than later models. Japan did have a financial crash in the late 50's. SLR's were different, they improved all round, but compacts and Leica clones vanished, perhaps just too old fashioned as well. Stephen. What Japanese models are you referring to. I cant think of any fine models that disappeared. The disaster was caused by the Japanese manufacturers really getting into their stride and there was intense competition among them. The casualties were the semi protected industries in Western Countries (The USA camera Industry had really ceased to exist at that stage) The German manufacturers had a better scale but would eventually succumb to Japanese cameras.
|
|
|
Post by conan on Nov 4, 2015 4:18:57 GMT -5
True to my policy of ‘No More Cameras’ I bought some lenses. Actually I have been looking for a 101% mint 50/1.4 with the right date to match with an F. I have seen quite a few bad examples which is probably not surprising given the age of the lens I have been looking for. I was getting to the stage of having to order one from Japan (The Japanese dealers are particularly honest with their descriptions) It looked like about $125 for what I wanted plus postage. I had a few weeks earlier picked up a mint 50/1.4 K style for $75 (just before AI) but it did not match the dates of anything.
So there’s an ad in the local paper which says a few boxes of old camera gear. A phone call elicited there were ‘Nikkor’ lenses. There were 2 large boxes of bits and I was told $300 for one box and $150 for the other – no offers and both had to go. Well a friend bought the $150 box off me as it contained weird stuff, early digitals and strange bits and pieces.
My $300 box contained various Nikon bits, focusing screens and filters, a mint Micro Nikkor with the bubble tube and the extension tube. A 24mm Nikkor in about 95% cosmetic condition and a mint 200mm Nikkor and a 50/1.4 that looked new. I reckon the first 3 were worth $175, so the 50/1.4 was at my price point of $125. BUT it had a strange attachment – a very nice F2 chrome body with a working DP11 head. Whoever had this gear obviously had used Nikon for a while because the date codes on all the lenses were over a 20 year period.
So true to form of “No more Cameras” I had not bought another camera – it was a lens with an unusual attachment.
|
|
|
Post by conan on Nov 4, 2015 3:50:55 GMT -5
On ebay......a succinct description......" USED, but mostly works"....reminds me of the late Douglas Adams description of Earth in "The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy"........... "Mostly Harmless", Stephen I actually tend to collect outrageous and stupid EBay descriptions. I just love the “It worked when it was put away 30 years ago”. Another is “No method” of testing the meter –when it’s a hand held selenium job. Current favorite is “An extremely rare black model Konica TC”. Of course “Working Condition” means its beat up like a Utility vehicle – probably works but is full of dents and rust.
|
|
|
Post by conan on Oct 8, 2015 16:31:38 GMT -5
Worse than I thought
After making the post I remembered a few items I had forgotten to include (convenient loss of memory to justify acquisitions) and also went back to a 12 week period.
A Pentax MX with F1.4 because of its price and superb condition, a Minolta SR1 because of its condition and it came with the accessory exposure meter. A Konica T because it came with a couple of lenses. A Konica T3 body in great condition and a working meter. A Minolta XD7 body. A Praktica Super TL because of its beautiful condition. A Zenith 122 because it illustrates the great value Russian cameras were offering. A Pentax K1000 first series, stunning condition and very cheap. A late model Nikon FG20 body best described as new as it still had all the Nikon plastic protectors.
NO MORE CAMERAS
During this time a couple of Manfrotto tripods, another Gossen Lunasix, some flashguns and some odd third party lenses.
NO MORE STUFF
|
|
|
Post by conan on Oct 8, 2015 15:48:26 GMT -5
NO MORE CAMERAS! I will not buy any more cameras! I keep saying it to myself – NO MORE CAMERAS! How weak we are! A few months ago I decided to totally rationalize my displays. Roll film, 35 intermediate and rangefinder and plastic 35mm SLRs. The real metal and gears SLRs have 3 shelves each holding 24 cameras. That’s it no more room for anything else – 72 metal and gears SLRs – no more display space - except of course unless it was better than a shelf camera and could replace it. NO MORE CAMERAS!
So in the last 8 weeks what have I done?
A Miranda (new in the box), a Nikkorex (New old stock), a Nikkormat FTN, a Contaflex Super, an Exakta Varex IIA, a Nikon FTN, a Topcon Super RE, a Topcon Super D body, a Pentax Spotmatic, a Pentacon F, a Praktina FX, a Praktica IV. These varied between new in boxes to display only cameras
Plus a Nikonos II and about a dozen odd machines Pentax Espio’s, Canon’s, Olympus MJU’s etc.
Of course I always use excuses to justify my purchases. The Miranda was new in the box. The Nikkorex came with the wide and tele lens attachments, The Nikkormat I wanted for the 1.4 lens because it matched the production date of a Nikon F with standard prism. The Contaflex and Exakta to join my cluster of 1957-1962 SLRs. The Topcon to illustrate the emergence of TTL, the Nikon FTN because it had a mint f2 and showed Nikon early emergence into TTL. The Topcon Super D body – because it looked nice. Another Spotmatic because it came with the 35mm F2 wide angle which can only be described as new. This is not the first time for me or I guess other people on this site that I have bought something for the secondary items that came with it. The Pentacon’s and others because they are all additions and in full working order.
I only have 2 options
Stop buying cameras
Move into a bigger place to get more display space
|
|
|
Post by conan on Oct 8, 2015 2:52:39 GMT -5
camfiend, I was doing some simple math and if those cameras averaged 3 weeks money when new there is the equivalent of over 4 years’ worth of wages sitting in your Praktica collection alone. Since the Aussie average in now about $50K – there’s $200K when new sitting there.
One of the great tragedies of modern times is that I can buy a camera that cost 6 weeks wages in 1980 for the equivalent of a few hours wages these days.
|
|
|
Post by conan on Oct 8, 2015 2:42:13 GMT -5
Maitani Yoshihisa, the OM designer, stated that the FTL was built by Olympus, but that he did not know who designed it...... As the main company designer, the statement that he did not know who designed it must be treated with some suspicion that he was not going to say to prevent an old argument raising up again. He obviously felt very sore that the company wasted money on the FTL. I think he was being a little coy and diplomatic with his statements about ‘not knowing’ and then later the design being ‘brought in’. I have always understood and my Japanese correspondent says the same – he was not directly involved but the FTL was an in house design as the management were keen to get into the 35mm SLR market (albeit with a ‘me to’ design) as the future OM1 was taking too long to develop. Apparently the management had another major concern which was the design and manufacturing complexity of the OM1 and the FTL would serve as a development and manufacturing experience stop gap rather than ‘a run before you can walk’ design of the OM1. At this time most Japanese manufacturers had the Zunow ghost in the background and there is no reason to think that the management at Olympus were any different.
|
|
|
Post by conan on Sept 29, 2015 5:33:17 GMT -5
And particularly impressive is the gravity defying, floor-space saving vertical stacking. More seriously, the ancestor of the Practica, the Contax SLR was not only the early prism 35, but launched what later beacame more well known as the Pentax mount, so it a very illustrious pedigree. p I think it is fair to say that the Praktiflex of 1939 is the true ancestor of the Praktica since both cameras were from KW.
|
|
|
Post by conan on Sept 23, 2015 18:43:36 GMT -5
I found you posts very interesting because of the Espio’s and the prices of cameras. My Son collects Espio’s and when I find them - good ones in cases - anything from $2 to $3 I buy them which means he has more than a few duplicates.
I constantly remind people when comparing cameras that valid comparisons can only be made against what was actually available at the time and pricing.
Several years ago I did some pricing comparisons between the Kodak Retinas and the Espio’s. With pricing a general guide against average weekly income and when some figures are available between disposable income (sometimes discretionary income) these can only be rough guides because certain countries had higher sales tax rates and the USA had lower taxes and a very competitive retail market.
In Australia an average Retina cost 4 to 6 time’s weekly income and up to 20 times disposable income. Fast forward it more than 20 years and the average Espio cost 1 weeks income and 3 weeks disposable income. Different cameras maybe and both representing the difference between the metal heavily engineered cameras and more modern mass manufactured plastic cameras and why fairly sophisticated cameras became more affordable items. Of course if we go back to pre and immediate post war years the top models from Leica and Zeiss were ‘rich folks’ cameras and the average man in the street could not afford them.
A friend recently toured some shops with me and could not believe that top line Canon and Nikon bodies were in the $3000 -$5000 region. I pulled out some old dealer receipts for Nikon FM and FE bodies from the 1980’s and got him to plug the figures into the inflation calculator. Sure enough the results came out at just under the $3000 range which is Nikon Df territory which is positioned in the Nikon digital range at the same pricing and feature point the FMs and FEs were against the F2 and F3.
|
|
|
Post by conan on Sept 21, 2015 18:01:44 GMT -5
Hansz, you could save money on gym fees by exercising with that Contarex in one arm and a NikonF2 with Motor Drive and an 80/200 in the other. I don’t know whether Zeiss had to hand pick the Contarex lenses because at that time all their top line optics were seriously good pieces of glass.
|
|
|
Post by conan on Sept 21, 2015 16:59:58 GMT -5
Hansz, that is a very serious looking piece of metal and glass and I would guess you would not need a press pass to look like a professional with that around your neck. A friend of mine believes that photographers from this era live longer because they had to develop upper body strength and strong heart muscles to carry their gear around. Notwithstanding with that Super around your neck and a bag on one shoulder that probably had 4 or 5 kilos of equipment in it and a Metz wet cell flash on the other shoulder it would have been a fair amount of weight lifting and carrying exercise to lug it around.
|
|
|
Post by conan on Sept 21, 2015 14:11:34 GMT -5
The horizontal focal plane shutter was not a patented design, manufacturers could only patent the mechanism and internal design. The horizontal Focal plane shutter is more of a generic description for the two blinds because of the vast number of different internal gearing methods used to get it to function. The Contax was a Zeiss effort to knock the Leica off its pedestal by out specifying the product and producing a range of accessories close to launch rather than the Leica whose accessories had grown over time. The Contax problem was its shutter design and Zeiss spent a lot of money and development effort getting it to a reasonable stage of reliability after its initial awful reputation. Zeiss were all over Germany before the war but the primary management sections were in the West and with the ensuing ructions between East and West Zeiss after 1947 this meant that Zeiss was ‘stuck’ with their vertical concept and Zeiss’s history of being run like a bureaucracy and their corporate culture ensured they would not admit that the East Germans had got it right when the East German Contax S was launched. (I sometimes wonder if the first Contax was the inspiration for the Argus Brick)
I don’t think the Japanese can be accused of copying the vertical metal shutter as they used it more for inspiration and went in different directions and developed it to the levels it is today.
|
|
|
Post by conan on Sept 21, 2015 14:10:12 GMT -5
Zeiss's entire pre-war Contax camera design was governed by the Patent war with Leica, they altered everything just enough to steer clear of litigation. As the Patents etc., were sorted out by the 1950's, It left several makers able to copy the Leica shutter without payments. Zeiss Pentacon went for copying, but later suffered from the Japanese copying the vertical metal flat plate shutter. Stephen.
|
|
|
Post by conan on Sept 21, 2015 3:18:03 GMT -5
This was the camera that ushered in the modern 35mm SLR era as its basic design elements are clearly seen in later East German and Japanese designs. It is truly a classic that indicated the direction of future SLR design.
The Contax S also caused Zeiss West to go down a path that would prove disastrous for much of the West German camera industry. Zeiss East found that the conventional Contax shutter would not fit in the design and adopted a conventional horizontal focal plane shutter. In this period Zeiss West and Zeiss East were already engaged in some serious ‘arguments’ over product names. Zeiss West were re engaging Leica and had constantly used the Leica shutter design to prove that the Contax shutter design was superior. Any similar camera from Zeiss West would be later to market and would me seen as second to the East Germans and an acknowledgement that the Leica conventional design was perhaps superior. Compur were already prototyping their new shutter design and Zeiss West jumped on it because it was a 35mm SLR that was different to the East Germans and did give not Leica a chance to ‘crow’. The between the lens design was later followed by Kodak, Voigtlander and Braun at a time when the Japanese camera invasion had started. The early sixties saw the market dominance of the horizontal focal plane shutter and proper interchangeable lenses whereas the Compur type SLRs could only be slightly revised. The German manufacturers reacted too little and too late. Voigtlander had been totally absorbed by Zeiss and their conventional design would appear later as the Zeiss Icarex, Kodak would show an advanced prototype Retinaflex conventional SLR in 1964 but ‘pulled the plug’ because it was too expensive to manufacture and would be more expensive than the Nikon F. Braun just gave up.
I have omitted the Contarex which is more a piece of engineering art for the sake of it and was a piece of very expensive male jewelry that preceded the gold chains era of the 80s. It was a product looking for a market that it never found and really was confirmation that Zeiss West did not understand the 35mm market.
|
|