What were they trying to sell us?

[belgiumreporter]

Throughout the history of photography there's allways been good , lesser good and questionable  cameras to suit the needs of photographers. 

And i Guess most of us know the story of the canomatic (NOT canoNmatic) scam were a truly piece of junk desgised as a "pro" camera was being sold in all kinds of obscure places by shady figures trying to lure you in to believing you would get a once in a lifetime deal on a suitcase full of camera gear that needed to be sold in a hurry due to sircumstances.

These "cameras" now keep popping up on various second hand / auction sites by people trying to get rid of them at any price. The canomatic  is an extreme example of a camera scam, but in the past (and maybe even now) reputable camera makers did put out some rubbish taking advantage of a big brand name. The first one i've put my hands on when going through some boxes of to be classified camera gear wa this Minolta 110 zoom SLR.

There's nothing wrong with the build quality and it looks real nice. Not so nice are the specs a 25-50 equivalent lens with a max aperture of only F4 and a minimum focussing distance of 1 meter/ 3.5Ft. It is an slr but focussing is difficult because of the small viewfinder with little contrast. The camera is aperture priority with a manual -1/-2 exposure compensation button. Light metering is by a seperate cell on the body not through the lens.The tripod thread on the side of the body wasn't such a good idea either making it difficult to make landscape oriented shots. The 110 format was mainly launched as a "pocket" format snapshooter type of camera with no worries for the user just pop in the 110 cassete and snap away. The minolta can hardly be called pocketable unless you have very large pockets. Given the nature of the 110 format, even with good optics it was unable to deliver good results, decent at most. F4 max and slow grainy film isn't exactly a recepy for good results and i doubt many people tempted to buy the 110 slr were very happy with it.

If you look at what is produced these days as digital compacts i think it can be said there's a giant leap to producing quality images we could only have dreamt of in the days of 110 film.

[raybar]

Who was the "us" in "what were they trying to sell us"? It certainly wasn't you or me. It wasn't professional photographers or serious amateurs.

I was working at the camera store when these were on the market (1976 - 1979 per McKeown's). They sold well enough to the "point and shoot" crowd to justify keeping some in stock, but none of the very few real photographers who even looked at them ever bought one. I thought it was too much camera for the format. That is, the only reason to shoot those tiny negatives or slides was to have a tiny camera that you could throw into your pocket or purse and have with you all the time. The Minolta 110 Zoom, as you said, was far too large and heavy for that.

A better choice, which I gave to my parents when they were traveling, was the Rollei A110. Not a reflex, not a zoom, but also not much larger than the 110 cassette itself. Now that's a portable camera.

Or the Pentax Auto 110. SLR viewing, interchangeable lenses, power winder, dedicated flash. Not as small as the Rollei, but a whole kit could be smaller than the Minolta.

========== 

Another "scam" camera was the Fotron from the Traid company in Glendale, California. I believe that Traid was sued into bankruptcy. camerapedia.fandom.com/wiki/Fotron

[belgiumreporter]

Thanks Raybar for the link to the Fotron page, i never heard of that "camera" but i guess it was never marketed in Europa.

As a sales person surely you'll know not everyone in the market for a new camera knows all about the technical nitty gritty.

This is where camera makers play a dubious role by making confusing spec sheets on their camera models.

For example, some people might think "power focus" or "focus free"is the same as auto focus or "auto shake compensation" (where the iso is automatically increased to achieve higher shutter speeds in order to prevent camera shake) would be used to confuse people to think they actually are getting a real vibration reduction lens or camera... In the end it comes down to the customers not getting what they thought they were paying for and in the worst case ending up with a useless piece of kit.



The next camera i wanted to talk about is once again something i picked up for a few Euros just because it looked odd: meet the the Canon Epoca.

It looks like something from the 80ties to go with wide shoulderpads and silly made up hair, but it was actually launched in 1990. Hold it the right way and it can be confused for a thermo coffe mug.

It uses 35mm film wich is a good thing but that's about the only good thing i can say about it.

The lens is a 35 to 105mm zoom wich opens at the wide end at 2.8 (not so bad) but quicly declines to 6.6 at the longer end (not so good)

It's fully program automatic with no way of manual override, the main ttl finder at the back is reasonably useable but the extra finder on top of the camera is completely useless for a number of reasons. The in the lens cap build in flash is a nice design gimmick but nothing more than that.

It's powered by the expensive and hard to find 2CR5 6volts batteries.

Anyway, another one for the odd camera shelve.

[raybar]

Yes, many customers seemed to know almost nothing photography. There are still some I remember now, 40 years after I left the store to begin my real career in Hollywood with movie cameras.  

One was an older gentleman who used a Nikkormat EL. Even even after repeated demonstrations he couldn't remember how to change the battery (lock mirror up, open battery chamber at bottom of mirror box), or even what battery it used. He came running up to me in a panic (he was late for something) as I got out of my car one morning with his camera and an AA battery, asking if I could install it for him. Again. But he needed a PX28 or 4SR44, neither of which I had in my pocket at the moment. The expression RYFM comes to mind - - Read Your F***ing Manual - - but we never said that aloud when customers were present. 

Another was a teenage girl, accompanied by her father. She was looking for her first "good camera" but had no idea what she wanted. The range of choices must have been intimidating - everything 110 to 8x10 was in plain view. I think she bought a Canonet after eliminating both the high and low ends of the market. Wanted something better than a "point and shoot," but not ready for an SLR. 

Then there was the guy who did want his first SLR, but was so afraid of buying the wrong thing that he had to smoke cigarette after cigarette to calm his nerves while he was talking to me. I assured him that we didn't carry any junk, so he really couldn't make a bad mistake. He bought a mid-range Pentax or Minolta or something after I said didn't he need a top Canon or Nikon model, but he might not want the cheapest thing in the store either. 

======== 

The Canon Epoca was sold in North America as the Photura, as if someone thought it was the future of camera design.  It wasn't - - too different from everything else on the market to sell very well, and too close to the digital takeover of the whole industry to last long. 

The viewfinder on top is called a "low level" finder in the instruction booklet, and could be useful if the camera is on the ground. I prefer not lying in the dirt if I can avoid it. Aside from that, I agree that it's useless. If such a feature was worthwhile, lots of cameras would have it. Still, I suppose it was something that somebody was bound to try, even if just to see whether or not it was good idea. 

One feature that's really bad is the placement of the battery and film chambers. How many rolls of exposed film were ruined when someone opened the camera to change batteries mid-roll, having forgotten to open only the little battery cover rather than the main door? 

And, regarding the battery chamber. I have two Photuras - one cost nothing and the other was free.  Neither seats the battery properly. The electrical contacts on the battery do not stay in contact with those in the camera unless I continually press the battery into the chamber. I wonder if this was a common problem or if I was just lucky. 

[belgiumreporter]

Jul 23, 2020 14:57:35 GMT -5 raybar said:

 
And, regarding the battery chamber. I have two Photuras - one cost nothing and the other was free.  Neither seats the battery properly. The electrical contacts on the battery do not stay in contact with those in the camera unless I continually press the battery into the chamber. I wonder if this was a common problem or if I was just lucky. 

You seem to know these Epoca's/ photura's well, i never used the one i've got but i did notice something "fishy" in the battery chanber. from what you said on that matter it dos looks like it is a common problem with these cameras as mine was fitted with an extra pressure plate to keep the battery in its place:


I to had some experience with oblivious camera buyers, but what happened to a colegue of mine beats everything: He once sold a canon AE1 BODY to a young girl, some forteen days later she came back in a rage, calling him names and everything, he polightly asked her what the problem was and she said the camera was defective. Ok, so he asked to have a look at the camera and noticed there still wasn't a lens on the body...
he then asked her if she was using the camera like that and she said yes...he then kept his cool controlling his rage and disbelieve and kindly told her in order to have the camera ready to take pictures she would still need a lens. From then on things settled and he was able to sell her a lens  :-) I still wonder how she managed to get a film in the body (being stupid as she obviously was) and compose a shot without the lens???

[dismayed]

There were always attempts to get folks to buy into new film formats. I've stuck with 35mm for my miniature format.

[belgiumreporter]

Cosina E1 solar scam or gimmick? The E1 solar is basicly a CT1 with solar cells build in the prism housing. The idea was that the camera wouldn't need any batteries to operate and could draw its power from solar energy.

While the camera itselve dosn't need any electrical power as it is fully mechanical, the only thing the solar cells are needed for is the meter. Energy is transferred to a capasitor wich stores enough energy to power the meter for a short while or as long as there's sufficient anbient light to keep the solar cells working.

This all seems very nice and i must admit when i took this camera out of its more than 10years hibernation sleep in a box somewhere in the attick, it still came to life without any problem showing the + and - LCD in the viewfinder. But then again the meter needs light for it to be operational, no use in dim lighting or near darkness.

I don't know what it's metering EV range is but was wondering in what way this system is any better than the old and proven selenium meters, so i'm inclined to catalogue the E1 as a gimmick that took advantage of the "solar power" craze in the 90'ties to generate some profit out of this niche market.

[philbirch]

it was, I think, a concept camera. I dare say other manufacturers watched to see if it worked.

I think its a pity that the technology wasnt refined and carried over to digital

[wendycolbert]

I have been researching the development of cameras over the last century. I can confidently say that this is one of the best and highest quality models of the camera. If necessary, I can compile for you a list of primary sources writemyessay4me.org/annotated-bibliography , that confirm this fact.

[belgiumreporter]

Oct 6, 2020 3:36:06 GMT -5 wendycolbert said:

I have been researching the development of cameras over the last century. I can confidently say that this is one of the best and highest quality models of the camera. If necessary, I can compile for you a list of primary sources writemyessay4me.org/annotated-bibliography , that confirm this fact.

Can you please specify wich camera we are talking about? and what proves it to be such a high quality camera? The link in your post isn't very helpfull in confirming any facts.

[philbirch]

Oct 7, 2020 8:07:14 GMT -5 belgiumreporter said:

Oct 6, 2020 3:36:06 GMT -5 wendycolbert said:

I have been researching the development of cameras over the last century. I can confidently say that this is one of the best and highest quality models of the camera. If necessary, I can compile for you a list of primary sources writemyessay4me.org/annotated-bibliography , that confirm this fact.

Can you please specify wich camera we are talking about? and what proves it to be such a high quality camera? The link in your post isn't very helpfull in confirming any facts.

Just spamming, clickbaiting. Joining a forum or group, posting a marginally on topic item and giving a link to a nonrelated website

get rid of this 'member' someone

[belgiumreporter]

Oct 13, 2020 17:54:13 GMT -5 philbirch said:

Oct 7, 2020 8:07:14 GMT -5 belgiumreporter said:

Can you please specify wich camera we are talking about? and what proves it to be such a high quality camera? The link in your post isn't very helpfull in confirming any facts.

Just spamming, clickbaiting. Joining a forum or group, posting a marginally on topic item and giving a link to a nonrelated website

get rid of this 'member' someone

Thought so, that's why i thrown out some baite to see if this "new member" would follow up his or hers bold claim. 

[ambro51]

During the mid ‘70s I worked in a camera department in a moderate size retail store. We sold lots of film and done lots of processing. Though we had Minolta Nikkormst Miranda and Olympus 35mm Cameras to sell, it wasn’t too often. The big sellers were Poloroids, Kodak Instamatics and Kodak Super 8 Cameras. 110 was BIG! Hottest camera sold was the instamatic 10....the Instamatic 60 was a Real Gem, really had a quality feel to it. Now, we forget....in this era of pixel peeping....pictures were mostly 4x6 or less. •••• So I’d have to say the buyer in the 1970s had more choices we have today, but pictures could be “OK” and the camera was ok too.

[belgiumreporter]

Throughout the history of 135 type film people had trouble loading the film in their camera. More than often when reaching shot 40 on a 36 shot film it became clear the film leader wasn't properly inserted in the take up spool and the only thing exposed was the pressure plate :-(

Some manufacturers tried to solve this problem by making cameras with a "fool proof" film loading mechanism, one of the best was canons QL (quick load) system. Now Zeiss must have tought why don't we make a camera for clumsy people who still want a SLR but can't live with a 135 type film.

Enter the Contaflex 126 ! it's a full blown slr with interchangeable lenses wich uses 126 casette type film. Just pop in the casette and shoot away, no more fumbling with film leaders. The lack of different types of film and maybe the 24x24 negative size made the 126 slr a very small niche market (although the 126 instamatic point and shoots did sell well) so only three different 126 slr's were made: Contaflex 126/ Kodak instamatic reflex/ Rollei SL26 and that was the end of the 126 slr story.

This Contaflex 126 came with four beautifull Zeiss lenses :Zeiss Distagon 32/2.8 / Zeiss Tessar 45/2.8/ Zeiss Sonnar 85/2.8 and Zeiss Tele-Tessar 135/4 these lenses only fit the 126 but adapters are now available to adapt them on mirrorless systems, question is who is willing to fork out 190$ for such an adapter? so once again "what were (are) they trying to sell (us)" ?
 

[paulhofseth]

I never bothered to notice what the makers would like to sell new but aquired stuff second hand and letting the previous, owner foot the depreciation bill, but did try out different film types and formats, I concluded that minox format was too small, Linhof 6x9 with sheet fil as well as rollex back too unwieldy while panatomicx and technical pan was too slow, so I settled for 35mm Ilford FP3 in Hyfin developer as a compromise between speed and enlargeability. When colour became desirable, Kodachrome would do until Fuji Velvia came along and one could avoid shipping film far away to be developed.

With currrent digitals, moderate speeds and slow optics provide all the opportunities I want for reframing. The industyr stil wants to flog excessively fast lenses chock full of vulnerable electronic and mechanical parts, but I can do without automatics that give pinpoint sharpness of the nearest twig rather than on what I wish to have in focus.

p.