Prinzflex STTL ... [ Chinon Clone ] favourably revisited

[dee]

I bought a 4x Prinzflex STTL cameras circa 1972 via ebay to revisit my 1st SLR .

OK, they are loud and a bit clunky, but all work well, shutter speeds seem reasonable ,but needing new seals.
The standard lens, stopped down to f5.6 is fine on my G1 and created many acceptable transparencies.

I just wonder how much 'better' for an amateur, a Nikon/Canon/Minolta was in real terms given the difference in price?
Obviously, finish is less impressive but it seems well made and sound to me compared with my later fave-Minolta SRTs.

[truls]

It might be a question of the lens used on the camera, probably images came out almost equal compared to other systems. By pictures on net it looks like a decent camera. I like those old school basic cameras.

[daveh]

I don't deny that the best cameras could give the best results. It is, however, a truism that anything is only as good as the worst part of its system. It might be wonderful having a camera than has pin-point accuracy on all speeds and a lens that can resolve 10,000 lines but if film can only resolve 500 lines and has a wide exposure latitude then those extra pounds, dollars or krone are pretty much wasted. It might also be that the camera exceeds the capabilities of the person.

[philbirch]

I think your average amateur, i.e. he who buys a camera with 'all the settings' and a pair of 35mm and 135mm lenses as part of the deal would be very happy with this camera, it is exactly this person that this model was aimed at. And armed with a catalogue of fast, long, exotic lenses and myriads of accessories he knows that whatever situation arises there is something for him.

Pentax, and Minolta would be above the price range, Nikon and Canon to far out of his range. Prakticas too cheap and Zenits, not worth looking at. Miranda's name is too girly and Dixons don't sell Petris and Soligor SLR's. A reasonably priced full featured Japanese camera is what your late 60's early 70's amateur would have been looking for. And this is it.

Dixons marketed well and even though their Prinz lenses were of pretty low quality no one complained, 3.5" X 5.25" prints never showed the shortcomings. And slides would have been shown through cheap Gnome, Hanimex or Prinz projectors.

I believe the comments above are representative of a great percentage of amateurs at the time when this camera was on sale. And based on my experience in photo retail (for 10 years, full and part time) and as an evening class teacher of photography to beginners and advanced amateurs.

[truls]

In the old days many was using large format cameras, sharpness or resolving power were never any issue. They more focused on getting the right contrast, not to loose information in highlights or shadows. So, they used developers to achieve this, a forgotten developer is D-23, which only have two ingredients, easy to mix. Did we loose something on the way from the old masters in the new photographic era?

[philbirch]

Sept 11, 2014 12:12:19 GMT -5 truls said:

In the old days many was using large format cameras, sharpness or resolving power were never any issue. They more focused on getting the right contrast, not to loose information in highlights or shadows. So, they used developers to achieve this, a forgotten developer is D-23, which only have two ingredients, easy to mix. Did we loose something on the way from the old masters in the new photographic era?

In the OOLLDD days cameras weren't as convenient as they are now, or indeed 40 years ago. Exposure charts and depth of field tables were an essential part of the photographers kit. Self developing for many was a necessity, and probably a chore. Some preferred to do it their self because of the creative aspect, as truls described. But into the 70's, colour processing was easy and cheap, cameras were automatic or metered, for focusing we had rangefinders or split image screens so estimation and DOF tables weren't necessary.

The Prinzflex was the perfect tool for the budget conscious amateur.

Interestingly this camera was made by Chinon, a brand later to be imported into the UK exclusively by Dixons. Prinz was a German sounding name devised by Dixons, German cameras were regarded as better quality then Japanese ones in the late 50's - early 60's.

[daveh]

Several cameras bearing the Chinon name were built by Cosina. Also, some of the Prinzflexes were Zenits. It is difficult to know who really made what when companies like Dixons used to just stick a new nameplate over the "original manufacturer", because not infrequently someone else was making the camera in the first place.

There is always the thought that old was better. In some ways for some things that is so. However for many things it isn't, even if we would like it to be the case.

[dee]

My daughter has bought a sister model of the Prinzflex badged as Zodel - it was sold by Wallace Heaton as featured in the 1970 Blue Book catalogue.

Dixons and Wallace Heaton were virtually opposite one another when I escaped from clothes shopping in Bond St London.

I chose the Prinxflex because of the front mounted shutter dial [ like Praktica ].
The Zodel has the conventional top mounted dial .

Dixons had many more stores , so many more Prinxflex cameras were made than the Zodel .
It appears that Cosina would sell batches to dealer , introducing a modified model a year later.

This rather tired body , with broken mirror , is the first I have found on ebay , but at £6 , I had to have it.
Maybe I will take the mirror from my worst Prinxflex to fix it .

I had imagined that the Zodel was painted black on brass , unlike the Prinxflex , when I discovered too late , that it was painted over the chrome !!!

However , from the photos , just the top plate , which is engraved rather than an added logo , is black on brass . Weird cost cutting so that all components are chromed .

dee

[dee]

The Zodel has had a mirror transplant from a rough Prinzflex , with a Chinon 50 f1.7 lens I had , plus the de-badged Prinzflex case , so I finally have my sister camera !