|
Mamiya
Jan 4, 2007 11:13:03 GMT -5
Post by herron on Jan 4, 2007 11:13:03 GMT -5
Couldn't let all the talk about Canon, Yashica, Nikon, Pentax, Minolta, et. al., go by without mentioning my favorites... Mamiya! This is my Mamiya Prismat NP, Mamiya's first production SLR, which came with a Canon lens in an Exacta-type mount! (c.1961) This is one of my prizes, the original Mamiya 35-I rangefinder (c.1949), Mamiya's first 35mm camera (they made medium-format folders prior to this). And this is one of those "wish-I-had-it-but-never-will" cameras, the original Mamiya Prismflex SLR (c.1952) -- which was never put into production. Photo courtesy Mamiya JapanMamiya beat most of the SLR competition to everything but the market. The Miranda Orion did not debut until 1956. Asahi did not release their first Pentax model until 1957. Minolta's SR-2 was not released until 1958. The seldom discussed, and short-lived camera from lensmaker Zunow also appeared -- and disappeared -- in 1958. The Canonflex was not released until 1959, as was Nippon Kogaku's Nikon F -- which, as we all know, quickly cornered the market. Why didn't Mamiya enter the SLR market with the Prismat until 1961? That, my friends, is an open and intriguing question.........
|
|
PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Mamiya
Jan 4, 2007 11:52:45 GMT -5
Post by PeterW on Jan 4, 2007 11:52:45 GMT -5
Hi Ron,
Oh, I see. They knew how to make an SLR body, but had to go to Canon and Exakta for the lens and mount. Shows they appreciated quality when they saw it. ;D ;D ;D.
PeterW
|
|
|
Mamiya
Jan 4, 2007 22:38:30 GMT -5
Post by herron on Jan 4, 2007 22:38:30 GMT -5
Hi Ron, Oh, I see. They knew how to make an SLR body, but had to go to Canon and Exakta for the lens and mount. Shows they appreciated quality when they saw it. ;D ;D ;D. PeterW Now, now! Mamiya made four known (and quite nice) Mamiya-Sekor F.C. lenses for the camera. They included a 35mm f/2.8; a 48mm f/2.8; a 58mm f/1.7; and a 135mm f/2.8. There was also an optional 50mm f/1.9 made by Canon that was often made available in this mount. By the way, that mount was actually introduced by Ihagee.
|
|
casualcollector
Lifetime Member
In Search of "R" Serial Soligors
Posts: 619
|
Mamiya
Jan 4, 2007 23:00:46 GMT -5
Post by casualcollector on Jan 4, 2007 23:00:46 GMT -5
Ron,
The Prismflex looks more like a mock-up than a working camera, or at least the lens does. Do you know any more about it?
Bill
|
|
|
Mamiya
Jan 4, 2007 23:18:22 GMT -5
Post by herron on Jan 4, 2007 23:18:22 GMT -5
Bill: The info I had from Mamiya Japan said only that it was their first 35mm prototype, and never released into production. I have to assume it worked, but the lens does look as if it has no stops visible of any kind (unless it was one that you could NOT adjust). Mamiya had a slightly more robust 35mm prototype by 1955...the Mamiya Pentaflex (below). Still ahead of the Miranda Orion, but it too was never put into production. Alas, it is also one of those "never will have" cameras. Even assuming one could be found, my pocket change would never be adequate to obtain it.
|
|
PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Mamiya
Jan 5, 2007 9:02:00 GMT -5
Post by PeterW on Jan 5, 2007 9:02:00 GMT -5
Hi Ron
The company was Ihagee Kamerawerk Steenbergen & Co, but its original registered title was Industrie und Handels Gesellshaft (Industrial and Trading Company), initials IHG. The German pronunciation of IHG is EE HA GEE ... so Ihagee. And Ihagee of course made Exaktas.
But you probably knew all that anyway.
PeterW
|
|
|
Mamiya
Jan 5, 2007 10:57:34 GMT -5
Post by herron on Jan 5, 2007 10:57:34 GMT -5
Peter: Seems like Ihagee sold or licensed the mount to a few folks.
I found that happened a lot in the Japanese photo industry after WWII. Have you noticed the same in other areas?
|
|
PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Mamiya
Jan 5, 2007 16:35:02 GMT -5
Post by PeterW on Jan 5, 2007 16:35:02 GMT -5
Hi Ron,
Oh dear, you've started me off again!
It happened a lot with the German camera industry both in the 1930s and after the war. There were many licensing agreements between camera and lens manufacturers together with financial takeovers, or leasing of manufacturing rights, without the company name and brand. For example, Klio leaf shutters were designed by Deckel, makers of the Compur, but modified and built by Zeiss Ikon. Later Deckel merged with Gauthier, makers of the Prontor range and both were then taken over financially by Zeiss.
It was further complicated by State control in East Germany after the war before the reunification, with the formation of companies into VEBs, and later merging them into VEB Pentacon. In the 1930s there were more than 40 camera and lens makers in the Dresden area alone, some making finished products and others making licensed-out components. In many cases either Carl Zeiss or the Zeiss Foundation, which controlled Zeiss Ikon, had a financial interest. Carl Zeiss and the Zeiss Foundation came out of the German depression very rich and powerful. Powerful enough to stand up to the Nazis about employing Jewish workers for many years, and to bounce back after its factories were plundered by the Russians. Ihagee was also a very rich company.
Ihagee was quite late being formed into a VEB and merged with Pentacon as legally it was still owned by the Steenbergen family, a Dutch family. Even the initials or acronym VEB can be confused in this case. It is generally taken to be Volkseigener Betrieb, or People's Working Enterprise, but it is also used for Vereniging Van Effectenbezitters which in Dutch means Shareholders Rights.
Similarly, KW, or Kamera Werkstatten, makers of the Praktica, was owned by the American Noble family, but Noble himself, who still had American citizenship, had disappeared and was being sought by America on charges of being a Nazi sympathiser and trading with the enemy during wartime.
And, as you are aware, both before and after the war the German makers, meaning mainly Carl Zeiss and Leitz by this time, reached licensing and sometimes manufacturing agreements with Japanese manufacturers, and also had a certain financial interest in factories in Singapore, Korea, Taiwan and China.
It's all very complicated to try to sort out. Far too complicated for me as a lot of it is bound up in German civil and company law, and many deals were reached by a Memorandum of Agreement which is legally binding but does not have to be filed with the national Companies Registration office.
In many cases these financial agreements were not made public at the time and are emerging only now as camera collectors and historians dig into old company archives.
For example, many people think that the finance for setting up Zeiss Ikon in Western Germany after the war was provided by America. However, I was recently told that evidence has come to light that much of the money was a loan from the Zeiss Foundation in East Germany, who got rather sore when they didn't get any repayments, and to rub salt in it were sued for the sole right to use the Zeiss Ikon name.
I'm hoping eventually to see these documents, or a translation of them, if they exist, but until then, as I said in an earlier posting, I now question every story without proof.
What the position is with regard to who owns the assets, tangible and intangible, of Zeiss Ikon West I'm not sure but I think the name has reverted to the Zeiss Foundation as it is now being used on a Cosina-built camera. Just how much of the camera was designed by Cosina and how much by Zeiss isn't properly clear.
It's all even more complicated than the Cosina story itself.
My head's spinning just typing all this.
You still wanna be a camera historian?
PeterW
|
|