Myths

[johnbear]

Does anyone know any popular myths about camera models; incorrect facts that are perpetuated on copy cat internet sites, and generally accepted as true?

The sort of thing I mean is stuff like:

* the Petri 7s was used by professionals,

* the Nikon EM meter doesn't work unless there's a film loaded and wound to frame 1,

* the Topcon Unirex was the first SLR with open aperture metering,

* the Yashica TL Electro X was the first camera with viewfinder LEDs, etc.

[belgiumreporter]

Interesting thread, here's the first myth that comes to my mind:
There's a nikon myth that says the first two digits of the serial number from F Body's is the year of production.
To some extend it's true but it's the first three digits wich are a code given to the production year.The confusion is somehow understandable because the first two digits are mostly close to the year of production.
This myth fooled me for years, until the internet busted it.

my oldest nikon F serial 645xxxx production date SEP 1961 to FEB 1962


my "youngest" F serial 737xxxx production date OCT 1972 to JAN 1973

[daveh]

As regards the Topcon Uni, I presume someone, somewhere has referred to it as quoted above. What I seem to recall having seen is that it was billed as the first with auto-exposure open aperture metering. The Topcon RE is the camera usually credited with the first practicable open aperture metering.

Of course all facts are subject to scrutiny. Did Fleming discover penicillin? In one sense yes, but in another definitely not. In the Middle Ages moldy cheese would be strapped on an infected wound. I bet it, or similar, was done by others a long time before that.

[johnbear]

Nikon F serial numbers - yes I can understand how this seemingly logical observation can become crystallised into a "fact" that isn't true. Others are more wildly in accurate.

The Topcon Unirex claim is less forgivable. According to the top search result from Bing - "the Unirex is one of the first SLR's with full aperture CdS exposure metering" and was introduced in 1969.

The 1963 RE Super was indeed the first, followed be the likes of the 1964 Topcon Uni, the 1966 Minolta SRT101, the 1967 Nikon Nikkormat FTN, and the 1969 Praktica LLC, and so on. Something cannot be one of the first six years later.

The problem is, these inaccuracies get repeated, modified, and information becomes corrupted. Thankfully, I've notice this particular claim is not as prevalent as it once was.

[daveh]

John, I don't know that being six years after the first necessarily disqualifies it as being "one of the first". If there have been just three or four others made with open aperture metering the claim is arguably still valid but if there has been a significant number then the claim is not valid. I have to say that I don't see many other sites making the same claim, and, in any case, "one of the first" is a long way from "the first" which is what your original post said. I see a certain irony in this.

[johnbear]

Oh well daveh, we'll just have to disagree on that one.

Captain Eugene Andrew (Apollo 17) was the last man to walk on the moon and also one of the first?

[hansz]

The Zeiss Ikon Vitessa 1000 SR (From Voigtlander, Braunschweig) was claimed to be the first leafshutter camera sporting a 1/1000 second shutter time. I don't know if it is true, but it seems unlikely to me...
I have two of those, and they still fire at 1/800 to 1/1000... And it is a rangefinder with exposure control, what do you need more from a compact?
Hans

[hansz]

IMG_1825 by Hans de Groot, on Flickr

[belgiumreporter]

Another myth: minolta XE1(7) and leica R3 are the same (not!)

[SidW]

Apr 12, 2017 5:30:26 GMT -5 belgiumreporter said:

Another myth: minolta XE1(7) and leica R3 are the same (not!)

I haven't heard it in precisely that form. What I have heard, and read in contemporary reviews, is they were a joint venture by Minolta and Leitz to test various components and designs for the R series.

[belgiumreporter]

Apr 12, 2017 18:54:16 GMT -5 SidW said:

Apr 12, 2017 5:30:26 GMT -5 belgiumreporter said:

Another myth: minolta XE1(7) and leica R3 are the same (not!)

I haven't heard it in precisely that form. What I have heard, and read in contemporary reviews, is they were a joint venture by Minolta and Leitz to test various components and designs for the R series.

This myth is often used by people trying to sell their XE/XD cameras, i've read and heard it countless times, some even claim the XE's are better than their leica counterparts.

To set things clear: the R3 differs from the XE by the following:

1) 2 metering modes (selective/integrated)

2) provision for motor drive (R3mot)

3) diffrent mirror mechanism

4) diffrent auto diafragm mechanism

5) larger prism (brighter viewfinder)

6) better mirror dampening(not shure of that though)

7) a lot of electronical problems in the first series(solved on cameras with higher than 1.600.000. serial number).

[rickoleson]

"One of" may perhaps be the most powerful phrase in the English language. Yes, you can absolutely be "one of the first" while also being the last, and I've seen this usage in commercial advertising. I don't think I've ever done it myself, but I won't promise.

=

[rickoleson]

One myth that irritates me a little is the one that the Minolta Maxxum was the first autofocus 35mm SLR. I think the first that I recall was the Pentax ME-F, which was followed by the Olympus OM-F; I think there were several before the Maxxum. Their systems were less sophisticated, but that can be said about just about any of the genuine "firsts".

[daveh]

Apr 11, 2017 14:52:24 GMT -5 johnbear said:

Oh well daveh, we'll just have to disagree on that one.

Captain Eugene Andrew (Apollo 17) was the last man to walk on the moon and also one of the first?

Disagree on it all you like,

One of Captain Cook's crew would have been the twelfth person from Britain to have stepped ashore in Australia. Would you say that he would not be classed as one of the first? It's not the fact that the astronaut was the twelfth man to step on the moon which dictates the phrase but that no one, as yet has come after him. When, at some point in the future, many more do so it will be correct to say he was one of the first.

[belgiumreporter]

Apr 19, 2017 16:14:26 GMT -5 rickoleson said:

One myth that irritates me a little is the one that the Minolta Maxxum was the first autofocus 35mm SLR. I think the first that I recall was the Pentax ME-F, which was followed by the Olympus OM-F; I think there were several before the Maxxum. Their systems were less sophisticated, but that can be said about just about any of the genuine "firsts".

This is a difficult discussion, i am inclined to say the first "usable"slr AF system was the 1983 nikon F3AF however it was not "affordable"  the minolta 7000 (1985) could claim to be the first usable and for the public afordable 35mm AF slr. The pentax ME-F (1982)was more a focussing aided slr for people with eyesight problems than a real AF slr (certainly by todays standards)

The 1981 canon FD 35-70 AF zoom lens could turn ANY FD mount camera into an AF slr so in a way canon did have the "first" AF slr( though all AF happened in the lens with no communication between the body)In 1985 the year of the launch of the 7000, canon also had the T80 with 3 AF lenses available, but it was never considered to be a "first" AF slr system. So the claim as the 7000 being the first AF slr is as much true as it is a myth, depending on how you define autofocus slr.