678 VINTAGE CAMERAS - Blog

Takumar Tales: Pentax 55s - Unsung, Yet So, So Good

Wed, 13 Aug 2025 18:30:00 GMT

"The Planar Killer."

"It nearly bankrupted Asahi (Pentax)."

"The Holy Grail of 50mm lenses."

Three phrases that have never been applied to the unheralded, yet best-selling, Pentax 55/1.8 and f/2 "normal" lenses ;-). But these humble optics did more to establish Pentax' reputation as a purveyor of fine cameras and optics during the 1960s than any other. No, it wasn't through bold (if debatable) statements applied to the lovely, but now relatively scarce, 8-element Super Takumar 50/1.4 released with the Spotmatic in 1964. (Which was quickly replaced in 1965 with a 7-element version using "rare-earth", thorium-treated, glass to achieve even better performance). Rather, it was through understated, sustained excellence. First introduced in 1958 & 1959 in plain Takumar and Auto Takumar forms, respectively, the 55/1.8 (and its budget twin, the 55/2) would maintain their basic optical formula (albeit with adjustments to the glass types and coatings) through multiple variants, culminating in early K-mount versions, for a two-decade run on the market. So what was so special about these ordinary lenses?

Origins

The 55 1.8/2 Takumars did not come out of a vacuum. Instead they were improved versions of the earliest M42-mount 55mm lens conceived at Asahi Optical Co. (which would come to be known colloquially in the years ahead as Pentax, after their very influential, pentaprism-equipped SLR that debuted in 1957). The original standard lens kitted with the Pentax was (wait for it...) a 55mm f/2.2 plain Takumar ("plain" referring to the fully manual pre-set aperture system and 'Takumar' named after Asahi's founder Kumao Kajiwara's brother, Takuma) made up of 5 elements in 5 groups. Within months, the optical designers at Asahi had added another element (making the existing concave fourth element thinner, and cementing a new convex fifth element to it), also adding a semi-automatic aperture mechanism, thus birthing the first Auto Takumar (also a 55/2.2). The resulting 6e/5g formula became the template for all succeeding 55mm Asahi/Pentax lenses, and was quickly adapted into f/2 and f/1.8 versions during 1958. The f/2.2 would survive until 1963, when it was decided that there was no need for three moderate-aperture 55mms in the lineup. Just to muddy up things a little more: on re-badged Sears versions of the Pentax K (1958-59) labelled as "Tower 29" in the USA, the first Auto Takumar 55/1.8 was badged as an f/1.9 lens, but was identical in reality ;-). In summary, by 1964, there would be two 55mm Pentax lenses (in f/1.8 and f/2 flavors) and they shared identical optics. The only difference being the addition of a field stop to limit the maximum aperture to f/2 instead of f/1.8 on the 55/2, which was used as a kit lens on the budget Pentax SLRs while the 55/1.8 was standard equipment for the Spotmatic and SL models (the Spotmatic could also be had with the 50/1.4 as a kit lens).

6-element in 5 groups optical layout that was used for two decades by Pentax for its 55mm lenses

Why a 55mm focal length versus the standard 50mm used by rangefinders since the introduction of the Leica? Because at this early stage in SLR development, that extra 5mm of focal length made achieving sufficient back focus required by the reflex mirror easier to achieve. Double Gauss development would be rapid through the 1960s and soon 50mm was back as the standard focal length, but Pentax would stick with the 55s simply because they were that good. They would not make the jump to a 50/1.7 until the release of the M-series of compact SLRs along with their correspondingly-sized optics in 1976. We will confine ourselves in this article to the versions with automatic aperture operation as they are the lenses you will most likely encounter.

A Who's-Who of the 55/1.8 & 2s

1960-65

55/1.8 Auto-Takumar (Product # 345; Introduced in 1960) - Although labelled as an "Auto"-Takumar (which originally denoted a semi-automatic aperture), this 55/1.8 was actually the first of what came to called "Super"-Takumars (Super = fully automatic aperture), with the aperture ring re-located to the rear of the lens instead of the front. Automatic here refers to the stopping down of the aperture before exposure and the subsequent re-opening of the aperture following exposure. Semi-automatic apertures closed down automatically when the shutter release was pushed, but required the user to advance the film to re-open the aperture for the next exposure...thus semi-automatic operation. The 55/1.8 Auto-Takumar (and all subsequent Super Takumars) automatically re-opened the aperture immediately following exposure, eliminating the step of re-opening the aperture via film advance. The optics of this lens were unchanged from the previous Auto-Takumar version. In a weird switch, the aperture ring labelling and operation were reversed from standard Pentax practice with the values increasing from left-to-right (a la Leitz, Canon, & Minolta) instead of right-to-left (a la Zeiss, Nikon, and all Takumars heretofore). The movement of the A/M lever was also reversed to match the aperture ring. Discontinued Oct. 1962.

55/1.8 Super-Takumar (Product # 345-2 Introduced Oct. 1962) - Identical to the Product # 345 except that it was now labelled as a Super-Takumar, as it should have been all along. On late-production copies, the focus ring now had a scalloped grip versus the flat grip of the previous version. Discontinued Oct. 1963.

55/2 Super-Takumar (Product # 345-3; Introduced in 1962) - Identical to the Model # 345-2, apart from the field-stop which restricted the maximum aperture to f/2, and it also retained the flat-grip focus ring of the Model # 345 (at least until the stock of flat-grips was exhausted). "1.2/55" and aperture ring digits are butter-yellow in color. Coatings now were pink/blue instead of purple/blue. Discontinued Oct. 1963.

55/1.8 Super-Takumar (Product # 345-5; Introduced Oct. 1963; # 34550 from Oct. 1966-on) - Aperture ring markings were now returned to standard Takumar practice (increasing from right-to-left), as did operation of the A/M lever. The scalloped focus ring was carried over from late 345-2 production.

55/2 Super-Takumar (Product # 345-6; Introduced Oct. 1963) - All of the same changes that were applied to the 55/1.8: aperture ring, A/M lever, and the scalloped focus ring. Discontinued 1966.

1965-77

55/1.8 Super-Takumar (Product # 371 Introduced in 1965; Product # 37100 from Oct. 1966-on; # 37101 from Apr. 1971) - Although looking almost identical to the preceding 345-5 version, save for a scalloped aperture ring that now mirrored the pattern of the focus ring, this lens received a major internal update. In concert with the new 7-element 50/1.4 Super-Takumar, the 55/1.8 was now utilizing glass that included "rare-earth" i.e. radioactive (in this case, thorium dioxide) additives. This would be a major trend among the Japanese optics manufacturers for the next decade or so. The reason: a major boost in the refractive index of the optical glass along with lower dispersion, which led to better optical performance. The appeal of thorium-treated glass was that it presented a lot of bang for the buck. Case in point: by adopting such glass for the 7-element 50/1.4 Super Takumar, Pentax was able to equal and even exceed the optical performance of the previous 8-element version that required more material and labor to produce. Using about 2/3s the concentration of thorium in the 55/1.8 as they did in the 50/1.4 still made for a marked increase in optical performance over earlier versions. We will dig more into the advantages and drawbacks of lenses containing thorium later ;-). The optical coatings changed from blue to purple. The 37101 was a late version fitted with meter-coupling pins (but no multicoating) to function with the ES model introduced in 1971. Confusingly, Pentax used this same product number for the first Super-Multi-Coated version of this lens that had NO meter-coupling pins but DID have multicoating (face meet palm ;-)). Discontinued 1972.

Cutaway view of the # 37100 lens showing the beautiful mechanical and optical contruction of the Super Takumars

55/2 Super-Takumar (Product # 37102 Introduced in Oct. 1966; # 37103 from Aug. 1967-on) - Same changes as the Model # 37100. The #37103 brought a change of markings from A/M to AUTO/MAN. on the stop-down lever. Discontinued 1974.

55/1.8 Super-Takumar (Product # 37106 Introduced in 1971) - Late-production Super-Takumar that was equipped with light-meter coupling pins for use with the new Electro-Spotmatic (ES) SLR. This made it mechanically-identical to the upcoming Super-Multi-Coated Takumar, but without the multicoating. Japanese market only.

55/2 Super-Takumar (Product # 37107 Introduced in 1971) - Same upgrade as the 37106. 37107 is engraved on the back of of the AUTO/MAN. lever.

55/1.8 Super-Multi-Coated Takumar (Product # 37101 Introduced in 1971; # 37104 from Sept. 1971-on; #37106) - Here the waters get a bit muddy as Pentax began another major transition: this time to multicoating and meter-coupling, and not necessarily in the same order on all lenses ;-). The 37101 had no meter coupling pins, but was multicoated. The 37104 had meter coupling pins AND multicoating. The 37106 was a Japanese-market-only lens with minor internal changes from the 37104. Clear as mud? Perfect ;-). Discontinued 1972.

55/1.8 SMC TAKUMAR (Product # 37108 Introduced 1972) - The first major exterior re-styling in a decade. The focus ring grip was now a waffle-pattern rubber and the aperture ring had coarse, straight knurling. Internally, the lens was identical to the previous version. Another possible major update: Very late copies also reportedly received revised optical glass that eliminated the thorium content, with no loss of performance. Such an introduction of a feature from an upcoming generation of lenses, would fit with Pentax' previous behavior with prior generations of these lenses, so I would call this plausible, but I have yet to see hard evidence to prove it :-). Discontinued 1975.

55/2 SMC TAKUMAR (Product # 37109 Introduced in 1974) - Same updates as the 37108. Discontinued 1977.

Final version of the SMC Takumar 55/2 mounted on the SP1000

Even though they are not labelled as Takumars, there are two final versions that qualify in my books, seeing as they are optically identical to the last of the SMC Takumars: the SMC PENTAX K-mount models introduced in 1975 with the K-mount SLRs. Along with the change of mount and cosmetics, there was one other major change: the elimination of thorium dioxide from the glass = no more radioactivity. The 55/1.8 could be kitted with the K2, KX, and KM and the 55/2 was paired with the first run of K1000s (introduced a year after the three other K-model SLRS). 1977 would see the end of the 55s...truly, the end of an era.

Same optical design...same great build quality...but now a Takumar only in spirit ;-)

The Elephant in the Room - Radioactive Lenses

A large proportion of the 55mm Taks (manufactured from 1965-75, approximately) contained rear elements that had thorium dioxide added to increase the refractive index and lower dispersion of the glass to improve performance. Many other manufacturers also made use of thorium during that same period to achieve the same objective (pun intended ;-)). Without getting too far into the weeds (and also getting into a debate about personal views regarding radioactivity :-)), there were both advantages and consequences to its use.

An obvious and immediate advantage was higher optical performance for very little financial outlay (thorium is a common byproduct of the uranium refining process, which increased exponentially in the post-WWII period, driving costs down). The optical downside is the fact that over decades of non-use (which the majority of these lenses experienced) a byproduct of thorium decay is "yellowing", or more correctly, "browning" of the thoriated elements (usually most noticeable in the center of the affected element(s), with a concurrent loss of light transmission. This can, however, be reversed by exposing the lens to UV light, thus restoring optical performance.

A second disadvantage (for some people), is the fact that these lenses are radioactive. This is very much a matter of personal preference :-), as for some individuals any amount of radioactivity is too much. For others, it is not an issue, as the amount of exposure with one of these lenses mounted on an SLR for two hours is roughly comparable to having a chest X-ray performed, or making five consecutive transcontinental (using North America as an example) flights, things we rarely, if ever, contemplate as jeopardizing our health. Again, this is a matter for personal decision, so do your research and determine for yourself your own threshold of risk. There is also a simple solution if you determine that you do not want to have anything to do with thorium-fortified lenses: get a K-mount version. No radioactivity and all of the optical performance, as standard optical glasses had also been improved in the intervening decade after the thorium Super Taks debuted.

The greatest risk of radioactive exposure with these lenses was actually during production when the glass was being made, with the brunt being borne by the workers adding the thorium dioxide to the molten glass in the crucibles. And this issue was likely a large reason for the almost complete abandonment of thorium in Japanese lens production by the mid-'70s, over two decades before it was officially banned in 1999. The risk of future litigation could have been a major motivation as companies in Japan saw what happened to the Showa-Denko corporation in 1971, and the Chisso corporation in 1973, for their culpability in the propagation of Minimata disease due to decades of chemical dumping. Together with the improvements in standard types of optical glass by the middle of the decade and the easier availability of alternatives such as lanthanum oxide (1/10,000th the level of radioactivity of thorium), the benefits of using thorium dioxide in optical glass versus the drawbacks were basically negated, at that time.

Using the Pentax 55/1.8 and 55/2 Lenses

Optics aside, these lenses (both Takumar and K-Series) feature beautiful build quality and are a pleasure to use. Focusing is silky-smooth with aluminum-on-brass helicoids, the knurling of the focus and aperture rings is beyond reproach on metal grip versions, and the resulting tactile experience is all the more amazing given the prices these lenses are still available for nowadays. But that's just the cherry on top: you will be hard-pressed to find anything that exceeds their optical performance in the nifty-fifty (f/1.7 - f/2) category from the era. They pack a bit more outright resolution than the famed 50/1.4 Super-Taks (take your pick from the 7 or 8-element versions, it doesn't matter) while still giving delightful out-of-focus performance that catches most users by surprise when they try one for the first time. If you are into reversing your normal lenses for close-up use, these are also a better choice than the f/1.4s. I have run a K 55/1.8 reversed on my Nikon D300 (sacrilege, I know ;-)) with superb results. It is easily done, as Pentax seemingly arbitrarily changed the filter ring diameter to 52mm (same as Nikon's standard lenses back then) for the SMC Pentax series, before reverting back to their familiar 49mm with the second-gen K-mount SMC-M lenses (the 55 Ks were killed off and replaced by new 50/1.7 & 2 M lenses, at that time, unfortunately).

Of course, that is not to say they are "perfect". Vignetting and softer corners wide open are par for the course, but from f/4 to f/11, you will not find better performance from any comparable lens from their heyday. They will easily keep up with modern digital sensors past 24MP at those apertures. Using M42 or K versions on mirrorless digital ILCs (interchangeable lens cameras) is a mere adapter away :-). M42 versions can also be adapted to K-mount SLRs and DSLRs with Pentax' M42 to K-mount adapter, although the cost for genuine copies of the adapter has gotten increasingly ridiculous due to its scarcity, nowadays.

For my money, the K-versions are the pick of the litter:

All of the optical and build quality of the M42s.
You don't even have to think about radioactivity.
They are just as easily adapted for mirrorless, if that is your bag.
There are still a slew of K-mount SLRs available that they work perfectly on.
They are also usable on several Pentax DSLRs, albeit with some exposure niggles.

However, if you are a dyed-in-the-wool M42 user, you will not be disappointed with any of the Super Taks, provided the copy is in proper condition. My personal pick would be a very late SMC Takumar as they have the best coatings of the M42s and could possibly also feature non-radioactive glass, as it was Pentax' custom to introduce new features on very late versions of generations that were about to be replaced as a sort of beta-testing procedure. I have not yet come across one of these personally to verify the reports of non-radioactivity, so I cannot say that this is conclusive.

Wrap-Up

My K 55/1.8 remains my favorite Pentax lens. Sure, there are other lenses that Pentax made that better it in some, if not all, technical respects. But it just feels right, not only in actual use on a K-mount SLR, but also in the feel of the images it produces. The first time I used it was at a local conservatory. When I got the images back, it wasn't that the lens had somehow vaulted my photographic capability into the stratosphere (far from it ;-)), but I immediately got the same feeling of the place I had been. The colors...the way the bokeh rendered...I swear it recorded the smells ;-). In other words...it matched my memory. I can think of no higher complement for a lens than that :-).

References:

The Definitive ASAHI PENTAX Collector's Guide 1952-1977 by Gerjan van Oosten
ASAHI PENTAX Lenses & Accessories Brochure c.1966
Honeywell Pentax Product Catalog - 1973-07
Various Pentax Brochures & Manuals @ https://www.pacificrimcamera.com
Pentax Lens Reviews @ https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/

Pentax 17: Beyond the Hype and Hate

Sun, 22 Dec 2024 07:00:00 GMT

Updated Feb. 3, 2025

Well, it's been six months since the much-ballyhooed new Pentax film camera made its debut. Enough time for the hype train to begin to run out of steam and the haters to pile on. So what is the real deal with the Pentax 17? Who is it for? Is it overpriced for what it is? And how does it stack up against its real competition: vintage 35mm viewfinder cameras from the 1970s to mid-'80s and even-older half-frame models? Let's dig in :-).

What Is the Pentax 17?

Like you really needed to know, right? But a little review of what it actually is (or more correctly, isn't) could help us to come to a more objective perspective than, oh say, 95% of the Internet ;-). Instead of just plowing ahead with the specifications or Ricoh's ad copy, however, let's approach it from the opposite end: what the Pentax 17 is not:

News flash #1: It's not an SLR or a rangefinder. This seems to be a difficult concept for many reviewers/influencers to grasp. So, they complain that they wish they could see in the viewfinder what is going on with focus. But...it's...a...V...I...E...W...F...I...N...D...E...R...camera. So, comparing it to camera types that provide instant focus feedback is a fool's errand. It was never intended to be an enthusiast-level camera, so why try and force it to be one? Oh wait...it's $500 USD? That definitely must make it an enthusiast camera! (Eyeroll)
News flash #2: It's not a posh '90s AF point & shoot, encrusted in titanium (psst, but with all the wobbly innards of much more plebeian models :-0). A lot of complaints also seem to center around the "plasticky" feel of the 17, particularly the back and grip (which make almost no effort to hide their lowly construction). After the pleasant deception of the CONTAX Ts, the Minolta TC-1, the Nikon Ti 28 & 35, et al, the unabashed flaunting of the 17's hybrid construction (magnesium top & bottom plates sandwiching the plain polycarbonate chassis) is unacceptable in a $500 USD camera (is it just me, or am I sensing a theme here? ;-)), which should surely have a laser CNC-machined, titanium monocoque chassis designed for pressures of 200 atmospheres for that kind of money, right???

So what is the Pentax 17 in reality? At first glance, it's a modern rendering of the manual zone-focusing, manual winding and rewinding, 35mm "compact" viewfinder cameras that were firmly targeted at consumers throughout the 1970s and into the early-'80s before AF took over. This is borne out not only in its function and styling, but also its internal construction, which has far more in common with 1981-85 than the 1990s (a very good thing in my opinion, as the '90s were a race to the bottom to see how much the innards of 35mm compact cameras could be de-contented). But Ricoh has also thrown in a twist or two...such as the vertical "half-frame" (17mm x 24mm in this specific case; 18x24 is the original dimension) film format that was tremendously popular in Japan throughout the 1960s and into the '70s. So, let's start there...

A Brief History of Half-Frame

So-called "half-frame" cameras came into vogue in Japan beginning with the Olympus Pen series designed by none other than Yoshihisa Maitani (of later Olympus OM and XA fame) in 1959. Their reason for being was very straightforward: in early post-WWII Japan, the average person could not afford the processing for the standard 35mm format. By halving the image size, processing costs for the same amount of pictures was also halved, putting photography within reach of a far larger domestic demographic. A byproduct of this was a physically smaller camera that was easy to carry. Olympus would quickly be joined by a host of other manufacturers with their own half-frame model lines: Canon Demi, Petri Half, Yashica Half, and yes, the Ricoh (who just happened to buy Pentax in 2017 :-)) Auto Half, amongst others. The result? The half-frame market exploded in Japan during the first half of the 1960s, and became popular enough that Olympus even brought out an upmarket, advanced interchangeable lens SLR in the format (with a titanium rotary shutter, no less) in 1963. However, half-frame would prove to have a short half-life (groan ;-)) for two major reasons:

Kodak's boycott of the format in the US, the largest market for the Japanese camera industry at the time, and for decades after. This had nothing to do with technical capability or providing value for the processing dollar, and everything to do with protecting Kodak's tremendously successful 126 film format and its Instamatic line of consumer compact cameras along with the processing (where the greatest profits actually were). Such was Kodak's monopolistic might at the time, that they could kill half-frame simply by refusing to provide processing for the format in the US. Not coincidentally, it was this stance taken by Kodak that motivated Olympus to push development of its OM 35mm SLR system, beginning in 1967, because they saw that half-frame was going to have no possibility of growth in the largest photographic market in the world.
By the mid-'60s, the rapid recovery and growth of the Japanese economy had largely ameliorated the problem of film and processing costs for the average Japanese worker, which also coincided with saturation of the domestic market within those first five years of the decade with plenty of good-quality half-frame cameras. When taken together with Kodak's control of the US and other international markets, the industry saw that half-frame's time had essential come and gone and that 35mm was going to be their best chance at sustained future growth.

Olympus would dominate the market and produced half-frame cameras longer than anyone else (until 1983), selling over 17 million cameras in the process. That sounds impressive (and it is) until you compare it with Kodak's 126-format Instamatic sales: 50 million units sold from 1963-70, and 75 million sold by the time production ended in 1988. Most of the other Japanese half-frame manufacturers pulled out much earlier: Canon ended Demi production in the late-'60s, Ricoh discontinued the Auto Half in the 1970s, and so on. So why has Ricoh now chosen half-frame for the Pentax 17?

Why Half-Frame Makes Sense for the Pentax 17

Unsurprisingly, one of the primary reasons for Ricoh settling on half-frame today is precisely why the format was originally introduced: Value. With film and processing costs only going up, doubling the amount of shots per roll of 35mm film is a most welcome feature, especially for the first-time film shooter that this camera is aimed at. Such expenses are nothing to be sneezed at, especially for a whole generation of users that has grown up in the smartphone era with virtually no photographic financial limit other than the data capacity of their phone.

A second, related, factor is that the vertical perspective of half-frame is already somewhat familiar to the smartphone user and thus it is not a huge adjustment from what they are already used to, and it is also easily cropped for social media sharing.

Third, and a more calculated move on Ricoh's part, is that by making the 17 half-frame, it is differentiated from its most direct existing competitors: the slew of used zone-focusing, manual-winding 35mm compact cameras produced from the late-'70s to mid-'80s. The major advantage of those cameras? Price, of course. They can often be had from thrift stores and yard sales for a tenth of their inflation-adjusted price when new. Many of them also deliver a similar viewfinder look and manual film transport, which is a critical part of the whole film experience for many today, particularly the 18 to 40 film tyro demographic that Ricoh is explicitly targeting. The Pentax 17 is at least 10 times the upfront cost, so how can it compete? By adding value on the film & processing end. And also by means of the camera's most important component...the lens, and secondarily, the quality of its construction.

Lens & Construction

The 25mm f/3.5 triplet lens that Ricoh/Pentax re-engineered from that of the 1994 Pentax Espio Mini/UC-1 (32mm f/3.5) is a huge plus for this camera and, with its HD multicoatings, is more than a match for any of the Tessar-based (the Tessar itself is a modified triplet) lenses to be found on the vast majority of its vintage half-frame or 35mm competitors, all of which had single coatings that come nowhere near the 17's modern coatings. Pairing that lens with the still-substantial image area (408 square mm in this case) of half-frame was a great move by Ricoh, ensuring excellent optical results, while keeping the lens simple and therefore, affordable to produce. Fewer lens elements + advanced multicoating = very high resistance to flare and ghosting and classic, punchy Pentax colors.

Another clear advantage of the 17 is that fact that it is a new camera with full factory support, and in a complete reversal of typical 21st-century engineering...it's actually designed to be repaired instead of thrown away after a few years. Anyone with a modicum of experience with point and shoots from the '80s & '90s is very well aware of the "brickage" factor innate with such cameras. You always have to be prepared for the sudden death of the camera via some failed component, whether the motorized film transport, the shutter, the exposure meter, some part of the circuitry, and so on, with no other recourse than finding another one to either cannibalize parts from or simply to replace the bricked unit. Rinse and repeat. The Pentax 17 is not just a warmed-over '80s model: using modern solderless ZIF connectors wherever possible, together with modern hybrid, modular construction actually makes it more repairable than virtually any vintage competitor. And where it does have soldered connections, they are not 45+ years old ;-). Overall build quality is impressive: winding is smooth, the shutter release creamy, and the camera is very quiet in operation, making it a great street camera whose small size makes it quite unintimidating to potential subjects. Another construction plus over almost every early-'80s 35mm viewfinder camera: no flimsy battery door hinge just waiting to reach its fatigue limit and fail; instead the CR2 battery is housed in the grip secured with a captive metal screw that is slotted for a coin to tighten and loosen it. Secure, practical, and virtually impervious to fatigue.

Comparisons with Vintage Half-Frame & 35mm Zone-Focus Models

Ok, now let's see how the 17 stacks up on paper versus two vintage competitors: one half-frame and the other 35mm. Then, we'll consider what the differences and similarities mean in the real world today. First up, a half-frame alternative that is commonly available for 1/3 the cost (in "refurbished" condition; more on that later) of the Pentax 17:

Canon Demi EE28 (1967)

Model:

Lens:

Coating:

Shutter Speeds:

Aperture Range:

ISO Range:

Metering:

Exposure Comp:

Focus Zones:

Focus Distance:

Film Winding:

Flash:

Filters:

Size (mm/inches):

Weight:

Power Requirement:

Canon Demi EE28

28mm f/2.8 (5e/3g)

Single; Spectra

1/300 - 1/30 sec.

f/2.8 - f/25

25 - 400

Selenium; EV 8 -17 @ ISO 100

None

3

0.8m (2.6') to infinity

132-degree stroke

Hot-shoe; 1/30 sec. sync

27mm diameter

116(4.6) x 69(2.7) x 39(1.5)

290g/10.2oz

None

Pentax 17

25mm f/3.5 (3e/3g)

Multi; HD

1/350 - 4 sec. + Bulb

f/3.5 - f/22

50 - 3200

SPD: EV 2.5 - 16.5 @ ISO 100

+/- 2 EV in 1/3-steps

6

0.25m (10") to infinity

130-degree stroke

Built-in; GN 6 @ (ISO 100)

40.5mm diameter

127(5) x 78(3.1) x 52 (2)

290g/10.2oz

1 x CR2 lithium

Next up, a 35mm contender:

Minolta Hi-Matic S2 (1981)

Minolta Hi-Matic S2 (1981)

38mm f/2.8 (4e/3g)

Single

1/430 - 1/8 sec.

f/2.8 - f/17

25 - 400

CdS cell; EV 6 - 17 @ ISO 100

None

5

0.8m (2.6') to infinity

140-degree stroke

Pop-up; GN 5 @ ISO 100

46mm diameter

129(5.1) x 76(3) x 53.5(2.1)

310g/10.9

2 x AA (LR6)

Pentax 17

25mm f/3.5 (3e/3g); 37mm equivalent

Multi; HD

1/350 - 4 sec. + Bulb

f/3.5 - f/22

50 - 3200

SPD: EV 2.5 - 16.5 @ ISO 100

+/- 2 EV in 1/3-steps

6

0.25m (10") to infinity

130-degree stroke

Built-in; GN 6 @ ISO 100

40.5mm diameter

127(5) x 78(3.1) x 52(2)

290g/10.2oz

1 x CR2 lithium

Now, there is a plethora of vintage half-frame and 35mm alternatives to the 17. So why did I choose these two for comparison? First, similar lens specifications (with the number of elements actually favoring the vintage cams, which means jack squat ;-)). Also, similar weights, with the Minolta also coming very close in dimensions (the cute little soapbar Demi definitely wins in the compact size department). Adjusted for inflation, both the Canon and the Minolta originally sold new for about half of the Pentax' current price. Today, "refurbished" examples of the Demi EE28 are selling for about a third of the price of the 17, with the Hi-Matic S2 coming in at a fifth of the cost in "mint" condition (and often a tenth in good working condition). Let's look at the Canon versus the Pentax first.

Leaving aside used versus new for the moment, does the Pentax 17 offer double the value of the Demi? As far as the specs go, about the only thing that the Pentax literally doubles is the number of focus zones :-). So how much difference would you notice in the real world?

Lens - Yes, the Canon has two more elements than the Pentax. And that will be the extent of its superiority ;-). The Pentax' triplet is thirty years newer in basic design and its coatings are sixty years more advanced than those used on Canon's modified-Tessar design. You may well personally find the 28/2.8 lens of the Canon to be perfectly suited to your needs, but it simply is not in the same league as the 17's (not a slight against the Canon; that's just reality).
Handling - The Demi EE28 is a gorgeous little camera and many people (if not most) will give it the edge in styling over the Pentax. And it has plenty of that magic word for so many vintage camera nerds: metal. But that sano soapbar styling comes at a cost...grip. While the Pentax' plasticky grip is straight out of the '80s, it does actually improve the ergonomics of the camera immensely. The slightly larger dimensions of the Pentax also make it easier to hold for those with larger hands. Again, this is a completely subjective decision, but for me the Pentax more than holds (pun intended :-)) its own.
ISO & Exposure Compensation - Here is a no doubter in favor of the Pentax over almost any compact viewfinder camera from the 1960s to '80s, including the Demi EE28 (as noted by adventurepdx in the comments below, the more advanced Demi EE17 did indeed feature an exposure factor regulating lever with +1/2, +1, and +2-stop settings). The ISO range of the 17 is large and in charge, and its exposure compensation control is more comprehensive and convenient than anything from that period. The 17 is going to be much more capable in lower light...provided that you find a way to stabilize it at slower shutter speeds below 1/30 sec. to prevent blurring.
Focus Zones & Distance - Unsurprisingly, the 0.25m minimum focus distance of the Pentax is a noticeable reduction from the 0.8m of the Canon. And that can make a lot of difference if you are the type who likes to get closer to certain subjects. 6-zone versus 3-zone focusing will be less noticeable in bright conditions, but when light levels drop and the camera opens the aperture more, reducing the depth of field, that's again where the Pentax will deliver a higher percentage of in-focus pictures. Of course, that is reliant upon the user selecting the proper zone, but the Pentax' higher level of focusing precision can help to make that a reality.
Filters - No contest...the 40.5mm filter diameter of the Pentax is far more common and user-friendly than the comparatively tiny 27mm for the Demi.

Now, on to the Minolta:

Lens - The Hi-Matic S2 sports the ubiquitous 38mm f/2.8 Tessar-type lens that was found on innumerable mid-to-high-end viewfinder compact cameras in the late-'70s through early-'80s. Performance is good, but again, not in the Pentax' league. Even doubling the enlargement size of the Pentax' negatives to level the playing field is not enough for the Minolta to outdo it. I can't say it enough: the lens on the Pentax 17 is an absolute gem and kudos to the optical design team responsible for it.
Handling - The overall dimensions of the Minolta and Pentax are within 2mm in every way and with weight within less than 10%, they provide a very similar heft-in-the-hand experience. Personal preference will rule, of course, but the finger grip of the 17 simply fits my hand better and provides a surer grip and so I will give it the nod when it comes to ergos...for me ;-).
ISO & Exposure Compensation - Ditto from the Demi comparison above.
Focus Zones and Distance - The Minolta sports 5 focus zones, making it close enough to the Pentax for me to call it a draw between in two in practical terms. But, as with the Demi, the Pentax destroys the Minolta in close-focus capability (0.25m vs. 0.8m)
Filters - 40.5mm vs 46mm. 46mm filters are a bit more common than 40.5mm versions, so the Minolta gets a win here, but it's not a huge edge by any means, as there is no trouble obtaining the 40.5s.
Batteries - With its 2-AA configuration, the Minolta has the advantage in availability, expense, and milliamp-hours over the single CR2 of the Pentax...if you use alkaline AAs. But if you choose to power the Minolta with lithium AAs, the costs are virtually identical. Why use lithium AAs? No leakage concerns (my number one annoyance with alkalines), much better performance in cold weather, and weight savings of 1/3 (15g vs. 23g per cell). The compact CR2 obviously will be even lighter than the AAs, but again, the difference of weight in the hand between the two is negligible in the real world. When it comes to battery life, the Pentax is admittedly nothing to write home about with a rating of 10 rolls of 36 exp. with flash used 50% of the time. With alkalines, the Minolta should give at least 20-25 rolls of 36 with 50% flash, and considerably more with lithiums.

New Versus "Used"

You may have noted the quotation marks surrounding certain words regarding condition of used cameras. And this brings up a major point in favor of a new camera versus a used one: the actual condition of the camera. Many online sellers have no compunction in slapping the words "refurbished" or "mint" on a vintage camera after no more than a quick wipe with microfibre cloth. Examination of their own pictures reveals fungus-filled lenses and viewfinders, degraded light seals oozing out of the back of the camera, not mention dirt, dust, rust, scratches, and other signs of use, abuse, and neglect. Legally, there's no real definition of "refurbished.” It can signify whatever a vendor or seller wants it to mean, so it always comes back to "Buyer Beware". With a new product, such as the Pentax 17, there is a certain level of condition, operability, and product support that Pentax has to legally meet that re-sellers of used equipment don't, and that is included in that $500 USD price. Now, whether you find that a compelling argument in the new vs. used conversation is obviously a matter of personal decision.

Why am I bringing this up? Because at the end of the day, right or wrong, the single biggest deciding factor that the vast majority of potential buyers for the Pentax 17 are considering is this: THE PRICE.

Is the Pentax 17 Overpriced?

According to the good ol' Interwebs...ABSOLUTELY! But, as usual, that is an oversimplification and a product of unrealistic expectations. Now, would I rather see the 17 priced lower? Of course, who wouldn't? But consider a few points:

Pentax did not simply resurrect an old design and put it back into production (as if that would somehow save production costs after a 40-year layoff, anyways). Though the lens is derived from a thirty-year old design, it still had to be optimized for half-frame (meaning a substantial reduction in focal length) and Pentax has arguably put the best coatings, EVER, on a lens of this type and at this price point. The rest of the camera's construction is also a product of careful consideration on the part of the engineers to provide a good balance of performance, weight, and durability. The magnesium top and bottom plates are an excellent example of this: Ricoh could have gone all Canon AE-1 and faked the metal finish, but they actually gave us real magnesium, which inevitably costs more than polycarbonate.
Repairability is more valuable, in my opinion, than ever. So many of the electronic products we use today are deliberately engineered to fail after the warranty expires along with being needlessly difficult to repair (pushing us to buy new rather than try to extend the usable lifespan of said products). Looking at the teardown of the Pentax 17 is a refreshing step back in time and something for which Ricoh deserves commendation. That is another point of value baked into the price of the camera. You may value that differently than I do, and that is your prerogative :-).
Pentax wants to recoup their development and production costs in a reasonable amount of time. That is going to mean that first adopters (as usual) will pay a premium until those costs are at least partially accounted for. Will the price come down, eventually? That depends. If demand for the camera remains high, Ricoh will have no reason to reduce the price. That's the way capitalism works ;-). And if they don't have to reduce the price to meet their sales targets...that means that the camera is not overpriced, at least from the market's perspective.

Ultimately, how much value the Pentax 17 offers is a matter of personal opinion. Having played with one at my local store, I did not leave with it. Was it because of the price? Nope. I simply don't feel that I need the camera, having a closet full of vintage 35mm P&S and SLR models to choose from. Would I feel differently if the half-frame format was an important thing to me? Yes I would. Given the choice between the 17 and the Demi EE28 or another vintage half-frame model at "half" the price for a "refurbished" or "mint" copy, I would save my money longer and buy the Pentax. Overall, it is a great camera that Ricoh can justly be proud of: it provides plenty of haptic feedback for those looking for a more analog experience (e.g. focus and film transport), it is well-made and has full factory service support, and it has the most important ingredient in a camera: a superb lens. Is it the perfect film camera? News Flash #3: the perfect camera does not exist ;-). Should it be perfect for $500 USD? I'll let you answer that for yourself :-).

Who Is the Pentax 17 For?

Aside from Ricoh's target demographic of 18-40 year-olds looking for the analog experience, is there anyone else that would buy this camera? Good question. I will venture to say that someone with a bit more experience can extract a lot from it. If you know your way around manual ISO and exposure compensation controls, the 17 provides a pretty decent level of control over exposure. There is also more control over flash exposure available than virtually any vintage or modern competitor. There is no reason for someone with experience not to be able to create excellent images with this camera if they want to. If you value portability, ease of use, photographic results and appreciate a blend of personality and practicality, do yourself a favor and at least get one in your hands before deciding whether to hate on it or not.

For the many people fixated on price, the Pentax 17 could easily underwhelm when they compare it to what they can obtain from 45 years ago for 10 cents on the dollar or even less. But, conversely, think of how much it would cost to produce the Minolta Hi-Matic S2 (or an equivalent model) in today's inflated dollars. It's not just adjusting for inflation itself in a vacuum; today's cost of equivalent labour to manufacture it must also be accounted for. Taking that into consideration, I don't see Ricoh's price point for a camera that is superior in almost every way as unreasonable. Feel free to disagree ;-).

Wrap-Up

I will be the first to admit that when Ricoh/Pentax initially announced their film camera project, that I said "I'll believe it when I see it...". Well, I have seen it, held it, looked at hundreds of images made with it, and I have to say I am impressed. They actually did it...and I think they did so thoughtfully. Are there compromises? News Flash #4: every camera is a compromise. But the Pentax 17 has all of the ingredients of a great film camera: 1) an excellent lens, 2) it's easy to take with you, and 3) it involves you in the process. Are there other cameras out there that can do the same thing? For sure. Are they new? Unlikely. How much is that worth to you? At least Ricoh has made it possible for us to ask and answer those questions. And for that I applaud them :-).

References:

Pentax 17 User Manual @ https://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/english/support/man-pdf
  Canon Demi EE 17 User Manual @ www.pacificrimcamera.com
  Canon Demi EE 28 User Manual @ www.butkus.org
  Minolta Hi-Matic S2 User Manual @ www.butkus.org
1981-82 Sears Camera & Photographic Supplies Catalog @ www.butkus.org
Canon Demi EE 28 @ https://global.canon/en/c-museum/product/film67.html
Canon Demi EE 17 @ https://global.canon/en/c-museum/product/film64.html
Half-frame @ Camera-wiki.org

1990s CONTAXes - Too Good, or Not Good Enough?

Fri, 21 Jun 2024 20:00:00 GMT

A fitting final flagship for CONTAX: the breathtaking RTS III of 1990

Updated Mar. 29, 2025

In this same poetic sense, there are truly creative individuals who can find limitless nuances of light and color within a single blossom. These are true artists even if they've never held a paintbrush in their hand or drawn a single line. These are the souls endowed with the innate gift of being able to see with a Renoir's eyes.
To those who can sense deep images and great drama behind even the most serene scenes; to those who love to experiment and create images...we dedicate the truest extension of one's eyes that has ever been created, the new photographic standard...the CONTAX RTS III. (Italics ours)

Whew!! You've got to hand it to the ad agency for CONTAX in the early-1990s; they came up with some doozies. Now, it's Advertising 101 to hype your product, but not even Leica dared to push it as far in their ads of the time ;-). Nothing like buttering up your potential customers by comparing them to an Impressionist master (eyeroll).

By comparison, when they introduced the ST two years later, they were slightly more subdued, if only when referring to the potential users of this "extra" perfect camera:

Creativity should be in the hands and eyes of the photographer, and this true masterpiece of precision performance is a breath of fresh air, the quintessential tool to complement and extend one's level of creative achievement...Beneath the stylish body lies a full range of unseen improvements to the many traditional mechanisms which give this 35mm SLR camera that extra level of perfection CONTAX lovers have come to expect. Here is an "orthodox" camera providing the ideal mix of high priority photographic features based on built-in reliability, catering to all forms of photography. (Italics again ours.)

What?! No Renoir references? Well, maybe obliquely...after all, the ST itself was a "true masterpiece" (again, evidence of more restraint, they only used "true" once in this advert as opposed to "truly", "true", and "truest" in the RTS III brochure ;-)). But we see a slightly different tack taken with the use of "traditional" and "orthodox". What was that supposed to mean? Well, that gets us into the possibility of "not good enough" and the thought that maybe CONTAX was compensating for something ;-).

The State of CONTAX by the Late-1980s

To try and understand where CONTAX (all CONTAXES from 1974-onward were manufactured by Yashica in co-operation with Zeiss) was coming from with their ad copy of the '90s, we need to first look back at the way things went for them in the last half of the 1980s. In three words, "not...so...hot". The decade as a whole had been quite the rollercoaster for the brand, as a matter of fact. From the peak of the SLR boom in 1980-81...to having to be rescued from imminent bankruptcy by Kyoto Ceramics (aka KYOCERA) in the fall of 1983...and then being caught out (as was the rest of the Japanese SLR community) in February of 1985 by the Minolta 7000 Auto Focus bombshell...it had been a tough go, overall. That last one had to sting even more, as the Yashica engineers had actually developed their own AF prototype (based on the CONTAX 137) with three prototype Carl Zeiss AF lenses (35/2.8, 50/1.7, and 135/3.8) no less, in 1982 that was eerily close to what Minolta brought out only two and a half years later. Scuttled by the precarious financial position of the company at that point, along with strong resistance (ok, so it was more like complete implacability ;-)) from partner Zeiss when it came to developing production AF lenses for the CONTAX SLR system, it had to be heartbreaking for the Yashica AF team to see Minolta absolutely steamroller their competition for a couple of years, whilst seeing their own manual focus lineup rapidly decline along with the rest of the industry. It got bad enough that, from 1987-1990, there was one CONTAX SLR model in production...that's right, ONE: the 167 MT that replaced the 137 MA and 159 MM in one fell swoop. The 159 MM's story in itself was tragic: it was in production for less than two years, having the misfortune to be introduced just prior to the Minolta 7000 in late-1984, with poor initial availability of its namesake MM (Multi-Mode) Carl Zeiss lenses only exacerbating an overnight market contraction, resulting in very poor sales.

Faced with a continued AF onslaught, as much bigger market players Nikon, Canon, and Pentax scrambled to catch Minolta, KYOCERA faced an existential crossroads. If AF was going to be a no-go for the CONTAX line due to Zeiss' intransigence on the subject, then how were they to survive in the manual focus market, which by 1989 would be reduced to only 10-15% of the overall SLR market (depending on region) and continue to shrink through the next decade? The answer they came up with is revealed in said ad copy of the '90s: they painted (pun intended ;-)) themselves as the brand for "true" creatives that did not rely on fripperies like AF to express their "innate gifts". AF was the enemy of art, and CONTAX & Zeiss were the last bastion of defense against the onslaught of AF heresy (thus the "orthodox" in the ST brochure). Think I'm exaggerating just a touch? Well, check this gem out from the RX (introduced in 1994) brochure:

CONTAX decided early on that Carl Zeiss T* lenses could not be enhanced by adding auto-focus capability. Considerations such as weight and focus accuracy contributed to the decision against auto-focus. As a result, a system was developed that preserves the supreme integrity of the Carl Zeiss T* lenses... (Italics still ours ;-))

You have to admire them for their decisiveness at the very least :-). Now, it's important to remember that CONTAX was not all about being anti-technology. They had built their whole re-brand, from 1974-forward, on being at (or at least, near) the forefront of SLR tech...except AF. So when they decided to forgo competing in AF, that meant that they would focus their technological efforts on the more marginal areas that the rest of industry gave less attention to in their efforts to push AF tech forward. And that was borne out in what was basically another relaunch of the brand in 1990 with the flagship RTS III:

True Film Flatness Purity (that is directly from the RTS III brochure :-)). Over 10% of this document is dedicated to the main feature of the RTS III: a vacuum-backed (in CONTAX-speak: Real Time Vacuum) film pressure plate designed to bring film flatness to less than 10 microns versus the 20-30 microns found in the worst-case scenarios with other-brand top-of-the-line SLRs. KYOCERA even had to develop a new laser-interferometer to be capable of measuring such small tolerances. And it worked. The only problem: it took highly-controlled conditions (including much greater technical discipline than most photographers were either willing to exert or even capable of mustering) and extreme enlargements to show any appreciable difference in actual photographs. In their September 1991 Lab Report on the RTS III, Popular Photography shot thousands of images with the RTS III in comparison with the camera it replaced, the RTS II, and the lowliest CONTAX SLR then available, the 167 MT, both with standard pressure plates that represented the best of CONTAX prior to the RTS III. Their conclusion:

Unfortunately, after reading thousands of targets, the results were far from conclusive. They do show a slight tendency toward achieving a larger percentage of sharper pictures when using the RTS III. The difference was very small and would probably be hard to see in real-world picture-taking situations, but if you need to skew every possible factor in your favor, it appears the RTS III is a step in the right direction. (Italics remain ours ;-))

Not exactly a ringing endorsement, but rather more measured, don't you think? But what about the composition of the pressure plate itself? CONTAX had an answer to another previously unasked question:

"An aluminum alloy could only be precision tooled to within a tolerance of a bit more than 10 microns, and it would be subject to wear, distortion, aging, and environmental conditions." Their solution to this intractable problem? "It was decided to develop a ceramic (no coincidence; we are talking Kyoto Ceramics here) plate as it could be made to a finer tolerance plus have the hardness and rigidity near those of a diamond. A CONTAX first found in no other cameras." Too good? You be the judge ;-).

This was the world that CONTAX consigned themselves to living in. Trying to wring those last tenths of a percent out of technical areas that had seen decades of development with little to no real-world impact. Or in their words: "...unseen improvements to the many traditional mechanisms...". A classic case of the Law of Diminishing Returns. But it did provide them with bragging rights, and that is more important in marketing than actual substance ;-).

The "prosumer" ST, released in 1992. An amalgam of RTS II, 167 MT, and RTS III.

Can Something Be Too Good, but Not Good Enough?

The ST was released two years after the RTS III and slotted in between it and the 167 MT in price and features. The design was also a combination of those two models (along with a smattering of RTS II :-)), leaning more towards the RTS III. In modern terms, it was "prosumer". Here is a summary of features:

While it did not have the RTV film back and pressure plate of the RTS III, the ST did get the ceramic pressure plate.
The shutter topped out at 1/6000 sec. in Aperture-priority and Program modes, right between the 1/8000 sec. of the RTS III and 1/4000 sec. of the 167 MT. Flash sync speed was 1/200 sec.; again, in the middle of 1/250 sec. for the RTS III and 1/125 sec. for the 167 MT.
Film advance speed identical to the 167 MT at 3 frames per second versus the maximum 5 fps of the RTS III.
While the RTS III sported a magnesium top plate, aluminum alloy body, and titanium bottom plate, the ST had to make do with aluminum alloy for the body and mere brass alloy for its top and bottom plates, like the 167 MT, but beefier. The strap lugs, film rewind switch, OFF/ON/metering selector switch, and bottom plate layout were also borrowed from the 167 MT, which continued as the entry-level CONTAX until 1998 when it was replaced by the Aria.
A viewfinder very reminiscent of the RTS II's (95% vs. 97% coverage for the RTS II), with red LEDs that adapted to the brightness of a scene automatically. Not quite at the technical level of the 100%-coverage, blue LCD display of the RTS III, but very simple, bright, reliable, and not susceptible to LCD-bleed like its bigger brother.
The RTS III came in at 1,150 grams (2.53 lbs) without batteries and sold for $3,650 USD (inflation adjusted to 2024 from 1996, with all prices from B&H Photo); the 167 MT was 620 grams (1.37 lbs) and sold for $859 USD; the ST was 800 grams (1.76 lbs) and sold for $2,280 USD.

The ST film back, featuring the ceramic pressure plate, but lacking the RTV system.

Ok...so maybe it's not magnesium (a la the RTS III), but the brass top & bottom plates of the ST were still a far cry from the polycarbonate hybrid construction of its contemporary AF competitors.

At that price and size point, what was the ST competing with? Two main types of cameras: 1) older, professional manual focus SLRs such as the Canon F-1 & T90, and the Nikon F3, and 2) then-current, semi-professional to professional AF models such as the Canon EOS 1 and the Nikon N90 (F90). So how did that work out? Well, to go right to the bottom of the barrel and ugly old economics: the ST sold less than 20,000 units from 1992-99, while the EOS-1/1(N) (1989-94; 1994-2000) and N90(s)/F90(X) (1992-2001) sold in the high-hundreds of thousands. Even the aged F3, well into its second decade by 1992, had sold over 751,000 copies by September of that year, and it remained in production until 2000, which actually meant that it outlived the ST, which disappeared from dealer shelves before the end of 1999, production having ended some time before that. Final F3 production totaled north of 790,000 units, meaning that it still handily outsold (by 2 to 1) the ST during the period that they overlapped. So, when it came to the crass category of sales, both the EOS-1 and N90(S)/F90(X) each outsold the entire CONTAX lineup for the whole decade. And the F3, in its twilight years, still managed to outsell any single professional or prosumer CONTAX model during the same time period.

The irony lies in the fact that the CONTAXes completely outclassed the F3 when it came to technology:

Ceramic RTV pressure plate in the RTS III
Ceramic pressure plate in the ST
Vertical-travel shutters anywhere from 1 to 2 steps faster than the horizontal-travel shutter of the F3 (1/8000 sec. in the RTS III, 1/6000 sec. in the ST & AX, and 1/4000 sec. for the rest of the 1990s CONTAX lineup)
Proper TTL flash metering with sync. speeds from 1/125 sec. (167 MT, RX, Aria), 1/200 sec. (ST & AX), and 1/250 sec. (RTS III) versus the pedestrian 1/80 sec. of the F3
Digital Focus Indicator (basically an electronic rangefinder with depth-of-field indication) in the RX

The CONTAX AX. Auto Focus...the CONTAX Way.

CONTAX Finally Succumbs to AF - Sort Of ;-)

In spite of their protestations to the contrary, CONTAX really was feeling the AF heat after the introduction of the ST and RX. But with Zeiss as adamant about lens-based AF as ever, what were the Yashica engineers to do? In the words of Herbert Keppler, long-time editor of Modern Photography and then Popular Photography, "don't raise the bridge, lower the water". Instead of moving the lens elements to focus like everyone else, CONTAX had to resort to building a mechanism that physically moved the film plane forward or backward, while retaining the manual focus functionality of Carl Zeiss C-Y mount lenses. The AX fit entirely with the CONTAX ethos of high-tech precision. We're talking ceramic rod guide-rails, ultrasonic motors, and super lubricants capable of functioning at clearances of 0.002mm (0.00008"). They basically built a camera within a camera to accomplish their objective. And to top it off (literally), a titanium top cover ;-).

The result? Sales exceeding those of the ST, but still in the low tens of thousands. While the AX was undoubtedly a technical tour-de-force, it had some limitations. Maximum movement of the film plane was 10mm, which would require touching up with manual focus in some instances where the lens itself had greater focus travel than 10mm. It slotted in between the ST and RTS III in dimensions and weight. As far as overall AF performance, the AX was termed " more than adequate", which did not exactly imply class-leading (by 1996, we're talking Canon EOS 1N and Nikon F5, when it comes to that). Rather than set a new standard of AF performance, the feeling I get from the AX is that it was CONTAX' way of proving they could do AF, too. But on their terms ;-).

Cross-section of the AF system of the CONTAX AX.

Are 1990s CONTAXes Really "Not Good Enough"?

Obviously, sales are not the true measure of any camera's quality, reliability, or just pure enjoyment to use. And here is where '90s CONTAXes can come good. While your average F3 is still more reliable (as befits a much simpler camera ;-)), it is not difficult to find an RTS III, ST, or any other CONTAX of the era (aside from the limited editions, which were only differentiated by cosmetics) in excellent condition, despite their relatively low production numbers. And if you prefer Manual Focus SLRs (or despise AF ;-)), they can be a compelling choice if you don't mind other modern features such as auto-winding, auto-bracketing, and multiple metering modes. The ST, for instance, is a downright steal at current prices (which easily run at one tenth of the last new price at B&H in 1999 for excellent condition copies; adjusted for inflation to 2024). Of course, the trick with Zeiss has always been lenses: you have to be willing to pay anywhere from 100-400% more than comparable optics from the other Japanese manufacturers. While some of that is simply paying for the name, you are unlikely to be disappointed by the optical quality, or tactility of Zeiss C-Y glass. In other words, if you can afford it...go for it. Fortunately, if you can't, there are many aftermarket alternatives and also Yashica ML glass that will provide full functionality in Aperture-priority and Manual exposure modes, with very good to excellent optical quality. As always, with any vintage electronic SLR, you need to be prepared for eventual "brickage". If that's not going to sit well with you, you'd better look elsewhere. As with all late-20th century electronics with LCDs, etc., beware of bleed or fading with these CONTAXes, whether on the top plate or on models with LCDs in their viewfinders.

Wrap-Up

No, a '90s CONTAX will not turn you into the 35mm equivalent of Renoir ;-). Nor will it cause you to reach that "extra level of perfection". But if it makes you feel like it does, who am I to argue? I will readily admit that my ST feels great in my hands, the viewfinder is a peach, the shutter is great, the controls are nice and tactile, and I find it fun to use. I currently have a Yashica ML 50/1.7 and a Tamron 200/3.5 Close-Focus on a C-Y adapter that provide very pleasing results (for me personally, YMMV). On the other hand, it is no quieter than my lowly Nikon N2000 from the mid-'80s, and outside of the 1/6000 sec. top shutter speed, auto-bracketing, and multiple metering options, doesn't better the Nikon when it comes to actual photographic results.

For those who are into mechanical MF SLRs, any CONTAX from 1974-on (besides the S2/S2b) will never be good enough. Likewise, for AF users looking for top performance. But if high-tech manual focus or geeked-out film-plane AF is your gig, maybe a '90s CONTAX will fit the bill. And even if you can't see that last tenth of a percent, who cares? You'll still be getting great results. More importantly, you'll know that, although it's unseen...it's still in there ;-).

References:

Various CONTAX Brochures & User Manuals from www.panchromatique.ch
Various CONTAX Brochures & User Manuals from www.pacificrimcamera.com
Popular Photography Jan. 1983 p. 56
Classics to Use: CONTAX - Amateur Photographer Dec. 2005 - by Ivor Matanle
SLR Column - Popular Photography May 1996 - by Herbert Keppler
Nikkor - The Thousand and One Nights No. 93 @ https://imaging.nikon.com/imaging

Rokkor Tales: Minolta's Fab Fifty-Eights

Fri, 12 Apr 2024 00:30:00 GMT

MC-II generation (1969-1973) versions of the 58/1.4 (left) and the 58/1.2 (right) on SRT-101s from 1970

The 58mm focal length is inextricably tied to the introduction of the 35mm SLR in the mid-1930s. This was due entirely to the physical difference in construction required by the mirror (the "reflex" part of the Single Lens Reflex designation) used for viewing the subject directly through the lens versus the then-standard rangefinder design. Because of the greater depth that including the mirror in the optical path required, this entailed more distance between the rear of the mounted lens and the film plane, which is termed "back focus". The longer back focus of the SLR meant that the standard 50mm focal length rangefinder lenses of the day could not bring the rear focus node to the proper distance from the film plane if simply converted to the SLR mount (in this case, the Kine Exakta of 1936). By the mid-1960s, 50mm would become the standard for SLR lenses as optical designers were able to gradually overcome the design challenges presented by the SLR. In the meantime, the easiest way to overcome the back focus issue was to simply bump the focal length a bit to accommodate the extra back focus. And that is what Willy Merte of Zeiss did in developing the famous 58mm f/2 Biotar, released in 1938. The Biotar would set the bar for standard SLR lenses for the next 25 years, famously duplicated in the Helios 44-2, among others. Most manufacturers of SLR lenses followed Merte's lead by producing 55 to 58mm lenses, particularly for faster-than-f/2 maximum apertures. Minolta was no exception, and would, in fact, be the last holdout among the Japanese manufacturers when it came to adopting 50mm as its normal lens focal length. They introduced their fast 58/1.4 only three years after their first SLR, the SR-2, and supplemented it with a 58/1.2 seven years later. The 58/1.4 would remain in production until 1973, and the 58/1.2 until 1978, with both being replaced by 50mm lenses, accordingly. This is their story.

A History of the 58/1.4 Rokkor-PF

The 58/1.4 debuted in 1961, in Auto Rokkor form. "Auto" here referring to the automatic stop-down and re-opening of the lens aperture at the start and finish of exposure, as long as the SLR body used supported that feature. The 58/1.4 remained the fastest Minolta lens in production for seven years, until the f/1.2 came along. You may have noticed the "PF" suffix following Rokkor: this two letter code denoted the number of groups and elements making up the optical formula for a given lens. Minolta used this nomenclature until 1975 or so, when it was gradually eliminated as various late-MC Rokkor(-X) lenses were updated. With the introduction of the MD Rokkors in 1977, the letter codes disappeared for good. The first letter stood for the number of groups and was taken from the Greek or Latin word for numbers three through nine. Here it is in chart form:

# of Groups

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Greek or Latin #

tres (L)
quattuor (L)
pente (G)
hex (G)
septem (L)
octo (L)
novem (L)

Letter Code

T
Q
P
H
S
O
N

The second letter denoted the overall number of elements and simply followed the Western alphabet:

# Of Elements

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Letter

C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L

So, our 58/1.4 Rokkor-PF gives us five groups (P=pente) and six elements (F=6). As we will go on to see, having a fast f/1.4 aperture with only a six-element construction was unique and placed some constraints upon performance, particularly at wider apertures. The 58/1.4 would prove to be a very popular lens for Minolta and was in production for a dozen years and through four generations:

Auto Rokkor II (AR II - 1961-64)
Auto Rokkor Compact (AR C - 1965-67)
Meter-Coupled Rokkor I (MC I - 1966-69)
Meter-Coupled Rokkor II (MC II - 1967-72)

These designations are according to Dennis Lohmann's excellent Minolta lens index and website. At the bottom of the lens index, Dennis goes into great detail describing the mechanical and cosmetic changes from each generation to the next. All succeeding generations are backwards compatible with previous ones. Many internal improvements were made over time such as: coatings, internal blackening, and matte finish on the aperture blades. Also, with the introduction of the final MC II generation in 1969, Minolta tweaked the optics of the 58/1.4 with the assistance of their first lens computer. The MC II is most easily distinguished by its "hill and valley" ("Berg und tal" in German) focus ring grip, versus the previous "flat" grip used in the prior MC I and Auto Rokkors. The MC II also got the latest in Minolta's Achromatic coatings (which were constantly being improved, even mid-generation), making it the pick of the litter among the 58/1.4s. It would be replaced in 1973 by the MC Rokkor(-X) 50/1.4 PG (but that's another tale for another day :-)).

AR II-generation 58/1.4 pictured in a 1962 Minolta brochure for the SR-3 SLR. Note the "flat" grip.

  The Debut of the 58/1.2 MC Rokkor-PG

  August 1, 1968 saw the announcement to dealers in North America of Minolta's first f/1.2 SLR optic, with the new, 7-elements in 5-groups PG-coded, MC Rokkor. Five of those elements were made of newly-developed, high-index glass to reduce both spherical and chromatic aberration as well as coma. Incidentally, Minolta also introduced its original 100/2.5 MC Rokkor-PF simultaneously. Initially only offered in a kit with the SRT-101 at a $360 USD premium over the same kit with the 58/1.4 (all prices inflation-adjusted to 2024), the 58/1.2 would live for a decade in Minolta's lineup across three generations (MC I, MC II, and MC-X) until it was replaced by the 50/1.2 MD Rokkor in mid-1978. It made the most of those ten years, arguably becoming the most renowned Rokkor lens in history.

A good portion of early production of the 58/1.2 made use of a thoriated rear element (radioactive thorium was added to the glass) for improved optical performance, but this was later replaced by lanthanum (lanthanum is 1/10,000th as radioactive as thorium). It is difficult to be conclusive with serial numbers without access to original records, and the fact is that lenses were made in batches in which the serial numbers were not purely sequential. Thus, it can be safely stated that only the rubber-grip MC-X lenses are positively known to NOT be radioactive, whatsoever. Many MC II lenses will also not be radioactive, but some will be. If you see the tell-tale brownish patch in the middle of the rear element on a 58/1.2, that is a dead giveaway that it has thorium in it. People often mistake amber reflections from the coatings of the front or rear of the lens for signs of thorium. That is not the way it manifests itself. The brownish patch is most concentrated in the center of the element and fades off toward the edges. The radioactive 58/1.2 Rokkors are not at the same level as the Canon FD 55/1.2 AL (commonly noted to be the highest emitter among vintage Japanese SLR lenses) when it comes to emissions, so it is a matter of personal preference whether to avoid them altogether or to UV treat the rear element to allow for full light transmission and optical performance.

Final MC Rokkor-X version of the 58/1.2 Rokkor affixed to the XE-7 in 1974. It would be discontinued in 1978 in favor of the new 50/1.2 MD Rokkor.

Comparing Our 58mm Minolta Duo

A very common question posed when people are considering the 58mm Rokkors is this: Is the f/1.4 a poor man's f/1.2? In a word...no. And the reason is simple: a maximum aperture of f/1.4 was really pushing the limits (and actually exceeding them, in my personal opinion) of a six-element Double Gauss construction. 6e/5g layouts for normal lenses with maximum apertures from f/1.7 to f/2 were super common up until the 2010s, because performance at those moderate figures was pretty decent, even if not mind-blowing. Squeezing another half stop out of that configuration was a bridge too far. Minolta tacitly admitted as much, when they replaced the 58/1.4 in early-1973 with the 50/1.4 MC Rokkor-PG (7e/5g), which drew far more from the 58/1.2's optical design than the outgoing 58/1.4's.

Now, it's important to place this in context: from f/4 and upward, you will see very little to zero difference between a 6e/5g and a 7e/5g Double Gauss design. The main differences will be seen from f/2 to f/2.8, and that is where the 58/1.2 is superior to the 58/1.4 in virtually every category. Does that make the 58/1.4 a dog? Not at all! It just means you need to be aware of its limitations at those apertures and determine if it will actually meet your needs there or not. A very important important point to bear in mind, with both of these lenses, is that they were developed and produced in an era when max. aperture was viewed as a last resort when there was no other way of getting a usable image. Low contrast (a result of veiling flare), heavy vignetting, spherical aberration, coma, field curvature, and considerable longitudinal chromatic aberration were all noticeable wide-open with this generation of fast lenses. The 58/1.2 is famed for its bokeh, but wide-open it is busy, swirly (for many, this is a highly-desirable trait :-)), and it has severe cat's-eye (mechanical vignetting) towards the corners (also a feature of its contemporary competitors). Optimal smoothness of the bokeh is found from f/2 to f/2.8, also abetted by the 8-blade aperture, which keeps OOF highlights rounder than the standard 6-blade aperture of the 58/1.4.

MC II versions of the 58/1.2 and 58/1.4. The 58/1.4 appears larger in this image than it actually is in comparison to the f/1.2.

So the question to ask yourself really should be: What am I going to primarily be using this focal length for? Portraits; landscapes; general use? Will my needs truly be met by a lens that costs 5 to 6 times as much as the other, and which weighs 65% more (275g/9.7 oz vs. 455g/16 oz for the MC II versions)? Even though it works just fine at smaller apertures, the whole point of the 58/1.2 is to use it at wider apertures below f/4. If that is not where you are going to primarily use it, what really is the point (besides it looking and feeling stinkin' cool, with that monstrous front element ;-))? A downside of that huge front element sticking way out there? It flares prodigiously, and a hood is mandatory if you want any semblance of contrast remaining in images in bright light (that's also a good idea for the 58/1.4, by the way). The 58/1.2 Rokkor is no contre-jour lens, whatsoever :-). The 58/1.4 was originally developed for B&W and it shows, results are beautiful. One major goal of the 1969 re-design was to improve performance with color film, another reason why the MC II remains my pick for the 58/1.4.

Comparing the 58/1.2 Rokkor to Other f/1.2s of the Era

Another comparison often posited is: How does the f/1.2 Rokkor stand up to...say, the 58/1.2 NOCT Nikkor? On the surface this seems like a logical comparison: both are 58mm, have a max. aperture of f/1.2, and sport 7-element optical layouts. So why not see if the Rokkor can compete with the Nikkor, particularly at 1/8 to 1/10 of the cost? Or what about the Canon FD 55/1.2 AL (aspherical) which is currently priced similarly to the NOCT? Well, the key lies in that word "aspherical". Both the Nikkor and the Canon made use of hand-ground aspherical elements (the front element in the Nikkor, and the second element from the front in the Canon) to further improve performance, specifically, to minimize coma flare and spherical aberration. And they both handily surpassed the Minolta in that regard. Canon also added another element (8e/6g), and a floating-element configuration to the AL to further improve performance at close-focusing distances along with a healthy dollop of thoriated-glass to top it all off. So, there are considerable differences in construction and optical materials between these lenses. Thus, both the Nikkor and the Canon originally cost three to four times the amount of the Rokkor.

1987 AI-s version of the NOCT, which shared identical optics to the original AI version released in 1978.

The standard FD 55/1.2 (7e/5g) and the 55/1.2 Aspherical (8e/6g) with floating-element correction.

Perhaps more realistic comparisons for the Minolta 58/1.2 are: the 55/1.2 Nikkor, the standard, non-aspherical Canon FL/FD 55/1.2 & earlier FL 58/1.2, and the Olympus OM Zuiko 55/1.2. All of these lenses feature similar 7-element construction without the benefit of aspherics or floating elements and were developed from the mid-1960s to the early-'70s. Including similar optical capabilities and limitations, this class of f/1.2s tend to show similar characteristics wide-open, from f/2-2.8, then f/4-8, and finally f/11-16. Of course, each has its unique facets, as each manufacturer optimized aberration correction to meet their own criteria, but they all do share the overall theme of quite distinct changes as you move through the aperture range, making for a good deal of versatility and the ability to tailor the lens to the type of effect you want in an image. Most share the Rokkor's undercorrected spherical aberration at close distances, which is a primary ingredient in bokehliciousness.

The 55/1.2 Nikkor (7e/5g). It was discontinued only a few months after the 58/1.2 Rokkor, in 1978.

Olympus OM Zuiko 55/1.2 optical layout and specifications. It was noticeably smaller and lighter than its competitors' f/1.2s, more like their f/1.4 lenses.

Life with 58mm Rokkors

There is a lot to like about Minolta's dynamic duo of 58s. Personally, I love the little focal length boost over standard 50s, especially for couples' portraits. I got my best image of my parents with the 58/1.2. My late-MC II 58/1.4 makes a great walkaround, general purpose lens, and it just feels right mounted on an SR-T. You can instantly see and feel why Minolta sold a boatload of SRT-101 kits with the 58/1.4, over the years. The MC II and MC-X generations of Rokkors are the pinnacle of Minolta build quality, in my opinion. The machining of the knurling on the MC II focus and aperture rings is beautiful. The damping of their aluminum-on-brass focus helicoids equals anything else (Leitz, Zeiss, Takumars, etc.) and can make even the finest Nikkor feel just a touch self-conscious ;-). They offer a tremendous amount of quality for the dollar. The 58/1.2 is a serious handful of vintage lens (especially, when mounted on an XD or later compact Minolta body), but is positively petite compared to many modern f/1.4 and f/1.2 lenses. As noted earlier, using lens hoods (they don't have to be OEM, even a simple aftermarket rubber hood is fine) allows you to get the most out of them. Both used Minolta's then-standard 55mm filter thread, meaning filters and other accessories are numerous and inexpensive.

This brace of 58s rewards familiarity as they make noticeable changes with each stop of aperture up to around f/8. The 58/1.2 can get you a touch of that swirly Biotar/Helios bokeh wide-open, before turning into the cream-machine at f/2-2.8. The MC II 58/1.4 is a noticeable step up from older versions, wide-open, but is still admittedly low on contrast, and has quite a bit veiling flare and chromatic aberration at f/1.4. Tickling it down to f/2 makes a difference, but f/2.8 is really where it begins to improve, and that's usually as low as I will go on aperture with it. The 58/1.4 is right in line with Minolta's later 50/1.4s as far as current cost is concerned, sitting between $75-100 USD depending on condition. The 58/1.2 runs anywhere from $400-600 USD, again depending on condition, which is a greater disparity than when both lenses sold new. Such is the result of acquiring that reputation as a bokeh-monster. Whether that is worth it will be entirely up to you :-). Rokk-or on!

References:

Minolta SR System by Dennis Lohmann @ https://minolta.eazypix.de
Various Brochures & Other Literature @ https://www.pacificrimcamera.com
Tale No. 16 - AI Noct Nikkor 58mm F1.2 @ https://imaging.nikon.com
Tale No. 49 - Nikkor-S Auto 55mm F1.2 @ https://imaging.nikon.com
Lens Hall - FD Lenses @ https://global.canon/en/c-museum/lens.html?s=fd

The EOS 10 - Another Forgettable EOS?

Sun, 10 Mar 2024 02:30:00 GMT

An enthusiast-level EOS that virtually no one is enthusiastic about ;-)

Updated May 29, 2024

When Canon management decided on March 31, 1985 to embark on a two-year program to develop a completely clean-sheet auto focus (AF) 35mm SLR system, they were granting Minolta a two-year head-start in that burgeoning market. This was a result of the instantaneous success of the Minolta 7000, introduced almost two months before. Canon realized that their first FD-mount AF SLR, the T80, due to be introduced in April of that year, was completely outclassed by the 7000 and bold measures were thus imperative. Consequently, Minolta had the 35mm AF SLR market to itself for 14 months, until Nikon introduced their F-501 (N2020 in USA) in April 1986. Right on schedule, in time for their 50th anniversary as a camera manufacturer, Canon brought out the EOS 650 on March 1, 1987. Within two months, it became the top-selling AF SLR in Japan and Europe and was a match and more for the 7000 and F-501. But Minolta had not been sitting idly by. The summer of 1988 brought their second-generation enthusiast AF SLR, the Minolta 7000i, which was a huge jump forward from its not-exactly-ancient ancestor, as is usually the case in the early stages of the growth cycle of any technology. Canon had caught up to (and surpassed in a few areas) Minolta's and Nikon's first-gen AF SLRs, but how would the second generation of EOS fare against a much more sophisticated competitor?

A Massive Leap Forward

As any technology matures, the improvements from generation to generation tend to grow smaller in increment over time. The gap between 1st and 2nd-gen products is usually far greater than, say, 6th and 7th-gen versions. This was borne out with 35mm SLRs in the late-'80s & early-'90s, especially when it came to AF, multi-zone metering, and internal film advance performance, seeing as these were the newest (and thus least-developed) 35mm SLR technologies at the time. For example, the Minolta 7000i had three times the amount of AF sensors, which covered 12 times the viewfinder area of the 7000. The AF system's sensitivity was 4 times greater in lower light, and there was a fancy new near-infrared AF assist light (the same type as they used in their flash units, just less powerful) with a 9-meter (30') range that projected a contrasting line grid for the AF sensors to pick up on in low light and even total darkness. The 7000i AF system also featured predictive AF and automatically switched to continuous AF when subject motion was detected, neither of which were available on the 7000 (which lacked any sort of continuous AF capability). The metering system was linked to the three AF sensors, had 6-segment evaluative, centerweighted (automatically actuated for Manual exposure only), and spot (easily activated in any exposure mode by a dedicated button) modes versus centerweighted-only in the 7000. The CPU had more than double the clock speed, 5 times the ROM, and 4 times the RAM of the 7000. Even the film advance was 50% faster. The 7000i also added a feature called Creative Expansion Cards, using insertable cards (not unlike a modern SD card) purchased separately, that would add (or more correctly, unlock) features within the camera. The most useful of these cards was the Customized Function card that enabled the user to personalize seven camera functions to their preference.

Canon responded in 1989, replacing the EOS 650 & 620 with the EOS 630 (EOS 600 outside of North America). While maintaining the same form factor, the EOS 630 received new software, more efficient coreless motors, a 1.5x bump in ROM capacity, and a 40%-increase in CPU clock speed, all of which combined (claimed Canon) to halve AF speed from the previous EOS models. Canon also took aim at Minolta's Customized Function feature with their own Custom Functions in the 630. But they bettered Minolta by fully integrating this feature within the camera itself (at no extra cost and no fiddling with a removable card :-)). This kept EOS in the game, but the 630/600 was more about maximizing the first-gen platform than matching the 7000i step for step. Cue the spring of 1990...

Canon Strikes Back

Three years to the month from the debut of EOS, Canon's literature proclaimed, "Introducing the New EOS Generation". The model was the EOS 10/10s/10QD (Europe & Asia/North America/Japan). And it definitely had some 7000i in its eye ;-). Here is a chart comparing the two:

AF Sensors

AF Sensitivity @ ISO 100

Near-IR AF Aid Light

Metering Modes

Meter Range @ ISO 100

Shutter Speed Range

ISO Range

Film Advance

Film Rewind Time

Custom Functions

Exposure Compensation

Auto Exposure Bracketing

Intervalometer

Built-in Flash

Size (LxHxD)

Weight (bare)

Minolta 7000i

1 central horizontal & 2 vertical

0 - 18 EV

9 meters/30' max.

6-zone evaluative; centerweighted; spot

0 - 20 EV

1/4000 - 30 sec.

25 - 6400

Single or Continuous up to 3 fps max.

Approx. 8 sec/24 exp.

7 via Creative Expansion Card

+/- 4 EV in 1/2 steps

3, 5, or 7 frames in
1/2 -steps Via Creative Expansion Card

Via PB-7 Accessory Back

None

153 x 93 x 69mm

590g

EOS 10

1 central cross & 2 vertical

0 - 18 EV

7 meters/23'

8-zone evaluative; 8.5% partial in central area

-1 - 20 EV

1/4000 - 30 sec.

6 - 6400

Single or Continuous up to 5 fps max.

Approx. 8 sec./24 exp.

14 built-in

+/- 5 EV in 1/2 steps

3 frames @ +/- 5 EV
in 1/2-steps;
built-in

built-in

Yes; GN 12m/39'

158 x 106 x 70mm

580g

It seems like Canon's engineers sat a 7000i on the table and proceeded to match or better it in nearly every specification. I mean, even the weight was within 10 grams ;-). But it was more than just specifications or features; Canon's integration of those features made for some tangible benefits in the user experience:

While the 7000i was generally priced about $100 USD (inflation adjusted to 2024; all prices from B&H Photo) below the EOS 10, in order to access the Customized Functions, Exposure Bracketing, and Intervalometer capabilities, you would have had to add two Creative Expansion Cards at $35 USD a pop and the PB-7 Program Back for a cool $300 USD. Hmmm, I wonder why Minolta started to seriously tank in the '90s? You now had to double the cost of the camera to achieve feature parity with its closest competitor.
Canon also was able to make major advances in quieting the operation of the EOS 10, particularly in relation to the 7000i. Film advance was 11 (peak) to 15 (overall) decibels (dB) lower with the Canon, and the AF system was a whopping 22 (peak) to 29 (overall) dB quieter than the screeching screwdriven Minolta. Much of the film advance sound savings were due to Canon's adoption of the first sprocketless advance drive in a 35mm SLR, which soon became industry-standard. The fact that it was 2 fps faster didn't hurt, either.
The AF sound savings were mostly derived from Canon's AF motor-in-lens format and the introduction of the first consumer/enthusiast-level Ultrasonic Motor (USM) lenses with the EOS 10. At that point, and for the greater part of the 1990s, Minolta and Nikon had no answer for the speed and silence of USM lenses. The EOS 10 brought USM to the masses. Previously, it was reserved for the top-shelf L glass that most enthusiasts couldn't afford. The consumer USM lenses used a miniaturized cylindrical version of the original ring-shaped USM, appropriately termed "Micro USM" by Canon. The Micro USM was 4 times quieter and 50% faster than Canon's Arc-Form Drive (AFD) motor system which was used in other consumer-level EF lenses. Most importantly for Canon, the cost per motor was 1/30 of a standard USM unit ;-). ***TIP*** If you are looking for the best AF performance and build quality in a consumer-enthusiast EF lens, get thee to a first-gen USM. You can still nab a 35-135/4-5.6 USM or a 28-80/3.5-5.6 USM for $75 - $100 USD, nowadays.
Canon incorporated more infrared (IR) technology into the EOS than you could shake a wavelength at. Along with the near-infrared AF-aid light (which is much less distracting for subjects than the retina-rending white AF-aid lights that almost every manufacturer, Canon included, opted for later on to save a few beans), they introduced the first integrated IR wireless shutter release into an SLR using a tidy little remote transmitter that fit in the palm of your hand with a range of 5m/16'. This eliminated the need for a corded remote release or bulky hot-shoe-mounted IR receiver and transmitter (albeit with far less range than such units). They also used an infrared beam for film registration in that fancy new sprocketless advance system. Cleverly, the engineers used a tiny hood to shield the beam from fogging infrared film (another feature that would bite the bean-counter dust on subsequent mid-range EOS bodies, precluding the use of IR film in said models). And, finally, not to be outdone by Minolta when it came to gimmicky add-ons (looking at you: Creative Expansion Cards), Canon included an IR barcode scanner that would read a barcode from a manual that provided some fancy exposure program for a certain type of scene (e.g. Fireworks) that you would then transmit into an infrared eye on the camera (can you see my infrared eyeroll?). Fortunately, you could completely ignore the Bar-code setting on the EOS 10 with no loss of functionality, something that could not be said for CEC.
Which leads us to another advantage accrued to the EOS 10: While it included the lame Bar-code system and the first scene modes (Portrait, Landscape, Close-Up, & Sports) on a dial in an enthusiast EOS body (to attract newbs), more experienced users could simply ignore those features to take more control of the camera's exposure system. Not so easy with the Minolta, which buried a lot of that capability in the CEC system or in the add-on PB-7. The EOS 10 was more versatile and offered more value than any competing model in the category at the time.

All of which matters naught to the 35mm purist. The EOS 10 was the first enthusiast-level Canon to exchange hybrid (polycarbonate over a metal chassis) construction for a complete fiberglass-reinforced polycarbonate chassis with only the stainless steel lens mount to hang your metal-head hat on. A hybrid-construction hater will positively despise (cue Daffy Duck: "You'rrre dethhhpicable!") the EOS 10. Canon's pathway to perdition was assured: if they were going to an all-plastic chassis with the enthusiast EOS bodies, there would be no hope for the consumer-level ones. Sure enough, alongside the EOS 10 came the EOS 700 which soon begat the poster-child for all plastique Canons to this day...the Rebel (this might be a good time for a dose of Gravol ;-)).

The EOS 10 was a true tweener when it came to Canon's AF SLRs regarding controls and their layout. It set the pattern for all future enthusiast EOS models with its left-side Command Mode dial with the newb-oriented green rectangle all-auto mode and Scene modes below the Lock (OFF) position on the dial and the typical advanced P(rogram), Tv (Time value aka Shutter-priority), and Av (Aperture value aka Aperture-priority) modes along with Canon's proprietary DEP (depth-of-field) mode above Lock. Camera Shake (audible beeper for slow shutter speeds, and (M)anual exposure rounded out the Advanced Settings. While later models would incorporate ISO, Multiple Exposures, Exposure Bracketing, and Custom Functions on the Command Dial, the 10 carried over the slightly kludgy bottom-rear-located film rewind, Function (this was a new button that replaced the Drive mode button on earlier EOS with added features), AF mode, and Exposure Compensation (another new dedicated control) button locations of the first-gen EOS bodies. However, it did at least eliminate that annoying, floppy door that hid these controls on its predecessors. The 10 was also the first enthusiast EOS to include a built-in flash and intervalometer (the built-in intervalometer would be eliminated from all future film EOS besides the professional and prosumer models). The hand and thumb grips were fuller and more defined than previous models and would carry over to future generations. The 10 would also prove to be the last mid-range EOS to eschew the soon-to-be-ubiquitous Quick Control Dial (QCD) that first debuted on the pro-targeted EOS 1 of 1989.

The market momentum that Canon had built with the first generation of EOS was not wasted. With its USM lens and broad feature-set, the 10 and its fellow second-gen EOS bodies simply tightened Canon's grip into a half-Nelson on the competition. Together with Minolta's missteps and Nikon's traditional trepidation to adopt the latest in technology, Canon's doubling-down on the inherent advantages of EOS and the EF lens mount only served to widen the gap. In another five years, Canon's market share would be pushing 50%, something they would never have dreamt of in the manual focus era (when they topped out at just over a third).

Long Gone and Forgotten

For all of its capability and innovation, the EOS 10 was soon eclipsed by the third-generation EOS SLRs. Even before that, it seemed like Canon was determined to bury their own camera under an avalanche of consumer-centric Rebel and Photura advertising. For instance, in only four 1990 issues of Popular Photography magazine (April, May, June, and August), did Canon feature the EOS 10s in advertisements, and two of those included the consumer-level EOS 700. So that left only two standalone plugs for the camera in the pages of PP...ever. All the while, Nikon and Minolta made sure to have their N8008 and 7000i and later 8000i models featured in every month, and within the first 20 pages or with a multipage block at the end of the issue. Canon couldn't even bring themselves to drop an ad for the 10s in the Feb. 1991 issue when Pop Photo published their full Test Report on the camera. And in Canon's own dealer promotion brochures, released biannually, the 10 never got more than a page to itself, while the consumer cameras got multiple levels of advertising support, including TV, which Canon never lavished on its enthusiast models. Kind of tells you what their priorities were ;-). About the only promotional thing that Canon did for the 10 was to produce a special pewter-colored edition in 1991 with a matching 35-135/4-5.6 USM kit lens to commemorate their 60-millionth 35mm film camera produced which just happened to be an EOS 10. Fear not, EOS-haters, it was only a thin coat of paint over the standard plain black polycarbonate, lest you think Canon was starting to get sloppily sentimental ;-).

Only a year and a half after the 10's debut, Canon brought out the EOS Elan (EOS 100 internationally) which, while targeted a bit lower than the 10, hardly gave up anything in the way of features and made better use of the Command Dial and also included the QCD on a non-professional EOS for the first time. The Elan's main claim to fame, however, would be its quietness (1/4 the level of the 10, impressive for sure). In contrast to their, shall we say, muted promotion of the 10 upon its debut, Canon made no less than an eight-page ad drop in Pop Photo when they released the Elan/100 in the USA in late-1991. Then, in the fall of 1992, the EOS A2(E) (EOS 5, internationally) took over as Canon's top prosumer body and was just more than the EOS 10 in virtually every way. As noted at the outset, the gains made in later iterations become less and less dramatic. The A2(E) was such a well-rounded, advanced body, that it would sell into the 2000s. That would only serve to exacerbate the fall of the 10 into obscurity. Canon was able to successfully bifurcate the 10's market position into two with the Elan and A2(E) and sold a boatload of both models as a result. The A2(E) would serve as a backup for pros and also cream off the top of the enthusiast market, while the Elan would spawn three more iterations of itself as the most successful line of mid-range AF SLRs in the industry. All the while, 10s were consigned to closets and attics. But there is where opportunity knocks for EOS enthusiasts today...

The EOS 10 - Over Thirty Years Later

With a mini film-revival currently underway, even Canon, the least-nostalgia-inducing SLR producer of all time, is seeing a rise in the value of its FD and early-EOS cameras. The EOS 650/620/630 trio bring, on average, the highest prices of any first-gen AF SLRs (which is still pretty cheap, all things considered). But the EOS 10 remains a sleeper, with equivalent-condition copies coming in at half the cost of a 650, a camera that the 10 destroys in every performance category, and a quarter of that of an AE-1 (which still fetches crazy prices despite being the most common film SLR of all time). Obviously, the AE-1 will generally appeal to a different buyer than an AF SLR, but anyone considering a first-gen EOS 650 or 630 should give the 10 a good look. It corrects many of the ergonomic deficiencies of the earlier models while taking a massive step forward in AF performance.

While the Elan has that yummy QCD and is super quiet, it still doesn't feel quite as good in my hand (particularly, the tighter front grip that bunches up my medium-sized fingers). The 10 is a bit noisier than the Elan, but is still miles ahead of any of its competitors from back in the day.

Foibles of the EOS 10 are the same as for the 650 or Elan: 1) shutter bumpers that turn to goo and foul the left sides of the shutter blades, leading to the dreaded "bc" error message on the LCD and a jammed shutter, and 2) keeping the fire stoked with 2CR5 batteries. The solution for #1 is pretty straightforward...break out the 99% isopropyl alcohol or naphtha and carefully clean the shutter blades and the area immediately below them until no more black goo is seen. #2 can be more or less problematic depending on where you live in the world, but I have found that ordering online is the most economical for me (usually about half of the cost of a brick-and-mortar retailer) at around $8-10 USD for genuine Panasonic batteries.

So who is the "big" 10 for? Well, for those with aging eyes that kick up a fuss when trying to focus manually, it offers excellent AF performance for the money, especially with a USM lens attached. It was also the first AF SLR to show which AF sensor was active by lighting it up in red, a handy feature that quickly spread industry-wide and remains viable today. If you happen to be a full-frame Canon DSLR user wanting to play with film a bit and use your current glass, the 10 could be just the ticket. It also works with any of Canon's infrared remote releases from the last 30 years, too.

Conversely, if you are the type that derives your photographic juice at least partly from the emotional bond you form with your equipment, you'll want to...awww, who am I kidding, we lost anyone like that even before the Read More link came up ;-). Call it the Canon Curse. The EOS 10 is the Nikon N8008/F-801's counterpart for Canonistas: eminently capable, yet lost in the shuffle between more appealing, yet less capable, older models, and its descendants that cleaned up its few quirks and foibles and were even more loaded with features.

I have a 650 and an ELAN in the closet with the 10. The 650 definitely feels heftier, which it literally is, and the ELAN basically equals the feature-set of its 18-month-older sibling. And yet, I just like the way the 10 sits in my hands, and how those little AF points light-up. I know its a cold-blooded, clinical Canon, but I don't care...it just feels good in my hands ;-).

The 10s with its standard 35-135 USM kit lens

References:

Canon EOS 10s @ https://global.canon/en/c-museum/product/film140.html
Canon EOS 10 Commemorative Kit @ https://global.canon/en/c-museum/product
Popular Photography on the Canon EOS 10s - Apr. 1990 & Feb. 1991
Popular Photography on the Minolta 7000i & 8000i - Oct. 1989 & Mar. 1990
Various Canon Dealer Promotional Brochures @ https://www.pacificrimcamera.com
Canon EOS 10S Sales Brochure @ https://www.pacificrimcamera.com/rl/rlCanonEOS

Nikkor Tales: The Nikon 200/4 K, AI, & AI-s Nikkors

Sat, 10 Feb 2024 02:00:00 GMT

Nikkor 200/4 AI-s mounted on an F3 w/ MD-4 Motor Drive

Middle-of-the-road. Middle-child-syndrome. When it comes to lenses you would be hard-pressed to find another optical specification that seemingly fits either of those epithets more closely than a plain ol' 200mm f/4 prime. A middling focal length, a middling maximum aperture, middling size and weight, and no optical development for almost fifty years...all of these added together must up to a middling "meh" experience. Or do they? Could it be that this valedictorian of the Class of the Overlooked is actually an overachiever and more than the sum of its moderate specifications? Well, you will have to decide that for yourself :-).

Before we get too far, let me be the first to say that a 200/4 is not for everyone. Nor is any other focal length/aperture combination, for that matter. If you are a 24/28mm...50/58mm...100/105mm...and so on type of person, a 200/4 fits the focal length progression quite nicely. But, if you are more of the 35/85/135mm-type, it likely will not be enough of a jump from the 135 to make carrying one worthwhile. Most people also find manually focusing a lens with an f/4 maximum aperture and a split-image focusing aid to be a challenge. The solution: using the microprism collar or matte field aids in your SLR viewfinder instead. Of course, that does not work for everyone, either, due to each individual's particular eyesight situation. The trick is to figure out whether a 200/4 will match up with your personal capabilities and limitations. The nice thing is that values have bottomed out, so you can try one and then move it along for at least what you paid for it if it doesn't work out for you. Now, while we will be diving in with the 200/4 Nikkors specifically, the same principles will apply to virtually any Japanese OEM 200/4 from the mid-'70s era, when development of these lenses peaked. Hopefully, you will find this helpful in deciding whether or not to fall down the 200/4 rabbit hole, small as it may be. We are talking f/4, after all, where photons go to die ;-).

Origins

The market for 200mm lenses basically coincided with the rise of the SLR as the 35mm choice for professional photojournalists and enthusiasts. While Zeiss had developed the first successful, fast 35mm-format long telephoto Olympia 180/2.8 Sonnar, back in 1935 (for the 1936 Berlin Olympics as the name implies), it was a very limited-production lens and it required a reflex adapter for practical use on the Contax rangefinder cameras then en vogue. SLRs basically incorporated that reflex box within themselves, making the use of focal lengths longer than 135mm (the upper limit of a rangefinder) a cinch. Nikon themselves had developed their own 18cm (180mm) f/2.5 lens for their S-mount (a few in M39 Leica Thread Mount also escaped into the wild :-)) rangefinders, which was released in 1953. It weighed a staggering 1.7kg/60 oz. The 18/2.5 Nikkor-H could be adapted for use on F-mount SLRs, which added even more length and weight to more than a handful of lens ;-). With the proliferation of Japanese SLRs in the late-'50s and early-'60s, 200mm (and longer) lenses came right alongside. Nikon introduced their first F-mount 20cm (200mm) f/4 Nikkor-Q Auto in 1961 and some version would be sold for the next 35 years or so, even as they expanded into 180/2.8, 200/2, and 200/3.5 F-mount optics during that same period. The 200/4 would go from being a top-of-the-line offering...to budget option...to gone...within that timeframe. And it remains a largely-ignored focal length/aperture combination today. So what happened? And why might it be worth your time to give one a first or maybe a second look?

The Rise of the 200mm Lens

The development of 200mm SLR lenses progressed nicely through the 1960s, with f/3.5 being a "fast" aperture at the time, and f/2.8 confined to the drawing board :-). While many of their competitors offered two lenses in the 200mm category for part or most of the decade, Nikon split the difference by offering a single f/4 lens:

Topcon - 200/4 & 5.6
Canon - 200/3.5 & 4.5
Minolta - 200/3.5 & 4.5
Pentax - 200/3.5 & 5.6, until 1965 when they followed Nikon with a single f/4

The main reason for the proliferation of moderate-aperture 200s during that period came down to physics; increasing the light-gathering capability by one stop or doubling the focal length increases aberrations by the square. The means available to lens designers at the time to counteract that were limited:

Aperture - Larger apertures = higher levels of aberration. It's as simple as that. And one stop wider of aperture (2x the amount of light admitted) increases aberrations by the square (so 4x overall). F/3.5 was simply as far as the glass technology of the day could take things, together with how much residual aberration the particular manufacturer was willing to accept to achieve it.
Telephoto ratio - this is an expression of the actual overall length of the lens versus the distance from the film (or sensor in the case of digital) plane to the focus node of the lens at infinity. The smaller the telephoto ratio, the more powerful the magnification of the rear group of the lens has to be to achieve the desired overall focal length, which in turn increases axial (longitudinal) chromatic aberration (wait for it...) by the square. Any telephoto ratio lower than 1.0x pushes the focal node past the front lens surface, enabling a construction physically shorter than the focal length itself (a good thing). The original 200/4 Nikkor-Q had a telephoto ratio of 0.99x, meaning that the distance from the film plane to the front surface of the lens was 198mm. Topcon, on the other hand, designed their 200/5.6 with a telephoto ratio of 0.83x, or 16% less than the Nikkor-Q, resulting in a film-plane to front surface distance of 166mm...but they had to drop a full stop of aperture from f/4 to f/5.6, to accommodate the increase in aberration from the lower telephoto ratio. No free lunch :-).

All lens manufacturers are faced with this dilemma of balancing performance, speed, physical size, and cost within the limits of their optical technology at any given time. With their original 200/4, Nikon opted for a moderate aperture together with a physically longer lens to accommodate the fact that they had no ED (Extra-low Dispersion) glass, no multicoatings, and no computer-aided lens design in 1959-61. By the early-1970s, major advancements had been made in all of those areas. Consequently, Nikon was able to introduce their first F-mount f/2.8 telephoto longer than 135mm: the 180/2.8 Nikkor-P Auto in 1970-71 (with a still-moderate telephoto ratio of 0.95x, by the way). What did that bode for our friendly 200/4? First, a bump down the Nikkor lineup ladder. The new 180/2.8 was double the price of the 200/4, pushing the latter out of its previous top-of-the-line role. Nikon also decided it was time for development of a full-scale redesign of the 200/4, whose basic formula was now a decade old, although it had been recently "remodeled" (in Nikon's own words) in 1969 for improved color balance (using newly-developed glass with a lower transmission of blue wavelengths) and resolution (achieved by improved correction of spherical aberration) which permitted a sizeable 1/3-reduction in minimum focus distance from 3m/10' to 2m/7'. Nikon also added another aperture blade (going from 6 to 7). Multicoatings would be added in 1973 (Serial # 570001 and up).

Because of this relatively recent update to the 200/4 Nikkor-Q, Nikon could afford to take their time with its successor. And they did. Designer Teruyoshi Tsunashima would submit no fewer than four design proposals between March 1971 and February 1974 for what would become the New (aka "K") Nikkor 200/4 that was eventually released for sale a further two years later in February 1976. It would be the final 200/4 Nikkor optical design to date.

The New 200/4 Nikkor

With the arrival of the 180/2.8, the role of the 200/4 Nikkor was redefined, and this informed Nikon's decision-making when it came to the composition of the succeeding edition of the lens. Right from the first design proposal, Tsunashima-san knew that he would not be permitted to use the then-brand-new, extra-low dispersion (ED) glass that Nikon was implementing in its new 300/2.8 Nikkor-H super-telephoto then in final development. And this made practical sense: you do not put more expensive glass in a budget or standard lens than your premium offerings, and the 180/2.8 itself wouldn't get ED glass for another 10 years. In fact, in 1971, Nikon wasn't even yet able to produce its own ED glass; they had to purchase the FK52 (Fluour Krown) from Schott in Germany for the first production run of the 300/2.8 Nikkor-H to have the lens ready in time for the Sapporo Winter Olympics of 1972. The New 200/4 was not going to be a flagship lens, it was to be a workhorse and attainable for the average enthusiast photog. So what was Tsunashima left with? Maximize the performance of the lens with conventional glass types while reducing size and weight. Now it becomes apparent why it took him three years to come up with the final design. When you can't solve problems by just throwing money and premium materials at them, it pushes you harder and Tsunashima was up to the challenge, judging by the results.

Granted, it's not like he had nothing to work with at all. During the decade-plus since the original 200/4 Nikkor-Q Auto was introduced, even conventional glass types had seen significant improvements and designers now had access to more sophisticated computer-aided design and calculation of optical formulas. But there was still plenty of trial-and-error involved as evinced by the multiple design proposals Tsunashima submitted. So what was he able to accomplish in the end? First, he was able to reduce the telephoto ratio of the lens to 0.8x, while still markedly improving optical correction and performance. That is noteworthy. Remember that increasing the magnification of the rear lens group to reduce the telephoto ratio leads to an increase in axial chromatic aberration (CA) by the square of the magnification increase. The 0.19x reduction in telephoto ratio produced a big jump in axial CA that would have to be rectified by the optics of the lens. The drop in telephoto ratio enabled a nearly-25% reduction in overall length of the lens, and Nikon was also able to trim the weight by almost 15% from the previous-generation 200/4 Nikkor Q-C.

Something interesting about the New 200/4 was the inclusion of a decidedly non-budget 9-blade aperture, rather than the usual 7 blades for Nikon's standard lenses of the time. Perhaps Tsunashima-san was granted that small gift for having to sacrifice on the glass end and his three years of hard work. Or maybe it was simply a matter of beating Canon and their then-current, 8-bladed, 200/4 S.S.C. model ;-). Even the 180/2.8 Nikkor-P and AI models used "just" a 7-blade diaphragm (although it would also be upgraded to 9 blades when the ED AI-s version appeared in 1981).

4-elements in 4-groups optical formula of the original 200/4 Nikkor-Q Auto (1961-76)

5-elements in 5-groups optical formula of the 200/4 New Nikkor, AI, & AI-s (1976-86)

The general efficacy and acceptance of this basic 5-element formula for 200/4 lenses was borne out with its coincidental adoption by Nikon's competitor Minolta for their mid-'70s introduction of their own 200/4 optic (which replaced their previous f/3.5 & f/4.5 models in one shot). Minolta's MC-Rokkor(-X) was introduced just a couple of months prior to the New Nikkor in December 1975 and bears quite the internal resemblance:

Minolta MC Rokkor(-X) from Dec. 1975. 5 elements in 5 groups.

The Minolta lens could not quite match the New Nikkor's impressive telephoto ratio (0.85x vs. 0.80x) nor its 2m/6.5' minimum focus distance (2.5m/8.2'), and it only sported 6 aperture blades as was Minolta's standard at the time. It was 11% longer and weighed a touch less (520g/18.3oz vs. 540g/19 oz). Performance was nonetheless excellent and very similar to the Nikkor's. Not too shabby for a lens priced 40% lower. Filter size was 55mm.

Note, too, the SMC Pentax 200/4 introduced in the Fall of 1975 that retained the basic 5e/5g layout of the 200/4 Super Takumar from 1965 but updated it with a closer focusing distance (2m vs. 2.5m) that matched the Nikkor's and improved SMC multicoatings over the first-generation S-M-C Takumar's. The SMC Pentax utilized 6 aperture blades like the Minolta and its telephoto ratio stretched even further to 0.89x. Overall length was 16% longer, but it undercut the New Nikkor by all of 5g/0.2 oz in weight. It was priced 45% below the Nikkor. Filter size was 58mm.

SMC Pentax 200/4 optical diagram also featuring 5e/5g. Courtesy of www.pentaxforums.com

All three optical designs are viewed as the highest performing 200/4 lenses each manufacturer ever produced. Both Minolta and Pentax would introduce newer, shorter (10% for the Minolta, and 20% for the Pentax), and considerably lighter (400-410g/14.3 oz) 200/4 lenses in the coming years, but both sacrificed some of their optical performance (shorter = lower telephoto ratio = more aberrations) as 200/4s faded in popularity and were pushed even further into the budget category. Nikon would knock a couple more millimeters off of the overall length of their final AI-s version and also trim the weight to 510g/18 oz, but made no optical compromises through the end of production.

When compared to the Nikkor-Q, the new design offers noticeably better performance wide-open and is basically at peak capability from f/5.6 to f/11. The older lens needs at least f/8 to reach its peak. The overall competence of the optical layout of the New 200/4 should not be surprising because of how closely it resembles the original 300/2.8 ED's (possibly a source of inspiration for Tsunashima) and it was further demonstrated when Nikon virtually reused it over five years later for the 180/2.8 ED AI-s with the substitution of ED glass for the front element. ED glass is harder to manufacture and work with than conventional glass, thus its higher cost. It is also more sensitive to temperature variations and is more delicate than standard glasses.

Nikon did manage to improve the hardness and durability of their own ED glass over time but they still ended up having to add a built-in, protective front filter to the various newer 300 - 1200mm ED AI & AI-s lenses because of their exposed front ED elements, and it is a good idea to use a high-quality, multicoated 72mm UV or Skylight filter on the 180/2.8 ED AI-s, too. There is not much point in putting a cheap filter in front of good glass that can undo much of the performance built into the lens. No such worries with the lowly 200/4 :-). A further bonus is that any version of the New 200/4 can be had for the same or less money than the older Nikkor-Q(-C) versions, likely due to the predilection among vintage camera nerds for "all-metal" lens construction. For shame the New Nikkors would dare to use a rubber focus ring ;-).

300/2.8 Nikkor-H ED (1972). ED elements shown by oblique lines. 6e/5g.

180/2.8 ED AIs (1981). ED element at the far left. 5e/5g.

A Poor-Man's 180/2.8 ED AI-s?

Obviously, the 200/4 cannot possibly match the overall imaging capability of its younger, faster, ED-equipped sibling. You can't beat physics :-). But, what the question really should be is this: "How much is that extra stop of aperture and bit of aberration correction worth to you, personally? Is it worth:

At least twice the cost in today's used market for an Excellent (not "Near-mint" on the big auction site; eyeroll) condition copy of 180/2.8 ED AI-s lens from a reputable retailer? $100-150 USD vs. $300+ USD.
Well over 50% more weight? 800g/28 oz vs. 510g/18 oz. An interesting tidbit: the Nikon F3 with its MD-4 motor drive attached can balance upright with the 200/4 AI-s focused to infinity; no chance of that with any 180/2.8 Nikkor :-).
Considerably more bulk in the hand? There is more difference than you would think a 10mm/0.39" (K/AI 200/4) to 13.5mm/0.53" (AI-s 200/4) increase in diameter makes ;-). Handholding the 180/2.8 ED AI-s is a considerable step up from the 200/4 and it requires a heavier SLR body to counterbalance it effectively.
More care exercised in focusing? Due to the inclusion of ED glass, the 180/2.8 ED AI-s actually focuses past infinity when turned to its hard stop. This is to account for the expansion & contraction of the ED element with changes in temperature. Hitting actual infinity when focusing is not simply a matter of turning the focus ring to the hard stop as with most other lenses. A level of familiarity with the lens and where actual infinity sits on the focus ring scale at certain temperatures is needed for best results. Not an issue with the 200/4.

The F3 w/ MD-4, the 200/4 AI-s, and the 180/2.8 ED AI-s for size comparison. Both lenses are at minimum focus distance, or maximum extension.

The 180/2.8 ED AI-s is rightly famed for its performance in astrophotography (one of those situations where determining infinity focus can be tricky, initially; stars are very hard to focus manually...after all it's dark out :-)), and was also a go-to for indoor sports and stage performances in its heyday. The bulk and weight are not a big deal for astro, since you would be mounting it on a tracking mount or tripod, anyways. But handholding it for the other activities could be a stretch for some. If you are more of a hiker/landscape shooter, the lighter weight and compactness of the 200/4 are major drawing cards. Now, you will always be able to find a hardcore 180/2.8 ED AI-s-wielding hiker somewhere, but we are talking in generalities here :-). The 200/4 will give you 90-95% of the performance of the 180/2.8 ED AI-s in almost any situation. If you happen to be shooting on any digital body made within the last 15 years, a simple ISO bump of one step is all you need in low light to keep up with the 180/2.8 ED AI-s, which also often needs a similar ISO bump just to keep the shutter speed high enough to prevent blurring with that extra weight swinging around when handheld ;-). If you can handle the 180/2.8 ED AI-s, you will not be disappointed. But the gains are incremental rather than monumental in most situations over the 200/4.

Recommendations

If you decide that a 200/4 Nikkor might meet your telephoto needs the best, what should you bear in mind? Seeing as the optics of the K, AI, and AI-s are identical, and weight only ranges between 30g/1 oz, there are only a few considerations when choosing one:

AI or non-AI? - the original K-version obviously pre-dated the AI-era, but quite a few were factory-converted to AI (Automatic Aperture Indexing) by Nikon dealers. If you are looking at using one on a mirrorless digital body, a non-converted copy will likely work just fine and can often be had for a few dollars less. If you are planning to use the lens on an AI-compatible film body or DSLR, you will need to ensure that you get an AI-converted, AI, or AI-s version. AI-capable Nikon film bodies that are also able to mount non-AI lenses and use stop-down metering include: the F2A, F2AS, Nikkormat/Nikomat FT3, Nikon EL2, FM, FE, F3, F4, F5 (if factory converted), and the Nikon Df DSLR. The AI-s also provides best exposure accuracy in Program and Shutter-Priority modes on the FA & F-301/N2000 film bodies, although AI lenses will work fine in most situations.
Focusing - The AI-s has a lighter focus touch than the K and AI (both of which are more comparable to the 180/2.8 ED AI-s: still smooth but you can definitely feel the heavier damping). Just a matter of preference. All have the same focus throw of 205 degrees. The K has finer ribbing on its focus ring than the AI & AI-s. Many of these lenses will need a re-grease for smooth focus operation, irrespective of which series they belong to.
Aperture Shape - Both the K and AI have a saw-tooth/ninja-star aperture shape similar to, but not as extreme as, many period Zeiss CONTAX-Yashica lenses, when closed down between f/4 and f/6.3 or so. The AI-s cuts that even further (by about half), with just a hint remaining at f/5.6. Some people obsess over the effect this can have on bokeh (love it or hate it) in certain situations. Most will never notice :-).

Wherefore Hast Thou Gone, O 200/4?

The late-'70s were the last hurrah for the 200/4s of any brand. Nikon sold nearly 150,000 of the AI version over a four-year period from 1977-81. Compare that to just over 18,000 copies sold of the 180/2.8 AI (non-ED) for a ratio of 8 to 1 over the same period. The succeeding 200/4 AI-s version would accrue sales just above 80,000 over fifteen years as the Zoom and then AF Ages took hold. Third-party telephoto zooms (70-210ish mm focal lengths @ f/3.5-4.5 apertures) in particular became the undoing of the 200/4s. I can recall this from personal experience as a kid. Every person I knew with an SLR (including my Dad :-)) had a 50mm, a 28mm (usually aftermarket), and the aforementioned telephoto zoom (almost invariably aftermarket, usually a Vivitar or something similar, maybe a Series 1 if they were real extravagant; my Dad was not ;-)). And it isn't hard to see why, in retrospect, for the consumers that the manufacturers (Nikon included) were chasing at the expense of enthusiasts:

Convenience - Zooms were heavily marketed as replacing up to 4 or even 5 (eyeroll) prime lenses in one fell swoop (85, 100/105, 135, 200). That was stretching it, as virtually no one would own every single focal length within that range, but most people getting on the zoom bandwagon at that time didn't know the difference.
Cost - Let's go back to 1977-78 for an example. And we'll use the popular and capable Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm f/3.5 to go head-to-head with our 200/4 AI Nikkor. Cost at Competitive Camera Corp in NYC, USA (adjusted for inflation in 2024) was $1,175 USD for the zoom and $910 USD for the prime. Now add in the alternative choice of the lesser Vivitar 85-205/3.8 Close-Focus Zoom ("it replaces your macro/micro lens, too!!!" - another eyeroll) for only $620 USD. And we haven't even added in the other primes that the zooms "replaced": 85/2 AI Nikkor (ok, ok, so you can't exactly call f/3.5 a direct replacement for f/2; details mere details ;-)) for $825 USD; 105/2.5 AI Nikkor (see above) for $865 USD; and lastly the 135/3.5 AI Nikkor (finally, an aperture match ;-)) for $660 USD. Alright, so we have a total cost for our 4 prime lenses of $3,260 USD and a combined weight of 1,675g/59 oz versus the Series 1 at just over a third of the cost and just over half the weight (940 g/33 oz.; or the 85-205 plain vanilla Vivitar for a less than a fifth of the cost, and again just over half the weight (907g/32 oz). But, lest we conclude that only the aftermarket zoom killed the 200/4 prime, check out Nikon's own excellent professional 80-200/4.5 AI Zoom-Nikkor (the second, improved version from mid-1977): $1,980 USD and 750g/26 oz.. Two-thirds the cost and less than half the total weight of our four primes), albeit you had to swallow that cost in one purchase rather than space it out over four ;-).

And that trend would only accelerate once the '80s came along. From 1977-85, Nikon sold over 502,000 manual focus telephoto zooms that reached 200-210mm at the long end. From 1977-96 (an extra 11 years) they sold just under 230,000 manual focus 200/4s (and nearly two-thirds of those were sold before 1982). Tellingly, no manufacturer has ever produced an autofocus 200/4 non-macro/micro lens. They simply let them die out. Zooms won. But did photographers? Well, there may have been more money left in their wallets and less overall weight in their camera bags, but there was no free lunch (funny how that keeps popping up ;-)). First, even the lightest, and arguably the strongest optically, zoom in our little informal comparison above is nearly 40% heavier in the hand than the 200/4 and that trend only increases with the shorter lenses it "replaces". It gets even uglier with the Vivitar duo: 67-75% heavier in the hand than the 200/4. And then there comes the optical performance. The highest compliment that could be paid to a zoom of the era was that it came close to an equivalent prime, optically. They simply had no hope of matching, let alone exceeding the latter, particularly at the long end of their focal range. The film SLR Zoom-era may well be called the "good-enough"-era. Performance was better than the plethora of AF lens shutter zoom point and shoots that came to dominate the sales charts for the next two decades, so that, taken with the convenience factor, was...good enough...for SLR consumers, and even many enthusiasts, as it turned out ;-).

Wrap-Up

Does everybody need a 200/4? Nope. Are there viable alternatives depending on your budget and weight restrictions? Absolutely. But I will posit that anyone would be up against it to come up with a better price-to-performance ratio optic in the telephoto range irrespective of the SLR system you have. They were made in sufficient quantities to avoid the age-old supply/demand dilemma; few of them were used extensively, so there is currently plenty of selection for copies in Excellent or better condition; and that moderate aperture also means less-expensive "standard" filter sizes (anywhere from 52-58mm, generally), of which there are boatloads of high-quality, used, multicoated copies to choose from. For half a century of "non-progress", I like mine just fine ;-).

References:

Roland's Nikon Pages @ http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/lenses.html
The Thousand and One Nights - No.10 @ https://imaging.nikon.com/imaging
The Thousand and One Nights - No. 11 @ https://imaging.nikon.com/imaging
The Thousand and One Nights - No. 48 @ https://imaging.nikon.com/imaging
The Thousand and one Nights - No. 87 @ https://imaging.nikon.com/imaging
SMC Pentax 200/4 Reviews @ https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews
Various Nikon Catalogs @ https://www.pacificrimcamera.com/rl/rlNikonNotebook
Minolta SR Lens Index @ https://minolta.eazypix.de/lenses/index.html
Minolta MC Rokkor(-X) Service Manual

CONTAX/Yashica 35mm SLR System (Manual Focus)

Wed, 10 Jan 2024 23:30:00 GMT

CONTAX ST w/ P-7 AA-battery holder (1992) and the Yashica FX-D Quartz (1980)

Yes, it's been a long time in coming, but we will now resume our "Choosing a Vintage SLR System" series. Previous articles delved into the Big 5's (Canon, Minolta, Nikon, Olympus, and Pentax) manual focus (MF) 35mm SLR ecosystems, breaking them down into five main sections: 1) Lenses, 2) Bodies, 3) Flash, 4) Accessories, 5) Reliability & Servicing. We will now start digging into a series of smaller Japanese manufacturers that, while perhaps not as well-known nor heralded, were certainly influential in the industry and can offer interesting alternatives to the Big 5 in your search for an SLR system. We (re)start with CONTAX/Yashica, a collaboration between Zeiss and Yashica. As before, we will confine our consideration to the MF system, which is where C/Y made their greatest mark (their Auto Focus or AF system, unfortunately, never amounted to much, in spite of a promising R&D program in the early-'80s).

Crisis Leads to Collaboration

A partnership with a Japanese camera company would have been far from Zeiss' mind prior to the early-1970s. They had not taken kindly in the 1950s to a proclamation in the New York Times stating that lenses from Nippon Kogaku (later Nikon Corp.) were now capable of superior performance to the previously unchallenged German hegemony in 35mm optics. Both Zeiss and Leitz (the makers of Leica), the dominant German 35mm manufacturers, paid dearly for their underestimation of the Japanese, particularly when it came to the refinement of the SLR into the premier tool for photojournalism and enthusiast 35mm photography from the late-'50s onward. They were rewarded with the near-collapse of their photographic divisions a decade and a half later. During the 1960s, Leitz had been a bit more successful than Zeiss in SLR design with their Leicaflexes (Zeiss' Contaflexes were overly complicated in design and archaic in their controls), but neither of them could match the rapid maturation of Japanese SLRs. Soon, the Japanese were not just refining the pioneering efforts of Zeiss in SLRs, but innovating themselves, particularly when it came to automation. Further automation of the SLR was going to require electronics, and by the early-'70s no one was more advanced in commercial electronics than the Japanese. Among camera manufacturers, Yashica had taken an early lead in applying electronics to 35mm cameras in general, and SLRs in particular. In 1968 they had released the first successful electronically-controlled focal-plane shutter SLR in the form of the TL Electro-X. This may have provided the first inkling for Zeiss that Yashica could be a good future partner as the TL Electro-X soundly thrashed the Zeiss-Ikon Contaflex SE (introduced a few months earlier) in operation and sales (300,000 vs. 3,000) and basically precipitated the withdrawal of Zeiss-Ikon (located in then-West Germany) from the SLR market completely by 1972. After a failed attempt to establish a long-term agreement with Asahi Optical Co. (aka Pentax), negotiations with Yashica began in June 1973. The partnership with Yashica was officially announced on Sept. 18, 1974.

Lenses

Reflexively, when most photographers think of CONTAX/Yashica, the first thing that comes to their mind is ZEISS glass (can you see the halo and beams of light ;-)). And that is understandable, as the Carl Zeiss lenses produced for the C/Y mount were some of the finest optics of their generation. What often gets lost in the shuffle was that the majority of Zeiss-badged glass for C/Y was actually built in Yashica's Tomioka lens facility alongside the Yashica-branded glass for the system. Long before Zeiss came along, the Tomioka plant had a well-deserved reputation for producing high-quality optics, not just for 35mm, but also other formats. There were two Yashica series of lenses for C/Y: 1) the budget DSB/YUS single-coated line (comparable to Minolta Celtic and Nikon Series E lenses), and 2) the Multi-Layer/MC multicoated family (comparable to the standard lens lines of the Big 5). Befitting their premium status, the Carl Zeiss-branded lenses received Zeiss' proprietary T* multicoating, thus creating a three-tiered system. The ML/MC lenses stand up to concurrent Big 5 glass any day of the week. Truth be told, they come closer to their premium siblings than most Zeissphiles would care to admit ;-).

On the Zeiss side, there were two main generations of lenses, the original AE (Auto Exposure) versions for Aperture-priority exposure and the later MM (Multi Mode versions enabling Program and Shutter-priority as well. The easiest way to distinguish between AE and MM lenses is via the minimum aperture number on the aperture ring: it is white like the others on AE lenses, while it is green on the MMs (CONTAX/Yashica basically "borrowed" Minolta's MD system, including the lightened aperture blades, green minimum aperture number, and its aperture ring-mounted tab and body-mounted lever, just clocked 180-degrees from Minolta's configuration to satisfy the patent lawyers ;-)). MM lenses are fully backwards compatible, but AE lenses cannot be used in Program or Shutter-priority modes on cameras so-equipped (they function normally in Aperture-priority and Manual modes). A few AE lenses never did receive the MM upgrade (including the 16/2.8 F-Distagon, 15/3.5 Distagon, 300/2.8 Tele-Apotessar, 60/2.8 Makro-Planar 1:1, and the 100/2.8 Makro-Planar). Another commonly-used delineation is the application of "G" to signify German production and "J" for Japanese production:

AEG = Auto Exposure lens made in Germany
AEJ = Auto Exposure lens made in Japan
MMG = MM lens made in Germany
MMJ = MM lens made in Japan

"G"-suffix lenses almost always carry a higher price tag than equivalent "J"-suffixed versions, a result of the myth of Zeiss having higher quality standards in Germany than the Japanese were capable of. This holdover from Zeiss' attitude in the 1950s provides the opportunity for informed buyers to score better deals on AEJ and MMJ lenses that are every bit as good as their German counterparts :-).

Noteworthy Lenses. The easy way out with Zeiss is to say: "all of them" ;-). Of course, things are a bit more nuanced than that. Safe to say however, you have to look long and hard to find a dud among them. About the worst you could say is that a C/Y Zeiss lens would be just "average". When the typical 50/1.7 will run you $150 - $200 USD and the others go up from there, it can make things a bit of a challenge for a person constrained by budget. However, that can also help to keep one's lens menagerie at a manageable size ;-). Cine-modders have shown a predilection for Zeiss C/Y glass and that has only served to keep values strong. But, you can find some relative bargains among the moderate aperture primes such as the 28/2.8, 35/2.8, 85/2.8, 100/3.5, and 200/4, and even more so among the zooms, which offer class-leading performance for the era, at the cost of weight. If you have the pockets for them, the 28/2, 35/1.4, 85/1.4, and 100/2 primes were all premier optics and the 85/1.2 is a light-sucking monster of a portrait lens ;-). Speaking of deep pockets, the 55/1.2 100-Jahre Planar is among the rarest of C-Y lenses and they sell for $5,000 USD and up, with virtually all of them living on collectors' shelves. The 60/2.8 and 100/2.8 Makro-Planars are also impressive and are actually within reach, financially. One other trait shared by many of these lenses (mostly AE-Series) are their short aperture blades that produce a "sawtooth" or "ninja-star" effect when stopped-down from wide-open until they get to f/8. This can create interesting bokeh effects that you may love or hate ;-). Standard filter sizes were 55mm and 67mm, with a few specialty lenses utilizing 72, 77, 82, and 86mm. The pancake 45/2.8 Tessar took a 49mm filter, but CONTAX listed it with a 49/55mm step-up ring to simplify matters.

Construction is beyond reproach in nearly every respect, apart from the curious (trying to save weight or, more likely, cost) decision to originally make the lens mount flanges and seats for many of the Carl Zeiss C/Y lenses out of anodized aluminum. This was in contrast to almost all other MF lenses of the period, which used either one-piece chromed brass or stainless steel mount flanges. This was duly noted by Popular Photography in their testing of the RTS II and the 28/2.8, 50/1.4, and 100/2 AE lenses in Feb. 1983. The problem with the anodized layer on the aluminum is that, while it is very hard, it is also very thin and is not appropriate for surfaces that move against one another. When subjected to the friction of frequent mounting and dismounting lenses, the anodized surface quickly wore away, leaving the soft aluminum underneath defenseless to the harder metals (generally stainless steel) found in the locking mechanisms of the lens bayonet mounts on the SLRs. Accelerated wear and the resulting slop between the mating surfaces ensued. Popular Photography also noted that the screws securing the lens mount seat to the barrel were somewhat undersized compared to other manufacturers (particularly the smaller heads of the screws). This turned out to be a very minor to non-existent issue in practice, unless severe physical abuse was involved.

The two-piece anodized mounts did eventually became enough of a problem that Zeiss was forced to resort to stainless steel flanges (or one-piece chromed brass mounts for heavier/longer lenses) by the late-'80s. Somewhat ironically, the smaller, lighter, and thus more-affordable lenses (the f/2.8 "slow" primes, the 50mms, the short "slow" telephotos, and the newer zooms) had more frequent production runs than their illustrious "fast" siblings and so received the improved mounts first ;-). Some of the lower-production lenses (including the 16/2.8 F-Distagon, 15/3.5 Distagon, 18/4 Distagon, 35/1.4 Distagon, 35/2.5 PC-Distagon,) had to wait until the mid-'90s to be upgraded. The easiest way to tell if a flange is the anodized type is by its black color right out to the edge and on the perimeter when viewed from the side. Stainless steel flanges are silver-colored on the outer half (and the edge when viewed from the side) that engages the bayonet on the camera (somewhat resembling Minolta MDs).

Anodized aluminum flange on Zeiss 100/3.5 AEJ

Stainless steel flange on Zeiss 100/3.5 MMJ

After addressing the lenses' mount material situation, CONTAX also beefed up the lens mounts on the cameras to a six-screw (using M2 x 5mm screws) pattern from the original four-screw (using M2 x 3mm screws) pattern, starting with the RTS III in 1990 (serious overkill, but it sure doesn't hurt anything :-)). Unless you are using the heaviest of Zeiss lenses (and there are a few ;-)) while swinging your camera around with Cirque de Soleil aspirations, the four-screw-mount SLRs will be just fine. Minolta used a very similar M2 x 3.5mm x 4-screw layout in their SR-mount for over 45 years, and Olympus used an M2 x 4mm x 3-screw pattern in the OM-mount for 35 years, both very successfully.

6-screw lens mount of the ST vs. 4-screw lens mount of the FX-D

When it comes to the Yashicas, the ML/MC lenses are very well-made (they retained aluminum-on-brass focusing helicoids just as the Carl Zeiss line did, when virtually everyone else had gone to aluminum-on-aluminum or even aluminum-on-plastic) and perform beautifully for their relative "budget" status compared to their more-celebrated counterparts. Even the cheap and cheerful 42-75/3.5-4.5 kit zoom has better build quality than it has a right to, with beautiful smoothness and positivity. Interestingly, Yashica did not resort to the two-piece anodized aluminum lens mount on their own lenses, opting for monolithic chromed brass from the get-go, making potential bayonet wear and weakness a non-issue. Prices versus the Big 5 are comparable for the common 24, 28, 35, 50, 135, and 200mm moderate-aperture focal lengths, but many ML lenses tend toward the higher end simply due to their rarity (the 15/2.8 fisheye, 21/3.5, 55/1.2, the 28-50/3.5 & 35-70/4 zooms, and the 55/2.8 & 100/3.5 Macros among them) and overall quality. It is very telling that Yashica produced no fast aperture wide-angles, nor any 85 or 100mm ML non-macro lenses that might potentially have stolen the thunder of their Zeiss brethren ;-). Filter sizes for the MLs were 52, 55, 58, 62, and 72mm with 52mm being the most common.

Cameras

Just as with the lenses, the CONTAX bodies get more notoriety for their Zeissgeist than do their Yashica-labelled counterparts, but when taken together they provided one of the most complete MF SLR systems of the last quarter of the 20th century (approximate month/year of introduction to market in parentheses):

CONTAX RTS (Nov. 1975) - The RTS kicked off the C/Y partnership with a bang at Photokina in September 1974. As only the second auto exposure SLR aimed squarely at professionals (the Minolta XK/X-1 of 1973 being the first), it generated major interest as it was promoted to be the most technologically-advanced pro model of the day paired with the desirability of modern Zeiss-designed glass. Introducing both infrared and radio-controlled wireless transmitters and other electronic geegaws, the RTS set the stage for the next generation of professional SLRs from the rest of the industry, which to that point remained wedded to mechanical-shutters and manual exposure. While the RTS definitely did not become an instant benchmark for pros (failing to displace the all-conquering Nikon F2) it certainly got the attention of Nikon's engineers, who would take a few cues for the F3 from the CONTAX. Certain bodies have SCIENTIFIC/MEDICAL embossed into the bottom plate. These "Fundus" models are also distinguished from standard RTS bodies by their recessed shutter release button and a push button shutter speed dial lock release on the front left side of the camera. There were a small number of gold-plated, snake-skin limited editions of the RTS (with matching 50/1.4 Planar lenses) issued over its lifespan. Powered by a single 544/4SR44/PX28L battery. Weight: 700 grams/24.7 oz.
Yashica FX-1 (June 1975) - Carrying over much the form factor and styling of Yashica's previous TL Electro series of M42 mount SLRs, the FX-1 was a definite notch below an RTS; it stood atop Yashica's enthusiast lineup as their first C/Y mount body as they finished moving out the remnants of their M42 system. Seeing as it was only going to be excelled in the lineup by the RTS, the FX-1 was still a very well-equipped camera with: aperture-priority (AUTO) & manual exposure modes, an electronically-controlled (of course) shutter with a speed range of 2 - 1/1000 sec in Auto and 1 - 1/1000 + Bulb in Manual, a bright viewfinder displaying both the set aperture (in green) and meter-recommended shutter speed (via needle) along with an "M" LED to notify the user when in Manual mode, ISO range of 12 - 3200, +/- 2-stops of exposure compensation, depth-of-field (DOF) preview, and self-timer. It could definitely hold its own against such competitors of the day as the Minolta XE(-7), Pentax ES II, and Nikkor/Nikomat EL. Also powered via a single 544/PX28L cell. Weight: 695 grams/24.5 oz.
Yashica FX-2 (June 1976) - With most of the backlog of the M42 mount TL-series cleared by 1976, the C/Y lineup was top-heavy with the RTS and FX-1. So the next move was to offer a stripped-down model designated FX-2. Downgrades from the FX-1 included: manual exposure only, a simple +/- match needle viewfinder display, ISO range of 12 - 1600, and no combined frame-counter illuminator/battery check LED. Still a very solid, well-built camera. Along with the FX-2, Yashica introduced its budget DSB/YUS lens line. Powered by the now-obsolete 675 mercury cell. Weight: 690 grams/24.3 oz.
Yashica FR (Feb. 1977) - For the first time in a C/Y Yashica, we start to see some trickle-down from the CONTAX RTS, with the basic chassis now being shared with its plebeian cousin. The FR also freshened the early-'70s styling of the FX-1, which it replaced, into something cleaner and more contemporary. The FR would inherit the viewfinder specifications of 92% coverage @ 0.87x magnification, the electromagnetic ("Feather-Touch" in Yashicaspeak) shutter release, and the Motor Drive connection from the RTS. Not wanting potential RTS buyers to feel possibly inclined to the much less-expensive Yashicas, there was plenty of room still being kept between the FR and RTS ;-): manual exposure only (no aperture priority Auto setting), no interchangeable focusing screens, a less-responsive and -sensitive CdS (Cadmium Sulfide) metering cell versus the modern silicon photo diode (SPD) of the RTS, and a less-precise LED viewfinder readout (but still very good). The FR also got a long-overdue focusing-aid update from the dated microprism patch of the FX-1 (also used in the RTS' standard focusing screen) with its combination diagonal split-image rangefinder with microprism collar. Powered identically to the RTS. Weight: 650 grams/22.9 oz. As a mid-market body the FR came standard in a chrome finish, but could be upgraded to black for the customary fee. In late-1977, with the RTS w/ 50/1.4 Carl Zeiss Planar retailing for $2,395 USD (inflation-corrected to 2023, as are all prices in this article) and the FX-2 w/ 50/1.9 DSB at $865 USD, the FR w/ 50/1.4 ML slid in at $1,015 USD. That drop off from the RTS to the FR still left a sizeable gap in the market, which resulted in the...
Yashica FR I (April 1978) - Closer...closer...closer...ok, stop. The trickle-down from the RTS became a stream with the FR I (that's eff-are-one, not eff-are-eye ;-)). Aperture-priority along with manual exposure, exposure compensation, SPD metering, and black-only finish (just like the "pro" RTS ;-)) all found their way into the FR I. About the only things that it didn't get were: interchangeable focusing screens and mirror lock-up (MLU), both of which were decidedly pro-oriented features by the late-'70s. In its May 1978 Test Report on the FR-1, Modern Photography stated, "It provides the precision, automation, and flexibility of the CONTAX RTS at a vast saving in money." In other words, the FR-1 was the RTS Lite. That statement obviously stuck with Zeiss, causing a major re-evaluation of the relationship between the CONTAX and Yashica brands. Never again would a lowly Yashica be allowed to approach so close to the feet of the exalted CONTAX ;-). All FRs were powered identically to the RTS. Weight: 660 grams/23.3 oz.
Yashica FR II (April 1978) - Following the pattern of the FX-1 & -2, the FR II was a somewhat de-contented FR I (it weighed all of 10 grams less ;-)). It steered further into automation by deleting the manual exposure capability of its sibling, along with a simplified viewfinder that no longer displayed the set aperture, and removed DOF preview...and that's all. Befitting its "lower" status, it was only available in chrome finish. If you didn't feel the need for manual exposure, the FR II was basically the same internally as the FR I...which was very similar internally to the RTS. That made the FRs seriously good value for the money. Can you see what's coming?
CONTAX 139 Quartz (April 1979) - As only the second CONTAX model (introduced four years after the RTS, at the 1978 Photokina), the 139 Quartz broke new ground on a few fronts. First, it was the first SLR to offer quartz-regulated timing functions (thus the name), which promised greater precision and long-term accuracy. It was also the first CONTAX to adopt compact SLR dimensions and weight along with TTL flash metering (think Olympus OM-2 :-)). It was also the first CONTAX with a vertical-travel metal shutter (think Nikon FE :-)). It had a larger viewfinder than the RTS & FRs (95% @0.86x vs 92% @ 0.87x). Spec-wise it was a very close match to the Yashica FR I. The 139 provided the basic chassis for the forthcoming Yashicas, as the RTS had for the FRs. It would prove to be a best-seller and one of the most reliable CONTAX bodies, ever. Powered by 2 - SR44/357 button cells. Weight: 500 grams/17.6 oz.
Yashica FX-3/FX-7 (Oct. 1979/1980) - Demand for a cheap, basic SLR to compete with the Pentax K1000 induced Yashica to follow the lead of many other smaller SLR manufacturers and sub-contract badge-engineered body that was designated the FX-3. This was a simple matter of economics, as the sub-contractor amortized the development costs of the basic chassis by manufacturing versions for multiple brands (and dozens of models) over time. That saved Yashica a bundle on tooling and development for a low-margin market segment. The FX-3 was a basic mechanical-shuttered SLR, styled and laid out according to Yashica's specifications (such as an SPD metering cell and a separate metering check button on the back of the camera) with their C/Y lens mount. The FX-7 was simply an FX-3 with a chrome finish. Powered by 2 - 357/SR44s. Weight: 450 grams/15.9 oz.
CONTAX 137 MD Quartz (May 1980) - The 137 MD Quartz was only the second 35mm SLR to feature internal motorized film advance (the Konica FS-1 of 1979 being the first) providing 2.5 frames per second (fps). It was a clear attempt to appeal to users desiring automation over all else in an SLR. Similar to the FR II, the 137 MD had a single aperture-priority AUTO exposure mode. The viewfinder display was very comprehensive with the metered shutter speed, aperture setting, exposure compensation and flash-ready LEDs, and a frame counter (another industry-first) all present and accounted for. Strangely, CONTAX retained the horizontal-travel shutter type of the RTS/FRs, rather than the 139's vertical shutter with stainless steel blades (the 137 MD's direct competitor, the Konica FS-1, also used a vertical-travel, metal-bladed shutter), although it adopted the viewfinder and TTL flash metering of the 139. Cost-savings was likely the motivation for this. Power was supplied by 4 - AA (LR6) batteries. Weight: 665 grams/23.5 oz.
Yashica FX-D (Sept. 1980) - The first of the 139's progeny. The FX-D replaced the FR-1 atop the Yashica lineup, but with more space between it and the 139 than had existed between the FR I and RTS. Feature deletions from the 139 included: no TTL flash metering, no aperture setting displayed in the viewfinder, no ball-bearings in the film advance mechanism, no mirror damper, no DOF preview, no multiple exposure capability, no interchangeable back, a smaller ISO range of 25-1600 vs. 12-3200, and a glass-reinforced polymer top plate versus metal. However, the guts of the two cameras were otherwise virtually identical. The FX-D also shaved off nearly 10% of the mass of the 139, with a slightly-shorter film-winding stroke. Identical power requirements to the 139. Weight: 460 grams/16.2 oz.
CONTAX RTS II Quartz (July 1982) - Released on the 50th anniversary of the Contax brand. Although looking like an evolution of the original RTS, the II was a virtually new camera underneath its plainly-derivative exterior. Imagine a 139 Quartz and RTS squashed together with the addition of a titanium-foil horizontal shutter (clearly taking a cue from the Nikon F3 :-)), an even more responsive (some would argue hair-trigger ;-)) shutter release, a massively-improved, brighter viewfinder over the RTS (try 97% coverage @ 0.87x, with a new set of FS-type interchangeable focusing screens to match), an AE lock, and an eyepiece shutter. More cues from the Nikon F3 included: the use of seven ball bearings for the film winding shafts and CONTAX figured the F3's four-ball-bearing shutter mechanism could be improved upon with the addition of two more ball bearings for a total of six. Improved accessory backs and motor drives also accompanied the RTS II. Smoother operation and reliability over the original RTS were the driving forces in the development of the II. Yashica claimed over 30 improvements in construction versus its progenitor. The shutter was rated for 100,000 exposures (versus 150,000 for the F3, for context). Battery was the same 544/4SR44/PX28L as the original RTS. Weight: 735 grams (25.9 oz).
CONTAX 137 MA Quartz (Sept. 1982) - An update to the 137 MD Quartz. It received three basic upgrades: 1) a Manual exposure mode, 2) improved 3 fps frame advance (a 50% increase), 3) the film advance clutch disengagement system from the RTS line for increased smoothness and durability. There was also a revised manual rewind crank that was a clear improvement over the original's. The viewfinder display also now automatically shut off after 10 sec. of inactivity, with only a gentle touch of the shutter release required to re-awaken it. The film advance indicator was also made more visible, now being a solid white bar versus the star of the 137 MD. Otherwise identical to its predecessor. Lifespan of 4 - alkaline AAs continued to be rated at 50 rolls of 36-exp. film even with the higher advance speed. Weight: 610 grams/21.5 oz.
Yashica FX-70 (August 1983) - The final model introduced before the acquisition of Yashica by Kyocera in October 1983. Similar to the FR I & FR II situation, the FX-70 was a simplified (aperture-priority-only) FX-D, only to a greater degree. It ditched the RTS-style divorced exposure meter/shutter release system and had no provision for attaching a film winder or motor drive. It did retain a basic AE lock (instead of locking the EV, as in previous models, it locked only the shutter speed) and self-timer. The FX-70 was the most basic auto exposure Yashica body available at the time and slotted between the FX-D and the bottom rung FX-3. Two 357/SR44 button cells for power. Weight: 435 grams/15.3 oz.
Yashica FX-3 Super/FX-7 Super (Aug. 1984/July 1985) - The first models released after the buyout and thus the first to sport a small Kyocera badge on their bodies. A mild update of the FX-3/FX-7 duo with a small handgrip, a flash-ready indicator in the viewfinder display, and incorporating the previously-separate metering check switch into the shutter release. Otherwise identical in operation and equipment to the prior version. Weight: 445 grams/15.7 oz.
CONTAX 159 MM (Mar. 1985) - Replacement for the 139 Quartz and another model of "firsts" for CONTAX: their first shutter with 1/4000 sec. and 1/250 sec. flash sync. speeds courtesy of lightweight aluminum blades, their first Program modes (low-LP, normal-P, and high-HP), their first non-professional model with dealer-interchangeable focusing screens (FT-type), first "long"-eyepoint (aka "high"-eyepoint for Nikon users) 95% @ 0.82x viewfinder, their first accessory winder (W-7) with an additional vertical shutter release that was backwards-compatible with the 139 and FX-D, and their first rubber-armored body. The MM referred to the new Multi Mode series of Zeiss lenses that were required for the Program modes to function on this and all subsequent CONTAXes so-equipped. The viewfinder display was basically identical to the RTS II's with the addition of "P" and "4000" LEDs. In 1984-85, a metallic blue/gray finish was applied to a special limited run of 159 MMs to commemorate 10 years since the reintroduction of the CONTAX nameplate (Serial numbers began with the number "8" for the commemorative edition 159 MMs). Powered by 2 - 357/SR44 cells. Weight: 520 grams/18.3 oz.
Yashica FX-103 Program (April/May 1985) - This was basically an updated FX-D with the addition of two Program modes (Normal & High), TTL flash metering, and a small handgrip. Unlike the 159MM, it did not require MM lenses for Program to function; standard Yashica and Carl Zeiss AE lenses were fine. The top plate shape was altered slightly with the ISO/Exposure Compensation dial half-nested into it rather than sitting on top. Following the lead of the FX-70 and FX-3/-7 Super, the meter switch was now integrated with the shutter release. This eliminated the front-mounted meter switch and the control collar that surrounded it on the FX-D, along with the AE lock (Booo!). The self-timer control/battery-check was very similar to the RTS II's. The viewfinder display was almost identical to the FX-D's, with one addition (the P symbol for Program modes) and two deletions: the 2 -sec. & LT (Long-Time) LED indicators. Same batteries as the FX-D and identical weight.
FX-3 Super 2000 (Sept. 1986) - Identical to the FX-3 Super apart from a new top shutter speed of 1/2000 sec., thus the name change :-). Ironically, it would outlast all other Yashica SLR models in this form, selling into the new millennium as the budget entry to the C/Y MF system, well over a decade after the other FXes were discontinued.
CONTAX 167 MT (Feb. 1987) - As the replacement for the 137 MA and 159MM all rolled into one, the 167 MT broke more new ground for CONTAX: the first SLR to offer built-in autobracketing (no accessory multifunction back required), their first model with all four exposure modes (Program, Shutter-priority, Aperture-priority, and Manual), their first LCD top plate display with Mode & ISO buttons and a toggle instead of traditional shutter speed and ISO dials, their first LCD viewfinder display (showing frame count, shutter speed, aperture setting, exposure compensation, flash, and exposure mode), their first built-in spot metering option, DX film coding from ISO 25-5000, and manual settings from 6-6400. It shared its viewfinder specs with the 159 MM as well as requiring MM lenses for Program (P) and Shutter-priority (Tv) operation. It also adopted the rubber-armor grip and styling of the 159 MM. Four FU-Series interchangeable focusing screens were available. From 1987 to 1990, this was the only CONTAX SLR in production as Kyocera reeled under the auto focus (AF) onslaught before regrouping in the early-'90s. Powered by 4 - AAA (LR03) batteries with rated lifespan of 50 rolls of 24-exp. film for alkalines. Weight: 620 grams/21.9 oz.
CONTAX RTS III (Oct. 1990) - The final generation of the RTS series and the first SLR ever produced that incorporated magnesium in its construction (in this case, the top plate). A completely clean-sheet design, including all of the major technical advancements of the previous decade bar one: AF. The influence of the Nikon F4 is evident in the build and features of the RTS III: 1/8000 sec. top shutter speed, all four exposure modes, internal motor drive (5 fps on High), spot metering, and a 100%-coverage viewfinder. CONTAX focused most of their marketing on the vacuum-backed ceramic film pressure plate that they said provided the best film flatness in the industry. While that statement was true, there was virtually no practical advantage to be seen in the vast majority of images. Also, the first CONTAX with the 6-screw lens mount vs. the original 4-screw version. All subsequent models would follow suit. Powered by 6 AA/LR6 cells or a single 2CR5 lithium cell. Weight: 1150 grams/40.1 oz.
CONTAX S2 (Oct. 1992) - CONTAX went retro for their 60th Anniversary. Another first for an in-house CONTAX: a fully mechanical shutter (1/4000 - 1 sec. + Bulb). A spotmeter was the only means of light measurement. Four FU-series interchangeable focusing screens were available (same series as the 167 MT). The S2 was specifically intended as a mechanical backup body for RTS III-wielding pros (in much the same manner as many a Nikon F4 shooter had an FM2N as a backup). The basic chassis was derived from the manual-winding 159 MM's. But, this being CONTAX, there had to be some gussying-up, so the S2 also received titanium top and bottom plates along with the bezel surrounding the lens-mount. The S2 certainly got Nikon's attention as they replied with a titanium-sheathed FM2N, aptly designated FM2/T, just a year later and selling for nearly 40% less ;-). A couple of curious omissions for the S2 were: 1) an aperture setting readout in the viewfinder (inexcusable in an SLR costing well over $2,500 USD with a 50/1.4 lens, and 2) a centerweighted metering option; the second of which would be addressed in 1994. Weight 565 grams/20 oz.
CONTAX ST (Oct. 1992) - An RTS III Lite if you will ;-). A half-stop slower top shutter speed of 1/6000 sec. in Program and Aperture-priority modes (1/4000 sec. in Shutter-priority & Manual), X-sync. at 1/200 sec., 3 fps max. frame rate, no vacuum film-flattening system (but it still retained the ceramic pressure plate), 4 - AAA (LR03) batteries (vs. 6 - AA/LR6). The optional 4-AA battery holder (P-7) with an additional vertical-oriented shutter release extended battery life over the standard 4-AAAs by 2 1/2 times (125 rolls of 24-exp. film vs. 50). It also had the benefit of re-centering the tripod socket versus the offset socket in the ST's standard baseplate. Control layout was a blend of RTS III and 167 MT, leaning slightly closer to the pro model (locking exposure mode selector, shutter speed & exposure compensation dials, and round viewfinder eyepiece), but retaining the OFF/ON/Metering mode/AE Lock switch, push buttons, film rewind button & slider, and the strap lugs of the 167 MT. Weight was 800 grams/28.2 oz (a sizeable 30% reduction from Herr RTS III).
CONTAX S2b (Oct. 1993) - Enough people complained about the lack of a centerweighted meter in the standard S2 that CONTAX acquiesced and released the S2b a year later. To make for easy distinction between the two models, the S2b was finished in a gunmetal grey versus the champagne-tinged original S2. Other than those two changes, they were identical.
CONTAX RX (Apr. 1994) - Over a decade after the rest of the industry experimented with electronic rangefinding aids (Canon AL-1, Minolta X-600, Olympus OM30/OM G, and the Pentax ME F) for focus assistance on their way to full-on AF, CONTAX steered harder into their MF lens system with the RX and its Digital Focus Indicator (DFI). While undeniably a more sophisticated implementation than those earlier efforts (it also displayed DOF), the RX still found itself in nowhere-land. Too modern and automated to satisfy the few MF holdouts (it was also the first CONTAX with built-in Custom Functions), and still well short of a proper AF SLR (which was the overwhelming standard amongst pros and amateurs by the mid-'90s), RX sales were somewhat brisker than the ST's (which it closely resembled, minus the fancy ceramic pressure plate, the round viewfinder eyepiece, the 1/6000 sec. shutter, and accordingly priced about 20% lower), but remained relatively small. Control layout was even closer to the RTS III than the ST, with a dial instead of push buttons for Drive mode settings. The RX was also the first CONTAX to utilize the 5-pin flash connection for enhanced communication and capability with the TLA 360 unit. In 2000, a special run of RXes made to order in the customer's choice of seven colors, three script colors, and three script fonts was made to commemorate the turn of the millennium. One 2CR5 lithium battery required. Weight of 810 grams/28.6 oz.
CONTAX AX (June 1996) - AF comes to CONTAX with MF lenses!? In another case of reinventing the wheel, the engineers came up with an SLR that moved the film plane to achieve focus versus the moving lens element AF systems the rest of the manufacturers used. The reason? The Zeiss optical engineers felt that adapting their MF lens designs to AF would compromise optical performance and overall ruggedness. So the Kyocera engineers were forced to "lower the water instead of raising the bridge" to paraphrase Herbert Keppler in his SLR column of May 1996 ;-). This required practically fitting a body within another body making for a bulkier-than-RX-type of form factor (+11mm W x +19mm H x +13mm D and 280 grams/9.9 oz heavier). Again utilizing Kyocera's (Kyoto Ceramics) expertise in high-performance ceramics, the CONTAX engineering team developed a precision ceramic rail & ring system with tolerances of 0.002mm, requiring super lubricants to operate. If that doesn't sound like a classic case of engineering-for-engineerings' sake, I am at a loss to find a better example ;-). Controls are a mix of RTS III, ST, & RX, with a few new AF controls added. Round "pro" viewfinder eyepiece like the RTS III and ST. Powered by a single 2CR5 cell. Weight of 1,080 grams/38 oz.
CONTAX Aria (May 1998) - The final all-new MF CONTAX body to be introduced and the last to remain in production. As the replacement for the long-running 167 MT, the Aria was perhaps the closest thing to a perfect blend of CONTAX and Yashica, in stark contrast to the other '90s-era CONTAXES, with their every-increasing complexity and their sometimes-gimmicky features. It packed in all of the 167 MT's specifications (and a bit more, here and there :-)) in to an FX-D-sized body, no small feat. The control layout was highly-derivative of the ST's. The Aria was far more approachable in price than nearly any other C/Y body of the day, with only the long-serving, badge-engineered FX-3 Super 2000 costing less. Additions over the 167 MT included: the first evaluative (5-segment) metering pattern in a C/Y body, and rear-curtain flash sync. In 2002, a limited run of champagne-colored Arias was made with matching 45/2.8 Tessar lenses to commemorate 70 years of the Contax brand. Powered by two CR2 batteries. Weight 460 grams/16 oz.
CONTAX RX II (Nov. 2002) - With the RX discontinued in 2001, CONTAX looked to move a little downscale to try and grab a few more sales as the film era entered its denouement. The Digital Focus Indicator (electronic rangefinder) was eliminated, along with three accompanying Custom Functions. This resulted in a 20% increase in viewfinder brightness, a worthwhile tradeoff for some users. A 2-second self-timer setting option was also added as an alternative to the existing 10-second setting. MSRP dropped by almost 20% versus the original RX. Weight remained the same.

Recommendations. On the whole, potential CONTAX/Yashica buyers have things a bit easier when it comes to deciding between mechanical models than with most other brands. This was simply because the whole C/Y enterprise was embarked upon firmly in the electronic camp, with the adoption of their first mechanical body (the FX-3/FX-7 and their later iterations) basically forced on them by the entry-level market, and the second (the CONTAX S2/S2b) by a desire to cash in on the high-end mechanical market in the early-1990s. So there are very few factors to weigh if you want a mechanical C/Y model. You have value versus posh (with a bit more shutter capability and a stronger 6-screw lens mount on the posh side), with nothing in between. If you can't afford the CONTAX S2 siblings (anywhere from 5 to 10 times the cost of the Yashicas, on average) then you are living with the FX-3 (black) or FX-7 (chrome), which is really not that bad at all if simply getting great results is your primary photographic motivation :-). The early FX-3/FX-7 versions have the separate metering switch, versus the Super & Super 2000, with the latter also obviously having the additional 1/2000 sec. shutter speed. That's basically all you have to mull over, mechanically.

When it comes to electronic models, there are many more hairs to split and/or pull out ;-). The first major consideration will be your preferred method of film advance:

Manual advance CONTAX models: Original RTS, 139 Quartz, RTS II, 159MM
Manual advance Yashicas: FX-1, FX-2, FR, FR I, FR II, FX-D Quartz, FX-70, FX-103 Program
Automatic, internal advance CONTAX models: 137 MD, 137 MA, 167 MT, RTS III, ST, RX, AX, Aria, RX II

If you value discretion above all else, a manual-winding model will have more appeal than one with internally-powered winding. Aside: it is possible to add an external winder or motor drive to most of the above manual-winding bodies (excluding the FX-1, FX-2, and FX-70 Yashicas), should you desire both options.

Among the manual-winding electronic CONTAXes, the 139 Quartz and 159 MM both offer better viewfinders, shutters, TTL flash metering, battery life and availability (2 x 357/SR44), along with 25 - 30% less weight than the original RTS. The 159 MM, in turn, gives you two extra steps of shutter speed over the 139 Quartz, along with Program exposure modes and interchangeable focusing screens. It was also the first CONTAX body to use rubber grip armoring after the biodegradable leatherette debacle (more on that later ;-)) of the early-'80s. The RTS II sports the best viewfinder of any of the 1975-1985 manual advance bodies but is the heaviest (by only 4% over the original RTS :-)). It does offer TTL flash metering, the best accessory motor drive performance, MLU, and interchangeable focusing screens. The 139 Quartz is the simplest design of these four and has a good track record for reliability (look for serial numbers above 110000 for shutter release magnets that are shrouded for improved protection against oil/dirt-fouling, and above 150000 for an improved transfer switch); the 159 MM offers the most features and ergonomic shape; the RTS II is a notable improvement in terms of internal build-quality and reliability over the original RTS. You certainly can use an original RTS to good effect if one finds you, but if you are starting from scratch, the newer models in this category offer more refinement and capability, for very little, if any, more cost.

Speaking of value, if you are drawn to the RTS-era SLRs for their feel, size, and weight you may find the Yashica FR I a compelling option. 45 grams lighter than the RTS, it offers almost every feature (except MLU, 1/2000 sec., and the interchangeable focusing screens) that its ancestor does, including the same external winder, if desired. Busted frame counters are common to the FR-series, but this otherwise does not affect the operation of the cameras. Likewise, the FX-D Quartz offers most of the capability of the 139 Quartz, but lacks a few refinements such as: the inertial mirror damper, TTL flash, aperture display in the viewfinder, and a slightly smaller ISO range (still plenty for most people today :-).

Moving on to the internal advance models, the 137 MA is probably as far back as you would want to go, seeing as it is an improved 137 MD, while offering more features (manual exposure mode, a much better film rewind crank, and improved internals, with no drawbacks versus the older version. The 167 MT is simply more than the 137 MA in almost all areas: a faster, higher-quality shutter, all four standard exposure modes, interchangeable screens, built-in autobracketing and a high-eyepoint viewfinder. It does, however, sport a mid-'80s LCD-centric control layout, which many vintage enthusiasts do not exactly appreciate ;-). Both the 137 MA and 167 MT can be had for bargain prices, nowadays, for $150 USD for premium-condition copies, and often far less. The big thing as far as the internal-advance bodies go, is that the newer they get, the more refined they become and the feature-sets only improve. The RTS III set the pattern for the final decade and a half of CONTAX SLRs: plenty of external controls, and very good to excellent ergonomics. And bodies like the ST and RX can be had for quite reasonable prices currently, with excellent-condition copies often available for well-under $200 USD (versus $300 - $500 USD for the RTS III and AX). They do extract a marked weight penalty for their solid construction and feature-set, however. The RTS III runs 1,200-1,300 grams/42-46 oz depending on battery configuration, the AX 1,120 grams/40 oz, and the ST and RX both sit well above 800 grams/28 oz, all with batteries installed. The Aria is the only real lightweight option amongst the internal-winders, and while its construction is very good, it is not up to the levels of the ST/RX/AX trio and certainly not the RTS III. Somewhat ironically, the simplified RX II now generally sells for an extra $100 USD over the original RX. In summary, for the auto-winders: if you are looking for the simplest...137 MA; the cheapest...the 167 MT; the lightest...the Aria; the best bang for the buck...the ST; the geekiest...the AX; pull out all the stops (who cares about the weight or the money ;-))...the RTS III.

Flash

For a system with a three-decade lifespan, there were relatively few flash units produced for the C/Y-mount SLRs. There were five in total, with four of them offering TTL (through-the-lens) metering capability with appropriately-equipped CONTAX and Yashica bodies.

TLA 20 (1979-80) - Originally designed for the 139 Quartz and 137 MD Quartz SLRs. A very basic fixed-head, TTL unit with a Guide Number (GN) of 20/65 (meters/feet) at ISO 100. Coverage for a 35mm lens' field of view (FOV), which was expanded to 24mm FOV with a clip-on Wide Panel (this also reduced the GN). There was also a HI/LO power setting in Manual mode with the LO for use with motor winders up to 2 fps, which also reduced the GN to 2.8 meters or roughly 1/32 of full power (to reduce recycling times). ISO coupling range of 25-800.
TLA 30 (1979-80) - The TLA 30 was a pumped-up TLA 20. Larger size (over 20% bigger and 60% heavier). 50% more power (GN 30/100 @ ISO 100). Three power settings in Manual mode (Full, 1/4, 1/16). And the flash head was tilt-capable up to 90 degrees for bounce flash (there were also click-stops at 60 and 75 degrees, respectively) and down to -15 degrees for close-ups. Wide Panel coverage remained at 24mm. Same coupling range as the TLA 20.
TLA 280 (1990) - CONTAX flash technology was nearly stagnant for roughly a decade. Not until the release of the RTS III in 1990 did they appreciably update their flash system. While this obviously was necessary and new features debuted, there was a cost: limited compatibility with the earliest TTL bodies (the 139 Quartz and the 137 MD/MA duo; and the RTS II, to a lesser degree). The newer units will still synchronize, but they will not communicate aperture and other settings from the camera like the older units do, and the two information contacts do not physically line up, as well. If you are using pre-159 MM body, stick with the TLA 20 or 30 for best results. ISO actually dropped to ISO 25-400 and the GN fell to 28/92 from the TLA 30. The tilting head had click-stops at 60, 70, 80, and 90 degrees. Unfortunately, the -15 degree tilt down setting of the TLA 30 was not retained. Most noticeable was the addition of a manual zooming head function that covered focal lengths of 28 (GN 21), 35 (GN 25), 50 (GN 27), and 85mm (GN 30). An small auxiliary flash (GN 12) was added to the body to complement the main head when it was being used in bounce positions (Nikon would copy this on their SB-26 of 1994). Manual flash power setting options remained the same as the TLA 30. Slow-speed sync and rear-curtain sync capabilities (when the camera body used was also so-equipped) were introduced on a CONTAX flash unit for the first time. The TLA 280 was about 30% larger than the TLA 30, but weight was 10% less.
TLA 360 (1994) - As far as capability and features go, the final CONTAX TTL flash unit released was the ultimate. A new 5-pin contact layout debuted which allowed for more sophisticated communication between it and the RX, AX, Aria, and RX II models. A modern digital interface, internal power zooming, outright power, swivel capabilities (0-180 degrees left and 0-90 degrees right) in addition to tilt. Zoom coverage now included 24mm, downward tilt returned (-7 degrees), and a stroboscopic mode was introduced (up to 8 flashes at as little as 0.1 sec at a GN of 9).

The final models we will consider include the first flash unit provided with the original RTS (the RTF 540) and its late successor: the TLA 480. Both were professional-targeted and sported the "potato-masher" bracket/grip layout.

RTF 540 (1975) - The "40" in the model designation signified a GN of 40 meters (131') making this the most powerful CONTAX flash unit until the TLA 480 came along. Its versatility was impressive, with a plethora of add-on accessories (a wide panel with coverage down to 24mm, slaves, multi-flash extension cables for multiple off-camera units, external battery packs, color filters, and more), the most important of which was the 3-pin TLA adapter module (introduced with the RTS II) and cable which added TTL capability for all CONTAX bodies subsequent to the original RTS (which did not support TTL). It also sported a handy integral shutter release button that was conveniently situated in the flash unit grip. There were also multiple power settings (full, 1/2, 1/8, and 1/16) to enable higher burst rates with winders and motor drives (at reduced distances, of course :-)). It was the only CONTAX flash unit to offer both bounce and swivel capability until the TLA 360 came along. The price for all of that versatility was weight and bulk, making it superfluous for most current CONTAX users.
TLA 480 (1994) - The biggest and baddest CONTAX flash ever made. Basically, it was a restyled RTF 540 updated for use with the RTS III-and-later bodies. Rear-curtain sync was now included for bodies that supported it, along with a noticeable upgrade in GN to 48m (157'). 3-pin TLA II adapter.

Accessories

CONTAX pushed the entire industry forward when it came to accessories in the mid-to-late '70s with the RTS system. They offered the first wireless infrared (IR) and radio transmitters for remote shutter release that many of their competitors adopted in short order. They were also the first to eschew a mechanical remote cable release for an electronic version (Cable Switch S for the original RTS to 159 MM; Cable Switch L for the 167 MT to RX II models; these were available in various lengths and there were also adapters to allow for use on the older CONTAX models), much to the chagrin of many a vintage SLR enthusiast. Interchangeable focusing screens were standard on all of the RTS and quite a few of the enthusiast models (the Yashicas were notably left out here to maintain that market separation ;-)). Here is a short list of screen-series, the models they are tied to, and the number of options available, in chronological order:

Original CONTAX: RTS-only; 4 different screens, initially. 3 more added later.
FS-Series: RTS II-only; 5 different screens
FT-Series: 159 MM; 5 different screens
FU-Series: 167 MT, S2/S2b, Aria; 4 different screens
FV-Series: RTS III; 5 different screens
FW-Series: ST, RX/RX II, AX; 5 different screens

Reliability & Servicing

As with any vintage SLR system, C/Y has its share of foibles, ranging from minor to more serious for potential buyers. The most noticeable, and something relatively easy to rectify, is the cheap leatherette used on all models from the the 139 Quartz to the FX-103 Program introduced from 1979 to 1985. If the cameras have seen any kind of use over the last 40 years, the soft outer layer has simply crumbled and flaked away, leaving the inner cloth mesh/adhesive layer behind. I recently found an FX-D virtually untouched in its "never-ready" case and it sported the nicest leatherette I had ever seen on a C-Y body...until I touched it :-). It immediately began to disintegrate. Nothing an order to hugostudio.com couldn't fix, however ;-). Indeed, there is an entire cottage industry of camera re-covering suppliers that have found their niche: offering a multitude of colors and textures of both synthetic and genuine leather coverings, notably for Leica rangefinders, Minolta XDs, and the C/Y family of the early-'80s (among plenty of others and many newer digitals, to boot). A relatively easy fix, all told, and an opportunity to customize your camera a bit, if you wish.

A second, more serious issue, that can crop up on any C/Y model is what has been termed "mirror slip". This describes a situation where the adhesive securing the reflex mirror to its frame lets go and the mirror slides down or "slips" in the frame thus producing focus errors at a minimum, and physical interference within the mirror box or the rear of the mounted lens, at worst. Refitting the mirror is a fairly involved process, including removing all of the old adhesive and duplicating as closely as possible its original thickness (about 0.1mm or 0.004") with new double-sided tape or an appropriate glue, replacing the mirror, and then recalibrating focus using the adjustments within the mirror box. Not an operation for the faint-hearted, but doable with patience and an eye for precision, and a service manual, if possible. Although this condition can potentially crop up at any time, inspecting the operation of the mirror very closely before purchasing a new-to-you body can at least prevent you from laying down your hard-earned money for one already suffering from this malady. How to check for it? Probably the easiest way is to set the shutter speed to "B" and hold the shutter open with the release while looking at the potential projecting of the mirror in it's UP position, with no lens mounted. The front edge of the mirror should be flush with or even slightly shy of the mirror bumper strip in the lens mount mouth. If it is sticking out by two or more millimeters, the mirror has already definitely slipped and you would best move on in your search for an appropriate body.

In the ever-present echo chamber of the Internet, it can be very easy to get the impression that CONTAX and Yashica electronic SLRs are fragile, temperamental beasts. This is not unique to these brands or even cameras in general, as we always hear the horror stories about any product repeated again and again, while we hear virtually nothing about any of the units that continue to function normally. All too often, we make the assumption that all copies of a given camera behave exactly like the one or two (or maybe even more) that we have owned or used: whether for good or bad. Forums abound with this type or reasoning: "I never had a problem with mine for xx-many years so this must be the greatest camera ever made, and anybody that says otherwise is..." or "Mine didn't last three weeks before it broke, so it must be the worst camera of all time..." ;-). So is it possible for us to draw any rational conclusions about the overall reliability and durability of C/Y SLRs?

In my limited experience, I would say that C/Y sits squarely in the middle of the Japanese electronic SLR pack regarding reliability and durability, never quite matching Nikon's or Canon's level in professional models, while on par with Canon, Minolta, Pentax, and Olympus in the consumer to enthusiast categories. I have noted several Popular Photography Lab Report Stripdowns of CONTAX and Yashica SLRs from the early-'80s that consistently described the quality of soldered joints as only "Fair" compared to the industry as a whole. That may explain to a certain extent the amount of electrical failures reported over the years. With the financially tenuous position of Yashica in the early-'80s until the buyout by Kyocera, it is not implausible that quality control was lacking a bit during that time. By the time the 167MT came along, it seems like things were getting back on track a bit as far as QC went. The stuff from the '90s-'00s seems to be at least on par with the rest of the industry. LCD bleed is better than average compared to other brands (average = Minolta = more common; above average = Nikon = less common), but should be something you watch for when inspecting any model from the 167 MT onward.

Obviously, factory service is long gone (as with any other MF film SLRs), so your only options are the few remaining independent repair outfits that are willing to tackle C/Y equipment or DIY. There is a very good selection of Repair Manuals and Assembly Charts available as PDF for much of the CONTAX/Yashica SLR lineup at learncamerarepair.com for very reasonable prices.

Conclusion

Undeniably, the major draw for many photographers to the C/Y system is Zeiss glass...end of story. And that is a good enough reason on its own. But it does come at a cost...literally ;-). While not stupidly-priced like Leica R-mount optics, there is a certain price premium to be extracted for Zeiss privileges, particularly when compared to the Big 5 and the other smaller Japanese manufacturers. But if you are willing to sample some of the smaller-aperture (f/2.8-3.5) Carl Zeiss lenses or the Yashica MLs, you will likely be pleasantly surprised at how much value for your dollar you can get. The camera bodies, on the other hand, whether CONTAX or Yashica-labelled, are often (but not always, looking at you S2/S2b ;-)) a bargain, particularly if you are not afraid of electronically-controlled SLRs, which made up the vast majority of production over the 30-year history of the marque. Not to be forgotten is the marvelous opportunity to do a little customization with the early-'80s bodies and their pitiful, peeling pelts if that perks you up ;-). The ability to mix and match between both brands is a definite plus, and you can dial in as much value or extravagance as you like. Lens compatibility is virtually a non-issue, with MM lenses being required for Program or Shutter-Priority operation with bodies so-equipped being about the only thing to watch for. Cee/You later!

References:

CONTAX/Yashica Documents @ www.pacificrimcamera.com
CONTAX/Yashica Manuals & Brochures @ www.panchromatique.ch
Contax & Yashica Manuals @ https://butkus.org/chinon/index.html
Numerous Issues of Popular Photography 1981-2006
Contax 139 Resource @ https://www.contax139.co.uk/home
Contax Resources by cdegroot.com @ https://cdegroot.com/photo-contax/
C/Y Lens Datasheets @ https://www.zeiss.com/consumer-products/int/service

Canon EOS 630/600 - More Than a Middling Refresh?

Fri, 30 Jun 2023 18:30:00 GMT

Regular visitors to this site may have noticed a bit of a trend: As much as we love the classics, we also have a thing for "sleepers", those anti-Instygrammy, tacky Tik-Tok-immune cameras that do one thing: take great pictures ;-). And if you are looking to dabble in a bit of film, but don't feel like auctioning off a body part or two to look all the business, here is yet another option to consider...

Although they came late to the 35mm Auto Focus (AF) SLR party in 1987 (trailing Minolta by just over two years, and Nikon by 11 months), when Canon debuted their EOS 650 (March 1987) and EOS 620 (May 1987) models, they rapidly closed the gap to their two main competitors. Within two months of its introduction, the EOS 650 became the best-selling 35mm SLR in Japan and Europe. The 650 was easily a match, technologically, for its main competitors: the Minolta 7000 and Nikon N2020 (F-501 outside North America). When combined with Canon's decade-long lead in marketing prowess, it was a recipe for success. However, Canon's initial delay in the AF market meant that they would not have their second-generation EOS models ready until 1990, while both Minolta and Nikon would both introduce theirs in 1988. As with any new technology, the improvements in early generations are markedly larger than in later ones. And so it was with AF SLRs. The Minolta 7000i and Nikon N8008 (F-801 outside North America) were massive leaps from their forebears and vaulted both back ahead of Canon in the AF techno-battle. How would Canon respond?

One Giant Leap for AF SLRs

The second-gen AF SLRs from Minolta and Nikon bore almost no resemblance, either internally or externally to their still-youthful ancestors. While the 7000 and N2020 still sported angular lines and looked very much like the products of early-'80s design that they were, the 7000i and N8008 seemed to have come from the future when they appeared in the spring of 1988, with their more organic shapes and softer edges (thank you, Canon T90 ;-)). But it was inside where the real advancements were to be found. We'll compare the Minoltas first.

Model

AF Sensor Count

AF Sensitivity

CPU

Clock Speed

ROM

RAM

Frames/Second

Top Shutter Speed

Metering Modes

7000 (1985)

1 @ 128 pixels or CCDs

EV 2

8-bit

4.77 Mhz

4K

160 bytes

2

1/2000 sec.

Centerweighted

7000i (1988)

3 @ 266 pixels or CCDs

EV 0; less is better

8-bit

10.5 Mhz

20K

640 bytes

3

1/4000 sec.

6-zone evaluative; Centerweighted; Spot

Other advancements of the 7000i over the 7000 included:

The first built-in, near-infrared AF illuminator in an SLR. Previously only available with accessory flash units, this feature improved AF speed and lock-on in low light considerably out to roughly 9m/30'.
The first AF SLR with what would become known as Focus Tracking (or predictive focus), where the camera would try to anticipate where a moving subject would be at the moment of exposure rather than just when the shutter button was half-pressed.
The first Minolta with Program Shift, whereby the user could shift the aperture/shutter speed combination in Program mode while still maintaining the same exposure value (EV).
A much larger top-deck LCD information panel.
The ability to expand the camera's capabilities by the use of Creative Expansion Cards which included: Customized Functions, Exposure Bracketing, along with a variety of Scene Modes.

What did all of this add up to? An AF area 12 times larger than the 7000's. A much more advanced metering system with Spot capability. And above all, more SPEED. With over double the clock speed, five times the ROM, and four times the RAM, the 7000i could ingest and process data like no other SLR of the day...including the new Nikon N8008 ;-). And on that note, let's look more closely at the Nikons:

Model

AF Sensor Count

AF Sensitivity

CPU(s)

Frames/Second

Top Shutter Speed

Metering Modes

N2020/F-501 (1986)

1 @ 96 pixels or CCDs

EV 4

8-bit

2.5

1/2000 sec.

Centerweighted (60/40)

N8008/F-801 (1988)

1 @ 200 pixels or CCDs

EV -1

8-bit + 4-bit

3.3

1/8000 sec.

5-segment Matrix; Centerweighted (75/25)

The N8008 also added:

Nikon's first Flexible Program (aka Program Shift)
Matrix-Balanced Fill Flash
Autobracketing and other features via the accessory MF-21 Multi-Control Back

Although Nikon did not disclose CPU clock speeds, ROM or RAM capacities, it can be surmised that they took a similar path to Minolta, with the N8008 making major strides over the N2020. Nikon actually added a second 4-bit CPU in the N8008 to handle all non-AF or exposure-related operations, leaving the 8-bit unit to care for just those two areas to maximize performance. Again, this all added up to an SLR noticeably faster in every way than its predecessor. And crucially, both the 7000i and N8008 pushed the yardsticks further for Canon to have to catch up to them once again.

Canon's Response

Unsurprisingly, the 7000i and N8008 were more than a match for the first-generation EOS 650. If Canon were to content themselves with just waiting until their second-gen enthusiast EOS was ready for 1990, they would be leaving the door open for both Minolta and Nikon to regain the ground they had lost in 1987. Their solution: maximize the potential of the original EOS platform by performing similar upgrades in terms of processing and memory along with matching as many of the new features of their adversaries as possible. These included:

A 40% boost in CPU clock speed to 12 Mhz
50% more ROM
Focus Prediction (aka Focus Tracking)
Seven built-in Custom Function settings
Seven built-in Programmed Image Control modes (aka Scene modes)
More efficient coreless motors to reduce power consumption while improving performance (e.g. film rewind speed was cut in half from the EOS 650 & 620's 15 seconds)

Basically Canon took the EOS 620, yanked out the 1/4000 sec. shutter, dumped in the EOS 650's 1/2000 shutter, did a brain transplant, et voila...the EOS 630, an SLR that could hold the fort until the second-gen EOS was ready. More than that, the 630 actually took the fight to Minolta and Nikon in three key areas. First, even though their implementation of the built-in Custom Functions and Programmed Image Control modes was clunky (you needed a list taped to the back of the camera to define what was meant by Custom Function or Mode Settings 1-7; eyeroll), it still beat Minolta's even-kludgier Creative Expansion Card system ten ways to Sunday and pointed the way to the future. Second, the 630 also retained the built-in Autobracketing of the 620, whereas the 7000i needed the appropriate CEC, and the N8008 the MF-21 back to enable that function. And third, its 5 fps film advance was markedly quicker than the 3 - 3.3 fps of the competition. The 630's improved AF speed easily matched Minolta's and Nikon's, and would beat them in good light when an Ultrasonic Motor (USM) lens was fitted. Low light AF performance (below EV 6) was another story altogether for Canon until the late-'90s ;-).

  The EOS 630 Today

If you are interested in a first-gen EOS body, the 630/600 is definitely more desirable than a 650 and will outperform the 620 in every facet, except top shutter speed (1/2000 vs. 1/4000 sec.) and flash sync. speed (1/125 vs. 1/250 sec.). The only other possibility is the low-production RT with a fixed pellicle mirror to reduce shutter lag and that also adds eight more Custom Functions. The usual pre-EOS A2/5 (introduced in 1992) caveat of biodegradable shutter bumpers (which will eventually goop up the shutter blades, but can be carefully cleaned with naphtha or 99% isopropyl alcohol) also applies to this model. Occasionally, the illuminator for the LCD can start to drain the 2CR5 battery very quickly, but this is fairly rare in the case of both the 620 and 630/600. Utilizing the same materials and construction as the 650/620 means that the 630 also can suffer from the same loosening of the rubber handgrip and the floppy rear button cover. The 630 was the last hybrid-construction enthusiast EOS body, with the follow-on EOS 10s being Canon's initial entry into the polycarbonate chassis arena in that segment. But that'll have to be another story for another day :-).

  When it comes to evaluating the EOS against the 7000i and N8008 for today and not having any prior stake in any of their respective ecosystems, you might consider these factors:

Build Quality & Reliability - I give the edge to the Nikon, followed by the Canon, with the Minolta a distant third. Both the N8008 and EOS 630 are an order of magnitude more solid than the 7000i, no bones about it. Now before you get your lederhosen in a knot and tell me all about how you have seen 10 dead N8008s for every EOS 630 or 7000i, or vice versa...relax. There are dead copies of every one of these bodies, and if you want to find an example of any of them in such a state, you won't have to look that hard. What we are talking about here are the general trends with these cameras. Yes, you can find any one with a bleeding LCD, but the Minoltas are simply more likely to have that issue. Yes, you can find any one of them with cracked polycarbonate or disintegrating handgrips, but the Nikon is much less likely to do so. The Nikon has the best shutter, in terms of capability, reliability, and longevity.
Lens Compatibility - If you are AF-only, the EF mount has you covered more extensively than Nikon and with basically zero forward compatibility issues, whereas the N8008 does not support stabilized (Vibration Reduction or VR) or ultrasonic (Silent-Wave or AF-S in Nikonese) AF lenses. Canon EF lenses are also generally quieter and faster than their Nikkor or Minolta equivalents, especially if the Canon lens is USM. Again, there was more distance between both Canon and Nikon and Minolta (sensing a trend, yet? ;-)). If you want to use MF lenses, you are limited with EF-mount to the aftermarket (ranging from bargain basement to Zeiss), versus almost any AI or AI-converted manual focus Nikkor, with Minolta offering nothing in the way of dedicated MF lenses for their A-mount SLRs.
Batteries - You will never find an EOS 630 or Minolta 7000i with a corroded battery compartment due to leaking alkaline AA (LR6) batteries like the N8008, because 2CR5 lithiums simply don't leak :-). And if you decide to power your N8008 with lithium AA (FR6) batteries, the cost differential is not that much. Buuut...a lithium AA-batteried N8008 will absolutely destroy the 2CR5-powered bodies when it comes to endurance in normal or cold temperatures by a factor of 10. Canon rated the EOS 630 for 75 rolls of 24-exposure film @ + 20-degrees C, while dropping that to a mere 8 rolls at - 20-degrees C. The 7000i was rated by Minolta for 65 rolls @ + 20-degrees C.
Focusing screens - All three SLRs offered user-interchangeable focusing screens with Canon offering seven options (E-type) to Minolta and Nikon's three. All three cameras are easier to use for manual focusing than later AF models in their respective lineups. The Canon and Nikon screens are easier to find and, therefore, less expensive than the relatively-rare series 7 Minolta screens. That trend also follows for other accessories, with Nikon usually having better availability than the other two, particularly Minolta.
Low-Light AF Performance - The Nikon and Minolta both beat the EOS 630 in low-light AF performance with the Minolta sporting its near-infrared AF illuminator which is effective to about 30'/9m, and the Nikon AF sensor simply being able to function better in lower light than the other two. If you are mostly a bright light photographer (above EV6) this will not make much of a difference, but it is something to bear in mind if low light impacts a significant portion of your photography.

Wrap-Up

So...what was the EOS 630, exactly? I would call it an optimized first-gen EOS. It offered a distinct improvement in AF performance while introducing the first built-in Custom Functions to SLRs (even if the implementation was not the most user-friendly ;-)). On the other hand, it failed to correct any of the ergonomic faux pas of its predecessors (not surprising for a mid-term refresh versus a full-generation advance). In other words, a stop-gap measure. And it did just that until the EOS 10 came along 11 months later.

So, then...who is it for? Any Canon EF-mount user who prefers the weightier, more-solid feel of the first-gen EOS bodies to the later generations of enthusiast-level EOS models and isn't bothered by the floppy rear button cover or less-than-stellar low-light performance. As a single-dial EOS, the 630 is also at its best in AE modes (surprise, surprise for a Canon ;-)). If you are a major Manual mode maven, it will be a disappointing experience. But, honestly, nobody buys an EOS, anyways, if they are all about controlling every aspect of exposure and focus. The whole point of EOS was to reduce the workload on the photographer in the quest for speed. If that does not fit with your personal photographic philosophy, you can just eliminate the EOS/EF system as an option...it's that simple :-). Otherwise, a 630 will operate just fine with the latest EF glass, (even Image Stabilized lenses; although things can look a little jiggly in the viewfinder...when the actual exposure is made IS will do its job). The EF mount, in terms of lenses produced, is the most prodigious SLR mount in history. Mind you, millions of them are cheap and cheerful kit lenses ;-). But the beauty of its three-plus-decade life, was a COMPLETE lineup, something the new RF mirrorless mount will likely never equal. And particularly in the mid-range, which presents some of the best performance-to-price optics available today.

True, aside from its subtle green script, an EOS 630/600 looks a dead ringer for a 650, but under the hood, there is more than just a fresh paint job. Sleeper? Oh yeah :-).

  References:

  EOS 630 Dealer Pages & Sales Brochure @ https://www.pacificrimcamera.com
Canon EOS 630 @ https://global.canon/en/c-museum/product/film131.html
1987-91: Leap Forward with the EOS @  https://global.canon/en/c-museum/history
  Popular Photography Magazine - June 1988; July 1988; Dec. 1988; May 1989

Nikkor Tales: The 55/2.8 and 55/3.5 Micro-Nikkors

Mon, 20 Mar 2023 23:00:00 GMT

The versatility of the 55mm Micro-Nikkors is tough to beat. Try this with your 50 1.4 ;-).

Updated Aug. 02, 2025

When it was released as the first of the AI-s Nikkors in February of 1980, the 55/2.8 Micro-Nikkor sported a 2/3-stop faster maximum aperture than its AI predecessor and, in a first for a Micro-Nikkor, Close Range Correction (CRC). CRC was Nikon's fancy acronym for a "floating" element focusing system. In contrast to a standard "fixed" focusing mechanism, where only one lens block or group moves to achieve focus, a floating system adds a mechanism to provide the capability to move another lens block or group in addition to the primary focusing unit. In almost every category, the new lens offered improved optical performance to the older one. Yet, today, the popularity of the 55/2.8 is no greater than that of the 55/3.5, and dollar values are basically a wash despite the 2.8's greater complexity and performance potential. Weird. But how come? Let's dig in.

Advantages of a Floating Element Optical Design

Floating elements were patented at least as far back as 1958 (by Minolta), but the design concept was likely floating (pun intended :-)) around the minds of optical designers years earlier. Prior to the introduction of retrofocus wide-angle lenses during the 1950s, however, there hadn't been a pressing need to actually develop it into something tangible. The issue that these new-fangled wide-angles (try saying that five times, fast ;-)) presented was that they required relatively large, high-curvature lens elements which exacerbate optical aberrations, particularly at close focusing distances. This still wasn't a huge problem during the '50s, as close-up photography was not exactly mainstream and the new wide-angles were mostly being put to use in landscape and other scenarios where most focusing was done at the mid-to-infinity distances that almost all lenses were (and quite a few, even today) then designed to offer their greatest performance at. But the dawn of the SLR era would change all that.

During the rangefinder era (mid-1920s to the end of the 1950s, roughly), close focusing was limited to about 0.7m (28") at best, due to the limitations of the rangefinder mechanism. This, combined with the restriction of being able to optimize a standard optical design (with its one moving lens block to achieve focus) for either near or far distances, but not both, precluded much in the way of development of a system that could allow for improved close-focus performance while retaining excellent capability at standard distances.

The introduction of the first successful Japanese SLRs during the late-'50s, however, combined with the growing popularity of wide-angle 28mm lenses for the 35mm format, caused the manufacturers to take a closer look at alternatives to standard focusing mechanisms. SLRs had none of the rangefinder's limitations on close focus distance, and gave the added advantage of allowing the user to see the exact point of focus in real time. Being able to move a second lens group in concert with the primary focusing unit gave more flexibility in correcting the aberrations that were magnified by those high-curvature, wide-angle elements at close distances. In a standard early-'60s 24 - 28mm lens, close focusing was limited to 0.6m (24") at best, due to the dropoff in image quality caused by the magnification of those aberrations at close distances. And the wider you went in focal length, the worse it got. Almost ten years after Minolta patented their first floating element design, Nikon introduced the first production floating element lens and the CRC moniker along with it...the 24/2.8 Auto Nikkor-N of 1967. Close focus distance dropped to 0.3m (12"), a massive improvement.

By the mid-'70s, almost all of the major Japanese manufacturers had adopted floating elements for their advanced wide-angles. But the optical engineers at Olympus had been thinking: if floating elements could improve close focus performance on a wide-angle that much, then what if we tried them in a dedicated 50mm close-up lens? Now that might at first seem superfluous...after-all wasn't that the whole point of close-up lenses, to be optimized for close distances?? Well...things were a bit more complicated than that. The reality was that almost all 50-60mm macro (or in Nikon's case "Micro") lenses were then optimized for a magnification ratio of 1:10 (or 1/10 of real life size). That added up to about 0.7m (28") or about the same as the absolute close focus for a 35mm rangefinder. So what gives?

We now have to go back to the original purpose the 50 - 60mm macro/micro lens was designed for: photo duplication of documents. In fact, the original design brief for the initial Micro-Nikkor 50/3.5 (released in 1956) for the Nikon S-Series of 35mm rangefinders was to provide optical performance capable of resolving complex Japanese Kanji characters for reproduction on microfiche. Once they introduced the F-mount, Nikon added 5mm of focal length (accompanied by a corresponding amount of optical correction for this slight bump in focal length) to their existing Micro-Nikkor design to provide the necessary back focus required by the SLR. The original 55/3.5 Micro-Nikkor was thus born, and like its S-mount ancestor, it was optimized for distances much closer than 1:10 magnification and was/is capable of superb performance at those very close distances (it is also capable of 1:1 reproduction, without an extra extension tube, due to its double-length focusing helicoid). The price was that performance at further distances had to be sacrificed in exchange for that, along with automatic aperture operation. The problem that presented for Nikon (and everyone else) was that most users were not using their 50 - 60mm macro/micro lenses at those very close ranges. The average user wanted a bit more versatility, so in 1963, Nikon re-optimized the optics of the 55/3.5 for best performance at 1:10 reproduction instead, and thus sacrificed a bit of performance at super-close distances. In other words, a compromise (Nikon also dropped the double-length helicoid for a separate extension tube that allowed for 1:1 reproduction; without it the maximum magnification was 1:2. This also allowed them to incorporate their standard automatic aperture mechanism.). It was the best that could be done given the technical constraints of fixed-element lens designs at the time. Seeing as this new Micro-Nikkor was introduced before Nikon developed TTL (Through-The-Lens) metering, they also provided an automatic aperture compensating feature as the lens was focused at different distances to provide consistent exposures without having the user resorting to manual calculations to make such compensation. If you happen to prefer handheld non-TTL metering, this second-generation F-mount 55/3.5 Micro-Nikkor (1963-69) may be more appropriate for your use case than the follow-on third generation (1970-79) models that deleted this feature due to the near-universal adoption of TTL meters by that time. The optical formula remained unchanged across all generations of the 55/3.5, with changes in coatings (and other possible minor tweaks) being the only updating, proving the overall soundness of the original design. Pretty amazing for a sexagenarian lens :-).

When Olympus released their OM Zuiko 50/3.5 Macro lens in late-1972, it was a revelation to the industry. Here was a 50mm macro that was the size and weight of the standard 50/2 Nikkor but that included the longer helicoid required for close-up work and the addition of a floating element that improved image quality at very close distances. A new standard had been set for 50mm macro versatility. So when Nikon was looking to replace the venerable 55/3.5 in the late-'70s there were two main briefs: 1) improve both the overall and very close focus optical performance, and 2) make the maximum aperture brighter. This begat the 55/2.8 Micro-Nikkor with CRC.

Optical Layout of the 55/2.8

Optical Layout of the 55/3.5

And it fulfilled its objective (no pun intended ;-)). The 2.8 equalled or exceeded the 3.5 in almost every optical parameter. The new Gauss-type optical layout (6 elements in 5 groups) allowed for better close-up aberration correction and a wider maximum aperture than the Xenotar-based 3.5 (5 elements in 4 groups). Edge acuity, coma correction, and field flatness were all improved. But that came at a cost. To achieve those lofty goals, Nikon had to double the complexity of the focusing system (two separate helicoid systems: the outer primary and an inner one incorporating the CRC mechanism). Weight increased by just under 20% (not bad at all, considering the addition of CRC and larger glass for the f/2.8 aperture, but still 45% more than the OM Zuiko 50/3.5). But that would prove inconsequential compared to two major problems that the 55/2.8 Micro-Nikkor could eventually suffer from.

Compromise Comes to the 55/2.8

Whether it was due to trying to avoid violating the focus mechanism patent for the Olympus OM Zuiko 50/3.5 macro or simply a case of the NIH ("not-invented-here") syndrome that Nikon (and to be fair, other companies) occasionally suffers from, the resulting CRC helicoid design led to two major long-term problems for the 55/2.8. The first is that with two focus helicoids that each have three mating surfaces, there are simply more places for the grease to eventually fail (which it inevitably will). And it is when the grease begins to break down that you can really start to have problems with the 2.8.

First, focusing gets progressively stiffer and if the lens happens to sit for a long period of time, as many manual focus lenses have had to endure over the past 30+ years, it will simply seize. It took me a good thirty to forty seconds to turn one 55/2.8 from full extension (which is how it arrived) back to infinity with a very firm two-handed grip and constant torque applied. On the other hand, while my personal 55/3.5 arrived with the dry, gritty feel common to 40+ year-old Nikkors, there was no problem in turning the focus ring (and after servicing it is pure buttah ;-)). The 55/2.8 is, simply, more dependent on having regular use and servicing than the 3.5.

The second issue is a clear-cut deficiency in design, however. And it is directly related to having the CRC helicoid unit directly above and with unfettered access to the aperture assembly. When (not if) the helicoid grease degrades, particularly from disuse, the base oil separates from the soap. The abandoned soap is what stiffens/seizes the helicoids, while the oil goes where gravity and capillary action take it, which almost invariably happens to be the aperture assembly that sits right at the base of the CRC unit when the lens is stored in the position that 99% of us store all of our lenses: sitting upright on the rear cap. Oily aperture blades are an all-too-common result, with a worst-case scenario of a completely stuck aperture.

Rumors persist that Nikon did some later internal redesign or changed the grease to mitigate this problem, but I have been unable to find any authoritative corroboration for this. More tellingly, I can state with confidence that stiff/seized focus rings and oily/seized apertures can be found up to serial numbers beginning with 813xxx at least, which is over 487,000 units into production. Stated another way: at least 99.7% of all 55/2.8 AI-s lenses produced are susceptible to these two issues. Which tells me that there never were any modifications to the lens or its assembly process to combat either problem. And that is why you can always find a 55/2.8 with either or both problems for less than a 3.5 Micro-Nikkor in otherwise-comparable optical and cosmetic condition. That is not to say that you cannot easily find a 2.8 that has never experienced either of these ailments (after all, there were around 490,000 produced :-)), but you definitely need to be on the lookout for them when considering one for purchase. It also doesn't mean that a 55/3.5 will never develop either (or both) of these two conditions, but it is far, far less likely. We are talking trends, not case-by-case circumstances ;-).

Sitting unused for a long time in a hot environment is probably the worst combination of circumstances for a 55/2.8 Micro-Nikkor to find itself in. And that is a point in Nikon's defense for not changing the design. They made these lenses to be used, not sit in closets or on shelves. If the aperture is clean and the focus OK, a 55/2.8 will rightly be priced higher than a 3.5, but you will almost always have to travel quite a bit higher up the price chart and be very thorough in checking it over before making that purchase with confidence. Or, alternatively, budget in the cost of a proper CLA (Clean, Lube, Adjust) to get a low-priced-but-needing-service copy into game shape.

Which to Choose?

The big question to answer when choosing between these two lenses (to be clear: we are talking about the non-compensating f/3.5 built in Micro Nikkor-P, Micro Nikkor-P-C, K, and AI versions offered from 1970-79 with nearly 443,000 copies made, and the AI-s f/2.8 from 1980-2020) is: What does your usage case consist of?

Are you spending most of your time at focus distances under 0.4m (16")? Remember that with any 50-60mm macro/micro lens, when you get down below that distance, you are beginning to run into issues of casting shadows or other issues with insufficient lighting for your subject. The 2.8 edges the 3.5 at closest focusing distance, but how much time will you really be there in practice?
Is a flat field truly critical to your photography? If you are primarily just wanting to get closer to flowers or other three-dimensional objects, the flatter field of the f/2.8 will often be indiscernible versus the slightly higher field curvature of the 3.5. Conversely, if flatter is vitally important to you, the f/2.8 has the advantage. NOTE: if you are using these lenses on an APS-C digital sensor, that field curvature is even less apparent than on full-frame.
What is your preference when it comes to OOF (out of focus) rendering? The 2.8 can be a bit harder-edged in the background than the 3.5 at further distances, with double-line bokeh rearing its head under certain circumstances with both lenses. Up close it's pretty much a wash with both producing quite creamy background results.
More pedantically: Are you concerned about the 6-blade aperture of the 3.5 versus the 7-blader of the 2.8? Hint: you are not likely to be making sunstar pics with either one ;-). That being said, Nikon hasn't produced a 6-bladed aperture lens in decades for the reason that they prefer odd numbers of blades, as bokeh highlights are usually less-obtrusive with non-hexagonal shapes, and peripheral shading (aka vignetting) is slightly improved.
The 2.8 will be a bit easier to focus with a split-image rangefinder on older film bodies at normal distances than the 3.5, if that is where you will use it a lot. At closer distances, the matte field of the focusing screen is far more usable with both lenses. It will still be a bit darker with the 3.5, but not as discernible as with the split-image rangefinder.
Focus breathing is pronounced with both lenses from infinity to close focus, with the 3.5 being the touch heavier mouth-breather of the two ;-).
Both lenses perform beautifully from f/5.6 to f/11, with f/11 providing maximum overall performance.

Wrap-Up

Both of these lenses are very versatile and each is available for less than a 50/1.4 any day of the week (the condition of a 55/2.8 could be sketchy at that price point, however, so verify before you buy :-)). They can do a very credible job wide-open for portraits on an APS-C sensor digital body, and are great for stationary objects that you want to get closer to. No 50 - 60mm macro/micro lens is suitable for insects or other fast, small, skittish creatures as the working distances are just too small. If you find either one for cheap with the optics in good shape, don't hesitate to grab it, even if a CLA will be needed to set it to rights. As far as image quality for the dollar, you would be hard pressed to find a better lens (and that goes in general for almost all 50 - 60mm macro/micro lenses). They make great walkaround lenses too, with that ability to get closer than a standard 50 when you want to go for those smaller details. At normal distances they focus just as quickly as your regular 50s, with roughly half of their focus rotation coming below 0.4m (16"). With their 300-degree, long-throw helicoids, precise focusing is a breeze and infinity is spot on. The 55/2.8 gives you a bit more flexibility if you are a Program or Shutter-Priority user with its AI-s compatibility, but most of the time you use such lenses, control of depth-of-field (DOF) is more important, making that a moot point. In terms of rendering at distance, the 55/3.5 is reflective of its design roots in the 1950s & '60s (more "vintagey" ;-)), with the 55/2.8 being more modern as befits the late-'70s when lens design in general became less artistic and more scientific. If you do end up with a 55/2.8, be sure to store it with the rear of the lens facing up. That will make it more difficult for any loose oil to migrate to the aperture blades. Other than that, pick the one that best captures the look you like. Or you can always get both. Decisions, decisions... :-)

References:

Nikkor - The Thousand and One Nights No. 25 (Part I) @https://imaging.nikon.com
Nikkor - The Thousand and One Nights No. 26 (Part II) @https://imaging.nikon.com
Nikkor - The Thousand and One Nights No. 85 @ https://imaging.nikon.com
Olympus OM-1 Sales Brochure (1973) @ https://www.pacificrimcamera.com
Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/2.8 Instruction Manual
Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 Instruction Manual
Roland's Nikon Pages @ http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/lenses.html

My Mamiya: Here I Go Again...The 1000 DTL

Wed, 21 Dec 2022 01:30:00 GMT

mamiya/sekor 1000 DTL with its standard AUTO mamiya/sekor 55/1.8 lens

Well...it's happened. A Mamiya 35mm SLR has finally found its way into my grubby little paws. Sitting forlornly in a local thrift store, encased in a period vinyl case upholstered in the finest of green corduroy, with the assorted detritus of Kodak lens tissues, a bag of eyecups (none of which fit the eyepiece, of course ;-)), and a fourth-party flash and bracket, it soon came home with my friend after a quick exchange of text messages. Three hours later, I opened the case to that particular aroma only decades of storage can provide. Not unpleasant at all; in fact, distinctively delightful to a vintage camera nerd ;-). The original (n)ever-ready mamiya/sekor case was doing the typical crack & crumble as is the wont of such; nevertheless, it had done its job of protecting the important bits inside: a 1000 DTL and its accompanying AUTO mamiya/sekor 55/1.8 lens. A quick visual perusal showed nary a ding or dent, just an accumulation of dirt and light surface wear on the prism housing. The lens looked clear...the viewfinder pretty dusty...and then came the letdown...

...when I went to focus, the ring twisted far too easily...and then quickly stiffened up. Aha, probably why the camera had been consigned to its padded prison with a freshly-loaded roll of Fuji Superia 800 over twenty years ago (my best guess, anyways). OooKay. So now I had a project: an exploratory procedure for the lens; clean the focusing screen somehow; and find out if the camera itself actually works.

I started with the latter (no point in doing the other stuff if the camera turned out to be a brick ;-)). The 1000 DTL is fully mechanical, so the first order of business was to check the shutter. Pleasant Surprise #1: the shutter was not cocked when the camera was last put away (YAY!). Pleasant Surprise #2: the shutter speeds showed proper delineation (at least by the fuzzy eye & ear test ;-)). Alright, that was one less worry, now onto the bugaboo for many a 1960s SLR with a built-in meter - would said meter be functional? Pleasant Surprise #3: the DTLs were among the first SLRs (if not the first) to use the then-newfangled S76 (aka SR44; aka 357) silver oxide cell that is still readily available, with no need to monkey around adjusting the voltage of the metering circuit. You can also use the alkaline A76/LR44 version, if you must. Upon opening the battery compartment, a spent A76 popped out with the telltale blue crystals of corrosion from the leakage of the battery. Fortunately, the corrosion was minimal and quickly addressed with a couple Q-tips soaked in vinegar. Pleasant surprise #4: upon drying the battery chamber, insertion of a single new SR44, and opening of the film advance lever roughly 15 degrees...the meter needle sprang to life in the viewfinder. Now my enthusiasm took a jump. This was going to be worth the viewfinder cleaning and lens CLA. This was now my mamiya...how could I resist? ;-)

The 1000 DTL - An M42 Marvel

When it debuted in 1968, the 1000 DTL (Dual Thru-the Lens) built upon the successful 1000 TL (Thru-the Lens) Series which preceded it in 1966. The TLs had been the first production SLRs to include a TTL spot meter ("partial" would have been a more appropriate descriptor for the square 10% bottom central chunk of the viewfinder that the meter measured from). The DTLs steered even harder into the curve with a 6%-coverage Spot meter (in the same location as the TL's) AND...the addition of a full-screen Averaging pattern (thus the "Dual" part of DTL :-)). The user could simply push a switch on the left bottom side of the lensmount to select between "S" and "A"; no muss, no fuss. This made the DTLs the first SLRs ever to offer a choice of metering patterns. Metering remained the stop-down variety (fortunately for Mamiya's M42 competitors; if it had been full-aperture TTL, they would have been in a world of hurt).

It was the DTL metering that truly delineated Mamiya from the rest of the M42 stable of manufacturers at the time...besting even the all-conquering Pentax Spotmatic in that area. As far as refinement and build quality go, however, I would place the DTLs in a solid second place to the original Spotmatic (SP) and Spotmatic II (SP II) among M42 SLRs. For instance, the shutter speed dial, while sporting very distinct detents, does not move with the same precision as the Pentaxes (there is roughly double the amount of play in the DTL's dial). The same goes for the film advance: it is smooth enough on the DTL, but the ratcheting mechanism can sometimes fail to disengage completely, requiring an extra half-stroke or so to initiate the wind-on process, while there is never a hint of a miss with the ratcheted Spotmatic advance. The Pentax SP & SP II advance is simply quieter, more buttery, and just feels more finely-tuned in its operation (the Spotmatic Fs that I have tried have all been rougher in feel than their forebears and closer to the DTL but with higher effort). Tolerances are obviously tighter on the earlier Pentaxes, giving the impression of a higher-quality instrument. The DTL still feels very good, but there is no getting around the difference in feel. That said, aside from the stop-down metering, the 1000 DTL was state-of-the-art in features and the most advanced M42 body on the market upon its introduction.

Perhaps my favorite feature of the DTL is its depth-of-field (DOF) preview mechanism incorporated into the film-winding lever: with the lever opened to its standoff position (about 15-20 degrees of rotation; which also energizes the metering circuit) you simply push it in towards the body to stop down the aperture on the lens, allowing you to take the meter reading while confirming DOF. It is very convenient and works a treat :-). Meter shut-off is also a breeze: simply push down on the button in the center of the film advance lever and it automatically swings into the closed position, breaking contact with the battery.

The AUTO mamiya/sekor M42 lenses are similar to Super Takumars in control layout, with the (A)UTO/(M)anual lever (which can also be used for DOF preview, but it's not as convenient as pushing in the film winding lever) and aperture rings operating identically, but with the A/M lever oriented 180 degrees from the Pentax configuration. The AUTO m/s M42 lenses also focus in the opposite direction (clockwise-to-infinity) of the Super Taks (counter-clockwise-to-infinity). Internal build quality is very close, with both using aluminum-on-brass helicoids for smooth, long-lasting focusing (I still give the edge in smoothness to the Takumars :-)). However, the shallow, finely-knurled, flat-grip focusing rings of the AUTO mamiya/sekors fail to provide the same level of grip as the scalloped, coarser-knurled rings of concurrent Super Takumars (early Super Taks also had flat grips, but still with coarser knurling than the mamiya/sekors). Similar to the shutter speed dial situation, there is more play in an AUTO mamiya/sekor aperture ring than the zero-lash of a Super Takumar, but the aperture clicks, nevertheless, remain positive and distinct. Focus throw is roughly equivalent with both 55/1.8s having about a 280-degree rotation from close focus to infinity, with the Super Takumar focusing approximately 5 cm (2") closer than the AUTO Mamiya.

A Tune-Up for My 1000 DTL

Speaking of lenses: I now turned my attention to the 55/1.8 AUTO mamiya/sekor. The optics looked great, with minimal internal dust and no signs of fungus or balsam separation, the second of which does seem a bit more common with these AUTO mamiya/sekor lenses than average for the era. Unscrewing the front name ring and filter thread barrel revealed the culprits responsible for the loose focusing ring: the three screws securing the ring had backed off. Mamiya had used a black, gooey, evidently petroleum-based substance of undetermined ancestry to secure the screws instead of the red lacquer used by most other manufacturers at the time. As the helicoid grease had separated over time (also resulting in the stiff movement of the helicoids), the base oil had migrated forward and softened the black goop (sorry for the burst of technical jargon ;-)), and the screws had loosened. Further disassembly, cleaning, re-greasing of the helicoids, reassembly, and re-setting of infinity focus were typical of any period MF lens. Internal fit and finish were at near-Takumar-levels, which is to say about as good as any other 35mm lens on the market at the time. The aperture ring does feel a bit less positive than an equivalent Takumar as noted above, but that is really splitting hairs. All in all, I was impressed with the build quality of the AUTO 55/1.8.

Next came tackling the dusty focusing screen. The top plate has to be removed to access the prism and screen assemblies. And here is where Caution #1 is in order: to do a proper job of removing the top plate...you first need to remove the bottom plate to gain access to the film winding assembly. The temptation may be great to skip this step, but you must resist ;-). Fortunately, Ron Herron has kindly provided an illustrated article on how to do this the correct way to prevent damage to the film winding lever and, not coincidentally, make the job easier in the long run. Taking the extra ten minutes or so to follow this procedure is well worth it! Caution #2: Mamiya used many brass slot-head screws to secure components in the camera, including the two flat spring assemblies that have to be removed to access the film-winding shaft. YOU MUST USE THE PROPERLY SIZED METRIC SLOTTED SCREWDRIVERS (the thickness of the blade being the most critical dimension) to have any chance of removing these screws without stripping the heads. Slow and steady torque application with the blade centered in the slot is the way to go. If you use an undersized blade and/or just try to crank on it, you WILL strip the head :-). This is one of the reasons that people often try to bypass the bottom plate procedure.

Having successfully removed the flat springs, I then accessed the meter shutoff shaft (it is inserted inside the hollow film winding shaft), which is partially held in place by a press-fit button on the top of the winding lever. A set of precision, thin-blade, needle-nose pliers (with each jaw on one side of the shaft) levered against the bottom flange of the meter shutoff shaft and the camera chassis (again with slow and steady downward pressure) will cause the button to pop off of the top of the shaft, revealing a set-screw that secures the chrome trim ring on the film advance lever. The shaft can then be slid back in to its proper position and the two spring plates replaced to hold it in until final reassembly of the top plate. ***NOTE*** Always take plenty of pictures to remind yourself of the configuration of components as you disassemble a camera or lens step-by-step. It can be a life- or at least a hair-saver ;-).

With the meter shutoff button removed, the rest of the film-winding lever disassembly is much easier. You now can easily access the set-screw securing the chrome trim ring in place, without having to reef on it (not the easiest thing to do with a 3mm thick, 15mm diameter piece of chrome ;-)), and scarring up the wind lever with the set screw. Use a #0 JIS crosspoint screwdriver for the both the bottom and top plate screws, if your DTL is new enough (somewhere between Serial #s 241xxx and 254xxx the change was made); otherwise, they will be slotted. There is another slotted screw under the shutter speed dial that holds down the top plate. You can also pick up a few pointers (although the bottom plate procedure is not followed, something I would STRONGLY caution against) from this video:

By combining the repair procedure outlined by Ron Herron with the above video, I was able to successfully clean the focusing screen and prism, with only a couple of tiny specks left and no harm done to the camera body. Removing the bottom plate did lead to an Unpleasant Surprise, though: There is a pair of brass switches (with attending red and yellow wires) consisting of thin brass plates sandwiched with a piece of black plastic. This assembly is then secured to the chassis of the camera by two non-conductive, nylon M2.5 x 4 screws (a #1 JIS or Phillips screwdriver will work). This is what allows the user to switch between Spot and Average metering and also take the stop-down reading. The trouble, after nearly 50 years, was that the black plastic piece and nylon screws both became brittle. On my Mamiya, one screw head had already broken free and was floating in the bottom of the camera. The black plastic piece had also broken in half, but was still held in place by the other intact screw and the shank of the broken screw. This had been just enough to keep the meter working, but eventual failure would have been inevitable. If I had not opened the bottom of the camera up, I would have never made this discovery, so there is an added benefit to following Mr. Herron's recommended procedure for top plate removal: you can inspect the status of the switches and screws at the same time. Fortunately, I was able to track down a multipack of M2.5 nylon screws on Amazon for under $10 USD (and, no I am not affiliated with Amazon ;-)) which included the 4mm length required. A bit of Q-Bond (check your local hardware store for the best price; Amazon is insane on that one, at least in Canada :-)) and two new screws later, the 1000 DTL was again complete and still fully functional. Replacement of the mirror bumper and light seals was the final stage in the resuscitation of the camera and lens.

The repaired meter switch assembly with two new nylon M2.5x4 screws and a dollop of Q-Bond

The 1000 DTL in Hand

Make no mistake, the DTL is a full-sized handful of SLR. It is definitely of its time as far as dimensions and weight go, with only the aforementioned Pentaxes offering a noticeably smaller and lighter package than the other usual suspects (Canon FTs, Minolta SRT-101s, Nikkormat FTns, and also the other M42 models of the period). For someone with larger mitts, the Mamiya may feel a bit more comfortable than a Spotmatic, but you really need to hold each in your hands to make that call. The right-hand controls are much closer together on the Spotmatic versus the DTL and you will likely prefer one to the other, just depending on your physiology. The longer winding lever of the DTL makes for a perceptible decrease in winding effort versus the Spottie, (there again is a tradeoff: the lower-effort, but slightly less-refined feel of the DTL versus the very precise SP & SP II). It is easier for my medium-sized index finger to turn the Pentax shutter speed dial by itself, whereas the DTL takes considerably more effort to move one-fingered due to its heavier detents and springs and the longer extension required for your index finger to reach it. The DTL shutter speed dial also has hard stops at 1000 and B (unlike the Spotmatic, with its continuous travel), so do not try to force it from 1000 to B or vice-versa.

Note the differing densities in right-side, top-deck layout between the 1000 DTL and the Spotmatic

The Mamiya's viewfinder is slightly dimmer than the Spotmatic's (and therefore, most others of the era) and the central microprism focusing aid is very fine-grained (about the same as the Pentax) compared to the Canons, Minoltas, and Nikons of the same time period. For me personally, it is a bit more difficult to focus the Mamiya than any of the others, but YMMV. It certainly is not enough to put me off using the camera, but it is something to be aware of. The Spotmatics are the only other M42-mounts that I have personal experience with and it is a close contest between the two for me. I prefer the viewfinder display, metering options, shutter, battery, and the DOF preview of the 1000 DTL, while the Spotmatic/Takumar's overall level of refinement and lighter feel of the shutter release are perceptibly better. If you are interested in an M42 system, the Mamiyas are definitely worthy of consideration.

Lens compatibility within the M42 ecosystem is one of the major drawing cards for many enthusiasts. The DTLs are an excellent match for most pre-open-aperture metering M42 lenses and quite a few, but not all, open-aperture M42 optics. In the early-to-mid-'70s, most of the M42 manufacturers, Including Mamiya, introduced updated lens lines with an additional pin or lug to facilitate open (aka full) aperture metering. Some of these lenses are not compatible with the older M42 stop-down bodies, due to the possible interference of the lens mount screw recesses with that open-aperture pin or lug. Other than the original dimensions and aperture stop-down pin of the Praktica M42 mount, there was no standardization between the various manufacturers. Issues have been reported concerning the open-aperture Pentax Super-Multi-Coated and SMC Takumars with Mamiya TL/DTL M42 bodies. I personally have tested metal grip Super-Multi-Coated and rubber grip SMC Takumar 55/1.8s on my 1000 DTL (Serial # 622xxx) with no deleterious effects (I very carefully watched the location of the open-aperture pin in relation to the screw recesses in the lens mount as I gently turned the final 360 degrees of the lens thread in. My DTL dates from circa-1973 (ascertained by the newer-style meter switch located at the base of the meter shutoff shaft), so it is very possible that older copies may have a different lens mount screw recess that I didn't encounter.

The takeaway: if you are going to take the chance of mounting a possibly-incompatible lens on any M42 body, proceed cautiously and NEVER force anything. There are so many lenses available that it's not worth damaging a body, a lens, or both if you are unsure about a possible lens/mount conflict. Another area to watch is for the mirror to rear element clearance of certain non-Mamiya M42 lenses focused to infinity (particularly older German and Soviet lenses, but also some Japanese optics); Mamiya was an earlier adopter of an oversized mirror to mitigate image cutoff with longer telephotos than some of their competitors, so manufacturers that used a smaller mirror in their M42 bodies would sometimes have a deeper rear-element protrusion on their lenses than Mamiya and using such lenses can interfere with the mirror flip of Mamiya bodies. ALWAYS carefully and gently thread in a new-to-you M42 lens and stop if any resistance is encountered before the lens is completely seated. If the lens threads in normally, then check if the mirror hits the back of the lens when focused at infinity (that is the furthest back the rear element will extend on the lens). If the mirror does contact the lens, simply focus the lens closer to allow the mirror to complete its swing and the shutter to fire. Then remove the lens.

Wrap-Up

There is a lot to like about the 1000 DTL. Operation is straightforward, especially if you read the 30-page (including covers) Owner's Manual first :-). The controls are legible and positive in operation. Overall construction is solid, with only the possible deterioration of the plastic meter switch piece and nylon screws in the bottom of the camera that stands out as something to watch for. If they look good and the meter works, just leave them be. Having the meter powered by a single S76/SR44/357 battery is a bonus. The aesthetics of the camera are clean, with the subtle splashes of real chrome on the top deck controls and the prism housing setting off the simple lines of the camera very nicely to my eye.

I have no qualms in recommending the 1000 DTL if one pops up in front of you, like mine did. Do be watchful for possible balsam separation with the AUTO mamiya/sekor lenses that may be included with the body. ***NOTE*** For those who are hesitant about radioactive lenses, the 55/1.4 & 55/1.8 AUTO mamiya/sekors both used thorium-impregnated elements and are "middle-of-the-road" as far as emissions in comparison to other thoriated lenses of the era, with the average 55/1.4 sitting at roughly half the level of the 7-element SMC Takumar, and the average 55/1.8 at about half the level of the average 55/1.4 (I say "average" because certain copies of both lenses have been found to have different numbers and locations of thoriated elements). We will take a closer look at the subject of radioactive lenses in a future post.

If you are searching for the ultimate Mamiya M42 SLR, however, I would recommend the DSX 1000 (released in late-1974) over the DTL. You get an identical (or nearly identical) body internally with the addition of:

Open-aperture metering with mamiya/sekor SX lenses, and backwards-compatible stop-down metering with standard M42 lenses that is identical in operation to the DTL
A small rubber handgrip, plastic-tipped film advance lever, and shutter release lock
A hot-shoe
Lens-mount lock with SX lenses
Pentax Super-Multi-Coated and SMC Takumars are compatible

The DSX 1000s are rarer than the 1000 DTL, but if spot metering is not your bag, the Sears 1000 MX & 1000 MXB (Black) are virtually identical, except for a single, centerweighted meter pattern. They are not exactly common either, but can be had for a deal sometimes due to the lack of cachet for "Sears"-branded cameras.

There are plenty of options for M42 SLRs out there: from Asahis to Yashicas, and nearly everywhere in between. The Mamiyas were among the most advanced when it came to metering (along with the Fujica ST-701 & -801) and were very solid cameras. If you are looking at getting into the M42 mount, you could do a lot worse than a 1000 DTL, if one finds you. And that could happen at any time. Mamma mia, indeed ;-).

References:

Mamiya/Sekor TL/DTL series @ http://camera-wiki.org
Mamiya TL and DTL 35mm Cameras @ http://herron.50megs.com/DTL.htm
Mamiya TL and DTL Top Plate Removal @ http://herron.50megs.com/topPlate.htm
Mamiya MSX and DSX 35mm Cameras @ http://herron.50megs.com/sx.htm
M42 Cameras @ http://mamiya-nc-m42.mflenses.com/m42_cameras.htm
M42 Lenses @ http://mamiya-nc-m42.mflenses.com/m42_lenses.htm
Sears 1977-78 Camera and Photographic Supplies Catalog
mamiya/sekor 1000 DTL User Manual @ https://www.butkus.org/chinon
mamiya/sekor DSX 1000/DSX 500 User Manual @ https://www.butkus.org/chinon

Posh Mechanical SLRs of the 1990s - Worth It?

Thu, 03 Nov 2022 23:00:00 GMT

Posh mechanical 35mm SLRs of the '90s? Surprise, surprise...a Leica was involved ;-)

By the time the 1990s rolled around, Auto Focus (AF) 35mm SLRs had become the de facto standard for amateur photogs and were well on their way to domination amongst professionals, too. Manual focus (MF) market share had fallen to less than 10% of total SLR production by 1989. As is common when such market shifts occur, manufacturers will often try to compensate for a loss of sales volume by trying to sell higher-margin products. And so it was in the early-'90s: you had dirt-cheap (often sub-contracted), beginner-targeted MF SLRs on one hand, and a retro-wave of premium manual exposure, mechanical-shuttered models at the other, with the previous mid-level MF models all but abandoned.

Ever since the advent of practical auto exposure models, there was a small, but vocal, group of hardcore traditionalists who railed against the constant march of automation & polycarbonization of their beloved SLRs. This niche market may have been small, but to the manufacturers with either zero AF market presence (READ: CONTAX, Leica, Olympus), or a relatively strong base of MF users (READ: Nikon) it was one definitely worth pursuing. This is their story...

Both Leica and Zeiss had made the decision in the early-1970s to abandon mechanical SLRs in favor of electronic models produced in cooperation with Minolta, and by Yashica, respectively. By the late-'80s, with both companies long having been more niche than mainstream (with Yashica even having to be bought out by the KYOCERA corporation in 1983), they were more prone to listen to the relatively small, but influential group of enthusiasts that were clamoring for a return to the "simpler" manual controls and "all-metal" construction of yesteryear. This demographic was a bit older than your typical "plastic fantastic" AF SLR buyer of the time. And here is where first Leica, and then CONTAX/Zeiss saw opportunity: hardcore, well-heeled enthusiasts willing to pay for their "ideal" mechanical, manual focus SLR while the electronic AF SLR market was well on its way in a "race to the bottom" (hello Canon Rebel ;-)). "Low-volume, high-margin" was already the modus operandi for both brands, so this was a no-brainer. Thus, the posh mechanical SLR (PMSLR) movement grew in step with the posh Point & Shoot (PPS) trend (ironically, also fueled by a CONTAX: the tiny, titanium-sheathed T2) and would peak in the mid-'90s, by which time both Nikon and Olympus joined the fray.

A Fearsome Foursome of Photographic Awesomeness

Leica. CONTAX. Nikon. Olympus. These manufacturers would comprise our swankilicious SLR syndicate. We will now consider them in the order they appeared and some basic specifications after which we will dig into the juicy bits.

The Leica R6/R6.2

Cutaway illustration of the Leica R6.2 & the Summilux-R 50/1.4 Version II

If we're going to talk posh, it should never come as a surprise to meet up rather quickly with a Leica :-). But the roots of the R6/6.2 wind their way back to a slightly more plebeian beginning. The R6 was derived as a manual exposure, mechanical shutter model from its electronically-controlled ancestor, the R5 (which was, in turn, a second-generation development following the R4, which had been derived in 1980 from the basic chassis of the Minolta XD/-7/-11 that debuted in 1977). Unleashed upon the public in 1988, at the height of the the AF SLR revolution, the R6 definitely fit the bill of a niche product and was priced accordingly at $4,530 USD (inflation-adjusted to 2022 as are all prices in this article). Popular Photography referred to the price as "breathtakingly high", even when "economizing" with the 50mm Summicron (f/2 @ $665 USD) versus the Summilux (f/1.4 @ $2,510 USD). As always, Leica set the top of the market (easily enough at this stage, when it was in a class of one ;-)) and would do so for the entire PMSLR era. For reference, the R5 came in at $3,010 USD, a third less. Aside from the substitution of the mechanical shutter, the addition of Mirror-Lock-Up (MLU), and the loss of the auto exposure modes of the R5...the R6 had nearly identical specifications, including:

A shutter speed range from 1/1000 - 1 sec. + Bulb versus 1/2000 - 15 sec. (manual settings from 1/2000 - 1/2 sec.) on the R5; 1/100 sec. maximum flash sync.
ISO range of 12 - 3200 with +/- 2 EV of exposure compensation in 1/3-EV steps.
Viewfinder showing 92% of the film frame @ 0.8x, with built-in +/- 2 diopter eyepiece adjustment and eyepiece shutter. Five different interchangeable focusing screens were available.
TTL flash metering with +/- 2 EV override control in 1/3-EV steps.
130-degree stroke manual film advance lever.
A choice of two metering patterns: Full-field Integral (aka covering nearly the entire frame with "mild" centerweighting); and Selective, covering only a 7mm diameter circle in the middle of the frame (aka a 4.5% "fat" spotmeter).
Identical dimensions and weight (138.5 mm W x 89.1 mm H x 63.5 mm D; 625 g.)

The R6.2 appeared in 1992 (just as it was joined by our next contestant ;-)) with three upgrades over its predecessor:

A top shutter speed of 1/2000sec. (now the same as the R5)
The relocation of the higher-magnification frame counter window in front of the film wind lever.
The flash-ready indicator in the viewfinder now offered both "ready" and "confirmation" signals in "B" mode.

The CONTAX S2

The CONTAX S2 was introduced in 1992 to commemorate 60 years of Contax camera production

This was the camera that truly started the struggle for posh mechanical 35mm SLR supremacy. The S2 would distinguish itself from the competition by virtue of being a virtually clean-sheet design (when it came to the exterior styling at least ;-)), rather than being just a gussied-up derivative of an existing model. That is not to say that KYOCERA's engineers didn't take a a verrry close look at the Nikon FM2N (introduced in 1984) when they came up with the S2 as we will see when we look at a few specs:

A shutter speed range of 1/4000 - 1 sec. + B and a top flash sync. speed of 1/250 sec. (identical to the FM2N)
ISO range of 12 - 6400 (identical to the FM2N)
Right hand control layout including: multiple-exposure lever at the top right corner with only the location of the frame counter being different than the FM2N's
The inclusion of a mechanical self-timer activated via lever on the front right panel. Aside from the original CONTAX RTS of 1975, the S2 was the only other CONTAX SLR to forgo an electronic self-timer.

There would be two things that would make the S2 distinct, the second of which would become a hallmark of the PMSLR. First, although the R6 did offer the option of "almost" spotmetering, the S2 went all-in on the idea of being a machine for experienced photographers only by being singularly faithful to this near-mystical art, and steered even harder into the corner with a center spot comprising only 2.3% (falling comfortably short of the 3% upper limit generally accepted for a true spot pattern) of the film frame area (basically half the area of the R6's) with no other metering option. This would end up complicating matters for CONTAX, which we will get to in a little bit ;-). Second, KYOCERA opted to use one of their favorite upscale materials to encrust their latest photographic jewel: TI...TA...NI...UM...YUM...YUM. I mean come on...posh just drips from your lips (and possibly your nose) when you say it all breathily like that ;-). Don't laugh too hard though; both Nikon and Olympus would introduce their own titanium-enrobed PMSLRs in 1993 and 1994, respectively, completing our fabulous foursome of photographic frippery ;-). Lest you start to get the impression that CONTAX was being somewhat frivolous, check out the retail price of the S2 versus the R6: $2,140 USD for the body and the Carl Zeiss T* 50/1.4 for a steal at $460 USD. If you ever have been in doubt about who really puts the P...O...S...H in photographic posh, that should put it to bed; when Zeiss is almost a third of the cost for the body/lens combination...Leica stands alone ;-).

Underneath its sano skin the S2 sported a whole lot of electronic CONTAX DNA. The overall dimensions were very close to the 139Q and 159MM models, with the chassis being a close derivative of the latter's (from the rear, the 159 and S2 are nearly identical, save for the electronic remote release port of the 159MM and the film back w/ window of the S2). The S2 also utilized the same pentaprism and eyepiece that CONTAX had adopted with the 159MM and 167MT models along with the FU-series of interchangeable focusing screens introduced with the 167MT.

In 1994 CONTAX gave in to the calls for an easier-to-use centerweighted version: the S2b

There was just one problem for the S2. There simply were not enough willing practitioners of spotmetering out there, and soon after its introduction, people were asking for a centerweighted option. Instead of adding the feature to the existing model, Zeiss and KYOCERA chose to make a separate, centerweighted-only model: the S2b. Aside from the meter, the only other difference was its gunmetal finish versus the champagne-toned original. But it was a worthwhile concession...they sold more cameras that way ;-).

The Nikon FM2/T

Nikon's response to CONTAX: Anything you can do...we can do better...and it will cost less, too ;-)

Nikon didn't take long to take a cue from the S2, which had taken a few from the evergreen FM2N. Just over a year later, the FM2/T debuted, with the "T" boldly proclaiming their intentions of taking CONTAX and Zeiss on directly in the PMSLR market. It was a bit of an "oh, yeah?" from Nikon, no strangers to using titanium internally and externally for decades (shutters and mirror frames & boxes from the debut of the F in 1959, then releasing the first titanium-covered F2s in 1978 & '79, and following that up with the F3/T in 1982; a black version of which became available in 1984). The titanium exterior was the only change from the otherwise-familiar FM2N. And, just as CONTAX undercut Leica on price (not exactly the most difficult thing in the world to do ;-)), while Nikon brought the FM2/T in at a $450 USD premium over the standard FM2N, they were still a fair chunk of change under the S2, sitting at $1,300 USD, with the 50/1.4 AI-s Nikkor matching the Zeiss 50/1.4 at $460 USD (thus undercutting CONTAX/Zeiss by a third for the combo). In other words, things really hadn't changed much from the 1950s (except for Zeiss threatening to sue the New York Times for daring to compare Japanese optics favorably to theirs ;-)). Discontinued in May 1997.

The Olympus OM-3Ti

The Poshest Olympus OM of all time: 50% more expensive than the electronic OM-4Ti it came from

If Nikon's response to the S2 was basically tit-for-tat, Olympus was just grateful to be able to get back into the mechanical SLR game somewhat. Having completely abandoned their abortive attempt at AF with OM-77/-88 in the late-'80s, they had been slogging along with the odd couple of the Cosina-built OM2000 beginner model and the higher-end OM-4Ti, a PESLR (posh electronic SLR :-)). The (relative) success of the S2 (selling in the thousands, rather than tens of thousands per year), gave Olympus a chance to resurrect and revamp their very advanced OM-3 mechanical model, which had originally been introduced in 1984 but was discontinued rather quickly in 1986. This was a result of poor sales and the never-ending AF onslaught, with the OM-3 disappearing from dealer shelves by late-'88. In similar fashion to the derivative nature of the R6/6.2 from the R5, the OM-3Ti was basically an OM-4Ti (introduced in 1987) with a mechanical shutter. Features of the original OM-3 that lived on with the OM-3Ti included:

Multi-Spot Metering with the ability to memorize and average up to eight separate spot meter readings while allowing the user to bias exposure towards highlights or shadows. This was, by far, the most sophisticated metering system amongst our four PMSLRs under consideration. Spot meter readings were easily taken by pressing the SPOT button on top of the camera, instantly overriding the standard centerweighted reading. Spot metering was automatically cancelled upon exposure or after 60 sec. had elapsed. It could also be manually canceled by pulling the CLEAR lever on the top, front, right side of the camera.
ISO range of 6 - 3200
Shutter speed range of 1/2000 - 1 sec. + Bulb
130-degree, ratcheted film advance with 30-degree standoff position
97% coverage viewfinder @ 0.84x magnification with LCD display
Built-in eyepiece dioptric correction from +1 to -3 diopters

Improvements inherited from the OM-4Ti were:

TTL Flash metering
Super FP Flash mode which enabled high speed flash sync with the F280 flash unit up to 1/2000 sec. at very short distances
Improvements to the circuitry that mitigated, to an extent, the battery drain problems that had plagued the original OM-3 & OM-4 models. The OM-3Ti also received the added tweak of a shorter 60 sec. automatic meter shutoff versus the 120 sec. of the OM-4Ti and all other previous OM-3 and OM-4 versions.
And of course, the titanium top & bottom plates, but in a gunmetal finish similar to the CONTAX S2b. Hmmmm? ;-)

The original (non-Ti) OM-3 had last sold for $910 USD and a 50/1.4 Zuiko lens for $250 USD. The rising tide of the R6/6.2 and S2 now floated Olympus to another bracket entirely (more like two-and-a-half ;-)) sitting at $2,500 + $320 USD for the 50/1.4 Zuiko in 1995, placing the opulent OM-3Ti squarely in S2/S2b territory.

Let's now take a closer look at how our quixotic quartet stack up against each other in terms of relative cost; two decades after their market finally died at the start of the digital era. First, we will look at the cost of the bodies when last retailed versus now on the used market, and then (and perhaps more importantly) the cost of lenses for them today. Prices when new are from B&H Photo listings (please note that the last available listings for the CONTAX S2b and the Nikon FM2/T were from Dec. 1996); current used prices are for Excellent condition or better from KEH or averaged from sold units on the big auction site (mostly listed as "near mint" which will not equal KEH's Excellent rating 99% of the time; eyeroll); in one case, a "new in box" (NIB) is included.

Model

Leica R6.2

CONTAX S2/S2b

Nikon FM2/T

Olympus OM-3Ti

Dec. 1999 New Price

$2,845 w/ $600 rebate

$1,575/$1,830 (12/1996)

$1,035 (12/1996)

$2,250

Oct. 2022 Used Price

$850-$900

$500-$900/$800-$1,200

$500-$700/$1,200 NIB

$1,400-$1,600

The first thing that might jump out at you is the level of depreciation on the R6.2: it has depreciated by 68% of its last new value. When compared to the S2 (43%), the S2b (35%), the FM2/T (33%), and the OM-3Ti (29%), it may seem like not a bad deal...but here comes the caveat: lenses. While Leica R bodies can be quite attractive pricewise (particularly the R3 - R5 models), R glass remains the priciest vintage SLR glass around, and not by a small margin. Let's now compare the 50/1.4 standard lenses that were usually kitted with these bodies.

Model

Leitz R Summilux V. II

Carl Zeiss C/Y T* MM

Nikon AI-s Nikkor

Olympus Zuiko MC

New Price from 1990s

$3,145 (12/99)

$460 (1993)

$420 (12/99)

$320 (12/1994)

Oct. 2022 Used Price

$1,800

$300-$400

$150-$200

$100

Features and Foibles - Posh Does Not Equal Perfect ;-)

So, will paying the premium demanded by any of these fabled SLRs and their accompanying glass guarantee complete photographic fulfillment and eternal bliss? Sorry, reality bites as much as it did in the mid-'90s, and there is still no perfect camera, nor will there ever be as long as they are designed and built by such flawed creatures as ourselves ;-). Each one of these models has its share of quirks and missing features, as hard as that can be to accept when you are dishing out four figures just to have one with a single standard lens. Without further ado, let's have a go at them individually, looking at the good and the bad in relation to each other.

Leica R6/6.2

The Leica had the unenviable, yet completely justified, burden of bearing the highest expectations due to its cost when new, even though time and depreciation have now softened the blow a bit (at least when it comes to the camera; lenses are another story). We get a clue as to why the Leica has depreciated considerably more than its peers from the Test Report in Popular Photography of Sept. 1989: "What then is the Leica R6? After all is said and analyzed, it's a gilt-edged paradox, a camera that is stunningly straightforward and thoroughly likeable, and a camera that, to be charitable, carries a list price that is easily twice as much as it ought to be" (the more things change... ;-)). And after referring to the Minolta parentage of the chassis they continued: "Yes, it's definitely well made, and nicely finished, but not breathtakingly so, or better than its rivals" (referring primarily to the Nikon F4; italics ours). And that theme holds for most, if not all, of the functions of the camera:

It beats the S2 and FM2/T when it comes to offering TTL flash metering, but is matched by the OM-3Ti.
It alone has a dedicated MLU (versus requiring the use of the self-timer to pre-fire the mirror on the CONTAX and Nikon; the OM-3Ti has no provision whatsoever for pre-firing or manually locking up the mirror), but it will waste a frame of film if the user changes their mind and deactivates it. The Nikon F's MLU operated in a similar way. The only problem for the R6/6.2 was that the F was released in 1959, and there was no excuse 30 years later for having an MLU that could not be deactivated without sacrificing a frame of film.
A common complaint with the R6/6.2 is the long time lag between initially pressing the shutter button and having the exposure begin. The other cameras in this class have average mirror/shutter lag, and thus the Leica's tardiness is exacerbated by comparison with them. This was another cost-saving move by reusing R5 parts instead of redesigning the shutter release for a manual exposure system that did not require the extra milliseconds of processing time for autoexposure modes.

CONTAX S2/S2b

CONTAX had the advantage of being able to carefully examine both the R6 and the Nikon FM2N in the process of developing the S2. And their design choices definitely reflected that. They basically matched the Nikon spec-for-spec and then threw in some sano Porsche Design Group styling with the magic ingredient (titaniumyumyum) for many a posh camera and went a-hunting R-Sixes (which led to Leica hastily upgrading the shutter to come up with the R6.2, trying to remain at least competitive with the S2 on paper). Starting fresh, instead of trying to backwards-engineer an electronically-controlled SLR design, as Leica did, made for a cleaner, and more cohesive design. And bringing it all in at the price point the Leica should have been at was the icing on the cake. Still, there were a couple misses:

Why CONTAX failed to simply include an option to switch between spot and centerweighted metering patterns, opting instead to introduce a second separate model is, at least initially, baffling. The R6 had already proved that it could be done all in one body, and very conveniently, too, one might add, so it can only be postulated that the spotmetering purists were out en masse at CONTAX when the S2 was being conceived. The irony was that the S2 was being promoted as putting control back in the hands and minds of photographers, and here CONTAX was arbitrarily taking away options right from the get go. Or maybe was it more about trying to sell cameras than really giving users what they needed to get "back to camera basics" with their photography?
With all of the spec-matching they did with the FM2N, evidently they had stretched the budget a bit too thin at CONTAX to copy one last feature from the Nikon (and indeed from their own 139Q, and numerous other electronic CONTAX models): an aperture setting readout in the viewfinder. Or maybe, just maybe, those same product planners that felt that spotmetering was all anyone needed also decided that an aperture readout would be cluttering the viewfinder unnecessarily thus impeding "true artisans from capturing images photographically with all the true depth and subtleties of light" (CONTAX' words, not mine ;-)). It seems to me that being able to know your aperture setting without having to take your eye from the viewfinder might just increase a "true artisan's" chances of capturing the true depth and subtleties of light, but what do I know? I certainly am no artisan, not even a reasonable facsimile of one ;-). Again, for a feature that was commonly available on all manner of mechanical (not to mention plenty of electronic) SLRs from the mid-'70s onward to be omitted from what was supposed to be the pinnacle of the type was inexcusable (no better than a K1000 or an AE-1....OOOOH, feeling the burn yet, CONTAX? ;-))

Nikon FM2/T

The roots of the FM2/T go back to the original FM of 1977. It was Nikon's first compact mechanical SLR, replacing the venerable, full-sized Nikkormat FT series and was targeted at enthusiasts and as a backup body for F-Series-wielding pros, just as the Nikkormats had been. Nikon twice updated it in the intervening 15 years before the S2's release, first in 1982 as the FM2, and then, again, in 1984 as the New FM2 (FM2N). The big improvements being the shutter (1/4000 sec. top speed and 1/250 sec. flash sync) and interchangeable focusing screens (inherited from the FM's electronic twin, the FE of 1978). The FM2N was the main functional target of the CONTAX engineers when they were bringing the S2 to life.

With the right & left top plates, prism cover, and bottom plate, together with their colour-matched screws being ostensibly the only changes to create the FM2/T, the list of features and possible foibles is virtually identical to the former model:

Having the main power switch integrated into the film-winding lever, which pokes into the right eye of left-eyed users when pulled out to its ON position.
The relative lack of precision of the vertically-arrayed, three-LED (+ O -) exposure readout in the viewfinder. If the center "O" and either of the other two LEDs were lit simultaneously, there could be a 1/5 - 1 EV difference in the actual meter reading, with the only recourse of the user being to carefully shuffle the aperture ring between the full-stop clicks to try and get a little closer idea of just how much difference there was. But, at least you could do so with the camera still to your eye, with Nikon's handy ADR (aperture direct readout) feature versus the S2's noteworthy lack of such ;-).
It was clear that Nikon was responding to the CONTAX, rather than the Leica, by not bothering to upgrade to TTL flash metering, which the S2 had also forgone in the name of "simple is best". This did not seem to bother the many pros that carried FM2Ns as backups for their electronic models, so Nikon could skate by with this one rather easily.
Aside from its greater dent-resistance, there was no tangible functional benefit to the titanium construction of the FM2/T (or the S2/b and the OM-3Ti). Titanium in this case was all about cachet, not function ;-). The less-than 5% weight savings of 25 grams was negligible. Nikon also promoted the higher corrosion-resistance of titanium, but there remained the same innards of the camera that were going to succumb to corrosion just as easily regardless of the type exterior panels used, with no other changes to the weather-sealing from the bog-standard FM2N being made. Interestingly, although it was never advertised by Nikon, there seems to be a general consensus among those who have used both versions that the shutter speed dial and film-winding mechanisms feel smoother on the FM2/T. This may well reflect a bit higher level of quality control that Nikon could have specified for the T. One cannot say for sure, but anecdotally, it seems like a distinct possibility.

Olympus OM-3Ti

Finally, we come to the OM-3Ti. Being an Olympus instantly qualified it as having some quirks (the collar-mounted shutter speed control, and forward aperture ring location on most Zuiko lenses being the most apparent). This control layout also precluded having the set aperture displayed in the viewfinder (definitely not the end of the world among this bunch, with the S2/S2b to keep it company ;-)). The multi-spot/centerweighted meter was undeniably the most advanced in the class, even if it took a bit of getting used to (again, Olympus = quirky, yet effective :-)). Of all these cameras, the Olympus could make a case for being the most "professional" among them, with the largest viewfinder, fastest motor drive, and a plethora of specialist accessories. The Super FP high-speed sync. TTL flash was definitely more gimmicky than practical (the range was so short that it was useful only in a few very specific cases), but a feature that would, nevertheless, be adopted by other manufacturers in time. On paper, the lack of MLU was a drawback, but honestly, not the end of the world, with Leica's imperfect implementation, and the sometimes-impractical, self-timer-activated type used by the CONTAX and Nikon not really granting a decisive advantage in most situations. MLU was a long way down the list of critical features for almost every potential buyer of PMSLRs. It would be interesting to know how many true professionals actually used any of these SLRs, as it always has been the enthusiast, more than the pro, that drives sales of photographic gear (especially the geek-out, luxury-targeted stuff). That is not to say that pros did not make use of any of these cameras, but they were among the minority of buyers and users ;-).

PMSLRs Today - Are They Worth the Premium?

In the midst of the latest social media-fueled PPS boom, PMSLRs have seen a similar renaissance. While certainly built to a much higher quality standard than the plastic-glutted innards of the PPS crowd, the question remains: are PMSLRs really worth the considerable sum they command over more mainstream vintage SLR offerings?

Objectively, of course, the answer is no. Red dots and titanium are, at best, tangental to actual photographic accomplishment. But objectivity is the last thing on anyone's mind when considering these types of cameras. Instead, it is all about how having/using one makes you feel :-). A larger part of the decision (as with any SLR) should be about the lenses and their cost. It is no big surprise that any given Leitz R-mount lens is going to run you 5 - 10 times more money than the corresponding Zeiss C-Y, Nikkor, or any of the standard Zuikos (the more premium 80's-era Zuikos have gone all Leitz-native in the last few years when it comes to price, due to their relatively small production numbers).

So, should you buy one? That's for you to decide, but bear in mind a couple of points:

None of these cameras will magically make you a "true artisan", not even the S2 ;-). It is a long-standing fallacy that manual mode-only SLRs with "classic" controls give the photographer "more control" over exposure. Yes, they will force you to slow down, which can give you the opportunity to think a bit more about what you are actually doing, but that is a false equivalency to "more" control. The key to improving your skill as a photographer is knowing when and how to take more control of your equipment to accomplish your objective. That means learning the full potential and limitations of said equipment through practical use. It was very true that many pros selected manual, mechanical SLRs to backup their electronic AF models, but therein lies a key word: backup. What is the whole premise of that term? Something held in reserve in case of emergency. In an emergency, basic functionality trumps convenience or precision. Very few (certainly there were some) pros in the '90s would willingly trade the greater precision and capability of their electronic SLRs in day-to-day use for a mechanical SLR.
At their core, PMSLRs were/are luxury items. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. The way they feel and operate can, undoubtedly, impart a level of satisfaction and enjoyment to the user which enhances their personal photographic experience. And if that is your sole motivation in deciding to purchase one, more power to you. But if you expect it to confer "true artisanal" status simply by virtue of ownership, well...that may be a bit of a stretch ;-). An FM2/T will do nothing more for your photographic development than the plain FM2N, at over double the cost.

Wrap-Up

The bottom line? PMSLRs came about as the film era was entering its final decade. They were a fairly blatant attempt to cash in on a niche, but vocal market. And it worked...for a few years, until that market saturated (tellingly, Nikon bailed out after only three-and-a-half years, with around 25,000 units produced, with CONTAX producing an almost identical amount of S2/S2bs). The others also sold in the low tens-of-thousands range. Which has served to keep values up (limited production has been Leica's bread & butter for the last several decades ;-)). Luxury items are just that, not remotely necessary, but something to be enjoyed, nonetheless. No, none of these will make you a "better" photographer. But that has never really been the point, anyways. If you have one already or can afford it, go head and enjoy it. If you don't or can't, relax. Your photography will not suffer, either way :-).

References:

Various Contax Brochures & Documents @ https://www.contax139.co.uk/
Contax S2 User Manual @ https://www.butkus.org
Leica R5, R6, & R6.2 User Manuals @ www.butkus.org
Leica R6 Review @ https://www.apotelyt.com/camera-review/leica-r6
Leica R-System Brochure - 1996-97
Handbook of the Leica System - 1995
The book of the LEICA R-series Cameras (2019) by Brian Long
Leica R6 Test - Popular Photography Sept. 1989
Nikon FM2N User Manual @ http://cdn-10.nikon-cdn.com
Nikon A Celebration (Third Edition; 2018) by Brian Long
Nikon FM2/T Year of the Dog edition @ https://www.cameraquest.com/nikonfm2.htm
Olympus OM-3Ti & OM-4Ti User Manuals @ https://www.butkus.org

Nikkor Tales: The Nikon 105/2.5 AI Nikkor

Fri, 07 Oct 2022 19:00:00 GMT

Early AI Nikkor 105/2.5 w/ custom rabbit ears fashioned from a non-AI lens version

Updated Sept. 3, 2024

If the Minolta MD Rokkor-X 100/2.5 we looked at previously is the definition of a sleeper, the subject of this post is anything but. I feel quite safe in postulating that there has been more virtual ink spilled over the Nikkor 105/2.5 (in all its guises) than any other medium (75-105mm) telephoto of the vintage 35mm era :-). Well, let's spill a little more, but hopefully we will cover some fresh territory in the process and see why Nikon kept this lens design all the way to the end of the film era in the early 21st century and why it remains one of the best performance-to-price ratio vintage lenses you can lay your hands on today :-).

Origins

The lineage of the 105/2.5 Nikkor can be traced to Nikon's (Nippon Kogaku at the time) earliest post-WWII efforts to establish themselves as a player in the 35mm rangefinder camera market, over 75 years ago. Design work on the 105/2.5 itself (labelled 10.5cm, as was industry practice into the 1960s, in many cases) was started in 1949 by Zenji Wakimoto, but the basic optical layout was derived from the Sonnar-type 85/2 Nikkor-P (also labelled as 8.5cm; with the P = Pente = 5 elements) that Saburo Murakami had started development of in 1946 and was released for production in 1948 with Wakimoto continuing to improve the design over the following year or so before embarking on the 105/2.5 project. The similarities can be clearly seen below.

Nikkor-P 8.5 cm f/2

Nikkor-P 10.5cm f/2.5

It was the 8.5/2 Nikkor-P that put Nikon on the map with photojournalists, when LIFE photographer David Douglas Duncan was introduced to it by Japanese photographers Ryuichi Murai and Jun Miki in June 1950. Upon seeing a portrait of himself snapped by Miki-san, Duncan was duly impressed and the very next day they travelled to the Ohi plant where Nikon was producing its lenses at the time. Duncan purchased the 5cm/1.5 and 13.5cm/4 Nikkors in M39 Leica Thread Mount (LTM) directly from the factory and had both lenses with him when the Korean War broke out later that month. The resulting images in LIFE magazine made both Duncan's and Nikon's reputation. The 10.5/2.5 Nikkor-P was released for production in the spring of 1953 (coincidentally, about six months after the end of the Korean War) and went on sale in mid-'54 in both M39 LTM and the Nikon S rangefinder mount. Almost 22,000 rangefinder 10.5/2.5s were produced (predominantly in S-mount) by Nikon, edging out its illustrious progenitor, and a sign of even greater popularity to come in SLR (single-lens-reflex) form.

With Nikon's decision in 1957 to prioritize development of the F-mount SLR, there came a fresh challenge for their optical designers. Because the addition of the reflex mirror mechanism necessarily pushed the rear of the lens further away from the film plane, designers could not simply change the mount of the S-mount rangefinder lenses to F-mount and be done with it. Compensation had to be made for the increased distance (termed back-focus). The 8.5/2's formula simply could not be compensated enough, so Nikon abandoned any thought of adapting it to F-mount and began development of a clean-sheet 85mm lens designed for the SLR from the outset. However, by making a 1.0mm reduction in the thickness of the rear-most fifth element of the 10.5/2.5, Wakimoto was able to achieve sufficient back-focus for the F-mount with the imaging characteristics of the lens remaining virtually unchanged, permitting the lens to debut among the original six F-mount lenses that accompanied the Nikon F in June 1959. The 10.5/2.5 in F-mount was a massive hit, with sales of over 131,000 units from 1959 to 1971, remaining Nikon's most popular short telephoto (the 6-element 85/1.8 Nikkor-H in F-mount, finally released in 1964, sold just under 75,000 copies by 1971). Nevertheless, Nikon would not rest on its Sonnar-based laurels; they felt that they could still improve the mighty 105. And they would be right :-).

Schematic of the Sonnar-type F-mount Nikkor-P 105/2.5 circa 1965

In similar fashion to Wakimoto's standing on the shoulders of Murakami to reach even greater heights of Nikkor performance with the 85/2, in 1966 Yoshiyuki Shimizu, Wakimoto-san's prized pupil, developed an entirely new version of the 105/2.5, based on the Xenotar optical layout. That Nikon waited another four-and-a-half years to introduce it to the buying public was a testament to just how well the Sonnar-type 105/2.5 was doing. A 16-year run for any lens design has to be considered a success :-). But the new 105 would make that achievement look merely ordinary, and would go on to sell for a staggering 34 years with the only optical changes consisting of improvements in coatings, making it the second longest-lived F-mount Nikkor optical design, ever (the rights of seniority belonging to the 35/2 manual focus Nikkor produced for a full four decades :-0). The new and improved 105/2.5 would sell 138,000 units in just under four years, eclipsing the 12-year total of the original F-mount lens. By the end of a decade in existence it had tacked on another 214,000 sales for a total of over 352,000 in 10 years, with the AI version being the most popular, averaging sales of 3,275 per month from Sept. 1977 to Sept. 1981. The final AI-s iteration would be the most numerous of any generation with almost 164,000 sold in the remaining 24 years of production, a remarkable achievement for a manual focus (MF) lens that lived all but four of those years in the auto focus (AF) era, when MF sales had dropped by 90% by the end of the 1980s.

Xenotar 105/2.5 optical layout from 1971 - 2005 w/ AI-s version shown circa 1988

All versions of the 105/2.5 were designed with portraiture as a main priority and aberration correction was weighted towards closer focusing distances, particularly with the Sonnar version. Spherical aberration was slightly undercorrected to provide improved background bokeh and a gentler falloff from focused to out-of-focus areas at the expense of a bit of overall sharpness, which suited portraits just fine. Astigmatism at infinity was also undercorrected in favor of full correction at closer distances. Wakimoto chose to undercorrect for coma, too, so as to keep contrast a bit more muted. There is no big jump in contrast as you stop down with the Sonnar as compared to many other vintage lenses of the time, and as we will see next, the new Xenotar version of the 105.

How many times is a sequel to a great book or movie even better than the original? It happens just often enough to be noteworthy but is definitely on the rare side. When Nikon set Shimizu-san to the task of redesigning the already-legendary 105/2.5, he had the unenviable task of trying to improve the lens technically, while not losing any of the "je ne sais quois" of its ancestor. To say he succeeded would be an understatement, although, of course, there are dyed-in-the-wool Sonnar fans that still look upon the Xenotar with disdain ;-). With any basic optical formula, there are inherent strengths and weaknesses, and optical designers have to prioritize where they will spend their limited optical correction budget. The adoption of the more symmetrical Xenotar layout for the new 105/2.5 versus the strongly asymmetric Sonnar gave Shimizu more freedom in some areas:

There is inherently more distortion in an asymmetric design than a symmetric one, so Shimizu had less to do in correcting for distortion than Wakimoto did with the Sonnar (which was still well above reproach with only 0.5%).
There is less field curvature with the Xenotar layout.
Astigmatism is also very small, so it can be more easily corrected at both closer and further distances, rather than having to make the trade-off of better correction at one end of the focusing range or the other.
Shimizu kept close-range spherical aberration undercorrected to retain smooth background blur at wider apertures. As the user stops down, the effects of SA are lessened.
Coma is also corrected better than with the Sonnar, but still slightly undercorrected to maintain lower contrast at full aperture. Stopping down virtually eliminates coma.
Particularly with the multicoated versions, the Xenotar exhibits far more flare- and ghosting-resistance, something that will matter not a whit to the Sonnar-lovers out there ;-).

Whereas the Sonnar maintains a very consistent look and makes smaller gains in contrast upon stopping down, the Xenotar is very portrait-friendly from f/2.5 - f/4, but flips a switch at f/4 - f/5.6 with a distinct boost in contrast and sharpness. That makes it a bit more versatile, being very effective for landscapes out to f/11 or so before diffraction starts creeping in. On the iterations with f/32, you would be best served to avoid that aperture setting, as diffraction is going to negatively impact image quality far more than any gain in depth of field will yield benefits, and that is likely why Nikon chose to go back to an f/22 minimum aperture with the final AI and AI-s generations.

105/2.5 Nikkor Versions

The fact that the 105/2.5 was produced in quantity in both optical versions means that prices remain reasonable and availability is not an issue. In then-classic Nikon form, all versions conveniently took 52mm filters and other lens accessories (not so much nowadays ;-)). The pre-AI Sonnars remain the least expensive (starting at around $100 USD in Very Good to Excellent condition) with values incrementally rising with each generation and the latest AI-s copies on top at $250 - $300 USD in Excellent condition. Here is a brief identification rundown of each major iteration:

1959-71 Nikkor-P (Sonnar) - Silver nose and lens barrel with black, knurled-metal, short-grip focus ring. The rear element is considerably smaller than on a Xenotar version. Minimum focus distance of 1.2m/4'. 370 grams/13 oz. Single-coated. f/22 minimum aperture painted yellow. Straight aperture blades. 180-degree focus throw. AI conversion kit #40. Serial # 120xxx - 286xxx.
1971-73 Nikkor-P (Xenotar) - Black nose and lens barrel with long-grip, knurled-metal focus ring. Minimum focus distance of 1m/3.3'. 435 grams/15.3 oz. Single-coated. f/32 minimum aperture painted blue. Curved aperture blades. 170-degree focus throw. Ai conversion kit #39. Serial # 407xxx - 473xxx.
1973-75 Nikkor-P-C (Xenotar) - Same physical appearance and specifications as preceding version except for multicoatings (thus Nikkor-P-C). Curved aperture blades. AI conversion kit #39. Serial # 500xxx - 571xxx.
1974-77 Nikkor K (Xenotar) - Rubber focus ring. Improved, colour-balanced Nikon Integrated Coating (NIC) multicoating. Otherwise identical to previous iteration. AI conversion kit #39. Serial # 673xxx - 729xxx.
1977-81 AI Nikkor (Xenotar) - Automatic Aperture Indexing. Rubber focus ring with slightly coarser texture than K version. Back to f/22 minimum aperture painted yellow. Otherwise identical to K. Serial # 740xxx - 897xxx.
1981-2005 AI-s Nikkor (Xenotar) - AI-s has linear aperture actuation for proper exposure in Shutter-priority and Program modes for so-equipped Nikon SLRs. Straight aperture blades. Built-in sliding lens hood. f/22 minimum aperture painted orange. 140-degree focus throw. Super Integrated Coating (SIC) from Serial # 1043xxx up. Serial # 890xxx - 1053xxx.

A Tale of Two Nikkors - Which Will You Choose?

Your personal vision of what you want out a lens will be the most important factor in deciding whether to go Sonnar or Xenotar. If you prefer lower contrast, more propensity for flare, and are not a resolution or sharpness junkie, the Sonnar could hold more appeal. If you want more versatility, with the ability to crank up contrast and sharpness with a twist of the aperture ring, the Xenotar might be more your speed. You cannot go wrong with any version of the 105/2.5 Nikkor for portraiture. Personally, the AI-generation (or an AI-converted K-generation) hits a nice balance for me, for the following reasons:

I enjoy the optical versatility of the Xenotar design.
I prefer rubber focus rings in colder weather.
It will meter with the widest range of Nikon film and digital SLRs, both pre-AI and AI-equipped, as long as it retains the rabbit-ears for use on pre-AI bodies.
It was the last version with curved aperture blades to abet the lovely bokeh characteristics of the optics.
The longer 170-degree focus throw allows for a hair more precision in focusing than the AI-s version. (Some people prefer the slightly quicker focusing of the AI-s; horses for courses :-))
It still costs less than the AI-s ;-)

A plus of having 46 years-worth of lenses in six major iterations to choose from is the ability to drill down and find one with the most appealing combination of features for you personally:

If you are a mirrorless user, you can likely get by with any of the four pre-AI versions without any of the clearance issues of pre-AI lenses on AI SLRs, thus saving a bit of cashola. Just check your adapter to make it will be compatible before buying a lens or vice versa if you procure a lens first.
Do you favour metal focus rings? You can get a single-coated Sonnar or Xenotar, or a multicoated Xenotar, so-configured.
If you prefer single coatings or multicoatings, you can get the Xenotar in either Vanilla Nikkor-P or Neapolitan Nikkor P-C flavours.
If you like a shorter focus throw or the convenience of a built-in hood, the AI-s is there for the taking, at a bit of a premium, of course :-). A final note on the AI-s version: the last 10,000 lenses (from Serial # 1043xxx +) were given Nikon's Super Integrated Coatings (SIC), developed in the late-'90s, for that last tiny bit of improvement over the excellent Nikon Integrated Coatings (NIC) that were used from the K version onward. Be prepared to fork over a few more bills for such a copy.

As with most vintage Nikkors, you may very well encounter a copy with a dry-feeling or stiff focusing ring due to decomposition of the grease in the helicoids. Any version of the 105/2.5 is definitely worth a re-grease/CLA and that will make the lens an absolute joy to use.

Wrap-Up

While there are plenty of excellent manual focus Nikkors to be had these days, the 105/2.5 remains the best combination of capability, availability, and accessibility for the focal length, in my books. My early-production AI version remains my favorite Nikkor, regardless of whether it's mounted on an F2, N2000, F90X, or a D300 (I just back up a little farther due to the APS-C crop factor ;-)). For portraits...set it at f/2.5 and forget it; for landscapes...f/8 and be there. It cares not about whether the camera is an all-mechanical classic, a noisy 1980s film-burner, an icky-sticky, polycarbonate-encrusted '90s AF model, or a newfangled, yet already "obsolete" DSLR ;-). In other words, a timeless lens :-).

An amazing AI aggregate. Nikon F2A with the accompanying 105/2.5 circa 2022

References:

The Thousand and One Nights No. 5 @ https://imaging.nikon.com/history/story
The Thousand and One Nights No. 36 @ https://imaging.nikon.com/history/story
The Thousand and One Nights No. 45 @ https://imaging.nikon.com/history/story
One Minute Story - 1950 @ https://www.nikon.com/about/corporate/history
Nikkor Rangefinder Lenses Sales Brochure @ https://www.pacificrimcamera.com
Nikon Dealer Notebook 1965-66 @ https://www.pacificrimcamera.com
Nikon Dealer Notebook - SLR Lenses (1988) @ https://www.pacificrimcamera.com
Roland's Nikon Pages @ http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/lenses.html

Rokkor Tales: The Minolta 100/2.5 MD Rokkor(-X)

Wed, 14 Sep 2022 00:00:00 GMT

First-generation (MD-I) MD Tele Rokkor-X 100mm f/2.5

Updated Apr. 4, 2024

From its inception in late-1958, the Minolta SR system included at least one short telephoto of 100mm focal length, predating their first 85mm optic by over a decade. The last listing at B&H that I could find for the final New MD 100/2.5 iteration was from July 1994 (production had obviously ended back in the mid-'80s when the Alpha/Maxxum AF mount was introduced). So a successful (albeit fairly quiet) 35-year sales run in total for the manual focus Minolta 100mms. And yet, when talk turns to short Minolta manual focus (MF) telephotos, almost invariably, the 85/1.7 (first introduced in MC Rokkor form in 1970) tends to dominate the conversation. Not without reason, mind you; the 85/1.7 and its successor, the 85/2, are some of the finest examples of the type, regardless of brand. As a result, the 100s have slipped into the shadows somewhat. But they are definitely worth your consideration...so let's dive in.

Origins

The first 100mm Minolta SLR lens offered for sale in 1959 was the Auto Tele Rokkor-QE 100/3.5 ("Auto" here referring to the automatic stopping-down and re-opening of the the aperture blades prior to and following exposure). Sporting 5 elements (E = 5) in 4 groups (Q = quattuor in Latin = four) with a weight of 310 grams/10.9 oz., the 100/3.5 would be produced until 1968 in four iterations that all shared the same Ernostar-type optical formula, with improvements in coatings and weight reduction being the main changes. With its moderate maximum aperture, the 100/3.5 is a true sleeper of a lens, giving very credible performance for a 60+ year old design.

Optical diagram and specifications for 100/3.5 QE Tele Rokkor. (Auto Rokkor version pictured)

In 1961, Minolta served notice that they were rapidly maturing into one of the top optical manufacturers in the world with the unveiling of the Gauss-type Auto Tele Rokkor-PF 100/2 (P = pente in Greek = five groups, and F = 6 elements). The 100/2 would be produced in Auto and MC Rokkor forms over three generations, likewise ceasing production in 1968. 100/2 lenses were not exactly common in the early-'60s, with Canon being the only other Japanese manufacturer with as fast of a 100mm lens for sale during that time. They were thus not produced in great quantity, and that certainly proved true of the 100/2 Rokkors. In trying to keep the size and weight manageable, Minolta pushed the limits of the lens barrel technology of the time, and actually exceeded them with the 100/2. It was, therefore, a rather delicate lens with the focusing helicoids being thin enough that they would distort slightly if they suffered even a moderate impact, causing binding. The combination of large, relatively heavy glass elements and the thin barrel also meant that de-centering due to rough handling or an impact was not uncommon with the 100/2 Rokkors. The high cost and fragility of the 100/2 definitely impacted sales and Minolta was forced to reconsider their two-lens 100mm strategy. Which led them, in 1968, to replace both the 100/2 and the 3.5 optics with one that basically met in the middle: the 100/2.5. That Nikon's 105mm f/2.5 Nikkor-P lens was a best seller may well have swayed Minolta to adopt the same maximum aperture specification for their newest 100mm optic, instead of the more common f/2.8 selected by many of their other competitors ;-).

Optical diagram and specifications for 100/2 PF Tele Rokkor. (Auto Rokkor version pictured)

Even with its 2/3-stop slower maximum aperture and the resulting reduction in size of the optics (the filter size dropped from 62mm to 55mm), the MC Tele Rokkor-PF 100/2.5 only weighed 15 grams less than the 100/2, due entirely to its beefier lens barrel and helicoid assembly (this was also reflected in the 5mm greater overall diameter of the lens over the 100/2). Minolta had definitely learned from their mistakes with the previous lens. Optically, the f/2.5 leaned closer to the f/2's Double Gauss layout than the f/3.5's Ernostar type, albeit with major design changes to the much thicker cemented second/third elements and thinner fourth element. While resulting in less field curvature than the 100/2, the revised optical formula of the f/2.5 still couldn't quite match the venerable f/3.5 when it came to field flatness. But overall, the performance of the new lens was excellent. The 100/2.5 PF would live through three iterations in MC-I (1968), MC-II (1970), and MC-X (1973) forms (according to Dennis Lohmann's excellent Minolta SR System website) and sold better than the old 3.5/2 duo combined. But there would be one more step in the development of Minolta's 100mm manual focus lens that would endure for nearly two decades on dealer shelves.

Optical layout of the 6e/5g MC Tele Rokkor-PF 100/2.5 (1970 MC-II version illustrated)

The Ultimate Minolta 100/2.5

With the tremendous rise in popularity of zoom lenses from the last half of the 1970s forward, the last concerted efforts to optimize standard-aperture single focal length (prime) lenses from 24 to 200mm, by all manufacturers, took place in the early-to-middle part of the decade. This was evidenced by how many of these prime lens layouts survived, not just to the end of the manual focus era, but were even adopted for AF and lived well into the 21st century, in a few cases. Minolta's final 100/2.5 design that debuted in June 1976 as an MC Rokkor(-X) version would, aside from a downsizing and final tweak to the coatings in 1981, remain unchanged until the stock of lenses was exhausted in 1994-95 and it was dropped from the already-emaciated New MD lineup. ***NOTE*** The -X suffix following Rokkor simply indicated a lens produced for the North American market. Nothing more. And there really was no reason to update it, either. Not only was it a fine lens as it stood, but there was no longer enough demand for advanced manual focus prime lenses of any sort to justify the expense of developing something new. Case in point: Nikon had, by far, the most extensive MF lineup of any Japanese SLR company by the mid-90s, and still they saw no need to replace their legendary 105/2.5 that had last been redesigned in 1971 (with only coating updates as far as the optics went over its lifespan of 34 years).

So what could Minolta do to improve on the already-very-good PF version? With improved glass types, they were able to eliminate the thin concave third element that was previously cemented to the thick convex second element in favor of a homogenous, even thicker second element (making for a 5-element in 5-groups construction). They were also able to reduce the overall length of the lens by 3.5mm and weight by 55 grams/2 oz. Further reductions in coma, spherical aberration, and coma flare (especially wide-open) were all made which improved contrast and resolution at full aperture. The optical engineers were also able to flatten the field to almost the same level as the exemplary 100/3.5. And finally, they were able to knock 20% off of the close focus distance of the PF, from 1.2m/4' down to 1m/3.3'. The improved full-aperture performance of the new 100/2.5 would set the pattern for Minolta's development of the replacement of the renowned 85/1.7 in 1979 with the 85/2 MD Rokkor, featuring similar improvements at full aperture.

Optical layout of the 5e/5g 100/2.5 (1976 MC-X version illustrated)

There would be four iterations of the 5e/5g 100/2.5:

MC Rokkor(-X) - introduced in June 1976
MD Rokkor(-X) - introduced in October 1977. The only differences from the MC Rokkor(-X) were lightened aperture blades and addition of the MD (Minimum Diaphragm) lug to permit Shutter-priority and later Program exposure modes with the XD-series and X-700 models. The minimum aperture of f/22 was now painted green to visually indicate when the lens was set for those two exposure modes.
MD Rokkor(-X) - introduced in 1978. A simple change in the order of engraving on the front of the lens with the filter size of 55mm now included.
New MD (sometimes referred to as "plain" MD) - introduced in November 1981. This was the most extensive update to the lens. In addition to the MD Lock (which locked the aperture ring at the minimum green setting), Minolta downsized the entire lens to 49mm filter size, along with a 65 gram/2.3 oz weight-reduction. There was now a built-in two-stage telescoping lens hood and the latest version of Minolta's Achromatic coatings. There was one other major difference from the previous versions that we will explore next.

Life with the MD Rokkor-X 100/2.5

So what is the ultimate 100mm MF Minolta lens like to use? Well, there are two distinct experiences to be had between the first three iterations and the final New MD version and it all revolves (literally ;-)) around one haptic feature: focus throw. Focus throw refers to how much rotation of the focus ring is required to go from infinity to minimum focus or vice versa. In general, longer focus throws allow for more precise focusing. That all sounds great, but there is a caveat: it takes more time to do so because you have to often re-grip the focus ring (or turn it uncomfortably far for your wrist) during the process, especially when going from one extreme to the other. In their desire for users to obtain the most precise focus with the original 5e/5g 100/2.5, Minolta chose to use the longest focus throw that I have thus far encountered on any 100-105mm standard optic: 298 degrees or nearly 5/6 of a revolution! To put that into perspective:

Minolta's 100/3.5 Macro lens (which focused down to 0.45m/18" vs. 1m/39 3/8") had a focus throw of 320 degrees, just 22 degrees more for a lens that focused to less than half of the distance and that is an average figure for same-era macro/micro 100-105mm lenses across brands. Interestingly, Nikon shortened the focus throw of the AI version of their 105/4 Micro from 320 degrees to 300 degrees on the AI-s version.
The standard 105/2.5 Nikkor P (1971), Nikkor P-C (1973), Nikkor K (1974), and AI Nikkor (1977) all have a focus throw of 170 degrees. Nikon further shortened it to 140 degrees on the AI-s Nikkor version.

By now you have probably grasped the outlier status of the 100/2.5 Rokkor's focus throw ;-). Minolta must have received some feedback, for the New MD's focus throw dropped to right around 200 degrees, a reduction of a third! What will really determine which version is better suited to you will be the genres you photograph in. If you are a methodical, deliberate landscape or portrait type, the Rokkor versions will likely suffice. If you want something more responsive, but still with plenty of precision, the New MD will be the better choice. The older 6e/5g PF Rokkors sit about halfway in between at 256 degrees.

Wrap-Up

All that considered, my MD Rokkor-X 100/2.5 has given me my best portrait of my Dad, who is not noted for sitting still for pictures ;-). It vies with the 58/1.2 for my affections as my favorite Minolta lens. It will not be for everybody, but if you are one of those people who likes to be slowed down by your film photography, it will definitely fit the bill :-). Good copies will generally run about half the cost of the more famous 85/1.7 in equivalent condition, making it a relative bargain (you can still expect to put out $150 USD for an excellent condition copy) and a great value considering the images it is capable of producing. As usual with vintage lenses, a lens hood will maximize contrast in backlit conditions, with the New MD version offering the best flare-resistance of the lot, with the Rokkor versions just a whisker behind (Minolta was continuously developing its coatings, sometimes introducing improvements in the middle of productions runs). While 85s tend to be viewed as the go-to focal length for medium telephotos, I personally lean toward the 100-105s, and most photographers will favor one focal length over the other...it's just a matter of preference. Ask me to pick between a 100/2.5 MD Rokkor and a 105/2.5 AI Nikkor? Sorry, I love the distinct look both lenses give. The Nikkor is a bit more responsive with its shorter focus throw, but the Rokkor just has something about it that makes me forget all about stuff like that :-).

The MD Tele Rokkor-X at home on the XD 11

References:

Dennis Lohmann's Minolta Manual Focus Lens Index @ http://minolta.eazypix.de
Minolta SR-2 Brochure @ https://www.pacificrimcamera.com
Minolta Dealer Pages 1967 - SLR Lenses @ https://www.pacificrimcamera.com
Minolta Lens Chronology @ http://thesybersite.com/minolta/historical/
Minolta System Handbook (Second Edition, 1976) by Joseph D. Cooper
Minolta MC Lenses Service Manual Volume II
Popular Photography July 1994
Roland's Nikon Pages @ http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/lenses.html#top

Konica FS-1 - The Beginning of the End for Konica

Wed, 17 Aug 2022 22:30:00 GMT

The Groundbreaking FS-1. Available in your choice of black.

Konica (Konishiroku)...the original Japanese photographic company, and the first of only two full-line manufacturers (meaning both equipment and consumables such as film, paper, and chemicals), with Fujifilm being the second. Often overlooked among the Japanese 35mm SLR manufacturers due to its small slice of market share, and running a distant third to Kodak and Fujifilm when it came to consumables sales during the last four decades of the film era, Konica nevertheless was very influential in both sectors well into the 1980s. They also played a large role in the enforcement of the JCII standards for all Japanese optical equipment sold for export from the mid-1950s - '90s, supplying the optical testing lenses used in the assessment process for all of the other manufacturers (many of which, ironically, went on to have more notoriety in the photographic community than Konica's own underrated Auto Reflex or AR Hexanon lens lineup).

Konica had a reputation for innovation: they were part of the Japanese consortiums that developed the first metal-blade, vertical-travel focal plane shutters and improved rare-earth optical glasses in the early-'60s; then they introduced the first Japanese autoexposure SLR (the shutter-priority Auto-Reflex) in 1965, and subsequently added through-the-lens (TTL) metering to that in 1968 (the Autoreflex T). Fast forward to 1979, and the FS-1 would prove to be the progenitor of the final generation of Konica's AR-mount 35mm SLRs, while introducing more industry-firsts. But the seeds of Konica's SLR demise would unwittingly be sown simultaneously...

Within a decade-and-a-half of the Auto-Reflex' debut, the SLR had gone from an all-metal, fully mechanical, manual exposure machine to a composite material, computer-controlled, autoexposure contraption that sat at the leading edge of camera development. The quest of the Japanese manufacturers to completely automate the operation of the SLR was still ongoing, however, and with the FS-1 Konica sought to automate a long-standing bugaboo for many SLR neophytes: film handling.

Since the mid-'60s, various types of mechanical "easy"- or 'quick'-loading devices had been introduced to try and make loading 35mm roll film easier for SLR users. These worked with varying degrees of success, but all added complexity (and thus cost) to the design and production of such cameras. There had also been a tremendous rise in popularity of accessory motor drives and auto winders during the 1970s (it made neophyte Nick feel more like the professional photojournalist that his newly-bought SLR was surely going to transform him into ;-)). The FS-1 was going to be Konica's attempt to marry automated film loading with an internal motorized film-advance...and all wrapped up in their first electronically-controlled SLR. A bold move, to be sure.

The SLR market had drastically changed from 1965 to the late'-70s. The cameras had gone from being the preserve of serious 35mm enthusiasts and professionals to the latest consumer craze, courtesy of the Canon AE-1 and its heel-nipping horde of imitators. The resulting cost pressures had already prompted Konica to take drastic measures with the latest of its Autoreflexes, the TC & T4. While they still retained a mechanical shutter, the TC & T4 had been the first Konica SLRs to adopt plastic for a significant portion of their exterior construction (the chassis was still all-metal). They also followed the trend of smaller, lighter bodies initiated by the Olympus OMs, with the net result of both design choices being a 30% reduction in weight over the last full-sized, full-featured Autoreflex, the T3N. The TC also saw the deletion of enthusiast-targeted features such as: depth-of-field (DOF) preview, multiple exposures, integrated eyepiece shutter, and mirror-lock-up (MLU) to further slash production costs. The lowest user-selectable shutter speed was now 1/8 sec., losing the 1/4, 1/2, and 1 sec. settings of the T3N along with the set shutter speed readout in the viewfinder. While the T4 retained the lower shutter speed settings, DOF preview, and multiple exposure capability, it did lose the T3N's MLU and the viewfinder shutter speed readout. Such measures would prefigure Konica's approach with the FS-1 in 1979. It was going to be a full-on, consumer-targeted SLR.

While the TC and T4 retained at least some of their Autoreflex lineage, the FS-1 was to be Konica's first clean-sheet SLR design in nearly 15 years. And they were going all in on the electronic paradigm with their first electronically-controlled shutter to which they added: automatic electronic film loading, 1.5 frames per second (fps) internal motorized film winding, electronic self-timer, the second electronic remote release socket to grace an SLR with its presence (following the lead of the CONTAX RTS in 1975; and source of no small consternation to many a vintage SLR enthusiast ;-)), and their first electronic LED viewfinder display, all governed by what Konica claimed was the largest central processing unit (CPU) yet fitted to an SLR. To power all of this, Konica equipped the FS-1 with the first battery handgrip (holding 4 AAs/LR6s) to be seen on an SLR. This choice of power supply was going to play a major role in the life of the FS-1 (and Konica by extension) as we shall see ;-).

With its prominent integral battery grip, the FS-1 looked like no motorized SLR before, but it certainly presaged the next two decades of SLR evolution to come. For the target audience there was no more fumbling with threading film leaders into take-up spools; just pull the leader to the rubber roller on the right side of the film chamber; make sure that a sprocket hole in the film was engaged with a sprocket tooth top and bottom; and close the back. The FS-1 would automatically advance to frame 1 and away they went. This basic film advance system design of the FS-1 would find its way in to all manner and brands of SLRs and Point & Shoots alike over the next 20+ years. Sadly, by 1987, Konica would absolve itself completely of SLR production due to a few factors, one of which could be traced to an unfortunate trait that lurked inside the FS-1.

The deceptively simple-looking automatic film-loading and -winding system of the FS-1.

The Best of Times...the Worst of Times

Konica had never been one of the major players in the SLR game, but had built a sterling reputation for reliability on the back of their rugged Autoreflexes, with even the de-contented TC and T4 still being solid cameras. Their metal shutters may have been loud, but they just never quit, and, aside from the somewhat-fragile meter of the T4, the rest of the basic mechanisms of the cameras were tried-and-tested. Such was the result of a decade of constant, albeit incremental, improvements. By the time the FS-1 came along, Konica had accrued a good deal of goodwill with its customer base: their cameras were solid...and their Hexanon lenses were a match for anyone's any day.

But it was not all roses and sunshine for the small SLR maker. The Oil Crisis of 1973 had hit all of the Japanese SLR builders hard, but it was definitely worse for the smaller fish in the pond (like Konica), with several companies simply dropping out of the market. Even for the larger manufacturers, such as Canon, the Oil Crisis was no joke, and it was the driving force that pushed Canon into developing the AE-1 to try and recover financially by reducing production costs and finding new markets. That was the backdrop for Konica's decision to go all-electronic. The FS-1 would be a MAJOR leap for them technologically, but it came at a cost: all of their hard-earned experience with mechanical SLRs would now be of limited use with the replacement of almost every analogue system possible with an electronic version. And that relative inexperience, coupled with a desire to push the boundaries (e.g. automated internal film handling), would prove to exact a steep toll.

The FS-1 debuted right in the middle of the biggest SLR sales extravaganza ever seen during the film era. And its timing could not have been better for consumers. It offered the simplest film loading procedure of any SLR to that point and had more than enough photographic capability for any newcomer (definitely on par with an AE-1). The styling was familiar enough, yet sleek and modern, perfect for its intended audience. And it sold like gangbusters...at first. But, like a mid-summer thunderstorm, trouble was soon brewing on the horizon.

The FS-1 was the first camera, let alone SLR, to be powered by four 1.5V AA cells. Now, there were plenty of 6-volt SLRs to be had during the 1970s (the aforementioned A-series of Canons, Nikkormat ELs and Nikon EL2s, Pentax ES & ESIIs, to name a few). But these all used four small, separate button (LR44/SR44) or stacked (544/PX28) low-amperage cells. And those cells were only used to energize the exposure meters, viewfinder displays, and shutter electromagnets of such models (very low power demands compared to a motor drive or winder). If an accessory motor drive or winder was attached, it had its own, separate set of batteries and accompanying circuitry (at least four or more AAs or even larger cells). The FS-1 combined all of these previously-disparate functions within the body while using a common power supply that had a much larger amperage capacity than any previous electronic SLR:

1 x 544/PX28 cell = 160 - 180 mAh from 6 - 3.6V
4 x LR44/SR44 = 650 - 800 mAh from 1.5 - 1.2V
4 x AA alkaline = 8,000 - 12,000 mAh from 1.5 - 1.2V

Sad to say, the first production run of FS-1 circuits were not designed with sufficient safety margin in the case of undervoltage. [***NOTE*** Far be it for me to pretend that I am well-versed in electronics ;-). But it has been explained to me that the effect of allowing voltage (i.e. pressure of electrons) to drop under design specifications...can cause portions of the circuit to either energize simultaneously when not designed to, or fail to energize at all when needed to allow for the proper amperage (i.e volume of electrons) to flow through. Either scenario can lead to the overheating and subsequent failure of components, thus "frying" the circuitry. In the case of the FS-1, there was a much larger supply of amps available to "cook" components in a case of undervoltage versus other contemporary SLRs.] That Konica was plainly aware of this was demonstrated by a large sticker inside the battery cover that just said "NO!" to 1.2V NiCd rechargeables, in addition to the warnings in the owner's manual. They also deliberately rated battery life for the recommended alkaline cells very conservatively (15 rolls of 36 exp. at room temp., with a 5-roll emergency buffer to replace the batteries, which should have kept voltage above 1.2V per cell). Konica also stated directly in the owner's manual that the FS-1 would automatically shut down at the 20-roll limit, forcing the replacement of the batteries. That didn't stop Modern Photography from eking out 65 rolls in their lab testing (obviously the so-called "automatic shutdown" didn't occur, which didn't do Konica or the FS-1 any favors, as we will see :-o).

Battery Grip with warning label and the tell-tale signs of previous alkaline leakage.

By failing to account for standard consumer behaviour as Modern Photography did (trying to get as much out of a set of batteries as they could ;-)), even the earnest recommendation of alkaline AAs and changing them early couldn't prevent catastrophe for Konica. While nominally rated at 1.5V when new, alkaline cells immediately begin to drop in discharge voltage when in use, reaching 1.4V in a very short time, and descending steadily and linearly from there. Most discharge curve graphs track the drop down to 0.8V. But we know already that even 1.2V per cell was getting sketchy for the FS-1, per Konica's ban on using NiCds (even with their much flatter and stable voltage discharge profile). By the time a set of alkaline AAs had reached even a third of their total discharge cycle (remarkably coinciding with that 15 - 20 roll mark ;-)), you were already flirting with that undervoltage danger zone. Konica also recommended in the manual that the user refrain from continuous shooting once the low-battery warning appeared in the viewfinder (at approximately the 15-roll mark; continuous shooting obviously would compound the undervoltage issue). When pressed beyond either of Konica's stated limitations consistently, the outcome of a cooked FS-1 grew well beyond the standard failure rates for electronic SLRs. Konica produced nearly 250,000 copies before making the first alterations to the circuitry with the second production run (roughly 75 - 80,000 copies), and modifying the camera yet again for its final production run of around 180,000 units. Reliability improved with each reworking, but it was too little, too late. In near lockstep with the SLR sales bust that really started taking hold in 1981-82 went Konica's reputation for reliability. When they introduced the much-improved FT-1 in 1983, industry sales were already dropping as a result of the SLR bust, with Konica's blunder with the FS-1 only exacerbating their predicament. The AF revolution of 1985 would be the final nail in the coffin for Konica's once-proud manual focus SLR program. By 1988, they had had enough, and pulled the plug.

The FS-1 Today

Unfortunately for Konica, the original FS-1 was too far ahead of its time; or rather, too far ahead of battery technology's time. A decade after the discontinuation of the FS-1, Eveready (now Energizer) introduced its L91 Ultimate Lithium AA battery that was a perfect fit for high-current, autowinding SLRs such as the FS-1. Sporting a similarly-shaped voltage discharge curve to rechargeable NiCd or NiMH AA cells, the L91 maintains a voltage above 1.3V (the actual range is from 1.6V - 1.3V) for its entire lifespan (the curve basically plunges straight down once it reaches 1.3). While not a guarantee against the failure of an FS-1's circuitry, it gives the camera its best chance, by far. L91s last five times longer than alkalines at room temperature, and this balloons to fourteen times longer at -10 Celsius). There is also no leakage (with subsequent corrosion of delicate electrical bits) to worry about, another major drawback (and one that seems to be getting worse instead of better, in my experience) with alkalines.

"This is your 1980s SLR on alkalines." ;-)

The FS-1 can be a great way to access the excellent AR Hexanon lens lineup for someone unafraid of electronic SLRs and that doesn't mind shelling out $10 or $12 for a set of Ultimate Lithiums ;-). The bog-standard 40/1.8 & 50/1.7 Hexanons have accrued an excellent reputation, and can still be had for $50 USD or less with regularity. No, it is not a full-featured, enthusiast-level SLR (like, say a T3N), but it:

has a much brighter viewfinder than the T3N and older Autoreflexes
is extremely simple to operate (there are only seven controls for the entire camera; the automatic film loading and 1.5 fps film advance detailed earlier, along with shutter-priority auto exposure)
offers one of the best in-the-hand experiences of any vintage 35mm SLR, with the battery cover providing a very comfortable grip
sports an excellent gallium-arsenide-phosphorus metering cell (with an EV range of 0-19 at ISO 100)
has a very smooth shutter speed dial, easily adjusted with the right thumb, and having speeds from 1/1000 - 2 Sec. + Bulb available in both AE and Manual modes

The simple controls of the FS-1.

And here is a little secret: when looking at the images produced, no one will know the difference ;-). That doesn't mean that you have to get your hands on an FS-1, or else your photographic journey will be somehow incomplete. But if a working example happens to cross your path, don't be afraid to give it a try, especially if you can swing the Lithium AAs or strictly adhere to Konica's original 15 rolls of 36 exp. per set of fresh alkalines rule, along with removing such batteries when the camera will not be used for an extended (longer than a couple of weeks) period of time. While, in terms of probability, you should be best served by getting a third-run body (S/N 420000+), followed by a second-run unit (S/N 345000-420000), first-run bodies (100000-345000) can still be found that are completely operational, over forty years later.

Wrap-Up

For their first attempt at an electronic SLR, Konica almost pulled it off: produce the right camera...at the right time...at the right price. Nevertheless, it only took that small misstep of failing to design sufficient undervoltage protection into the original FS-1's circuits to jeopardize their reputation and deal their SLR program a serious blow. It would be an oversimplification to pin all of the blame for Konica's eventual SLR exit on the FS-1 debacle, but it cannot be ignored for making a substantial contribution to it. The upshot, for someone looking a bit off the beaten Big 5 vintage SLR path today, is that you can often snag one for a bargain price. The usual caveats of checking the battery compartment for corrosion and making sure the camera is fully functional before buying obviously apply...and it's an autowinding SLR from the 1980s. READ: it is not quiet. It may be a hair under Nikon N2000 sound levels, but a Leica M3, it is not ;-). If you can live with that, then chuck in a set of Lithium AAs and have at it :-).

References:

The Konica AR System @ www.konicafiles.com
Konica FS-1 User Manual @ https://www.butkus.org/chinon
Modern Photography June 1979
Popular Photography Sept. 1983
Various Energizer and Duracell Technical Datasheets

Is the Pentax K1000 Overrated?

Mon, 25 Jul 2022 19:30:00 GMT

The "Greatest Beginner SLR of All Time"?

"...this splendid Volkswagen Beetle of SLRs..."

-- Herbert Keppler, Oct. 1989 --

In a word...Possibly. Does that make it a terrible camera? Nope. Does it mean that you shouldn't buy one? Not necessarily ;-). But before getting sucked in by all of the Interweb-mongering of the K1000 as the best beginner SLR...of...all...time, it may be worth your while to investigate where it stacks up in relation to other vintage 35mm SLRs (many of which can be had nowadays for the same or considerably less in terms of monetary outlay) and how it came by its popularity among newbs in the first place. Let's start with the latter.

How Hagiography Happens

The K1000 has likely served as the introduction to 35mm SLR photography for more people than any other single model in history. If you took a photography course in high school or college in North America during the last two decades of the 20th century, chances were that you would find a K1000 loaded with Kodak Tri-X (or some rough equivalent) in your hands. It remained in production for over 20 years (3 million produced), surprising even Pentax with its sustained popularity. But what were the actual reasons for that popularity in the first place, and are they still pertinent today?

The number one reason the K1000 was the hottest beginner SLR in its day? Simply put, it was cheap. In fact, it was the least expensive SLR from any of the the Big 5 mainstream Japanese manufacturers. It was derived from a proven mid-'60s design (the Spotmatic) that Pentax had simplified and modernized (utilizing a modern SR44/357 battery for the light meter, along with the bayonet K-mount, added to a few previous cost-saving measures incorporated into the K's direct ancestor, the SP1000). This, coupled with its classic form, super-simple user interface, and entirely adequate technical capability, made it extremely appealing to schools and colleges that provided equipment for their photography courses or cash-$trapped students that had to supply their own.

Classic Pentax SLR control layout dating from the SV of 1962

The next step in the anointment of the K1000 as the Alpha and Omega of SLRs for tyros (one of longtime magazine editor Herbert Keppler's favorite terms for newcomers to photography), was the emotional connection that it forged with those first-time users. Put yourself in their shoes: this is your first experience with a "real" 35mm camera...you are shown how to load the film, set the ISO, and operate it...you point it at various subjects and scenes, remembering to "center the needle" in the viewfinder by adjusting the aperture ring and/or the shutter speed dial...once you have finished the roll you repair to the darkroom for developing and printing...as you swish the paper in the tray you start to see that image slowly appear, building contrast and clarity as if by magic...and there you have it. It doesn't matter if you only got a single decent shot from the roll...you now have D76 or Rodinal coursing through your veins and you can't wait for the next fix(er). The K1000 has become the ticket to ride on your photographic pilgrimage. And you will never forget it.

30 or 40-some-odd years later, and along comes a 21st-century tyro and they are asking ye old, grizzled film vet what they should embark upon their own 35mm film odyssey with. The old-timer's mind flashes back to that darkroom...that print...and the memory of that little chrome lighttight box that captured a sliver of time in silver...and the fix is in: The K1000...the "GOAT" (excuse me while I try to suppress the gag reflex ;-)) of beginner SLRs.

Which then leads to the next stage - gatekeeping. The K1000 must unquestionably be the GOAT, but what truly makes it so? The gatekeepers would have you believe that the GOATness of the K1K is rooted in the innate purity of its soul - all-metal construction (not entirely true, but that is of little consequence to the earnest hagiographer ;-)), all mechanical (aside from the battery-powered meter ;-)) and all manual in its operation. With no perfidious automation to tempt the user into mindless snapshotting, the K1000 forces you to slow down and THINK about the holy exposure trinity in oneness with the spirit of its exalted Spotmatic forefather. True photographic peace and fulfillment can result only from this acceptance of Asahian absolution. Automation is the broad road to perdition, paved with Program modes promising perfect exposures that only serve to effect sloth, not to mention the rest of the seven deadly sins ;-).

Don't get me wrong, this is not a "bash the K1000" rant. It could well be the best beginner SLR for...you. Or it may not. The camera has not lost a whit's worth of its capability over the years (9 times out of 10, the higher shutter speeds have gone out of calibration and require adjustment for proper exposures, although you can get away with the resulting overexposure with print film most of the time :-)), but there are plenty of mechanical (or, perish the thought, electronic) SLRs of higher quality and capability that can be had for the same or far less coinage, nowadays. 35 or 40 years ago, the cut-rate K definitely offered the best bang for your student buck for a camera of its type. But that is no longer the case. The mythos engulfing the K1000 has served to keep current prices for Excellent condition (80-89% of new) copies at about 80% of the price of the last new copies in 1996 of $285 USD at B&H Photo (inflation-corrected to 2022, as are all prices in this article). Contrast that with the current values of its better-equipped, physical near-twin, the KM, or the even higher-quality, but admittedly rarer, KX, and the value ratio is no longer in the K1000's favour. Both of those models can be had for less in equivalent condition if you must have a fully manual, mechanical Pentax SLR. A Spotmatic, Spotmatic II, Spotmatic F, or SP1000 is also worth careful consideration. If you would prefer a more petite mechanical Pentax also built to a higher quality standard, the MX can be had for about the same or just a touch more, but beware, it uses LEDs in the viewfinder that could well be your first step off of the photographic straight and narrow ;-).

Another reason to not blithely hand over your hard-earned cash for just any K1000 is that not all Special Ks are so special (even some of those with the Special Edition markings ;-)). To hold the selling price steady over a two-decade period, something had to give. As noted previously, the K1000 basically started out as a cut-rate Spotmatic, so there was already a mentality at Pentax to axe features and costs whenever necessary to maintain market position with this model. The next step in this process was to move assembly of the cameras to Hong Kong (cheaper labour) from Japan in the late-'70s. This had no effect on quality as all of the parts were still produced in Japan and Pentax' quality control standards for assembly remained exactly the same. Within a few years, Pentax moved the tooling to Hong Kong as well, again bringing K1000 production under one umbrella.

By the late-'80s, Pentax had tried several times to discontinue production of the evergreen K1000, as the rapidly-rising production cost for a mostly-metal ;-), fully mechanical SLR was eating into what little remained of its profitability. But market demand compelled them to continue, so they had to come up with another way to restore some margin. They did this in the time-honored traditions of modern manufacturing: use lower-cost materials where possible, simplify design, and find cheaper sources of labour. In the case of the K1000, Pentax first eliminated metal parts wherever possible including the top and bottom plates (not really as big of a deal as the "all-metal" gatekeepers would have you believe ;-)), and from almost all of the simplified film-advance assembly (much more important when it came to the overall reliability and durability of the camera). Weight of the camera was thus reduced 15% from 620 grams (21.9 oz) to 525 grams (18.5 oz). You can literally "feel" the difference in film winding from a Spotmatic...to a pre-1990 K1000...to a 1990-97 copy. Second, the de-contenting of the K1000 also coincided with movement of production to mainland China in 1990 to again cut labour costs. The reduction in quality of the 1990-97 bodies had everything to do with design choices by Pentax and not with the supposed "inferiority" of Chinese assembly. Pentax was not alone in offshoring at that time: Minolta moved X-370 production from Japan to Malaysia in the late '80s and later, China in the '90s in step with Pentax, with the other Japanese SLR makers also following suit with their entry-to-mid level SLRs throughout the remainder of the film era.

The reason for going in to the production-era-and-location weeds for the K1000? Most used equipment retailers will sell you the drastically-cheapened 1990-97 version for exactly the same price as the 1976-90 version. So, if you have your heart set on a K1000, please at least buy a better-quality pre-1990 copy :-). How do you tell the difference? Here are some simple visual cues:

Just plain "PENTAX" on the 1990-97 pentaprism housing. 1976-90 bodies have a smaller "ASAHI" over "PENTAX" with black trim underneath and the stylized "AOCo" symbol for Ashai Optical Company stamped above them.
Plastic shutter speed dial versus metal.
"Assembled in China" sticker inset on the plastic bottom plate with a black serial number pad below it versus the serial number stamped into the metal bottom plate on pre-'90 copies. Sometimes there will be an "Assembled in Hong Kong" or just "Hong Kong" sticker still on the late-'70s-'90 bodies' bottom plate as well. ***NOTE*** Japanese- produced, first-run K1000s have their serial number in the same top-plate location as the KX and KM bodies, with second-run bodies sporting a JAPAN sticker on the bottom plate along with the stamped serial number.
Plastic bayonet battery cap with a Pacman opening symbol beside it on the 1990-97 version versus a metal threaded cap on the pre-'90 models.

Second-run K1000 produced and assembled in Japan.

Alternatives to the Mighty K

Now we ascend to the heights of Mt. Heresy and with Pentax' archenemy in the 1970s: Nikon. We begin with the contemporary FM (1977-82; again, we are sticking with all-manual, mechanical-shuttered models for the moment) currently coming in at at roughly 1/3 less than a K1000 in equivalent condition for a camera that was built to a higher standard of quality than any K1000 ever was (and waaayyy higher than the post-1990 versions). For some perspective, in 1977, the K1000 with its excellent 55/2 kit lens sold for $580 USD, whereas the FM with its equivalent 50/2 kit lens was $1,320 USD.

Or consider a model far removed from the K1000 as far as cachet is concerned: the Nikon F Photomic FTN. Prices are now identical from reputable dealers. The granddaddy (some would say gaaaggg...GOAT ;-)) of professional mechanical 35mm SLRs now costs the same as the GOAT of beginner SLRs?? Something doesn't add up here. ***NOTE*** Despite being a professional model, the likelihood of a 50+ year-old Nikon F (or almost any other mechanical SLR) requiring a CLA to calibrate its shutter speeds and ensure proper metering operation will be just as high as for the lowly K1K :-).

Moving on to other mechanical competitors: we have Canon FTb(N)s, Minolta SRTs, Nikkormat FT(n, -2, -3)s, Olympus OM-1(n)s, the aforementioned Spotmatics, and a raft of badge-engineered Cosinas and Mamiyas, bearing Sears or other department-store brand names, not to mention the Yashica FX-3/-7 models. To be sure, many of these models use now-obsolete battery types to power their internal meters, and that is one often-overlooked advantage that accrues to the K1000 with its still-ubiquitous, single 357/SR44 cell.

That doesn't even scratch the surface of less-costly but just-as-capable electronically-controlled SLRs available to the beginner today. If you can lower yourself to considering such "pseudo"-SLRs ;-), the possibilities are enormous: Canon AL-1, AT-1 & AV-1, Minolta XG-M, X-500/-570 & X-300/-370, Nikon FG-20 & N2000/F-301, Pentax ME, ME super, ME F, Super A/Program & Program A/Plus, Yashica FR-Series, FX-D, FX-70 & FX-103, to name a handful (just give me a minute to catch my breath ;-)). Any of these are, at least, half the cost of a K1000, with many coming in at one-third to one-quarter of the price. Closer in price, and having better quality or capability are the Canon EF, CONTAX 139, Minolta XE-series, XD-5, Nikon FE, Olympus OM-2, and the Pentax ES II, a by-no-means exhaustive list.

Overrated or Overpriced?

The K1000 is far from alone when it comes to ostensibly being overrated or at least overpriced for what it is today. The same situation applies for the other common nominees for "best beginner SLR", the Canon AE-1 & AE-1 Program and the Minolta X-700. The AE-1 and X-700 currently sell for $175 USD and the AE-1 Program for north of $200 USD in Excellent condition from reputable dealers. Is this the end of the world? Not really. I paid $300 CAD 25 years ago for an Excellent-condition used X-700 from my local dealer in the pre-DSLR era. Corrected for inflation that comes out to $420 USD in today's smaller dollars.

So in reality, none of these cameras are overpriced in absolute terms. It just feels that way to those diehard enthusiasts (often offering up longwinded blog posts or Youtube rants ;-)) who lived through the firesales for manual focus SLRs that occurred during the first ten years of the DSLR era before values began recovering slowly over the last decade-and-a-half. Comparatively, however, there is an argument to be made that these four models definitely offer less bang for your current buck than many of the alternatives mentioned above.

Wrap-Up

Nostalgia can be a powerful thing. Just check out the current prices of restored Volkswagen Beetles :-). So, is the K1000 overrated or overpriced today? In concrete terms, not really. It is just as good as it ever was: a simple, straightforward tool for learning and enjoying film photography. We can thank the Internet and the whole GOAT-obsession of modern pop-culture for supplying the echo-chamber that has facilitated the hagiography of the K1000, and the Canon AE-1, two of the most successful beginner-targeted SLRs ever produced. What is often lost or ignored is context. Forty years ago, the K1000 had no peer at its price point. Nowadays, there are literally dozens of alternatives, often featuring better quality and/or capability for considerably less cost. The value proposition has reversed. Want to buy a K1000 to begin your film journey? Go right ahead. It is a great way to go. But why not explore the alternatives first instead of just buying into the hype? The time you invest in researching and checking out a variety of SLRs will not be wasted. And it might just let you grab a few more rolls of film or another lens to play with, too :-).

References:

Pentax Manual Focus Film SLR Reviews @ www.pentaxforums.com
Reference Library @ https://www.pacificrimcamera.com/rl/rlrindex.htm
Camera Manual Library @ https://www.butkus.org/chinon/index.html
Popular Photography Magazine @ https://books.google.ca/books
http://camera-wiki.org/
1977-78 Competitive Camera Photographic Catalogue

Ten Very Influential Japanese 35mm SLRs

Thu, 23 Jun 2022 19:00:00 GMT

Updated Mar. 8, 2024

So where does our fixation with Top Ten Lists come from, anyways? Letterman? The Ten Commandments? Well, if you can't beat 'em.....Here, for your casual perusal, is a chronological consideration of ten important Japanese SLRs that pushed the development of such cameras forward for over 30 years. This is not to say that these are the 10 "top" or "best" SLRs of all time (far be it for me to be the arbiter of such things ;-)), and some may be less familiar than others, but all of them had an undeniable effect on the industry or market as a whole. Let's dive in :-).

Asahi Pentax - 1957

It is hard to overstate the impact of the decision that Asahi Optical Co. made in 1950 to adopt the SLR as its gateway into interchangeable-lens 35mm camera production. Although SLRs had been around for nearly a decade-and-a-half by that time, they were far from mainstream as rangefinders continued to dominate the enthusiast 35mm market post-WWII. The early Asahiflexes were very similar in specification to the Praktiflex of 1938. But they matured quickly...introducing the first instant-return mirror in 1954, then marrying that to a pentaprism finder for an unreversed, upright image in the viewfinder with the Pentax model of 1957, together with rapid-wind film advance and rewind mechanisms. Before the decade was out, Canon, Chiyoda Kogaku (Minolta), and Nippon Kogaku (Nikon), among others, would all make the jump to SLRs as their primary 35mm systems. Were there other Japanese SLRs springing up during the mid-'50s? Absolutely. But the basic shape, feel, and control layout of the Pentax would be the most pervasive of any of those early models. Every competitor followed in its footsteps in one way or more. The SLR would be the Japanese vehicle to topple the German camera manufacturers from their hitherto preeminent position in 35mm and the Pentax set the course.

Nikon F - 1959

While the Pentax kickstarted the Japanese SLR movement, the Nikon F made it viable among professional photojournalists, the most influential group of 35mm photographers in the latter half of the 20th century. Nikon (and Canon to a lesser extent) first came to the attention of Western PJs in the early-'50s during the Korean War with their superior lenses for the then-dominant Leica and Contax rangefinders. Both companies were also pushing hard during that time to catch Leitz and Zeiss with their own rangefinder designs. By February 1957, Nikon faced a quandary: continue with their very competitive S-Series of rangefinders that had made serious inroads with PJs versus the German competition, or jump on the SLR bandwagon? There was strong debate amongst the Nikon brass about which way to go. Needless to say, the SLR won out, with rangefinder production winding down over the next five years and concluding with two very small final production runs in 1964 to satisfy those hardcore rangefinder PJs that weren't quite ready to move on. Ironically, the F shared a great deal with the final S-Series rangefinders. It could basically be termed as an SP or S3 sans rangefinder and with a pentaprism & mirror box grafted in (just slightly oversimplifying here, but you get the idea ;-)). In fact, the F shared just under 53% of its parts with the SP, making it 47% original :-).

The F quickly gained traction with pros in the early 1960's. You soon saw them slung over shoulders and around necks in Vietnam and other global hot spots astride Leica M3s and the like. By the latter part of the decade, the F was the 35mm of choice amongst pros, and one even wheedled its way onboard the late Apollo missions in the early-'70s. The popularity of the F had reached such a pitch by that point that Nikon had to keep it in production for the better part of two years after its successor, the F2, had been released in 1971. Fs have been compared to hammers, anvils, and hockey pucks among other things to describe their rugged resilience in all manner of conditions. And that was (and remains :-)) the number one way into a PJs heart...just get the shot...every time. The F not only elevated Nikon to a 30+ year run as the premier purveyor of professional SLRs, it also made the SLR their default choice of camera system well into the 21st century. Every other major Japanese SLR maker took aim at the F-Series at some point during that period in their efforts to grab some of that notoriety and cachet. During the manual focus era, it would all be for naught. The head start that Nikon got with the F made sure of that.

Topcon RE Super - 1962-3

Speaking of taking aim at the Nikon F, we come to another seminal SLR, one that just happened to also be aimed at professionals but introduced a couple of significant features that would eventually be found on even the cheapest consumer-targeted models: the Topcon RE Super. Boasting even finer build quality and equal ruggedness to the Nikon F (and priced accordingly :-)), the RE Super (aka Beseler Topcon Super D in the USA) simultaneously pushed the technological boundaries for SLRs with three features: 1) the first internal through-the-lens (TTL) meter in any production SLR, 2) the ability to do so at full-aperture (meaning that the photographer could focus and meter with a bright viewfinder rather than having to "stop down" the aperture to take the meter reading and then re-open it to focus), and 3) having the aperture mechanisms in the camera and lens automatically "index" or match up with each other. So what was the big deal? These features not only made the RE Super the most advanced, but also the easiest SLR to use when it debuted. Let's take a look at how long it took for the rest of the industry to catch up:

Canon - Wouldn't have an equivalent system until 1970, when they introduced the FD mount.
Minolta - Would be the only major manufacturer to equal the Topcon technologically within the decade (1966 with the SRT 101), but not quite at the same level of build quality. In 1962, Minolta had also placed an internal meter in their SR-7, but it wasn't TTL. It took them over three years to catch the RE Super, and not without a bit of borrowing along the way ;-).
Nikon - Would have TTL and full-aperture metering by 1965, but no automatic aperture indexing until 1977.
Pentax - Would be the next manufacturer to produce a TTL SLR (they had prototypes as far back as 1960) in 1964, but it would require stop-down readings. They would not have full-aperture metering until 1972.

After the RE Super hit the market, there was no going back. You had to at least have TTL in the works if you planned to stick around any longer as a player in SLRland. Admittedly, due to its high level of construction, advanced technology and consequential eye-watering cost, the RE Super was never a best-seller. But when it came to influence, it kept Nikon on their toes, with both the F3 (1980) and F4 (1988) adopting features from a camera at least two generations older. Pretty impressive. And for the millions of other enthusiast and consumer TTL SLRs and DSLRs that followed, the RE Super paved the way. Not too shabby for a camera introduced five years before seat belts became mandatory equipment in motor vehicles in the USA ;-).

Pentax Spotmatic - 1964

If the RE Super was first in the race for TTL metering in SLRs, the runner-up Pentax Spotmatic proved to be far more impactful on the market, becoming the first million-selling SLR, ever. Just how much of an impression did the Spottie make? Ok, so Asahi Optical Co., as we saw earlier, was the first-mover in SLRs amongst Japanese manufacturers back in the early-'50s, introducing the Asahiflex in 1952 and really taking a step forward in 1957 with the Pentax. A constant program of incremental improvements netted a total of 15 models prior to the Spotmatic's debut. It took fifteen years for Pentax to reach 1 million total SLRs produced, and that was with the help of Spotmatic sales for two years. With the Spottie just hitting its stride in 1966, it took only three more years for Pentax to sell another million SLRs. So, while the Spotmatic was admittedly not as advanced as the RE Super, it absolutely killed it in sales because it was was less than half the cost while still offering excellent build quality, handling, and capability. The Spottie thus reached a far larger demographic, which was duly reflected in sales and popularity. By the end of SP1000 production in 1977, Pentax had pumped out 5.5 million screwmount SLRs, with various Spotmatic models accounting for the vast majority. The RE Super may have gotten there first and was technologically more advanced, but the Spotmatic took TTL metering mainstream and vaulted the 35mm SLR to the top of the class for serious photo enthusiasts.

Yashica TL Electro X - 1968

Three years after Dylan went electric, so did SLRs. While all of our preceding models had their unique attributes and accomplishments, they all had one thing in common: they relied upon the same basic mechanical technology to actuate their shutters that had appeared in its earliest commercial form back in the 1920s. With the Japanese manufacturers rapidly maturing as the leading SLR builders, the push for further automation of the various operations required for exposure of the film went into high gear. The first efforts in this area were in trying to reduce the amount of manual settings requiring input from the photographer. Your three basic settings for exposure revolved around film sensitivity (aka speed), the size of the opening in the lens to allow light through (aperture), and the duration of time that the film would be exposed to light (shutter speed). Until the later-1960's, those three settings were always directly set by the user. Setting the film speed (ASA/ISO) was generally a one-shot deal: you would set it when loading the film and then forget it, whereas aperture and shutter speed would each require setting (or at least checking) for each individual exposure made. But what if you only had to set one of those parameters while the camera automatically set the other one? Wouldn't that be a great time-saver?? And so begat the first Shutter-priority (the user sets the shutter speed and the camera then automatically selects the aperture according to the meter reading) SLRs. Now, Shutter-priority could actually be achieved without electronic assistance or even TTL metering as Konica proved with the aptly-named Auto-Reflex of 1965. But further automation, such as Aperture-priority (user sets the aperture and the camera sets the shutter speed to match the meter reading), or Program (the camera sets both aperture and shutter speed) was going to require electronic intervention.

Yashica led the way in the electronification of 35mm cameras during the last half of the 1960s (fittingly, their logo back then consisted of four electrons orbiting a nucleus :-)). The TL Electro X was introduced in late-'68, within months of two German SLRs that were also equipped with electronically-controlled shutters, the Praktica PL electronic and the Contarex SE. While the Germans beat the Yashica to market, neither of them were mature designs and it showed in production and sales: around 6,500 combined for the two electronic Teutonics compared to approximately 300,000 for the TL Electro X over the next six years. While the TL Electro X did not provide any form of auto exposure (it was fully manual exposure all the way) the potentiometer directly linked to the shutter speed dial allowed for intermediate shutter speeds to be set in between the click-stopped standard speeds from 1/30 to 1/1000 of a second. Between 2 sec. and 1/30 sec. there were no click stops and the speed was infinitely variable. This provided more precise control over shutter speeds than any other SLR then available, even the far-pricier Leicaflex SL (which provided intermediate speeds via a mechanical cam system, rather than a potentiometer), and presaged the even finer millisecond-increment control over shutter speeds that the first aperture-priority models would exhibit just three years later.

The Yashica also introduced the first electronically-lit viewfinder metering display in an SLR (with miniature red incandescent bulbs). Again, there would be no going back for the industry. Electronic systems would methodically replace mechanical ones in SLRs over the next decade as they offered improved precision, better retained accuracy, and all for less cost as the internal competition amongst the Japanese manufacturers heated up. Ironically, the success of the TL Electro X and its imitators would also serve as the final nails in the coffin of German SLR production, with Zeiss (the makers of the Contarex SE) initiating a 30+ year partnership with Yashica in 1973 to build electronic SLRs for them. Leitz partnered with Minolta in 1972 for the same reasons. While Yashica never was among the top 5 Japanese SLR producers in terms of sales volume, the TL Electro X put them in a position of influence within the industry that they retained well into the 1990s.

Fujica ST-701/ST-801 - 1970/1972

Fuji was a late entrant into the SLR business and was never a major player when it came to sales volume. But it would be a mistake to conclude that they had little effect on their competitors. Case in point was their first SLR, the Fujica ST-701, an M42 screwmount body that introduced silicon to SLRs, specifically in the form of the silicon photo diode (SPD) metering cell, which would eventually evolve into the multi-segmented metering systems and even the digital sensors we have today. From the Minolta SR-7 (1962) onward, cadmium sulfide (CdS) metering cells had become industry-standard. The photographic advantages of SPD over CdS was in its greater light sensitivity and responsiveness to changes in light levels. Just two years later, Fuji upgraded the ST-701 with the first light-emitting-diode (LED) viewfinder display in any SLR (along with full-aperture metering) and called it the ST-801. LEDs were not only more rugged and longer-lasting than incandescent bulbs or galvanometers (swinging needles), they also consumed less power for a win-win-win situation. And these LEDs were still nowhere near what we now have as far as efficiency and brightness are concerned. SPDs became the de facto standard metering cells in all but the lowest-grade SLRs within five years and even the cheapest consumer SLRs from the mid-'80s onward all had them. Both SPDs and LEDs were small components, but they had an outsized impact on SLR development, befitting their parentage :-).

The ST-701 also was one of the first SLRs to buck the trend of bloat that inevitably had accompanied the evolution of the type as more features were added. For example, the Asahi Pentax had targeted the Leica M3 dimensions and weight as far as the SLR form factor would allow (the Pentax was 7mm wider, 15mm taller, and 16.5mm thicker as a result of having the pentaprism and mirror box assemblies that the rangefinder lacked). Impressively, even with those additions, Asahi managed to bring the Pentax in at 570 grams versus the 580 of the M3. But as time went on, SLRs began to bulk up. The Spotmatic basically maintained the exterior dimensions of the original Pentax with less than a 10% weight gain, but the Nikon F and Topcon RE Super were another story: 860 grams for the Nikon Photomic FTn and 815 grams for the Topcon, making them nearly half again as heavy as the primeval Pentax. Most other SLRs of the 1960s fell in between the Spotmatic and the two professional behemoths, averaging 700-750 grams. The ST-701 was the first sub-600 gram SLR (575 to be precise) since the Pentax S2 of 1962. But the ST-801 would not be able to hold the line, bumping back up to 635 grams. Which meant that there was still room for someone to shake things up further ;-).

Olympus OM-1 - 1972

As noted in the previous section, the general trend as far the physical size and weight of SLRs had been going in the wrong direction since the introduction of the Pentax, fifteen years earlier. While the ST-701 had been a considerable step to redress that, it would take an Olympian effort to to push the industry as a whole on an SLR diet. But designer Yoshihisa Maitani would prove equal to the task. Cue the Olympus OM-1.

Whereas the Fujica ST-701 tidily beat the original Pentax in width (12mm worth) and virtually equalled it in weight, the OM-1 blasted through the 500-gram barrier (490 to be exact), knocked 9mm off of the width, and 11mm from the height of the original Pentax. That Olympus was able to do this while maintaining full-size controls and a larger, brighter viewfinder was even more impressive. But it was the reaction of the rest of the manufacturers that proved the point: by 1977, the full-size SLR was on life-support, with every SLR builder having introduced compact models to compete with Olympus. But it wasn't just the OM-1 itself; Olympus also trimmed 30-40% from the size and weight of average SLR lenses with their OM Zuikos, setting off another massive round of dieting by their competitors. Prior to the appearance of the OM system, Pentax had prided itself on having the slimmest and trimmest SLRs and lenses. After introducing three new standard-sized K-bodies and 28 accompanying lenses in 1975...only one year later, they brought out two compact M-bodies and their accompanying SMC-M lenses that were clearly targeted to beat, or at least match, Olympus in every dimensional and weight specification. That was unheard of in an industry where normal development cycles were in five and ten year increments. Such was was the game-breaking effect of the Olympus OM-1 :-).

Canon AE-1 - 1976

Speaking of 1976 :-), we come to the debut of the AE-1 (Auto Exposure-1) from Canon. Hitherto, auto exposure SLRs were positioned at the top of the SLR makers' lineups (apart, obviously, from professional models ;-)) and priced accordingly. For instance, Canon's EF (1973) commanded a 40% premium over their top enthusiast mechanical SLR, the FTb-N (also 1973) with other manufacturers showing an even greater disparity:

Minolta XE/XE-1/XE-7 (1974) vs. SRT-202 (1975) +55%
Nikkormat/Nikomat EL (1972) vs. FTn/FT-2 (1965/1975) +75%
Pentax K2 (1975) vs. KX (1975) +105%
Olympus OM-2 (1975) vs. OM-1 (1972) +70%

The AE-1 did for Auto Exposure SLRs what the Pentax Spotmatic had done for TTL metering: it broadened access to such cameras to a new type of user. In this case, it was the first-time SLR buyer, who previously was restricted by price point to a bare-bones, de-contented, fully-mechanical, manual exposure model. By substituting electronic systems for mechanical ones as far as then-current technology permitted, and making the greatest use of engineering plastics to date, Canon managed to reduce overall part count by 300 (about 25%). They also were able to automate more of the assembly process. All of this enabled the AE-1 to come in at only a 15% premium over the FTb-N, while offering a marked difference in convenience of use to tyros. Not so coincidentally, the FTb-N was soon discontinued upon the AE-1's introduction and replaced with an AE-1-derived manual exposure model, the AT-1, which allowed Canon again to set a lower price point for such SLRs due to the economies of production and scale that A-body construction allowed.

The AE-1 also ushered in the first TV advertisements for SLRs, and Canon masterfully used popular athletes to pitch their latest product. They sold bucketloads of AE-1s as a result. The AE-1 launched the greatest SLR sales boom...ever. Every other player in the SLR game was forced to adopt Canon's approach to the consumer market (even enthusiast/professional stalwart Nikon caved in by 1979 ;-)) and Canon began a run of dominance in interchangeable lens camera sales that has yet to abate, over 45 years after the fact. SLR purists may bemoan the crass commercialism that the AE-1 ignited, but its historical significance is beyond debate. Love it or hate it, the AE-1 did more to make SLRs mainstream than any other model before or since.

Minolta 7000 - 1985

So far, we have witnessed a steady progression in the automation of the SLR:

1950s - mirror and aperture actuation
1960s - internal metering and early electronification
1970s - miniaturization and exposure automation

1979-84 saw the first internal-motor film winding and automatic ISO-setting SLRs. That left one major component of SLR operation to be automated: focus. R&D into autofocus (AF) had begun in the mid-1960s, but progress was slow and not of high priority as there was plenty of low(er)-hanging fruit as far as advancements in SLR technology were concerned. Prototypes for AF lenses or cameras would appear at tradeshows occasionally, but they were ponderous beasts that had little appeal due to their bulky motors and other outsized components.

By the early 1980s, the continued progress in digital components spurred more development, with Pentax (ME F), Olympus (OM F/OM-30), and Nikon (F3AF) all introducing AF-capable SLRs (provided that they were equipped with a corresponding lens with an AF motor included). While a marked improvement over previous efforts, these systems were still too rudimentary and expensive for widespread market appeal. Coinciding with this was a market bust that started in 1981 as the AE-1-sparked boom finally collapsed. Thus, a meeting of the senior minds of Minolta on June 1, 1981 would prove to be pivotal. At that meeting they were presented by engineers with a prototype the size of a suitcase and were told that it could be made to fit inside a standard-sized SLR body with the latest advancements in microchip technology.

Minolta had just released the manual focus X-700 to go up against Canon's revamped AE-1 Program and sales were brisk, but Hideo Tashima (son of the founder of Minolta, Kazuo Tashima) realized that it was on the tail end of one era of technology and that to be competitive in the future, a major step needed to be taken and he pushed for going ahead with AF SLR development. This decision would prove to be the right one. Compact AF 35mm cameras were becoming the flavour du jour with consumers and rapidly eroding the market for consumer-level manual focus SLRs. There was a 24% drop in market share for SLRs as a whole from 1981 to 1984. The industry was desperate for a shot in the arm and, in February 1985, Minolta provided it.

The Minolta 7000 was the first practical, affordable AF SLR, and it came complete as a system with a dozen initially-available lenses (that grew to nearly 30 over the next three years) to choose from (the previously-mentioned AF models had no more than three, and usually only one AF-compatible lens, at best) and other common accessories from the get go. Crucially, these lenses were no larger, heavier, or more expensive than their MF counterparts, due to Minolta's decision to have the drive motor installed in the camera body rather than the lens, which ran counter to the prevailing philosophy of motor-in-lens held by virtually all of their competitors.

The result was comparable to a bomb blast for the rest of the industry:

Canon - Introduced their first AF SLR, the T80, in April 1985, two months after the Minolta 7000. The T80 was a lame duck, with Canon management having already decided a month earlier that they would completely scrap their current AF program and start over from square one with an all-new, all-electronic lensmount, as the 7000 completely outclassed the T80. Two years later, they would introduce EOS (maybe you've heard of it ;-)).
Nikon - Abandoned their development of the expensive F3AF system with the motor-in-lens format and adopted Minolta's motor-in-body concept right down to the drive interface in the lens mount and the electronic contacts to match. Debuted the N2020/F-501 AF in April 1986 (with seven AF lenses available by the end of the year). Discontinued a number of classic MF SLRs over the next four years as demand for such models rapidly declined.
Pentax - Dropped all further AF motor-in-lens development to adopt Minolta's screwdrive AF concept. Their first model thus-equipped, the SFX/SF1, was introduced over two years after the 7000, in 1987.
Olympus - Hastily restarted their AF program after having left the OM F (also with motor-in-lens AF) to wither on the vine a couple of years prior. They likewise adopted the screwdrive AF system, but to far lesser effect as the resulting OM-77 and OM-88 cameras were abysmal failures and quickly discontinued. Olympus hastily abandoned AF altogether, soldiering on in the now-niche MF market with the OM system until the turn of the century. They would not attempt AF again until the digital era.
Yashica - Ironically, Yashica had been working on motor-in-body AF at least as long as, if not before, Minolta, as their prototype CONTAX 137 AF, shown privately to industry insiders at Photokina 1982, attested to. Due to their precarious financial position at that critical juncture (Kyocera would buy them out in 1983), Yashica's promising start was nipped in the bud, with Minolta thus freed to pursue MIB development uncontested. After the success of the 7000, Yashica restarted their AF program, but it was way too late to make up the three-year deficit in R&D time that had been gifted to Minolta. The Yashica AF models never made it past a second generation and petered out in the mid-1990s.

Without the Minolta 7000, the SLR sales slide would have resembled a cliff-drop in 1985 and '86. It single-handedly caused the entire industry to pivot, much as the Spotmatic and AE-1 had in the 1960s and '70s, respectively. In modern parlance, the Minolta 7000 was a game changer. AF would be the last major development in film SLRs prior to the digital era...or would it?

Canon T90 - 1986

Okay, so AF was the last major internal technological development in the evolution of the 35mm SLR. But there was one last pivotal advancement made only a year after the Minolta 7000 appeared that has survived to this day on the latest interchangeable lens cameras and that will likely only die with them: external controls. The Canon T90 took a control concept as old as 35mm still photography itself (Oscar Barnack's dial), married it to late-1970's push buttons (thank you Pentax ME super ;-)), and the elemental '80s LCD to complete the SLR development cycle. The resulting Button + Dial + LCD control interface completely took over by the mid-'90s. The T90 became as seminal to the next three decades of successive SLR control layouts as the original Pentax had been 30 years earlier. Ironically, the camera sold relatively poorly, because it lacked one critical feature for a new SLR in 1986...AF. But, only three years later, when the Canon EOS-1 debuted, the circle was completed; Canon married their Minolta 7000-motivated EOS project to the Luigi Colani-designed T90 and set the stage for their displacement of the Nikon F system as the choice of professionals during the 1990s.

Wrap-Up

So there you have it. Ten very influential SLRs. Some may have more name recognition or current cachet than others, but all of them pushed the evolution of the type and stirred their competitors to keep pressing to at least catch up to, if not surpass the others. Were they the only noteworthy ones? Of course not, there were many other contributions to the refinement of the SLR into the dominant enthusiast camera of the last half of the 20th century. But that will have to be a future consideration :-).

References:

  The Definitive Asahi Pentax Collector's Guide 1952-1977 by Gerjan van Oosten
Various Nikon F Brochures and Manuals @ www.pacificrimcamera.com
The Nikon Journal #26 - Dec. 31, 1989
"Debut of Nikon F" @ Nikon Camera Chronicle
Nikon - A Celebration (3rd Edition 2018) - Brian Long
  Various Topcon RE Super Brochures and Manuals @ www.pacificrimcamera.com
  Phot Argus Topcon Super D Test, Nov. 1969 @ Pacific Rim Camera
  Debut of Nikon F2 @ https://imaging.nikon.com/history/chronicle/history-f2
  Debut of Nikon F3 @ https://imaging.nikon.com/history/chronicle/history-f3
  Pentax: 1964 -1976: The Spotmatic @ http://www.pentax-slr.com/71760549
  Asahi Pentax Spotmatic - 1964 @ http://basepath.com/Photography/Spotmatic.php
Phot Argus Yashica TL Electro X Test, Mar. 1969 @ Pacific Rim Camera
Fujica ST-701/-801 Manuals and Brochures
  OM-1 @ https://www.olympus-global.com
  Special Lecture - the OM-1 - the XA Series @ https://www.olympus-global.com
  The Olympus M-1 Information Page @ http://olympus.dementix.org
  Olympus OM System - Concepts and Overview @ http://olympus.dementix.org
  Various Olympus Brochures @ www.pacificrimcamera.com
  Canon Camera Museum: History Hall 1976-86
  Canon Camera Museum: Camera Hall Film Cameras AE-1
My Bridge to America: Discovering the New World for Minolta - Sam Kusumoto
  Canon Camera Museum - Camera Hall: T90
  A Design Revolution The T90 SLR Camera

Pentax ME F - AF (Kind of) Comes to 35mm SLRs

Sat, 07 May 2022 23:00:00 GMT

1981 saw some major technological milestones: the first manned orbital mission of the Space Shuttle...the debut of IBM's Personal Computer (aka the PC)...the first flight of Boeing's second-gen wide-body, the 767...and the first Delorean DMC-12s began to roll off the line in Ireland. In step with such advancements, Pentax sought to push the technological boundaries of the 35mm SLR, much as they had a decade earlier with their Electro Spotmatic (ES) aperture priority autoexposure model. Only this time it was focus rather than exposure that they were seeking to automate. In late-'81, the ME F would become the first production 35mm auto focus (AF) SLR (with a caveat ;-)) to hit the scene.

Development of auto focus really started to take off during the 1960s, but progress was slow as technology simply was not yet sufficiently advanced to underpin it. Even through the 1970s, when the first prototype AF lenses began to appear at tradeshows, that is just what they remained...prototypes. But with the constant miniaturization of transistors, microprocessors, and photosensitive cells, the stage was being set for a major push during the 1980s. Pentax would prove to be the first to get a production-quality SLR and AF lens to market, but it would come at the cost of being right at the beginning of the development curve and thus a sizeable opening was left for others to improve upon the technology. This is the story of the ME F.

ME F - A Superfly ME super?

The origins of the ME F go back to 1976 and the introduction of the ME by Pentax. The ME was their first compact autoexposure SLR and was the smallest such SLR on the market at the time. The ME was a fairly basic camera: aperture priority-only exposure, 1/1000 sec. top shutter speed, no DOF (depth of field) preview or MLU (mirror lock-up), and no aperture value displayed in the viewfinder. That might seem to make it less desirable, but Pentax was targeting the Canon AE-1 and that's what it took to hit the right balance of features for the price point. They did throw in the best viewfinder in the class (92% coverage at 0.97x with a 50mm lens), and the camera was very responsive with its gallium photodiode (GPD) metering. And all of this in an ultracompact 460 gram (16.1 oz) package :-).

Come 1980, the ME was upgraded to "super" specification:

A new shutter (Seiko MFC-E2) with 1/2000 sec. top speed
A full Manual exposure mode with shutter speed shifting in full steps via push buttons
3-color LED information readout in the viewfinder
Automatic meter shutoff after 20-35 sec. with a half-press on the shutter button required to reactivate the meter
A red LED in the viewfinder to indicate when exposure compensation was engaged or electronic flash was ready to fire
A negligible reduction in viewfinder magnification to 0.95x with a -1.0 diopter eyepiece versus the -0.5 diopter of the original ME
Weight dropped to 445 grams (15.7 oz)

The ME super would be the starting point for the ME F with the only visible changes being a new set of switches beside the rewind knob/exposure comp. dial and a lensmount with electronic contacts (Called Kf by Pentax. Not to be confused with the later Ka and Kaf electronic mounts). The viewfinder magnification dropped to 0.87x, which would only be noticed if compared side-by-side with the super's. This also had the effect of improving eye relief, which made the ME F a better option for eyeglass wearers. Inside the camera, Pentax added what they termed an EFC (Electronic Focus Control) module. It was based on the concept of using differences in contrast (which came to be known as "contrast-detect AF") to calculate proper focus. This was basically an automation of the manual focus technique of viewing the image on a ground glass focusing screen and manipulating focus back and forth until the sharpest image (or highest contrast) was achieved. While capable of excellent accuracy, this system was slow as it moved the lens incrementally, and then stopped to compare the contrast between two arrays of photo detectors. When the readings from both arrays matched, focus was achieved. EFC would slightly overshoot focus in both directions to confirm maximum contrast. All of this moving...and checking...and moving...and checking...and moving...and checking had the understandable effect of SLOWWWWING down the focusing process and inducing what came to called "hunting" as the EFC would keep moving focus back and forth in its efforts to find maximum contrast. The lower the contrast of the subject, the harder the EFC had to work and it would eventually just keep hunting back and forth, being unable to determine proper focus.

Pentax was fully aware of these limitations and explicitly stated in the manual: "IMPORTANT: When contrast and lighting are insufficient for focusing, the motor will turn back and forth slowly. If this occurs, stop focusing immediately to avoid wasting batteries." And here we begin to detect a whiff of the ME F's downfall. But before we get into that, it is important to note that when used with an ordinary MF lens, the ME F operated exactly as the ME super did (there was still the standard split-image rangefinder/microprism collar focusing aid on a matte screen, with the added option of using EFC to confirm focus (it could also be switched completely off to prevent heavier battery usage if so desired). Pentax managed to shoehorn all of this into the ME chassis with only a 4.5mm (3/16") bump in height and 0.5mm (1/64") more in width. Weight increased less than 10% to 480 grams (16.9 oz). Pretty impressive!

The added switchgear on the left shoulder of the camera is dedicated to the EFC. There is a siding switch with settings of 2.8, 3.5, and OFF. Select 2.8 for use with lenses with maximum apertures of f/1.2 - 2.8. Select 3.5 for lenses with maximum apertures from f/3.5 - 5.6. OFF should be obvious ;-). What happens if the setting happens to be wrong for the lens that is mounted? The EFC will still function, but focus accuracy will be impaired somewhat. This will be less noticeable with wide angles and more noticeable with telephotos. Pentax' choice of green and orange to delineate the 2.8 and 3.5 settings was a bit unfortunate for those that are colorblind, but otherwise worked alright. There is also a second switch below the max. aperture selection slider; this switch activates or deactivates (thankfully ;-)) an audible focus confirmation beeper. And that is as far as the operational differences between the F and the super go.

F for Flop?

For all of Pentax' groundbreaking efforts with the ME F, it was pretty much a failure, saleswise. Production reached over 90,000 units, which doesn't sound terrible on its own, but here is a little context: over the same period, the ME super sold roughly 20 units for every ME F sold. Why? For two basic reasons: 1) The AF of the ME F frankly, sucked. Although theoretically rated as effective down to EV 4, in reality, right in the Instruction Manual, Pentax stated that EFC would struggle with light levels below EV 5.5 (dim indoor lighting, outdoors at dawn/dusk, or in heavy shade or overcast). That, along with the hunting, consigned the ME F's AF to static scenes in good light (and you still better not be in a hurry ;-)). 2) To recoup their development costs, Pentax priced the camera and AF lens at $1,295 USD (all prices inflation-adjusted to 2022) in August 1982. Compare that to an ME super with the 50/1.4 prime at $622 USD and it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out what's going to happen. Those two factors consigned the ME F to a short lifespan (production ended in late-1982 or early-'83) with all USA stock being bought up by Ritz Camera in the fall of 1983 and blown out over the holiday season for $628 USD with the AF lens and $452 USD with the SMC-A 50/1.7 standard MF lens (that was $50 less than an ME super with the same lens :-0).

Top view of the ME F with the AF Zoom 35-70/2.8 and optical diagram included

A large part of the problem was the single AF Zoom 35-70/2.8 lens, which made up over half the cost of the kit when introduced. At 640 grams (22.6 oz) with its 4 AAA batteries and ponderous lower protuberance, it did not handle or balance particularly well with the petite body. The ME II winder improved handling with the AF lens measurably, but that was yet another cost ($155 USD) and still more weight to add (another 440 grams/15.7 oz with batteries) to the package. Optically, the lens was excellent for the era, but the ergonomics and economics easily overcame that advantage. Along with that was the fact that there was never another AF lens option made available. The strength of SLRs is their versatility and ability to use a variety of lenses and other add-on accessories. That was negated in the case of the ME F (and to be fair, every AF SLR introduced before 1985).

The ME F Today

Befitting a model produced in 1/20th the quantity of the ME super, you certainly don't come across ME Fs every day. But that can work in your favor, especially when you find one with a standard 50mm lens. Similar to the situation in late-1983, the ME F can often be had for less than an ME super in comparable condition. Without the collectible AF lens to bump up the price, that makes it a great value for someone who wants a very usable SLR. Switch off the EFC, and it will function identically to the super. If you wear glasses, the longer eye relief of the F will be welcome. I find the EFC to be almost too sensitive in many situations when manual focusing. It takes a very light touch on the focusing ring to keep from overshooting the green hexagonal LED indicator in the viewfinder.

Something to carefully inspect when contemplating a potential ME F purchase is the state of the battery cover. It is a somewhat delicate plastic door with a separate push-button latching system that has often been abused by users who tried to get inside without realizing the need for the release button to be pressed in. Other than that, sturdiness and reliability is on par with the ME super. As on the ME super, the shutter button travel is quite long, which can be off-putting for some. Pentax also advised not to use LR44 alkaline batteries in the camera, only SR44s, as the higher power demands of EFC and the discharge curve of alkalines were not made for each other.

Wrap-Up

While the ME F didn't succeed commercially as Pentax hoped, it was an influential SLR. It started the production AF 35mm SLR train rolling and pushed the other Japanese manufacturers forward. Within a couple of years, both Olympus and Nikon had also introduced AF models (which also required dedicated AF lenses). It would be Minolta's 7000, introduced in February 1985, that would really put AF SLRs on the map to stay and Pentax would adopt Minolta's basic premise of having the lens focus driven by an in-body motor for their next generation of AF models beginning in 1987.

For commercial success, you need the right product...at the right time...at the right price. The ME F failed on those three counts. It was not mature enough as a design to seriously threaten concurrent MF SLRs in focus performance or ergonomics. It was simply too early in the development curve of AF technology and would quickly be surpassed by competitors. And it was just too expensive to reach the target audience that would appreciate its purported benefits. All that said, it still makes for a great MF camera to use today with a bit of historical cachet thrown in :-).

References:

Pentax ME F User Manual
Inside Autofocus: How the Magic Works, p.77-83 Popular Photography Feb. 1982
Pentax ME super User Manual
Pentax AF Zoom 35-70mm f/2.8 User Manual

Canon AL-1 QF - The End of an Empire

Fri, 18 Feb 2022 22:00:00 GMT

The AL-1 QF in 1982 - cutting edge consumer performance dressed up fit to kill with an FDn 50/1.4

Updated June 21, 2022

Canon's A-Series of 1976-85 was, unquestionably, the most commercially successful lineup in SLR history. In excess of 14 million bodies (divided among six models) were produced. The A-Series came...they saw...they conquered...and then they did what all empires eventually do...slid into oblivion. The AL-1 QF was the final desperate gasp for the chassis, as Canon sought to milk the last drop from its traditionally-styled SLRs, with the oh-so-'80s T-Series waiting in the wings. Along the way, it upheld the lofty A-Series' ideals of bargain-basement battery door latches, consumer-conscious construction, and Canon's time-honored tradition of over-promised performance resulting in mass consignments to drawers, closets, and attics ;-). What's that, your eyes are glazing over already?? Fear not, dear reader...you may well end up having a refreshing power nap before this is all over ;-).

AL-1 Things to Everyone?

The key to Canon's A-Series advertising was projecting the cameras as providing pro-level performance and results at consumer-friendly prices. And they were inarguably successful in that endeavor: the AE-1 and AE-1 Program were the two best-selling SLR models in history. But they still failed to address a major bugaboo for non-enthusiasts AKA consumers: Manual Focus. The obvious solution? Auto Focus. Canon's attempted solution with the AL-1? "Quick" Focus - an electronic aid for manual focusing utilizing the Honeywell Visitronic TCL module. Or about half-way to true AF ;-). Basically, Canon took the entry-level AV-1...stuck in the Honeywell module and slapped on an "Action Grip" (that conveniently provided space for the two AAA (LR03) cells required to supply sufficient amperage to the electron-thirsty focus module) and priced it just below the AE-1 Program. The AL-1 did the AV-1 one better by providing an additional Manual exposure mode with seven user-selectable shutter speeds from 1/1000 - 1/15 sec. to go along with the Aperture-priority + Bulb mode of its forebear, providing a bit more flexibility for those so-inclined. Styling and layout was a mix of AV-1 (exposure mode dial, battery check, and backlight compensation button) and AE-1 Program (prism housing, shutter release, film advance lever and rewind lever/ISO dial, and the black sash trim that typified higher-grade models of the era), with the AL-1 also bearing the proud distinction of being the last Canon to sport the sano '60's-era script on its prism housing.

Quirky Features?

At first glance, the most notable feature of the the AL-1 would likely be the hand grip, more prominent than on any other A-Series Canon. Sure, the A-1 and AE-1 Program both sported removable plastic Action Grips before the fixed, rubber-coated AL-1 version came along. But they were neither as ergonomic nor as grippy. For me, the AL-1 is the most comfortable A-model to hold and use, by far. But could you call that quirky? Not so much :-). Pop the lens off, however, and it's another story...

Like Canon lifted it straight from an Atari game (ET anyone? ;-)), the mirror of the AL-1 still looks pretty funky, even to jaded 21st-century eyes. With its crazy polygon-patterned grid, the mirror packs plenty of quirkiness into the otherwise staid A-platform. But this was definitely a matter more about function than form. The grid grew more concentrated towards the center to direct more light (45%) to a sub-mirror assembly behind the main mirror, which then directed it to three Charge-Coupled Device (CCD) focus sensors located in the bottom of the mirror box. The pattern grew coarser towards the periphery to channel the maximum amount of light to the viewfinder edges so as to maintain as much brightness as possible compared to standard mirrors of the time. Canon also gave the etched lines a thin translucent aluminum coating to prevent the grid pattern from appearing distractingly in the viewfinder (a problem with earlier etched mirrors, such as on the TOPCON RE Super when lenses were stopped down past f/8). Canon had plenty of experience with semi-transparent pellicle (or fixed) mirrors and their main drawbacks, at the time, of losing 1-2 stops of brightness in the viewfinder over standard reflex mirrors along with reductions in image quality towards the frame edges with wide angle lenses. The AL-1's mirror design was the best solution to mitigating those issues in 1982.

So how did Quick Focus pan out? On the whole...meh. It certainly didn't reverse the SLR slump that really started to bite in the same year of the AL-1's introduction. With production in the 450,000 range from 1982 to mid-'84 (about half that of the AV-1 base model, which was in the lineup for five years: 1979-84) the AL-1 wasn't a flop by any means, but it was no AE-1 Program (which sold over 4 million units in roughly the same time period). By January 1985, the last AL-1s were being blown out for nearly half of their original price ($235 USD; all prices inflation-adjusted to 2022 USD) as Canon sought to unload the last remnants of production.

Electronic rangefinders were really just a transitional phase on the way to full-on AF and the market reflected that, with the AL-1, Pentax ME F, and Olympus OM-F (OM-30) all failing to outsell the standard models they were based upon. There were also the very limited-production Yashica FX-A (1982) and Minolta X-600 (1983) both of which bore more than a passing resemblance in the grip, battery door, and mirror areas to the AL-1 when they fell into photo magazine editors' hands (neither was released for general retail). Being right at the start of the development curve for electronic focusing, all of these models had a common drawback of poorer performance in low light situations. While standard meter low-light performance had settled around Exposure Value 1 (equivalent to the amount of light needed for proper exposure at 1 sec. shutter speed @ f/1.4 @ ISO 100), the CCD sensors available in the early-'80s were effective only down to about EV 3.5 - 5, at best (incidentally, the AL-1 was the best of the bunch in that regard at EV 3.5). That meant they needed five to seven times more light than the meter to still function. Which is roughly the difference in the amount of light between a standard daylight scene with full sun and one under full overcast. In other words, more light is your friend with any of those cameras. And you needed a vertical line with decent contrast with the camera held in landscape format (or a horizontal line with the camera held vertically) for Quick Focus to function, which was no different from the manual split-image rangefinder used in most SLRs of the day. Nevertheless, blank walls or reflective surfaces presented obvious difficulties for QF. It must be noted that Canon's execution of the electronic focus confirmation display in the bottom of the viewfinder was excellent (two red LED arrows on either side of a green LED dot that show which way to turn the focus ring until the green dot alone is lit, which Minolta also gratuitously copied in the X-600 ;-)). If the electronic rangefinder cannot achieve focus, the user still has the matte screen to fall back on, so it's not like the AL-1 is useless in low light, but it will depend upon the user's eyesight how easy low-light focusing seems to be.

The AL-1 was firmly ensconced in the middle of the A-Series lineup in terms of features and pricing. Let's now take a closer look at how it compared to its two closest relatives.

Specifications

Viewfinder

Focusing Screen

Focus Aid(s)

Metering

ISO Range

Shutter

Exposure Modes

Exposure Correction

AE Lock

Self-Timer

DOF Preview

PC socket

Film Advance

Frame Counter

Battery Check

Battery Type

Dimensions (WxHxD)

Weight w/ battery (g/oz)

Cost Dec. 1982 @ Adorama

Cost Feb. 2022 @ KEH

AV-1

92% (V) x 93% (H) @ 0.87x

Fixed

Split-image RF; Microprism;
Matte Field

SPC @ EV 1 - 18

25 - 1600

1/1000 - 2 sec.

Aperture-priority only + Bulb

+1.5 EV Backlight button

None

Yes

None

None

30-degree standoff/120-degree stroke

Yes

Yes

544/PX28L

139 x 85 x 47.5

512 g/18.1 oz

$220 USD

$65 USD in EX. condition

AL-1 QF

92% x 93% @ 0.87x

Fixed

Electronic Rangefinder; Matte Field

SPC @ EV 1 - 18

25 - 1600

1/1000 - 2 sec.

Aperture-priority; Manual (1/1000 - 1/15 sec. + Bulb)

+1.5 EV Backlight button

None

Yes

None

None

30-degree standoff/120-degree stroke

Yes

Yes

2 - AAA (LR03)

142 x 86.5 x 47.6

513g/18.1 oz

$465 USD

$13 in AS-IS condition*

AE-1 Program

94% x 94% @ 0.83X

Interchangeable

Split-image RF; Microprism; Matte Field

SPC @ EV 1 - 18

12 - 3200

1/1000 - 2 sec.

Program; Shutter-priority; Manual + Bulb

None

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

30-degree standoff/120-degree stroke

Yes

Yes

544/PX28L

141 x 88 x 47.5

565g/19.9 oz

$465 USD

$295 USD in EX condition

* Rated AS-IS due to broken battery door. See below for further explanation :-)

Using the AL-1 Today

As noted earlier, I personally find the AL-1 to be the most ergonomic of the A-Series (followed in descending order by the: AV-1 & AE-1 Program, with a big drop-off to the AT-1 & AE-1, and finally the A-1). YMMV :-). The hand grip and light weight (505 grams/17.8 oz with two Energizer Ultimate Lithium AAAs loaded) are substantial advantages for me. The lithium AAAs also improve battery life from 30 rolls of 36 exposures with standard alkalines up to 150 at room temperature, with no leakage issues and even better cold-weather performance. Speaking of batteries, that leads us to the biggest downside of the AL-1: the flimsiest battery door latch of any A-Series SLR. Now that's saying something ;-). I have personally held one...that's right...ONE...AL-1 with a fully functional battery door...EVER. And it was mint and had clearly seen virtually no use. The battery door latch simply is not sturdy enough to handle the spring pressure of the two AAA batteries for any extended period of time (thus the AS-IS rating and pricing at KEH above). Stinkin' bean-countin' Canon does it again! Build a simple, functional camera and then pinch those pennies on the battery door latch (Nikonistas are just loving this ;-)). Fortunately, the solution is simple, if less than elegant: fold a piece of thin cardboard (or thick paper) just undersized to the battery door and then gaffer-tape it shut (with batteries properly inserted, of course ;-)). BOOM...9 times out of 10, you will have a functional AL-1 and for literally a fraction of the cost of an AE-1. I do strongly encourage using lithium AAAs rather than alkalines, as alkalines forgotten in the camera will leak and commit unspeakable atrocities to the innards of the battery compartment and any other circuitry within reach (which not a few AL-1s have already experienced ;-)).

Like most A-Series (save for the top-of-the-line A-1), the AL-1 does not display the set shutter speed or aperture values in the viewfinder; only the camera-chosen or meter-recommended shutter speed depending on whether the camera is in "A" mode or Manual. If you want a more comprehensive viewfinder experience in an FD-mount Canon, you will have to look back to the full-size EF, FTb-N, the various F-1s, the A-1, or ahead to the T90. As a consumer-targeted model, the AL-1 also lacks DOF preview (no different than a Pentax K1000, or Minolta X-370) and a PC socket for off-camera flash (very rarely used on 35mm SLRs that do have one ;-)), if those are must-have features for you. As far as outright photographic capability goes, however, the AL-1 gives up virtually nothing to its more-celebrated siblings: the same shutter, same meter, same film transport system, and the same mirror box & chassis. And you can find one in either chrome or black finish to match your preference.

Wrap-Up

If you are in the market for an A-Series Canon, its hard to argue with the value proposition offered by the AL-1, especially with the current (shall we say...strong?...cough, cough) prices for AE-1s and AE-1 Programs, nowadays. Quick Focus is still viewed with disdain by most modern enthusiasts which, compounded by the crummy battery door latch, has kept values at the lowest of any A-model. If QF is not your cup of tea and you are a proficient manual focuser, you can basically ignore it, but it can be more useful in good light than you might anticipate :-). If you are new to manual focusing or your eyes are not as good as they used to be, the AL-1 is an excellent choice. Battery-door issues aside, powering an AL-1 is less expensive than all of the other 544/PX28L-equipped A-Series, even using AAA lithiums (which will also last far longer than any 6V cell, particularly the alkaline A544 versions). And if you are more inclined toward aperture-priority than shutter-priority in an FD-mount Canon, that's another point in the AL-1's favor. Due to the triple beam-splitter used for the focus confirmation module, a circular polarizer must be used instead of a linear polarizer for QF to function properly if you want to use such a filter on the camera.

The best way to snag an AL-1? Buy one with a lens attached. With a busted battery door latch, you will basically get the body for nothing while ending up with a good lens (have you seen what bare bog-standard FDn 50/1.8s are going for nowadays? ;-)), in the worst-case scenario. If you try the gaffer tape trick and it works, you will then have a great little SLR that you can take into sketchier situations without fearing for its safety :-). If you do manage to find a unicorn with an intact battery door, it will usually cost you about what an AV-1 currently does (which is still half that of an AE-1). Then you will put batteries in it...the latch will fail sooner rather than later...and you will end up gaffer-taping it anyways ;-). May as well save yourself the trepidation of waiting for the latch to self-destruct (and a considerable sum of money) and buy a pre-busted one :-). As mentioned previously, beware of corroded battery compartments and make sure that the metal contact plate on the battery door is intact and firmly in place.

Personally, I will take the improved ergos, cheaper (and more readily available) batteries, aperture-priority vs. shutter-priority automation, and equivalent build-quality to an AE-1 or AE-1 Program in exchange for a tape-job and more money in my pocket, any day :-). The arrival of the first successful AF SLR (the Minolta 7000) in 1985 signalled the end for half-measures like the AL-1 along with the demise of the A-series as a whole. But just as the recent renaissance of FD glass and the other A-Series bodies have shown, revival is always possible. For an AL-1, all it usually takes is a couple of AAAs and pieces of tape and an SLR that went out with more of a whimper than a bang over 35 years ago becomes a bang-up bargain for those quirky enough to try it ;-).

An AL-1 QF for the 21st century - Lithium AAAd and Gaffer-taped :-)

References:

Various Canon A-Series User Manuals @ www.butkus/chinon/canon.htm
Canon AL-1 Sales Brochure @ www.pacificrimcamera.com
Canon AL-1 @ https://global.canon/en/c-museum/product/film106.html
Popular Photography April 1982 p.83
Modern Photography's Annual Guide 1983
Canon SLR Production Numbers @ http://knippsen.blogspot.com

Sure Shot - Canon's Pioneering AF Point & Shoot

Thu, 30 Dec 2021 20:00:00 GMT

The Original Sure Shot (1979) and New Sure Shot (1983) that came to define the P&S category

Updated Jan. 10, 2023

Although Canon was not the first to the 35mm lens-shutter AF (auto focus) party with their Sure Shot (aka AF35M in Europe, aka Autoboy in Japan) model, with it they did introduce the auto focus technology that would come to dominate that burgeoning market until digital came on the scene. Not to mention, the Sure Shot was the first compact 35mm to combine AF with automated film winding and rewinding at the push of a button, i.e. the first proper Point & Shoot. The Sure Shots would go on to be the most commercially successful P&S lineup for the next 25 years.

The Beginnings of 35mm Lens-Shutter AF

Honeywell, just freshly divorced from being the American distributor of Asahi Pentax, was the foremost pusher behind the technology of AF for cameras in the mid-to-late-'70s. So it was of little surprise when the Konica C35 AF debuted in 1977 that a Honeywell Visitronic AF module was present inside. Soon, a flood of other Japanese manufacturers followed suit with their own Visitronic-equipped, Cosina-manufactured models (Chinon 35F-A, Fujica Flash Auto Focus, Mamiya 135AF, Minolta Hi-Matic AF, Rolleimat AF, and Yashica Auto Focus, to name a few) with Canon conspicuously absent. Come late-1979, however, Canon announced their entry into the 35mm AF fray with the Sure Shot and a different take on how to achieve AF with these consumer-oriented cameras.

The name of the game when it comes to determining focus is: distance from the subject to the film or sensor. That precept formed the basis for developing usable AF systems. The question was how to do it. The most basic way that has been used for centuries to calculate distance is by means of triangulation, where distance to the subject is determined by obtaining measurements (aka rangefinding) from two different points at a known distance (aka the base length) from each other. And that's as far as the math will go, I promise ;-). And that operation is what Honeywell sought to automate with the Visitronic system by using a rangefinder (with one fixed mirror and one that pivoted with a fixed prism between the two mirrors) with the addition of two photosensor arrays behind the rangefinder that produced voltages based on the incoming light. Once the voltages from the two arrays matched, the focusing motor was actuated to move the lens to the correct position for focus. Easy? Sure. Simple? Not so much, and here is where Canon saw an opportunity: the Visitronic module consisted of seven basic components (the two mirrors, two miniature lenses, the two photosensors, and the prism), which doesn't sound like much, but we are talking consumer cameras here. Any way to reduce complexity and cut costs was the name of the game. And nobody played that game better than Canon (refer to the AE-1 of 1976 ;-)).

Canon pursued consumer AF on two fronts with CAFS (Canon Auto Focus System): 1) using SST, and 2) using IRED (oh yeah, it's already getting acrimonious with the acronyms in this article ;-)). We'll start with Solid-State Triangulation as it was developed first and more closely resembled Visitronic, while utilizing one less component. There were two mirrors, two miniature lenses, a prism, and a CCD (Charge-Coupled Device). The main differences with SST versus Visitronic were that both mirrors were fixed while the prism pivoted, and the CCD replaced the dual photosensors. SST was theoretically capable of higher accuracy but was nearly as complex to produce as Visitronic and was also just as dependent upon sufficient light levels to function properly. It was originally developed for the Canon AF514XL-S Super 8 movie camera, which was not an inexpensive unit (about three times the cost of the Sure Shot). Thus, the SST module only made it into one 35mm model (the Super Sure Shot/Autoboy Super/AF35ML) with its 40mm f/1.9 lens. It also found its way into a single FD-mount 35mm SLR lens the New FD 35-70mm f/4 AF of May 1981. A much-improved version of SST would appear for the last time in 1989, when Canon introduced their top-end Sure Shot Zoom XL, a physical giant among 35mm Point & Shoots. But it would borrow heavily from the second coming of CAFS in order to improve its performance... ;-).

The SST AF-equipped Super Sure Shot (aka AF35ML aka Autoboy Super) released in July 1981

Diagram of IRED function

Although the Sure Shot preceded the Super Sure Shot to market by about eighteen months, it sported a newer development in CAFS technology: Active auto focus. Active? You mean it worked out more than SST? Sorry, couldn't resist the lame Dad joke ;-). "Active" referred to the operation of the AF system being based around an InfraRed Emitting Diode (IRED). The key word here is "emitting" as the Sure Shot actively emitted a near-infrared beam that would be reflected back to the camera from the subject to provide distance information for triangulation instead of passively measuring the incoming light from the subject as Visitronic and SST relied upon. An easier comparison might be with SONAR. Passive SONAR involves using microphones to just "listen" for noise, while active SONAR involves emitting a sound signal or a "ping" from a vessel and then listening for its return from another object. Both SST and IRED used triangulation for calculating focus, but IRED was a much simpler method requiring no mirrors or prisms (only a swivelling IR transmitter, two miniature lenses, and an IR receptor). Four components versus seven to install and align properly meant for an appreciable savings in manufacturing costs.

The future predominance of this second method of AF detection was foreshadowed when Canon then went on to change the meaning of CAFS to Canon Active Auto Focus System while dropping SST for the next eight years from their 35mm P&S cameras. (When SST was reintroduced in the Sure Shot Zoom XL, it also utilized an active near-infrared AF beam to boost the performance of the vastly-improved passive SST sensor in low contrast situations. This hybrid SST/IRED AF system had a substantial range of 51 focusing zones, providing improved precision and accuracy.) This was followed by the universal abandonment of Visitronic by the other manufacturers with their simultaneous adoption of active near-infrared AF systems (e.g the Visitronic-equipped Minolta Hi-Matic AF morphed into the home-grown near-infrared Hi-Matic AF2). This coincided with the explosion of the P&S market, which was soon demolishing the SLR market in unit sales and would do so for the remainder of the film era. While there would be a few premium passive AF models (like our friendly Sure Shot Zoom XL) on offer during the next 25 years, active near-infrared AF was to rule the market with near-monopolistic might, particularly with the low to mid-range models that made up the bulk of sales. For example, in December 1994, Popular Photography listed 53 models in their year-end Top-End Point-and-Shoots Comparison. Only eight out of the 53 used passive AF systems, of which just three models sat in the mid-range-or-lower price bracket.

Besides the cost savings, there were other advantages to active near-IR focusing:

The ability to achieve focus in total darkness.
Faster focus acquisition than virtually any passive AF system.

The downsides of using near-IR for focus include:

A limit of about 6m (20') due to weakening beam strength. For distances beyond that, the camera will set a focal distance between the last accurate reading it could obtain and infinity, leaving DOF to (hopefully ;-)) cover the slop between the two distances. This isn't much of an issue with shorter focal lengths, but becomes increasingly troublesome at telephoto distances beyond 60mm for those photogs particular enough to care.
The beam cannot pass through glass perpendicularly, nor other reflective surfaces such as mirrors, polished metal, or the surface of water.
Surfaces that absorb IR will obviously prevent the return of the beam to the receptor.

On the whole, it's not difficult to see why active near-IR AF became industry-standard for consumer-grade AF Point & Shoots. But let's now take a closer look at the first couple of generations of Canon's trendsetter that AE-1d the P&S market.

A Sure Shot in name only? Original Sure Shots were only marked AF35M on the cameras themselves.

The Sure Shot in Detail

It was no coincidence that 1980 served as the final year of SLR sales dominance for Japanese 35mm cameras. With the arrival of the Sure Shot right at the end of 1979, the stage was set for the changing of the guard in consumer-targeted cameras. Canon had marketed the AE-1 for years with the byline "about all you do is focus and click", which stretched the limits of credibility just slightly:

You first had to manually load the film and set the film speed
You then had to manually advance the film...unless you added the Power Winder A
You then had to manually set the aperture ring to "A" or "O" to enable Auto Exposure
You then still had to manually set the desired shutter speed on the dial
You then had to manually FOCUS the lens
You then could SHOOT
You then had to manually rewind the film once you finished the roll

Point & shoot? Close, but no cigar ;-). Let's compare that to the Sure Shot:

Set the ISO via the toothed ring surrounding the lens. Pull down the blue open lever for the film door. Place the film cartridge in the left slot for it. Pull the film leader from the cartridge and place it in one of the slots on the take-up spool. Press the shutter button and release. The film will wind on to the spool. Check that the film is laying flat and is engaged properly in the sprocket teeth. Close the door. Cycle the shutter twice more while watching the film transport indicator (it looks like a horizontal, miniature barber pole). If it moves, the film is loaded correctly. If not, reload the film. The film will now automatically advance with each shot.
POINT the camera towards your subject, placing the oval in the center of the viewfinder on your subject. Press the shutter button halfway. It will come to a soft stop. If a red LED lights up in the viewfinder, push the flash slider towards the lens to raise the flash. Once the flash ready indicator lights you can proceed to shoot. If the red LED does not light up, just SHOOT. All of this can be done with the camera at your eye and with a 10 sec. delay at most for the flash to charge if necessary.
Once you have reached the end of the roll press and release the silver rewind button on the bottom of the camera. Then pull the rewind slider on top of the camera to the left and hold it until the film counter has returned to S. Open the back and remove the film.

For the average consumer, it was a no-brainer. Obviously, the Sure Shot was not going to provide the same level of overall capability or versatility as an SLR, but how much did Joe/Jolene Snapshot really need. The Sure Shot had:

The predominant 4-element in 3-groups 38mm f/2.8 Tessar-style lens that every compact 35mm manufacturer used at the time for its very good optical performance at minimal cost.
Completely automated exposure with camera selecting both aperture & shutter speed
ISO range of 25-400 covering all standard consumer films available at introduction (this was boosted to 1000 at the top end on late versions)
A built-in flash with a guide number of 14 @ ISO 100
A 10 sec. self-timer.
A 48mm filter ring provided for attaching filters which 99.9% of users never bothered with ;-)
All wrapped in a package that weighed 405g (14.3 oz) with 2 - AA (LR6) batteries installed and cost $385 USD (inflation-corrected for 2021) at B&H Photo in July 1981 versus the AE-1 with 50/1.8 kit lens ($679 USD) + the Power Winder A ($220 USD) + the basic 133A Speedlight flash ($96) for a total of $995 USD and a weight of 1260g (44.4 oz) including batteries.

The New Sure Shot (aka AF35M II, aka Autoboy 2) was introduced in April 1983

Optical layout showing the rear aspherical element of the New Sure Shot's lens

To call the Sure Shot a success might just be underselling it a bit. Canon sold them as fast as they could make them (over 3 million sold in three and a half years) and for all you Nikon L35AF lovers out there, the Sure Shot is its reason for being. Nikon was compelled by the sensation that the Sure Shot created to join the P&S party as SLR sales plummeted, post-1981. The L35AF promptly outsold all seven of Nikon's SLRs combined in its first year of availability, as the market share of SLRs versus P&S swung from 57%/43% in 1980 to 37%/63% by the end of 1983. With Canon leading the charge, surprise, surprise ;-). And they just steered into the corner even more with the introduction of the New Sure Shot. It featured:

A revised 38/2.8 4-element/4-group lens with the first molded plastic aspherical element in a P&S camera lens.
The CdS (Cadmium Sulphide) metering cell of the original Sure Shot was upgraded to a more responsive SPD (Silicon Photo Diode).
Improved film transport that only required the user to pull the film leader to an orange mark, align it with the sprocket teeth, close the back, and press the shutter button repeatedly until the frame counter reached "1". If the frame counter failed to advance, reloading the film was required. This was a noticeable simplification from the old slotted spool and barber pole of the Sure Shot.
For rewinding, Canon relocated the bottom release button and integrated it to the top of the camera where it could be pressed and the rewind slider pulled to the left as before, all in one motion. They also eliminated the red LED film-end warning light that would remain lit until rewind was initiated, which could drain the batteries on the previous model if the user did not rewind the film immediately.
An integrated, powered lens shield in lieu of the detached lens cap of the original Sure Shot to eliminate the common issue of losing the lens cap.
Through more efficient components and power usage, battery life was doubled over the original. Flash cycles were tripled. The battery compartment door was also improved in its design for greater longevity.
The viewfinder had improved clarity and contrast over the original at the cost of a bit of magnification (0.45x vs. 0.5x).
Canon was able to shave weight to 355g (12.2 oz) with batteries and reduce volume by 20% over the Sure Shot. Oh, and the 48mm filter thread was also eliminated, angering 0.1% of the possible audience for the camera. Good thing for Canon that social media was still three decades away ;-). Evidently, the sauce for Canon's goose was good enough for Nikon's gander, as they too ditched filter threads on their second generation L35AF2 (aka One Touch in North America) in 1985.

So the original automatic AF point-and-shoot just got pointier-and-shootier. That is not to say it was P&S perfection incarnate. It was still noisy: noisy AF motors, noisy film transport motors, the typical early-'80s P&S weasels-with-tuberculosis type of noise ;-). They weren't any worse than most of their contemporaries, but they were no better, either. Both had the annoying "feature" (read "flaw") of only displaying the focus point in the viewfinder AFTER you have taken the shot (as long as you keep the shutter button pressed), serving some purpose beyond my feeble comprehension. The self-timer/pre-focus lever's action may charitably be described as "spongy". The original Sure Shot did not utilize the half-press focus lock (which debuted with the Chinon 35F-A of 1978 mentioned earlier) that came to typify AF point & shoots, so if you want to do the focus-and-recompose trick you have to go through these gymnastics:

flip the self timer lever down
then...press the shutter release fully with the central AF spot on the subject you want in focus and then let go of the shutter release
then...recompose within 10 sec. (or else the self-timer will fire the shutter)
and then...press the shutter release fully again to take the picture.

And four years later...Canon chose to retain that system with the New Sure Shot (face meet palm), most likely to avoid paying royalties (a common theme with Canon) for the half-press focus lock. Both models also predated the introduction of Kodak's DX automatic ISO-setting system and so require the user to manually set the ISO. This actually is preferable for modern-day P&S enthusiasts who desire a bit more control in this area. The 25-400 range ISO of the original Sure Shot may feel a bit limiting to some, but works well enough for most circumstances. If you really need more, go for a late-model original or the New Sure Shot to get ISO 1000 capability (note that there are no intermediate settings for ISO 640 or 800, it goes straight from 400 to 1000).

If you have the luxury of choosing between the two, the second-gen version gives you improved optical performance (especially in the corners), better battery life, improved grip ergonomics along with its tidier and lighter packaging, and the improved metering cell. If you are bound and determined to use filters, get yourself a 48-49mm step-up ring for the original Sure Shot so you can use common 49mm filters and lens caps. For optimal battery and flash performance, I recommend Energizer Ultimate Lithium AAs/LR6s. They work great for faster flash recycling and five times more overall life than alkalines at room temperature, and even better performance in colder temperatures, while eliminating any issues with leakage and corrosion. Canon said "NO" to 1.2V Ni-Cad rechargeable AAs back in the day, and I cannot say that things would be any different with modern NiMH (Eneloop-type) 1.2V rechargeables. There may not quite enough voltage with such batteries for the camera to function properly, so I do not recommend using them.

The New Sure Shot hits the happy medium for me, personally. The succeeding Sure Shot Supreme switched to the more expensive 2CR5 lithium battery that doesn't last as long as lithium AAs (especially with flash use), and you need to remove screws to access the battery compartment (face meet palm again). The lens is identical to its predecessor...turning the flash to OFF requires jamming your left thumb into a small, recessed button on the bottom of the camera while pressing the shutter button to take the picture (arghh!)...to force the flash ON you need to fiddle with a stupid rubber gizmo that came with the original strap (how many do you think still have their original strap? ;-)) while not encroaching on the lens, and you are stuck with DX film speeds with the only override being to tape over the contacts on the film canister to force ISO 100. In exchange for that you get a closer focusing distance of 0.55m/22" versus 0.9m/36" and a quieter overall experience, which may be more important for you than for me :-).

The Sure Shot Supreme (aka Top Shot, aka Autoboy 3) of June 1986

The Sure Shots have none of the cachet of the Contax & Yashica Ts, the Olympus XAs or Stylus Epics (mju-ii), Nikon L35AFs (aka One Touch), or any of the other Interweb P&S darlings. That, together with their prolific production numbers, means they can still be had for peanuts, and if yours goes kaputsky, you will shed far fewer tears than over the original L35AF which is no more reliable electronically (rather less so in my limited experience), and that renowned Sonnar-type lens is not far ahead of the New Sure Shot's aspherical unit, if at all. Of course, it's a Canon, so it's gonna be a bit plasticky, but that's part of the charm for me. If you want the magic of Sonnars, Zeiss, and titanium, far be it from me to denigrate such desires, but when it comes to value the Canons will be tough to beat. Sure Shootin' :-).

References:

Canon AF35M Dealer Notebook Pages @ www.pacificrimcameras.com
Canon New Sure Shot Dealer Notebook Pages @ www.pacificrimcameras.com
Canon Super Sure Shot Dealer Notebook Pages @ www.pacificrimcameras.com
Auto Focus Cameras - Popular Science Dec. 1980 pp. 96-99
Popular Photography May 1990 p. 24
Sure Shot AF35M II & AF35ML Instruction Manuals @ www.butkus.org/chinon/canon
Canon Camera Museum @ https://global.canon/en/c-museum/series_search.html

Nikon F-801(s)/N8008(s) - A Nikon in Name Only?

Wed, 20 Oct 2021 18:00:00 GMT

It's got a thin red line and Nikon slathered on the prism housing, but is it the real deal?

Updated Aug. 28, 2024

As the purveyor of choice for professional SLRs for over three decades, it shouldn't come as a surprise that Nikon was among the more conservative of manufacturers. After all, most professionals in any field are inclined to stick with the tried-and-true over any newfangled gee-whizzery that comes along. Case in point: the original F lasted in production for 14 years, the whippersnapper F2 for 9, and the last bastion of manual focus pro Nikons, the F3, stuck around for 21 years. Likewise, the enthusiast-targeted FM/FE/FA platform barely changed in layout (a couple of minor control changes from the original FM to FE in 1978, and in the final FM3A model of 2001 being the biggest modifications) in nearly a quarter-century of production. So when Nikon did make major design changes, even in their non-professional models, it was a...big...deal. The summer of 1988 brought such a change, the DNA of which has managed to leapfrog from the venerable F-mount (in both film and digital forms) to the latest Z-mount mirrorless models. Worst of all for Nikonistas, it originally came from C...C...C...Canon (aaauuuggghhh!!!).

Nikon in the Year '88

1988 was always destined to be a big year for Nikon. True to their every-other-Olympiad introduction schedule for a new pro SLR, Nikon had the Seoul Summer Games circled in red (what else?) on their calendars, and anticipation for the F4 was palpable. It was not just going to be the latest F-body to drop on the competition, but it was also widely rumored that it was going to be the first professional Nikon SLR to sport auto focus (AF). The F4 would meet all expectations and then some, but in reality it would prove to be more of a one-off MF/AF hybrid than the herald of a new Nikon era. That task would be left to the prosumer Nikon body that was introduced five months earlier in April 1988. Ironically, the F-801 (N8008 in the USA), while quickly overshadowed by the glow of the F4's resplendent entrance, would prove to be far more influential in the design of all future Nikon SLRs (including the pro bodies). The F4 may have been the figurehead, but the F-801 had the control...and that's what it was all about - control - or more specifically, control layout.

SLR controls had originally developed in an era of complete analog design. Every operation was mechanically-actuated and so the user interfaces of these cameras were directly coupled by physical means to the various functional bits (e.g. film winding/rewinding, shutters, lens mounts, aperture controls) by a variety of dials, gears and levers. And even when the first models with electronic components began to appear en masse in the early 1970s, such electronics did not replace mechanical systems, but only served to trigger those analog assemblies. But with the advent of microprocessors in the mid-to-late-'70s (a la the Canon AE-1 and its gaggle of imitators), it was only a matter of time before wholesale replacement of many mechanical systems by electronics became common. Many film enthusiasts (then and now ;-)) would decry such changes, but there would be no going back for the manufacturers: electronics were simpler and, therefore, cheaper to produce, and money always wins. But it would take another 10 years before the ultimate expression of modern SLR controls would arrive in its seminal form, courtesy of (again) C...C...Canon. (Notice that I was able to regain guttural control one stutter sooner this time :-))

Leave it to Canon, Nikon's longtime nemesis, to come up with a completely new control paradigm that would become a necessity rather than just an alternative for the increasingly feature-laden SLRs offered over the last decade-and-a-half of the 20th century. Now, there were plenty of push-button electronic SLRs that came along between the AE-1 and the trendsetting T90 (1986). But it was the way that the T90 married push buttons with an electronic multi-purpose input dial and LCD that would change SLRs forever. Irony would strike yet again as the T90 would be on the bleeding edge of mid-'80s SLR technology in all areas save one: AF. Of the four major technological leaps in SLR design that typified the decade (internal motorized film handling, multi-spot or multi-segment metering, and button + dial + LCD controls being the other three), the lack of AF doomed the T90 in the sales department. But its advanced control design and internal layout did not go unnoticed by its competitors and Nikon, in particular, when it came to the F-801.

The Canon T90 & Nikon F-801(s) - Trendsetter and Trendsettee :-)

The F-801: A T90 in Nikon Livery?

So just how much "inspiration" did Nikon take from the Canon T90? Well, let's leave the control layout concept for last, as there are plenty of other places to start:

Construction - The F-801 would become the first enthusiast-level Nikon to adopt Canon's "hybrid" construction of a 100% polycarbonate shell over a metal chassis. Now, Nikon had already utilized this technique on its first bottom-end consumer AF model, the F-401/N4004 (1987). But there was a world of difference in their minds between what was appropriate for consumers versus enthusiasts. The T90 had been nicknamed "the Tank" by Japanese photojournalists soon after its introduction, which must have settled a few minds at Nikon as far as adopting its basic chassis/skin design for their latest advanced SLR body.
Motors - The T90 pioneered the use of three smaller coreless motors to care for: 1) film winding, 2) shutter charging, the auto exposure mechanism & the quick-return mirror, and 3) film rewind. This approach allowed each motor to be optimized for its specific role and thereby reduced power consumption while increasing speed (a very rare occurrence :-)) over the then-standard single, large, multipurpose motor used by other motorized SLRs of the day. The F-801 utilized a similar three-motor design with the following adjustment: the first motor was used for film winding & rewinding, the second filled the same role as the T90's, leaving the third motor for AF duties.
Multiple Metering Options - The T90 was the first SLR to offer three metering options: 1) Centerweighted, 2) Partial (13% central region of the frame), and 3) Spot (2.7% spot at the very center of the viewfinder frame, with the capability to memorize and average up to eight spot readings). Nikon responded initially with two options: 1) Matrix - a five-segment pattern that was derived from the Automatic Multi-Pattern meter of the manual focus Nikon FA, and 2) Centerweighted (utilizing a new 75/25 pattern; having 75% of the sensitivity concentrated within the 12mm circle in the viewfinder with the remaining 25% tapering off to the edges of the frame versus Nikon's traditional 60/40 split). With the F-801s update in 1991, Nikon would add a third Spot pattern that was restricted to a smaller 3.5mm central circle in the viewfinder, with 80% of the meter's sensitivity concentrated within that circle and the remaining 20% tapering in a fairly tight cone shape.
Rear-curtain Flash Sync. - Canon introduced this flash setting option on the T90 which fired appropriately-compatible flash units only as the second (or rear) shutter curtain was beginning its travel. The T90 was also Canon's first TTL-flash metered body, six years behind Nikon's adoption of TTL flash with the F3, which was only a mere five years after Olympus' introduction of the technology on the OM-2 in 1975 ;-). 28 months after the T90's debut, the F-801 became the first Nikon SLR to offer rear-curtain sync. (with its accessory SB-24 flash).

Okay, now that we have those smaller details out of the way, let's get down to the major feature that Nikon (and eventually, every other AF SLR manufacturer) lifted from the T90: the button + Electronic Input Dial (Canon's term) + LCD configuration. The reason Canon (led by the T90's outside consultant/designer Luigi Colani) developed the electronic dial interface was the rapidly ballooning feature sets of advanced SLRs. Consider, for a moment, the challenge of finding the real estate for physical dials or levers capable of not only setting but legibly displaying:

A shutter speed range from 30 - 1/4000 sec. in 1/2-step increments (that would be 36 discrete settings)
ISO settings from 6-6400 in 1/3-stop increments (31 discrete settings)
Aperture settings (20), Exposure compensation (12), AE modes (10), Multiple Exposures (9), and Metering modes (3)

This all added up to 121 different possible settings spread over 7 individual controls, which would have made for a hot, bloated mess with the traditional SLR interface or an insane amount of button pressing using an interface like Canon's T70 sported. But, by using an electronic multipurpose dial that travelled infinitely in both directions, it was now possible to assign these various functions to much smaller individual buttons that could be pressed singly or in pairs and then spinning the Electronic Input Dial to select the desired setting.

Nikon, of course, had their own ideas about how to implement their version of this new approach to SLR control, which we will dig into next. But, for a minute, let's just stop and think about how massive this change was for them. Aside from the mechanical Nikkor/Nikomats, every Nikon SLR since 1959 had sported the same basic control layout as the Nikon F. Nearly three decades with no major changes. And then to adopt the same premise developed by their fiercest rival? Quite a bold move for a company commonly considered to be as staid and conservative as they came. The F-801 would become just the second SLR of any brand to adopt this new control philosophy. But it would be far from the last.

The F-801's Implementation of Button + Dial + LCD Controls

Obviously, Nikon wasn't going to just straight-out up and copy Canon. There were patents and all that sort of thing to deal with. But it went deeper than just avoiding patent infringements. They definitely had their own philosophy about how this new control concept should affect the photographer. So let's take a closer look at how the F-801 (and all subsequent prosumer Nikons) differed from the T90 (and all subsequent prosumer Canons) in how the user interacted with the controls.

Both cameras featured a single dial (Electronic Input Dial in trademarked Canonspeak and Command Input Control Dial in Nikonese). On the T90, this dial was oriented vertically directly behind the shutter release to be operated by the right index finger. Nikon disliked this arrangement as it required the user to lift their finger off of the shutter release to make any adjustments and then return it to that position (or use their middle finger for shutter release leaving the index finger free for scrolling the dial). Their solution was to orient the dial horizontally and to the rear of the top plate for operation via the right thumb of the user. This would keep the index finger on the shutter release ready to capture that "decisive" moment ;-). Both companies would add more dials in the years to come (Sub Command Dials mounted horizontally under and protruding in front of the shutter release for the Nikons, and vertical Quick Control Dials on the film backs of the Canons), but the paradigms were set with the T90 and F-801. And you can still see them in both manufacturer's latest DSLR (and mirrorless, for that matter) models :-).

Similar yet Different: Button + Dial + LCD Interfaces from the T90 (bottom) and F-801 (top)

A Truly New Nikon

As noted earlier, while the F4 outshone the F-801 upon its public availability in December 1988, the F-801 would prove to be far more impactful when it came to the development of future generations of Nikon SLRs. And Nikon played the introduction of both models on dealer's shelves rather well, gapping them by about six months, allowing the F-801 grab a few headlines of its own before being eclipsed in the press by the F4.

The F-801/N8008 was the first SLR to offer a top shutter speed of 1/8000 sec. (likely the reason for the prominently-featured "8" in both model designations :-)), with the F4 soon following, giving Nikon a brace of the fastest SLRs on the market. Other notable (albeit, in some cases, short-lived) industry- or Nikon-firsts included:

The fastest internal motor drive in an AF SLR. It was rated at 3.3 frames per second (fps) in Continuous High mode. The F4 would surpass this with between 4 and 5.7 fps (depending on battery configuration) for tops among AF SLRs. Sure, the T90 punched out 4.5 fps, but it was MF. Gotta milk those margins, eh Nikon ;-)
Nikon claimed (as did virtually every manufacturer introducing a new AF model from the late-'80s onward) the fastest AF...in the world (until the F4 came along with a 15% more powerful focus motor and a dedicated 8-bit CPU just for AF operation ;-)). It definitely was the most responsive AF module in low light, able to focus at -1 EV (or as Nikon marketing trumpeted, "by the light of a single candle"). Which none of the press covering the launch were able to verify, as there were (conveniently) no single candles present in the room ;-). Nevertheless, the F-801 was the start of a long-time Nikon strength of low-light AF capability in their SLRs. And it was a major step forward from their first-gen AF SLR, the N2020/F-501, which topped out at 4 EV, at best.
Something that was very evident as a definite improvement in flash performance at the time was the Matrix Balanced Fill-Flash with TTL Cybernetic Sync (ooohweee, the marketing-lingo boys were working hard for those paycheques ;-)) capability with the simultaneously-released SB-24 Speedlight. Marketing mumbo jumbo aside, this was an actual advantage over every other SLR on the market at the time.
The most flexible self-timer ever produced to that point (the delay was user-selectable from 2 - 30 sec., with a special two-frame setting (10 sec. followed by another 5 sec. delay).
The first Nikon to feature Flexible Program (aka Program Shift), whereby the user could change the shutter speed/aperture value combination selected by the camera while maintaining the same overall exposure, by simply turning the Command Dial in any of the P modes. This shift is automatically cancelled once the exposure is made or the meter turns off (after 8 sec. with sufficient battery power).

Descent Into Obscurity

AF SLR development proceeded at a breakneck pace into the mid-'90s as both Canon and Nikon caught up to first-mover Minolta and soon were forming a duopoly of AF SLR domination. The F-801 would be in production for less than three years (selling around 600,000 units or roughly three for every F4 sold during that time) before being updated into the F-801s in March 1991. The F-801s would then be supplanted as the top enthusiast Nikon AF model by the F90/N90 only a year-and-a-half later. It would remain in the sales lineup until March 1995 (with sales in the 360,000-range), but was again overshadowed by its progeny (in identical fashion, the F90/N90 was updated into X/s versions in 1994 with AF improvements again being the major objective). Popular Photography never managed to put either version of the F-801 through its famous lab test as they simply lost track of them with other newer models (such as the F4 and N6006/F-601) just pipping them to the post when they were about to get around to it. So, even in its heyday, the F-801 flew somewhat under the radar as far as notoriety was concerned.

That didn't stop it from becoming a beloved body for many an enthusiast or pro, in other words, a workhorse (if that isn't the ethos of a Nikon SLR, I don't know what is :-)). You could buy one for a third of the cost of an F4, it weighed a third less (and when compared to the F4s ("s" designated the 6 AA MB-21 grip, in this case) weight was almost halved), and did almost everything the F4 could (the most glaring exceptions being Focus Tracking, Spot Metering, and that 15% more powerful AF motor, all of which would be incorporated into the F-801s). There are a few other areas where the F-801 could leave certain potential users wanting for more: mirror lock-up (MLU), a PC sync port for studio lighting, and a 100%-coverage viewfinder being three of them. Oh, and it couldn't Matrix meter with non-CPU (AI & AI-s) lenses like the F4 (psst, not really a big deal, or even a small one as early Matrix metering conferred about a 10% improvement over centerweighted when it came to getting exposure correct in tricky lighting situations; it was not infallible). For what it's worth, I would take the 75/25 centerweighting of the F-801 over the 60/40 ratio of the F4 any day :-). The dawn of the digital era only served to hasten the demise of the F-801(s) into the netherworld of SLRs. And there it remains today, still in the shadows...available for a fifth of the cost of an FE2 (which, along with the FA, it directly replaced in Nikon's SLR lineup).

Which raises the question: WHY? Why is such a capable, groundbreaking camera still on the fringes of 35mm film enthusiasts' consciousness?

It's actually not that complicated. The F-801 simply does not look nor feel the part of a "classic" SLR (unlike the FA, which Nikon went to great lengths to style conventionally while packing in as much technical sophistication as they could back in 1983). No milled shutter speed dial nestled next to the prism housing. No film advance lever to be caressed by a right thumb. No manual rewind crank to be tenderly twisted till the film is tucked safely inside the cartridge. No match-needle gently floating in the viewfinder. No lovely leatherette to nuzzle your fingertips. No cool-to-the-touch brass or aluminum to soothe your skin. Instead, you've got pernicious polycarbonate, dastardly digital displays, and those woeful, whining motors to contend with. The 35mm film snob's worst nightmare writ large ;-). In a rich twist, you could say it suffers from the same perception as its longtime arch rivals from Canon: capable of photographic near-perfection with a chaser of "meh" and two shots of "blah" for the purist. The consequence: zero street cred among hipsters and other nostalgists. But that reputation of reprobation also ranks it among the best values in film SLRs today. So should you bother looking at one?

Is An F-801(s) in Your Future?

In my experience, there are two ends of the scale for photographer types: 1) those looking for the shortest distance between visualization and execution of an image and who could thus care less about what equipment they use to reach that goal as long as the equipment facilitates the goal, and 2) those who prefer their equipment and the way it feels in hand and to eye to contribute measurably to the process. I find myself somewhere between the two, often just depending on the day and the mood that I am in. But if you generally lean towards the latter notion, the F-801 likely will prove disappointing should you decide to try it. If you are closer to the former, it might prove a compelling choice.

Many times you will hear Type 1 photogs say that they prefer cameras that "just get out of my way". The F-801 is one such SLR. Although primarily intended as an AF-centric body, it does a very good job as a manual focus SLR, too. Here are a few key attributes:

That 1/8000 sec. shutter is a peach. It was unmatched by Canon in anything below the EOS-1 until 1992 with the introduction of the EOS 5/A2(E). Although surpassed by Minolta's 1/12,000 sec. shutters in the Maxxum/Dynax/Alpha 9xi and 9 models (more for bragging rights than any real-world advantage), 1/8000 sec. still remains the standard for high-end mechanical shutters in today's latest advanced DSLRs and mirrorless cameras. Purists have yet another reason to hate on the F-801: Its duralumin shutter blades found their way into the "classic" FM2N starting in 1989, obsoleting those oh-so-$exy titanium honeycomb-etched blades that had been integral to Nikon breaking the 1/4000 sec. barrier seven years earlier. Never mind that they actually perform better in colder weather and are just as durable. Once again, epic tales of engineering genius were overthrown by straightforward competency. Booooo! ;-)
A clear, uncluttered, high-eyepoint (19mm of eye relief) viewfinder with just a single set of AF brackets in the center of the finder with a 12mm circle surrounding them to indicate the centerweighted metering pattern (and another smaller 3.5mm circle around the AF brackets signifying the spot meter pattern on the "s" models). The BriteView focusing screen is very effective for MF, and the AF sensor works as an electronic version of the traditional split-image rangefinder with "> o <" symbols in the far left side of the unobtrusive information bar at the bottom of the viewfinder indicating which direction to turn the focus ring, with the "o" appearing when focus is achieved. Said information bar is automatically backlit with a pleasant yellow-green glow when low light is encountered, or can be activated anytime by the user. It will automatically go out when the meter times out at 8 seconds. Most future AF film (including the succeeding F90/N90), and digital bodies sacrificed excellent MF capability for even-brighter viewfinders with zoom lenses that generally start at f/2.8, at best. The F-801 strikes a near-perfect balance between viewfinder brightness and manual focusing performance without overwhelming you with information.
Unlike its two main contemporary competitors, the Canon EOS 620 and Minolta 7000i, the F-801 didn't hide any of its function buttons behind doors on the back of the camera, or in the handgrip. Conversely, the EOS 620 placed its Drive and Self-timer mode buttons (which, when pressed simultaneously, also formed the ISO function) and its manual rewind button, behind a flap on the back of the camera below the film door. The Minolta 7000i similarly stashed the Self-timer, ISO, and manual rewind buttons in behind its handgrip door (a la the T90). When Popular Photography tested all three cameras' AF systems head-to-head-to-head in their December 1988 issue, the F-801 received top marks for its controls being the easiest to navigate and the most comprehensive. There was no doubling-up of button presses (except for film rewind and program reset, both of which you wouldn't want to accidentally trigger with a single push, anyways :-)). Even by today's standards, its ergonomics are excellent. The top-deck LCD is clutter-free while still conveying all pertinent information. Again, it stays out of the way until you need it.
As noted earlier, while it does not equal the F4 as far as backwards & forwards compatibility with both MF and AF lenses (nothing does among film SLRs :-)), the F-801 still makes for an excellent body both ways. First, it will offer full metering options & AF with any AF or AF-D screwdrive Nikkor lens ever made (and it still meters just fine with newer AF-S lenses, but with no AF). Second, it accepts all AI & AI-s MF lenses in A or M modes with centerweighted (and spot on the "s" models) metering that equals or betters any previous centerweighted AI-compatible Nikon MF body (Nikkormat FT-3, Nikon EL2, F2A(S), FM, FE, EM, F3, FM2(n), FG, FE2, FG-20, F-301(N2000), FM3A). The only drawback is that it does not display the set aperture value in the viewfinder or on the LCD (something the FT-3, EL2, EM, FG, FG-20, and F-301 also do not provide) with such non-CPU lenses. So you will have to physically check the aperture ring to verify the setting (modern MF F-mount lenses from Zeiss and Voigtlander incorporate a CPU chip so they will provide aperture readout in the viewfinder and on the LCD). But the option of spot metering and a shutter speed range of 1/8000 - 30 sec. just might serve to mitigate that disadvantage somewhat :-). In A mode you also get +/- 5 EV worth of exposure compensation versus a maximum +/- 2 EV on any of those other models. The F-801 also has a better M exposure mode readout than the later F90(X) with +/- 2 EV in 1/3-steps displayed in the viewfinder and on the LCD versus the +/- 1 EV scale of the newer model. So, yeah, it's not the perfect MF body, but it does a very fair impersonation of one for an SLR that was primarily designed for AF. And we won't even bother to compare its MF performance with MF lenses to the Canon and Minolta AF bodies & lenses (Ever tried MF with AF lenses? It's doable but not exactly pleasurable ;-). The electronic rangefinding assistance of the AF sensor can also assist a user's ability to use MF effectively.
Screwdriven AF & AF-D Nikkors are some of the least expensive lens options (particularly the zooms, e.g. the 35-70mm f/3.3-4.5 kit zoom for the F-801, and the 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5 AF-D for the F90) on today's market due to the same prejudices that haunt the F-801(s): plasticky, plasticky, and more plasticky ;-). But they offer excellent optical quality for their price point and era, so again, the cost/performance ratio is among the highest in the 35mm film world. Focus Tracking coupled with the 15% more-powerful AF motor in the "s" versions gave an improved "hit" rate with subjects moving towards the camera by about 40% over the original AF system (that equates to 8 rather than 5 acceptably sharp shots out of 31 according to Pop Photo's testing of the F4 versus the original F-801). So if AF is the driving force for you, go for an "s" version over the original (but take a good long look at the F90X first, as its AF system is considerably better than the even the F-801s).

Speaking of the F90X/N90s...it is a faster, more responsive body, with improved AF performance, better weathersealing, and 1/3-step shutter speed increments versus the standard 1-step increments of the F-801(s). And it can still be found for about 25% more with some patience. But if you have smaller hands, it can feel a bit portly (although the actual weight is only 60 grams (2.1 oz) more) in hand. The F-801(s) is considerably narrower in the midsection and has a smaller grip than its successor. For smaller hands, you might find it more comfortable to hold. Try both out before buying if possible. The F90X just edges it out for my medium-sized hands, but YMMV. Either way, the F-801's ergonomics have aged quite well (with no sticky-back syndrome, either :-)).

The F90X/N90s is definitely more of a handful than its direct ancestor :-)

Things to look out for include:

Batteries - Like every other AA (LR6)-powered SLR, the greatest enemies of these cameras are leaky alkaline batteries. Ascertaining the condition of the battery compartment and its MS-7 holder is the absolute first order of business when contemplating a purchase. The holders have been out of production for over 15 years and are sometimes broken or missing entirely from the camera (tip: don't overtighten the retaining screw; squeeze the holder against the spring pressure of the compartment with one hand and then just snug the screw with a coin in the other). Without a good holder, the F-801 is a brick. If you get one, do yourself and any future owner(s) a favor and use Energizer Ultimate Lithiums or NiMH (Eneloop-type) rechargeables instead of alkalines. You will never have to worry about leaks and subsequent corrosion that way. Plus, with lithium AAs you can expect a battery life, per set of four, of over 500 rolls of 36-exp. film with AF & the kit 35-70/3.3-4.5 AF Zoom Nikkor or 50/1.8 AF Nikkor (and considerably more with MF) at room temperature. And around 210 rolls at -10 Celsius. That absolutely destroys any of its 2CR5 lithium-powered contemporaries (at a ratio of 10 rolls to 1). In your Interweb travels you will likely come across mentions of Nikon not approving the use of lithiums in the F-301/-501, F-801, F90, and F4; take these with a grain of salt, as Nikon did not come around to lithium AAs or AAAs until the late-'90s after such models were discontinued and didn't bother to update their stance (which they did for the F90X, which remained in production until 2001) publicly. As for the NiMH rechargeables, you can expect about 3-4 times the battery life (with 2000-2800 milliamp-hour cells) versus the rating in the Instruction Manual for Ni-Cads (which were generally 600-1000 mAh, back in the day).
LCD bleeding - Watch for dark patches or blotches in either the top-deck or viewfinder LCDs. The F-801(s), in my experience, does very well in this regard on the whole, unless it has received a direct impact to an LCD. Regarding the viewfinder display, also watch for the narrow, opaque window on the top of the finder to be in place, not pushed in or missing.
Functionality - Of course, Nikon had to miss a couple of times (sometimes intentionally) with their trailblazer. First, if you are a massive Matrix-metering maven (can't say that I am), on the F-801(s) it only works in horizontal orientation (just like on the FA), as opposed to the fancy (and costly) mercury-switch system of the F4, which permitted vertical Matrix readings. The 1-step shutter speed increments for the shutter-priority and manual exposure modes also failed to make the best use of the new control dial system, (one also wonders if they did that intentionally to prevent potentially unfavorable comparisons for the F4 and its traditional 1-step shutter speed dial ;-)). As noted earlier, the lack of MLU, and a PC-sync. socket will turn off some people.
Noise - F-801s are average as far as noise for their era, but they are certainly not quiet by today's standards. AF function is definitely louder than contemporary Canons, although film transport noise is about the same in models prior to the Canon EOS 10 and Elan/100. If you are all about ultimate discretion, it will not be for you.
Accessories - Being Nikon's initial second-gen AF offering, the F-801(s) requires certain accessories to add features that became built-in on later SLRs. The MF-21 multifunction back adds: autobracketing, intervalometer, and "freeze focus" modes, along with the standard date imprinting from the basic MF-20 databack. The camera also requires the MC-12A/B electronic release cords for remote release (also used for the F-301/N2000, F-501/N2020, F4, and F70/N70 SLRs). The cables are 3m/9.8' and 0.8m/2.6' long, respectively, cost about $15-20 USD, and are still readily available. With a bit of patience, you can purchase a body with the MF-21 (it requires two CR2025 lithium batteries) already fitted, if you want its extra features, for no more than one with the standard film back. There were also two additional focusing screens besides the standard "B" screen with its matte field, 12mm metering circle, and central AF bracket for the F-801: the "E", with a grid pattern & 12mm circle over the matte field, and the "J", with a central microprism surrounded by the matte field for manual focusing. While you can fit the J screen to the "s" models, the central microprism will interfere with the spot meter's readings, so it is better to forgo if you wish to make use of the spot meter. Focusing screens will run you $30-40 USD, on average. Personally, the standard B screen works well enough for me when manual focusing that I have not yet found a reason to swap it out, but the option is there if you need it :-). The F-801(s) is compatible with any Nikon TTL flash unit up to the SB-600 (2004), but will give its best with the SB-24, -25, -26, -28, -29, -28DX, -50DX, -80DX, -800, and -600 models (the last two are also I-TTL compatible with many Nikon DSLRs for added versatility). There are also still a good supply of replacement eyepieces and diopters available (many of these also fit other Nikon enthusiast film and digital SLRs). Many F-801(s) have had their eyepiece removed, so make sure you get one with the body and save yourself another $30-40 USD from having to pick one up after the fact.

Wrap-Up

I found my personal F-801s in an online classified this year for $35 USD. The original owner supposed he had put maybe 20 rolls through it. The alkaline batteries in the camera had leaked (but not badly, fortunately) when I opened it up and popped four lithiums in to test it. It fired right up. As soon as I got it home, the battery compartment and holder received the vinegar and Q-tip treatment. I'm now left holding a camera with approximately 99% of its rated shutter cycles remaining (50,000, which was conservative as per the Nikon Way back then :-)), and a squeaky-clean viewfinder. The last new F-801s bodies at B&H Photo sold for $1,050 USD (inflation-adjusted to 2021) in March 1995. 97% depreciation...I'll have to live with that...I guess...if I have to ;-). Even at the more common going rate of $100 USD for excellent copies, the F-801 remains one of the best SLR bargains going today, if outright photographic capability is high on your priority list. I'll take the weight savings over an F4 any day and it works with my motley collection of AI-converted to AF-D Nikkors perfectly.

Is it the body I take out every time? Nope. I love my manual winding, manual focus bodies when the situation calls for it. And if I want the ultimate in single-sensor Nikon AF performance, the F90X comes along. But when I want a camera to just get out of my way and let me lose myself in the fun of photography, the F-801s is a lean, mean, film-slingin' machine. While it is no Nikon F in form nor reputation, it has more than pulled its weight in perpetuating the long-standing Nikon trait of solid, workmanlike performance. And that still makes it a Nikon to me; even if it's commonly considered to be the photographic equivalent of an '80s cover band. Well, a cover can be alright in its own right, and sometimes it can give the 1959 original a run for its money ;-).

References:

Nikon N8008 Brochure @ www.pacificrimcamera.com
Canon T90 Brochure @ www.pacificrimcamera.com
Canon EOS 620 Brochure @ www.pacificrimcamera.com
Nikon N8008 User Manual @ www.butkus.org/chinon/nikon.htm
Nikon N8008s User Manual @ www.butkus.org/chinon/nikon.htm
Debut of Nikon F4 @ https://imaging.nikon.com/history/chronicle/history-f4/index.
CAMERA; The Future Is Here - Andy Grundberg, NYT, Apr. 17, 1988
Popular Photography magazine - June 1988 p. 28; May 1991 p. 12; Dec. 1996 p. 252
Popular Photography Test Report: Nikon F4s - June 1989 p. 48
Minolta 7000i User Manual

Polarizers - Will Any Old One Do?

Thu, 23 Sep 2021 20:30:00 GMT

From left to right: we have a modern Hoya HD2 circular polarizer, an early '00s circular polarizer, and finally, a mid-'70s linear polarizer. Which one would be best for you?

Updated Sept. 25, 2021

If you have bought an old 35mm kit at some point (or five...or fifteen...you'll get no judgment from me ;-)), you have likely encountered a polarizing filter in among the customary packet(s) of lens tissues, bottle(s) of cleaning fluid (either unopened or completely evaporated), a blower brush that develops negative thrust, crummy 2x converter (usually described as a lens ;-)), and a gaggle of other accessories to the crime. Of all that seeming detritus, the polarizer could prove to be the most useful to you in your photographic journey. But like any tool, it can be misused, overused, and in some cases even prove detrimental to your camera's metering or focusing performance, and image quality. So how do polarizers work? How can you maximize their performance? And which type of polarizing filter will be right for you?

What Do Polarizers Do?

Before being able to utilize a polarizer to best effect, a basic understanding of what they do is in order. Hopefully without falling too far down the physics of light rabbit hole ;-). Light waves ordinarily vibrate in all directions. A standard polarizing filter consists of two layers of foil applied to pieces of optical glass that can be rotated in relation to each other. Each layer is arranged like a row of "bars". When both layers are oriented with their "bars" parallel (both vertically or horizontally) to each other, the light passing through is unaffected and remains unpolarized. But when the front layer is rotated 90 degrees in relation to the rear layer, now only the light in a single plane (the vertical or horizontal component, but not both) is permitted to pass through. The basic overall effect is a reduction of glare, and thus a perceived increase in the saturation of colors (blue and green being the most noticeable). Because arrays of vertical and horizontal lines are involved, the term linear polarizer is applied to such a filter. In the process of polarization, the filter also reduces the amount of light transmitted to the film or sensor, thus simultaneously acting as a 1 - 2 stop Neutral Density (ND) filter (the amount of light being absorbed depends on the type of foil used and the degree of polarization applied by the user).

Edwin H. Land, the founder of Polaroid, developed the first practical, cost-effective polarizing foil in the 1930s (thus the origin of the name :-)). One of its earliest applications was for sunglasses. Polarized sunglasses became very popular among pilots, drivers, and fishermen, as they eliminated glare emanating from clouds, roads, water surfaces, even the glass faces of analog instruments in both aircraft and vehicles. Land was obviously very much into photography as well, and sought to apply the principles of polarization of light in that field as well, which led to the development of the screw-in linear polarizer for lenses, among other applications. Linear polarizers for photography were so effective that they remained virtually unchanged until well into the 1960's. But as new technologies, such as beam-splitters, began to find their way into a few SLR meter designs, the limitations of the linear polarizing filter began to become apparent. Beam-splitters act as polarizers themselves and so do not play well with already-polarized light, so a modified method of polarization had to be developed in order to allow them to function as intended. Thus the circular polarizer was born. This type takes the standard two-foil linear configuration and adds a third component called a quarter-wave plate behind the linear films. This plate re-orients the linearly-polarized light into a circular pattern (thus the terminology) that permits the beam-splitter to operate normally while retaining the polarization effect for the image. Okay, that's as much physics as I can take in one sitting ;-). But it will be enough for you to make the decision on whether you will need a circular or linear polarizer for your particular camera system.

Linear vs. Circular - Which Will It Be for You?

This is not as difficult a choice as it may at first seem. The reason it comes up at all is that there are a zillion cheap used linear polarizers out there from decades of production. Circular polarizers have always been more expensive than their linear counterparts due to the added quarter-wave plate component. Nowadays, since all new ILC cameras require circular polarizers, filter manufacturers do not even bother producing good-quality linear polarizers simply because circular polarizers work on every camera type to date. You can still purchase a new linear poIarizer for much less than a top-quality circular version, but it is not a good idea because of other compromises that have been made to cut costs in the construction of such filters. The basic rule is this: if your interchangeable lens camera (ILC) utilizes a beam-splitter for metering and/or phase-detect auto focusing...you will need a circular polarizer for achieving correct exposure and/or auto focus. This includes virtually all digital ILCs. Vintage SLRs with beam-splitters include:

Canon FT, Pellix, TL, FTb(N), F-1(N), New F-1, AL-1, T80, T90 and all Canon EOS SLRs
Leicaflex SL & SL2, and all Leica R-Series (3-9) SLRs
Minolta X-600 and all Minolta/Sony AF SLRs
All Nikon AF SLRs
Olympus OM-2s Program, OM-3(T/Ti), OM-4(T/Ti), OM-30 (OM-F), OM-40 (OM-G), and all AF SLRs
Pentax LX, ME F, and all AF SLRs

Let's go back to our original scenario: you pick up a non-beam-splitter SLR with an old linear polarizer. Should you bother upgrading? Not necessarily. If it is a good-quality filter in good condition, have at it. But, what determines whether a polarizer (linear or circular) or any other filter is of good quality? Here are a few factors to think about:

Anti-Reflective Coatings - This is the biggie. The vast majority of cheap vintage linear polarizers have no anti-reflection coatings whatsoever, which can contribute more degradation to your image than the benefits of polarization are worth. Even top-quality filter manufacturers, such as B+W and Hoya, offer polarizers with single coatings to this day at the low end of their lineups. And most vintage OEM and quality aftermarket linear polarizers were also single-coated at best (which is still far better than an uncoated cheapie). As with any other type of filter, you really should invest in quality multi-coated versions that will cause the least amount of image degradation possible. Three layers of multicoating (e.g Hoya HMC) on each filter surface will get you to about 97% light transmission (without accounting for the light loss due to the polarizing foils themselves), six or more layers (e.g Hoya Super-HMC) will bump that to 99+% (ditto). The latest top-end filters (e.g. B+W MRC & Hoya HD3) are using a 7 (anti-reflection) + 1 (Nano for toughness, water-repellence & cleaning ease) per side layer formula and they claim 99.5+% transmittance (again, not including losses due to the polarizing film). Practically speaking, about the best you can hope for is around 90% overall light transmission with a high-transmittance foil, 7 or 8-layer per side multicoated polarizer. That is a considerable improvement (about 25%) on standard foil, single-coated polarizers.
Polarizing Foil Used - Most traditional polarizer foils applied to filter glass absorb 1 1/2 to over 2 stops of light, with cheaper ones performing the worst in this respect. Lower-quality foils also can cause color shifts and otherwise degrade the image. High-transmittance polarizing foils that reduce absorbance to just over one stop first appeared about a decade into the 21st century. Benefits include: a brighter viewfinder, better AF performance, and a boost to your shutter speed.
Hardened Glass & Nano-type Coatings - In recent years, the best filter makers have adopted special hardened glass types and Nano coatings to improve the resiliency, durability, and cleaning properties of their premium filters, including circular polarizers. Do not quickly dismiss the advantages of easier cleaning and greater durability when considering the undeniable price premium of such polarizers over cheaper versions lacking such features. When having to live day-to-day, year-to-year, and even decades with your polarizer, those features outweigh the initial investment. For standard filters, even the act of cleaning itself accelerates wear and light scratches that accumulate over time, necessitating replacement sooner rather than later.

By all means, give that old linear polarizer a whirl, but remember that technology has come a long way and good quality modern (say within the last 10-12 years) circular polarizers provide a noticeable boost in anti-reflective performance over their forebears. But drop $80 - $100 USD for just a filter when I got this whole kit for that much? Get real, man. Okay, okay, okay. Here comes a tip or two:

BUY USED or discontinued NOS (new-old stock). You can save up to 80% that way, and end up with a lifetime polarizer for most of us enthusiasts. For the two circular polarizers in the opening picture I paid: 1) $32 USD for the 62mm Hoya HD2 in 9/10 Used condition from B&H Photo, and 2) $26 USD for the 55mm Hoya SUPER in Open Box condition from the big auction site. I also recently obtained an NOS 72mm Hoya HD (identical construction to the HD2, except that the HD2 came with a 5-year factory warranty) for $37, also from the big auction site. Original regular prices from B&H were $90, $91, and $96 USD, respectively (all prices inflation-adjusted to 2021).
Buy ONE polarizer in the largest filter ring size of your lens set and use step-up rings to adapt it to the rest of your lenses.

How to Get the Most Out of Your Polarizer

Just like watching the image in an SLR viewfinder snap in to focus for the first time as you twist the focus ring on the lens, so watching a blue sky darken and clouds pop out dramatically as you rotate your polarizer can be intoxicating. Or observing leaves snap into the most intense green or yellow you have ever seen...or seeing paint turn into a deep pool of color on a nice car as you kill reflections with a mere twist of your thumb and forefinger...and pretty you soon you are polarizing everything... everywhere... now all your dreams are in polarized light... and you can no longer stand in front of a mirror to brush your teeth anymore because you can't handle any reflections anywhere... and welcome to the polarization spiral ;-).

Oh yeah. Been. There. Done. That. It is sooo easy to overdo it with a polarizer. But the beauty of these little gizmos is that is doesn't have to be on OFF/ON, all-or-nothing, Nigel Tufnel "but-these-go-to-eleven" proposition ;-). You have, in the tips of your fingers, the ability to dial in just the right amount of polarization for a given situation. Polarizers are like spices in cooking...they are flavor-enhancers, not the main ingredient, and are at their best when used with a dash of subtlety and a pinch of restraint. Leaving a touch of glare on those wet rocks beside a waterfall, or just a bit of reflection on that pond surface to retain a sense of mystery, or to emphasize a beautiful compound curve on a classic car's fender are just a few examples of tasteful enhancement of an image via polarization.

One also needs to keep in mind that polarizers have limitations. They are at their most effective when used at a 90-degree angle to the direction of your main light source (e.g. the sun), and they gradually lose effectiveness the closer to parallel that they are oriented to said light source. The wider the angle of view of your selected lens, the more a banding effect (lighter and darker strips) between adjoining sections of the image will become apparent as the lens is taking in both those perpendicular (the more pronounced "darker" bands) rays versus the ones closer to parallel to the light source (the polarizer is less effective here, producing "lighter" bands and thus less glare reduction). This effect can be used creatively but more often than not serves as a distraction in the final image.

So, What's It Going to Be?

Ask yourself:

Does my current camera use a beam-splitter for metering and/or AF? If not, is there a chance that I will ever end up with such a camera? (Remember that almost every interchangeable lens AF camera introduced since 1985 and a decent number of MF bodies before that use beam-splitters.)
Am I prepared to accept a loss of image quality due to using an uncoated (major loss) or single-coated vintage linear polarizer (smaller loss)?

If you answered "No" to #1 and "Yes" to #2, go ahead and use any old linear polarizer. Otherwise, get thee to a quality multicoated circular polarizer and never have to think about it again. See, that wasn't so hard, was it? :-)

Modern, top-of-the-line B+W, Hoya, and Marumi (among others) circular polarizers offer the most bang for your buck versus boutique (Singh-Ray, etc.) or OEM (e.g. Canon, Nikon, Zeiss) manufacturers, offering excellent quality for less money. They all have some version of high-transmission foils, hardened glass and multicoatings, and easy-to-clean surfaces. You can pick up a top-quality used or discontinued NOS copy for less than half the price of a new mid-grade version in their respective lineups. A polarizer can easily outlast a number of bodies and is brand-agnostic as far as fitment goes if you ever decide to switch systems. It is also one of the last filter types that has not been successfully cloned for use in the digital darkroom as of yet. That makes it an important part of many a photog's kit today and one that will reward the care you take in selecting it for years to come :-).

References:

Polarizer @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarizer
Understanding Polarizing Filters @ https://ascmag.com/blog
How Circular Polarizers Work @ https://hoyafilterusa.com/pages
The Physics Behind Polarization @ https://schneiderkreuznach.com
Polarizer @ https://schneiderkreuznach.com/en/photo-optics/b-w-filters

Nikon N2000 (F-301) - Loud & Proud

Fri, 13 Aug 2021 21:30:00 GMT

Nikon N2000 aka F-301 (1985) w/ MB-3 AA Battery Holder & 50mm f/1.8 AI Nikkor

Updated May 10, 2024

Ka-Chang! Ka-Chang! Ka-Chang! The 1980s were anything but unobtrusive, so it should come as no surprise that the N2000 (F-301 outside of the US & Canada), Nikon's first SLR with internal, automatic film winding, was not bashful in its efforts to advance 35mm film to the next frame. This by no means distinguished it from its peers as there were no truly quiet motorized film advances until the '90s came along. Long spurned by Nikonistas due to its cardinal sins of: 1) Complete battery reliance, 2) Hybrid construction (READ: it's not all-metal...gasp!), and 3) Automation for everything but film rewind and auto focus, the N2000 is an all-time sleeper among Nikon SLRs (although the ruckus it makes when you squeeze the shutter release would serve as an effective alarm tone on your smartphone ;-)). It was Nikon's last proper, in-house, clean-sheet, manual focus SLR design (don't get me started on the FM-10/FE-10 imposters or the oddball N6000/F-601M that supposedly replaced the N2000, but was just a de-contented MF version of the AF N6006/F-601). But there was more to this under-the-radar SLR than just a fancy film advance system.

A Long Time Coming (and Running)

The gestation of the N2000 was a long one. The two cameras that kicked off the internal film winding SLR gambit, the Konica FS-1 and the CONTAX 137 MD Quartz, debuted in 1979 and 1980, respectively, and then were both updated into the FT-1 and 137 MA Quartz in 1983. You can tell that Nikon engineers gave both of those models (particularly the CONTAX) a long, hard look during their development of the N2000. Two years later, the first all-new Nikon SLR chassis in over five years was introduced in September 1985. The N2000 would last on the market until September 1992 (production obviously ended earlier than that :-)), and sell over 1.3 million copies along the way; not a bad run for a manual focus SLR that came out seven months after the AF SLR revolution began :-). With it, Nikon initiated their regional nomenclature for all non-professional film SLR models: with the "Nxxxx"-prefix for the USA and the "F-xxx"-prefix for other international markets. The N2000, along with its near-twin, the AF-capable N2020/F-501 (April 1986), would prove to be the last SLRs to sport the classic F2-stylized "Nikon" embossed into their prism housings. All subsequent models would use the italicized "Nikon" script (excepting the limited run 50th Anniversary F5, which resurrected the original font from the Nikon 1 rangefinder :-)). The N2000 was the direct replacement for the manual-advance FG & FG-20 cameras (which could be fitted with an accessory MD-14 motor drive), and the progress made with it is best seen in that context. Besides the integrated motor drive, other new features (for a Nikon, at least) included:

The K2 BriteView focusing screen, which offered a split-image rangefinder with multi-angle prisms that improved focus accuracy while simultaneously reducing blackout between the prism halves with lenses having a maximum aperture slower than f/4.5. BriteView referred to the laser-etched pattern for the matte-field that made for the brightest overall viewfinder yet in a Nikon SLR (it was basically their version of Minolta's Acute Matte screen technology). All succeeding enthusiast and professional Nikon SLRs (and even a few consumer models) and DSLRs would use BriteView focusing screens.
A 1-step increase in minimum shutter speed to 1/2000 sec. from 1/1000 sec., which was a first for a consumer-level Nikon SLR. And likely the reason for the N"2000" nomenclature of the North American version. It utilized quartz (technically, lithium niobate) control for the shutter, making for a higher degree of accuracy over standard electronically-controlled shutters.
The addition of a P HI Program mode, which was biased toward higher shutter speeds (1/2-step - 1 1/2-steps between EV 3-18) and therefore, wider apertures at a given exposure value (EV) than the standard P mode. Nikon encouraged use of this mode with lenses of 135mm focal length or more to combat motion-blur, or when fast-moving subjects were the quarry. It could also come in handy for portrait work.
The first Auto Exposure (AE) lock in a consumer Nikon SLR.
A film loading indicator in the film back that rotated upon advance when the film was properly loaded.
A window in the film back that revealed the film type, speed, and number of exposures recorded on the cartridge versus the traditional exterior memo holder of the FG & FG-20.
Provision for automatic DX (introduced by Kodak in 1984) film speed setting from ISO 25-4000 via six gold-plated contacts in the film chamber. The user could override this and set the film speed manually between ISO 12-3200, if desired. Why the difference in ranges? Likely because the slowest commonly available film by 1985 was Kodachrome 25, and so Nikon simply bumped the DX range up one step to account for that. They then had a little extra space on top, so they pushed the top end by 1/3-stop to ISO 4000.
The N2000 also adopted an electronic remote release cable (the MC-12A or MC-12B) that used the same connection as used in Nikon's accessory MD-4 (F3) and MD-15 (FA) motor drives, while eliminating the traditional mechanical cable release in the shutter button used by all previous Nikon SLRs. The MC-12A (3m/9.8' long) and MC-12B (0.8m/2.6' long) were updated versions of the MC-10 remote for older Nikon motor drives that allowed for meter activation with a partial press on the release button. The MC-12A & B were also used for the N2020/F-501, N8008(s)/F-801(s), F4, and N70/F70 SLRs. The screw-in MR-3 accessory shutter release button can also be mounted to the electronic release socket.
In another first for a Nikon, the N2000 was the recipient of an optional multi-function film back (MF-19) that expanded on the capabilities of previous databacks (which imprinted the date and time on each frame) by including intervalometer and timer functions for time-lapse photography, and also auto focus triggering for the upcoming N2020 AF model.

MB-4 AAA (top) & MB-3 AA (bottom)

The big thing was, undoubtedly, the integral film winder. A bare FG equipped with the MD-14 and its eight alkaline AA batteries weighed on the order of 1025 grams (36.1 oz) and had a maximum frame rate of 3.2 frames per second (fps) on High, and 2 fps set to Low. There was no selection between Single or Continuous advance. You had to press and release the shutter release relatively quickly to prevent taking more than one frame sequentially. The N2000 with four AA batteries installed (this required using the optional MB-3 battery cover in place of the standard MB-4, which held four AAAs) cut that to 670 grams (23.6 oz); a considerable savings of 35%. It still achieved a very respectable (for the day) 2.5 fps, which was impressive considering it had half of the amperage of the MD-14 at its disposal. An AA-powered N2000 was also far more efficient, able to run through 180 rolls of 36 exposures versus the 50 or so of the FG/MD-14 combo on a single set of alkaline batteries at room temperature (as are all of the ratings in this article). While there was no H/L setting on the N2000, it did allow for selection between (S)ingle and (C)ontinuous advance, which was plenty for its mid-consumer-level status.

As far as noise is concerned, a bit of perspective is in order. To a 21st-century ear (with our piped-in exhaust noise for sports cars and fake shutter clicks on our smartphones ;-)) the N2000 is noisy. But for its time, it was average or even a bit below-average. And when compared to many concurrent external motor drives or winders, it was actually a noticeable improvement. Just for casual comparison I took one of the more discreet SLRs of its era, the Minolta XD-11 (565g/20 oz with 2 - SR44 batteries), and popped on its accessory Auto Winder D (265g/9.3 oz with 4-AA Lithiums; 2 fps max.) and put it up against the N2000. With a Realistic #33-2050 sound meter positioned 30.5 cm (12") from the loudest part (between the front grip and lens mount of the N2000, and the rear central portion of the Auto Winder D, where the motors were located...go figure ;-)) of the tripod-mounted cameras with no hands or fingers to alter the dispersion of sound, the Nikon produced 73 dB while the Minolta punched out 76 dB (both were set to 1/250 sec. shutter speed). But it's not just about peak sound levels; the Minolta winder was higher-pitched and the cycle lasted at least twice as long, making for a much more noticeable frame advance.

The N2000 also more than held its own in relation to its internal-winding peers: the Canon T-70 (2 AAs; 1.2 fps ouch; 40 rolls of 36), the Minolta 7000 (w/ optional 4-AA holder BH-70L; 2 fps; 40 or so rolls of 36), the Pentax A3000/A3 (2 AAs; 1.5 fps; 50 rolls of 36), the Konica FT-1 (w/ optional 4-AA holder; 2 fps; 40 rolls of 36), and its closest competitor, the CONTAX 137 MA Quartz, to which the N2000 bears more than a passing resemblance in the battery compartment and film back areas ;-)). With its four AAs, the 137 MA Quartz outdid the N2000 in frame rate (3 fps), but at the expense of battery life (50 rolls of 36). To put all of those numbers in context, most accessory autowinders (if available) for manual-advance SLRs at the time used 4 AAs and did 2 fps on average (like our Minolta Auto Winder D). Nikon's advertising claim that the N2000 had the fastest integral motor in its "class", relied on its Program modes to distinguish it from the 137 MA Quartz which had "only" Aperture-priority and Manual modes. Such hair-splitting to claim superiority over competitors had become firmly entrenched by the mid-'80s as the SLR bust was in full swing and manufacturers were seeking to grab every last percent of market share from each other.

The chassis of the N2000/F-301.

The N2K in the 21st Century

Public Enemies 1, 2, 3, & 4 (aside from Nikonistas ;-)) for an N2000 are the alkaline batteries that have been used to power the vast majority of these cameras for the past 35+ years. More of these bodies have been rendered inoperable by those treacherous little barrels of leakiness than you can shake a jug of vinegar and a handful of Q-tips at (which is what you will need at the very least to clean any corrosion left behind). Two tips:

The absolute first order of business if you are contemplating the purchase of an N2000/F-301 (or its AF sibling, the N2020/F-501) is to ascertain the condition of the battery compartment. If there are signs of heavy current or previous corrosion, you may very well want to move on. At the very least, test the camera in question thoroughly before laying your coinage down. You might also be able to drive the price down a bit in such a situation.
If you do end up securing one, do yourself (and any prospective future owners) a favor and power it with Energizer Ultimate Lithium or Eneloop-type NiMH AAA or AA batteries, if at all possible. For the few extra bucks you can have complete peace of mind and not have to worry about remembering to remove the batteries anytime the camera will be sitting for awhile. I have noticed that "quality" name-brand alkaline batteries in my part of the world seem to be getting even more leak-prone than in years past and I have stopped using them in any of my battery-powered devices. Other benefits of the Energizer Ultimate Lithiums are: their cold-weather performance, lesser weight, and much greater longevity even under normal temperature conditions. For example, Nikon rated the N2000 with AAA alkalines (using the standard MB-4 battery holder) for 60 rolls of 36-exp. film at 20 degrees C per set of four. Substituting the MB-3 AA battery holder triples that figure. Swapping lithium AAs for the alkalines will increase that figure of 180 rolls to a mind-blowing nine hundred (this is based off of Nikon's own testing with the F90x/N90s in the late-1990s, where lithiums gave five times the longevity of standard alkalines at room temperature and lasted fourteen times longer at -10 degrees C). Suffice it to say that for most users, one set of lithiums (whether AAA or AA) would probably be the last batteries you would ever have to buy for an N2000. And they have a shelf life of 20 years, to top it all off. A set of 2000-2500 milliamp-hour NiMH AAs will give anywhere between 250-400 rolls of 36-exp., so that is definitely a viable option as well :-).

Many times you will hear of or read about the "plasticky" construction of the N2000 (and its AF near-twin, the N2020/F-501). Some clarification is necessary. It was not the first Nikon to use plastics by a long shot: the EM (1979) and its FG (1982) and FG-20 (1984) progeny, sported polymer top and bottom plates, and a less solid but still very decent feel, long before it. And even the enthusiast-level FA (1983) utilized such materials for its top plate. While it is true that the N2000's top plate & most of its controls, the trim plate surrounding the lens mount, and the interior of the battery compartment are all polymer or polycarbonate (which technically makes for "hybrid" construction), this is not a flimsy, creaky, or cheaply-constructed camera. The chassis was formed from two substantial aluminum alloy castings (using the same alloy as the F3 and the FM/FE/FA bodies) with all of the plastic bits screwed to said castings (the three rubber front grip panels are also directly attached to the front casting with double-sided tape). So, while it is not unusual to find hairline cracks in the admittedly thin polycarbonate of the top plate on either side of the model number, structural integrity is not compromised in such a situation. Of course, if you slam the camera around like a wannabe war photographer, it's not going to enjoy it ;-). The film back was still made from aluminum as was the bottom plate/battery cover (which could not be said of many of its peers in 1985), so you still got that true metallic cool-to-the-touch vibe when cradling the N2000 in your hands. You want to talk about plasticky Nikons? Grab an N/F50, 55, 60, 65, or 75 or an FM/FE-10 and then tell me the N2K feels cheap and flimsy. Oh, and no "sticky grip syndrome" to be had, either :-).

As far as lens compatibility goes, the N2000 is pretty darn solid among manual focus Nikon bodies. It will meter with almost any AI-modified *, AI, AI-s/Series E, or AF(-D) Nikkor lens. There are a couple caveats when metering in the two Program modes with AI-modified lenses (which lack the internal AI lug found on the mount of all actual AI, AI-s/Series E, and AF(-D) lenses) that the instruction manual details on page 37. If you are going to be a hardcore Program user, simply using actual AI or AI-s/Series E lenses makes this a moot point, or if you already have AI-modified lenses, using Aperture-priority or Manual will also mitigate any possible issues with obtaining proper exposures. Non-AI lenses will not mount on the N2000 without causing damage to the AI coupler, SO DO NOT ATTEMPT IT :-). While Nikkor "G" AF lenses will mount on the camera, their lack of an aperture ring and AI tab means that they will not meter and you will only be able to shoot them at minimum aperture as there is no way of controlling the aperture from the camera body. Nikon accordingly classifies G lenses as incompatible with the N2000 in all exposure modes, including Program. Putting an AF lens on an MF body sort of defeats the purpose anyways, no? But if you want to, knock yourself out :-).

* AI-modified lenses that cannot be used on the N2000 are: Nikkor 55mm f/1.2 (Serial Nos. 184711-400000), Nikkor 28mm f/3.5 (Serial Nos. 625611-999999), and Nikkor 35mm f/1.4 (Serial Nos. 385001-400000).

A couple of nice features when you use the camera in "A" mode are: 1) When you engage the AE lock, the locked shutter speed glows steadily in the viewfinder display while the current meter reading blinks so you can instantly see how much of an exposure difference there is between the two values, and 2) When using TTL flash, the 1/125 sec. sync. speed glows steadily while the metered reading without flash blinks to again alert the user to the difference between the two.

Rear view with DK-16 eyecup installed

(Possible) Drawbacks

As with any SLR, there were compromises incurred by the price point and design choices made with the N2000 such as:

Due to the bottom plate location of the battery compartment, Nikon moved the tripod socket from the centerline of the lens mount to the extreme left bottom corner of the camera, making the N2000 somewhat unstable when mounted on a tripod, and unusable for panoramic photography. This can be overcome by attaching the AH-3 Tripod Adapter, but you pay a weight penalty of 120 grams (4.3 oz). Compromise city ;-).
While its predecessors, the FG & FG-20, pre-fired the mirror when the self-timer was engaged (a feature generally reserved for enthusiast-level models like the FM & FE families), the N2000 reverted to the standard-for-the-class practice of releasing the mirror just prior to exposure, which results in less time for the vibration from the mirror flip to dissipate, something that can result in more image blur with shutter speeds between 1/30 - 1 sec. Not a huge deal for me personally, but it's there if you tend to obsess over that type of thing ;-).
If discretion is a big thing in your photography, the N2000 is likely not for you. This is not something worth agonizing over, as there are plenty of choices as far as manual-advance SLRs go for such purposes and the N2000 is not so earth-shatteringly superior in other ways so as to make it worth putting up with the noise if it's going to bother you that much.
Some users complain that the LED display washes out in bright situations. While I do not seem to have this problem, I did add a DK-16 rubber eyecup from an F65 that helps to reduce stray light from leaking into the viewfinder around my eye socket and lowering the contrast of the display. There are a number of other DK-series (DK-9, DK-11, DK-20, DK-21, DK-23, DK-24, or DK-28) eyecups from various Nikon (D)SLRs over the years that can be mounted to the N2000 eyepiece which may be more suited to your face shape to mitigate this potential issue. I chose the DK-16 because it does not impact eye relief too much (for me personally), as the viewfinder on the N2000 is definitely not high-eyepoint (meaning that your eye cannot be placed very far from the eyepiece in order to see the whole display). The DK-20 also works very well for me personally, and is still readily available. I also tried the DK-23 from my D300 DSLR and while it was super comfortable, its thicker profile pushed my eye too far rearward. Thus the DK-16 or DK-20. You may have to experiment a bit to find that happy medium for yourself :-). Conversely, the LED display of the camera is one of the best of its type in low light that I have ever used because the actual digits are illuminated, not just a dot beside a number that requires outside light coming through the lens to be visible.
The switch from a standard cable to an electronic remote release will drive some people batty. But Nikon was hardly the only company making this move in the mid-'80s...of all the competitive models listed earlier, only the Pentax was cable release-compatible (and it gives up a lot of other capabilities, as it was aimed lower in the market than the N2000 ;-)). At least the MC-12A & B are still readily available, for about $15-20 USD.
If you are coming from an F3 or N2020-or-newer Nikon SLR, the combined AE lock/self-timer control can be a bit confusing as you push the central button in for self-timer and push the circumferential lever in towards the lens mount for AE lock as opposed to the AE lock button used on those other models. Nikon had used this type of AE lock starting in 1972 with the Nikkormat EL and had carried it through the Nikon EL2, FE, and FE2 bodies. The N2000 was the last Nikon to use this control configuration.
In typical fashion, being a consumer model, the N2000 lacks depth of field (DOF) preview, aperture display readout (ADR in Nikonese) in the viewfinder, or mirror lock-up (MLU). This really shouldn't be a shock, it was standard practice in the camera industry by then and remains so to this day. Lower-tier devices get less features. You can get all of those features and internal motor drive in a 1980s Nikon...it's called an F4...with over double the weight...and for five or ten times the price. Your choice ;-).
Oh, and just one more thing, with even just an 50/1.8 AI Nikkor lens mounted, the N2K can't sit up straight on a table. I know, I know. Unacceptable, because that's how virtually every picture is taken...unsupported on a tabletop ;-).

Wrap-up

Today, the N2000 lives in the same space occupied by other consumer Nikon SLRs. It is shunned by Nikonistas (aka "real" Photographers; note the capital "P"...very important) because it's not an F3 or F4 for a fraction of the price (I mean come on Nikon, get it together ;-)). However, when viewed in proper context, it was very competitive with its contemporaries, and is currently stupid-good value for the money. Consider for a moment what you get:

A bright, snappy viewfinder and the best split-image rangefinder ever put in a Nikon SLR. This is arguably the most elemental of all SLR features.
Nikon's classic and predictable 60/40 centerweighted metering pattern.
An accurate, durable shutter with a useful range of speeds (1 - 1/2000 sec. + Bulb).
Simple operation with the ability to customize the amount of exposure automation to your liking and the situation (from the two Program modes to Aperture-priority to full-on Manual). The instruction manual numbers only 38 pages (including front and rear covers :-)).
Manual mode that shows the meter-recommended shutter speed with a blinking LED number and the currently-set shutter speed with a constantly-lit one. Match the two together by turning the shutter speed dial to correspond to the blinking speed. You can also fine tune with the aperture ring between the full-stop detents. Easy peasy lemon squeezy :-).
Both AE lock and +/-2 EV Exposure Compensation (in 1/3-stop increments, no less).
A comprehensive, manually-set ISO range of 12-3200 (25-4000 in DX mode), which is plenty for any film currently available.
A handy switch to disable that "bleeping" beeper if you prefer ;-).
Battery life that ranges from Excellent (AAA alkalines) to Otherworldly (AA lithiums).
TTL flash metering that leaves the F3 in its dust. And full TTL compatibility with all Speedlights from the SB-16B up to the SB-600 (introduced in 2004).
Excellent compatibility with almost all AI-modified, AI, AI-s Nikkors & Nikon Series E lenses, and any AF Nikkor with an aperture ring. The few exceptions are listed in the manual.

That's a pretty stout feature-set for $50 USD or less for a Very Good to Excellent grade copy from a reputable retailer with warranty any day of the week, and for even less than that should you choose to take your chances online-auctioning or in a thrift store. An equivalent-condition FG with the getting-rare MD-14 motor drive included will be $150 USD, minimum. Buying the MD-14 separately will take $75 USD, alone (that's MD-4 price territory :-0). Which makes the N2000 look pretty stinkin' good for the money (and remember that it's 35% lighter) if you want powered film winding in a manual focus Nikon. If you can live comfortably with its compromises (remember that every SLR has them :-)), you can't beat the value.

Perhaps the most apropos term for the N2000 is: Tweener. Stick it in between an FE2 (1982) and an N8008/F-801 (1988) and you clearly see the transitional character of the camera when it comes to controls and ergonomics. It also straddles the line between consumer affordability & simplicity and enthusiast capability. That makes it great for a first SLR or as an add-on to a battery of Nikon bodies for those situations where you don't want to risk a more valuable piece. Maybe Daijiro Fujie, designer of the N2000/F-301 viewfinder and Briteview focusing screen (and also, coincidentally, the vaunted AI-s 28/2.8 Nikkor lens) summed it up best when he recommended it to a younger colleague with honest humility:

not a high-end, professional sort of camera, but a good camera nonetheless

"...a good camera nonetheless." So don't let the Nikonistas get to you...just put some earplugs in ;-), run your finger over your N2000's or F-301's thin red line, snap that bright viewfinder into focus, and blast away. Ka-chang...ka-chang...ka-chang...

References:

Nikon N2000 Instruction Manual
Nikon History - Camera Chronicle: Part 15: "Nikon F-501" & "F-301"
Nikon History - Camera Chronicle: Debut of Nikon F3
Nikkor - The Thousand and One Nights No. 57 - by Kouichi Ohshita
Contax 137 MA Quartz Instruction Manual @ www.butkus.org/chinon
Contax 137 MA Quartz Dealer Notebook Pages c.1987 @ www.pacificrimcamera.com
First Look: Nikon N2000 Popular Photography Nov. 1985
Nikon Compendium: Handbook of the Nikon System by Hillebrand & Hauschild
Nikon N2000 Brochure - June 1985

Nikon Series E: 2nd-Rate Lenses for 2nd-Rate SLRs?

Wed, 07 Jul 2021 23:00:00 GMT

Updated Dec. 7, 2024

It is common knowledge among Nikonistas that the Series E line of lenses are unworthy of the Nikkor designation, due to the copious amounts of "plaaaastic" in their construction and their intended audience of wet-behind-the-ears beginner hacks (the only thing worse than "plaaaastic" to a Nikonista is a "baaaattery", always uttered with head reared back and clenched fists shaking at the heavens). Even having "Nikon" engraved on these "re-badged third party" lenses went way too far for these gatekeepers. Seeing as the little EM consumer SLR that the E lenses were designed for deservedly "failed" on the market (selling a paltry 400,000+ units in its first full year of worldwide distribution and "only" 1.5 million in less than 5 years overall) it should come as no surprise that the Series E line of lenses turned out to be one of Nikon's greatest blunders. Read on to see how they barely survived and the lessons they learned (or rather, failed to learn ;-)).

When Nikon Went Native

The late-1970's saw a major shift in the SLR industry as the professional and enthusiast markets became saturated and focus shifted (stinkin' focus-shift spoils many an image, as you well know ;-)) to previously untapped sectors. Canon was the first Japanese manufacturer to attempt to exploit a new consumer-level customer that was previously unreachable due to the heretofore high production costs of enthusiast SLRs. The AE-1 ushered in the era of engineered plastics (EPs), and electronic controls replaced mechanical systems as far as possible. The result was a greatly simplified design that incorporated as much automation in its assembly as was possible at the time, further slashing costs.

Canon did so poorly with the AE-1 that the rest of the industry felt sorry for them and quickly rushed their own ill-conceived attempts at SLRs for dummies to market so that Canon wouldn't lose too much market share, 'cause that's what good companies do for each other. Nikon was the last to do so, due to their proper regard for proper SLR construction, regardless of what Canon was going through. But, by 1979, their compassion got the better of them and they couldn't help themselves from reaching for Canon's outstretched hand and (you know what's coming) ended up in the same consumer quagmire, from which they have yet to completely extricate themselves. Of course, you could never completely envelop the mighty Nikon spirit, and they never got so deep as Canon into the quicksand (5.7 million AE-1s sold in nine years, big freakin' deal, shrugs). Nevertheless, they were now in the same mud hole and there was no escaping, just more wrestling. So let's dig in to this whole Series E thing a bit deeper :-0.

Series E? Surely You Can't Be Serious

Ok, Ok, Ok. My chimpanzee fact-checker just returned from lunch, and is currently threatening me with forty lashings with a used banana peel for my...as he is putting it, "fast-and-loose misuse of the typed word". Whaat?? How could something someone types for consumption (cough, cough) on the sticky ol' Interwebs be anything but truth and goodness for all humankind? I mean come on, I'm not even using spellcheck, for crying out lout. How much more real can I be?? #keepinitreal #thetruthisoutthere #nikonsucks #canonsucks #sonyforthewin #icantstophashtagging #ihavehashissues. STOP!

Deep Breath. Let's start again. First, let's dispense with the "third-party designed" or "subcontracted" nonsense that has been immortalized on internet forums (renowned for their enlightening effect on humanity and thus why they are often found at the top of a Google search ;-)). Series E lenses were designed by Nikon and made by Nikon - end of story. Actually, if you want more story, go check out The Thousand and One Nights by Nikon, specifically Tales #42 & #76 to get the particulars behind their development and production.

Next, let's establish the parameters that Series E lenses were conceived, designed, and constructed under according to Nikon optical engineer Kouichi Ohshita:

The price of the lenses was reduced by minimizing the number of lens elements required for optical components and using less expensive glass materials.

As well as:

In tune with this small Nikon EM, lighter weights were achieved through the use of plastic for the exterior parts of the Nikon Series E lenses, as well as their aperture rings and lens chambers that hold lens elements. Even the helicoid was plastic on some of the lenses.

To summarize:

Less glass - This is a pretty simple concept: more glass = more weight = stronger components needed to hold said glass = heavier and more expensive, both of which defeat the whole purpose of a compact, light, and cheap consumer SLR system. So, Series E lenses featured the fewest elements required to achieve the optical performance goals of Nikon. Another means of reducing cost was with lens coatings. All Series E lenses, except the 50/1.8 and 100/2.8 (both single-coated), featured Nikon Integrated Coating (NIC), but it was not necessarily the top-level of multicoating used on standard Nikkors.
Lighter-weight, less-expensive materials - Casting or forging and machining metal is resource- and labor-intensive. Nikon readily recognized that to keep the lenses matched to the EM in both weight and cost, they needed lighter, cheaper, more easily formed materials: thus the switch to engineered plastics for the lens barrels, etc. on the smaller prime Series E lenses (Nikon felt that the plastics of the day were not yet capable of stable zoom constructions and so they retained metal barrels on the Series E zooms and the 135/2.8 prime). The prime E lenses (excluding the "pancake" 50/1.8) also used a cut-out in the lens barrel to provide a "window" to view the distance scale on the focus ring similar to older Pentax Takumar lenses (this was yet another way to reduce weight). They also used more common glass types that were cheaper to produce (no extra-low dispersion aka ED glass, here ;-)) and physically easier to work with.

That approach was balanced with this tenet:

There was absolutely no compromise on design, however, and one of the concepts behind the series was that the lenses would preserve the same quality as existing Nikkor lenses.

Paradoxically, to design a good, lightweight, and yet inexpensive, lens takes a more deft touch than being able to just throw the latest technology and copious amounts of top-level materials at the problem (Exhibit A: the new Z-mount Noct. 58mm f/0.95 Nikkor). One sure sign that Nikon was not compromising on the optical design of Series E within the above-cited limitations was its choice in designers to execute them. These were not interns or apprentices cutting their teeth, they were the same men who had fashioned some of the most advanced Nikkor optics to date: from the then-widest rectilinear lens in the world (13/5.6) to high-performance telephotos like the 200/2 & 400/2.8 and everywhere in between. Another common myth concerning E lenses claims that they lacked popularity due to compromised performance and this was reflected in poor sales and Nikon was thus finally forced to yank them from the lineup in 1985, after only six years on the market. Was that actually the case?

The E-ntire Lineup

We will now take each of the eight Series E optics in isolation and compare them with their illustrious Nikkor brethren in terms of optical quality and sales performance:

28/2.8 - Cheapo wide angle designed by Ikuo Mori, Nikon's then-resident wide-angle guru (his resume included the 13/5.6, 15/5.6, 18/4, 20/4, 24/2.8 AI, and the 28/4 PC Nikkor lenses). This was the simplest (5 elements in 5 groups) 28mm F-mount lens ever produced by Nikon. That, along with its engineering plastic body enabled a weight savings of almost 40% over the Nikkor versions. It was not sold in Japan as it was felt that it would cannibalize Nikkor 28/2.8 sales (which was the truth). Its optical performance was close enough to its precursor, the 7-element 28/2.8 AI Nikkor, that Nikon faced a quandary when replacing the AI with an AI-s Nikkor. To put more distance between the E and the AI-s, they decided to equip the AI-s with their Close Range Correction (CRC) floating element technology, something normally reserved for their higher-spec f/2 and f/1.4 lenses. This allowed the AI-s to focus 33% closer than the E, providing that performance separation at close distances. So, if you are a fan of the close-up capability of the 28/2.8 AI-s, you have the E to thank for that :-). So what about sales? The 40 year lifespan of the 28/2.8 AI-s speaks volumes to its performance and popularity, with just over 210,000 produced. Not too shabby for a manual focus lens that lived almost 90% of its life during the Auto Focus (AF) era. The bulk of that number would have been sold during the 1980's, but it still works out to a mean average of approx. 5,250 per year. The E, with its six-yearish lifespan, sold a bit over 250,000 copies, for a mean average of approx. 41,600 per year. But it gets even more interesting. Yes, the manual focus Series E was cancelled in 1985, but Nikon retained the exact same optical formula for use in the first two generations of the 28/2.8 AF Nikkor (notice the name change?) which they produced for another 10 years, selling 130,000 more copies. Does that sound like such pitiful performance that Nikon was forced to preemptively scrap the design?

35/2.5 - One of the three original lenses introduced with the EM in March 1979 (the others were the 50/1.8 and the 100/2.8). Patented by Koichi Wakamiya, who later became known for his compact 35mm lenses including the now-legendary "Pikaichi" 35/2.8 Sonnar-style lens and subsequent versions of the L35AF (One Touch) series of compact AF Nikons. Unsurprisingly, because of Nikon's policy against naming such "economy"-grade lenses as Nikkors, rumors abounded that they were outsourcing the designs on their compact AF cameras as well. Hmmm, there seems to be a pattern developing here (eyeroll). Anyways, the 35/2.5 also sported a 5-element in 5-groups design like the 28/2.8 and the standard AI-s 35/2.8 Nikkor. The aperture value is important here: it was just different enough (on paper, at least ;-)) from the f/2.8 of the Nikkor version that Nikon figured that the buying public wouldn't make the connection between the two, so the 35/2.5 could be sold in Japan along with the rest of the world. Weight was also just under 40% less than its Nikkor counterpart. As for sales success, Nikkor AI & AI-s 35/2.8 production from 1979-89 was just under 173,000 for a yearly rate of 17,300. 35/2.5 E production totaled approx. 196,000 for a yearly rate of 32,600. None of Nikon's 35mm 2.5-2.8 lenses made the transition to AF, so it would seem that the Series E was not disqualified from AF due to performance issues, but rather, because of the fact that "slow" 35mm prime lenses of all brands were being killed off by zooms in both the MF and AF categories.

50/1.8 - Here we go. The number one reason why it can be stated that a Series E lens can be as optically good as a Nikkor: when it's the exact same design aside from coatings. Developed by Soichi Nakamura (creator of the professional-targeted 28-45/4.5 and 35-70/3.5 Zoom Nikkors and co-creator of the famed 200/2 Nikkor), the 50/1.8 (6 elements in 5 groups) was intended from the start to serve double duty as a Series E and AI-s Nikkor. Only the coatings (single vs. full NIC) and close focus distance (0.6m vs. 0.45m), which necessitated a finer-thread helicoid assembly (made from metal in the AI-s vs. the plastic of the Series E), differentiated the two, deliberately providing market separation. Introduced first in 1979, the new design was installed in the much shorter Series E barrel and sold as the kit lens with the EM from March of that year onward. It then debuted in Japan in identically-sized AI-s form in 1980 with the release of the EM to the home market. The so-called "long-nose" AI-s version was introduced in 1981 for sale outside of Japan with identical dimensions to the outgoing AI Nikkor that had been introduced in 1978. Production of all 0.45m/multicoated 50/1.8 AI-s versions totaled just under 388,000 from 1980-82 for a yearly average of 129,000. Sounds pretty healthy. Series E production from 1979-85 came to almost 2.25 million for an approx. average of 321,000 per year. It would, therefore, seem very strange that Nikon would discontinue their best-selling lens in 1985, which is precisely what they did. Or did they, really? The real question we should be asking is "why?". As in, why did Nikon shelf, not just the 50/1.8, but the entire Series E line in 1985? As the forgoing has shown, it was not about lack of popularity or performance. It was about the technological tectonic shift from manual focus to auto focus. After the Minolta 7000 caught the rest of the SLR industry with their pants ankle-high in February 1985, it didn't take a rocket surgeon to know the direction that the consumer SLR market was going to take. Entry-level MF SLRs were already taking a beating from compact lens-shutter AF models, so the appearance of a practical AF SLR was the final death knell for them. Nikon immediately realized that they needed to prioritize AF lens development, and here is where all of their accumulated experience with the Series E line would bear its fruitage. The 50/1.8 is a case in point: Nikon simply moved the AI-s optical version to the AF Nikkor platform that they introduced in April 1986, albeit with a physical lens construction that was far more closely-related to the engineered-plastic Series E construction. Then in another testament to the overall soundness of the Series E physical design they slapped NIC on the glass of the E with its 0.6m close-focus distance (and plastic helicoids), re-labelled it as the "New" AI-s Nikkor, and left it that way for the next 20 years, punching out almost 460,000 more copies. Oh, and as for the AF Nikkor version, they are still selling the last remnants of the 50/1.8 D iteration, bringing total AF 50/1.8 (excluding "G" series lenses without aperture rings) production to over 3 million. Some "failure", huh? So why do Nikonistas still complain about the Series E version? Got to have something to winge about, I guess. Single-coating? Single-coated Nikkors from the 1960s are said to have "character" and 'feel' when they flare and ghost. With Series E, single coatings make for lousy contrast and "artifacts" when they flare and ghost. Riiight ;-).

100/2.8 - The third of the original Series E triumvirate (although it was developed first). Designed by Sei Matsui (who will continue to feature in the Series E family tree). An impressive achievement of cramming 100mm of focal length into a package the size of 50/1.4 lenses from only a few years earlier. The 4-element construction further reduced weight to half that of the legendary 105/2.5 Nikkor. Over 190,000 produced in six years versus just under 165,000 AI-s Nikkor 105/2.5s from 1981-2005 for a yearly rate of 31,600 versus 6,600. Remember, these mean average rates are not actual, they are merely used to illustrate that production of Series E lenses was not some tenuous, barely-holding-their-own enterprise. They were very successful in their intended role until the whole industry was forced to pivot to AF. The 100/2.8 cost half of what the 105/2.5 Nikkor did, but provided considerably more than half the overall performance which is exactly what Nikon set out to do with this lens line. Production ceased in 1981 with sales continuing into early-1982. Its place was taken by the next Series E in our list. An excellent technical analysis of this lens' performance compared to the 105/2.5 Nikkor can be found in Tale #80 by Kouichi Ohshita of The Thousand and One Nights on the Nikon website.

135/2.8 - The final prime focal length added to the lineup, with production starting in the spring of 1981, and availability starting in January 1982. Not sold in Japan due to its overlap with the 5-element Nikkor AI-s of the same specification. Although it also used only 4 elements like the 100/2.8 E (which basically served as the prototype), these were thick, heavy pieces of glass which, along with more metal in the barrel assembly, restricted weight savings over the AI-s version to 10%. It also received NIC. The designer was Sei Matsui, Nikon's resident Ernostar-type lens design specialist (besides the two Series E telephotos, he was also responsible for the classic 180/2.8 Nikkor in standard and ED forms, and also the 135/2 Nikkor). Thus, next to the 50/1.8, the 135/2.8 E was probably closest in overall performance to its Nikkor counterpart. See Tale #76 of The Thousand and One Nights for a deeper dive into this lens.

36-72/3.5 - The second E Zoom to be introduced (in Sept. 1981). If any one optic has served to reinforce the perception of this lens series as subpar performers, this is it. While not appallingly bad, the 36-72 is nothing to write home about. Although one would logically compare it with 35-70mm lenses, it actually had much more in common, including design & performance, with Nikon's long-running 43-86/3.5 lens, the original "affordable" kit zoom lens. Cost pressures were even more pronounced in the Series E-era and pitted the lens' designer Satoshi Mogami and Nikon's QC department against the bean counters. It makes for interesting reading in Tale 91 of Nikon's Thousand and One Nights ;-). The lens did end up with multicoating in order to meet Nikon's optical standards (no surprise there, for a zoom). Cleverly, Mogami-san had tried to sneak using Nikon's most advanced K-coating (reserved for only their most premium lenses) in the prototype stage, likely realizing that there was no way he would be allowed to use it when production actually came. The bean counters (of course) wanted single coating, but QC, to its credit, showed that the lens's ghosting performance was not satisfactory with single coating. Therefore, standard NIC was used, and ghosting and flare performance was sufficient to meet Nikon's standards. In the spirit of its 43-86/3.5 forebear: a compromise. And perhaps that is the best sum-up of this lens. It performed similarly to the 43-86 in terms of resolution, distortion, and vignetting. Bokeh is notably average to poor, as with the 43-86.

75-150/3.5 - From the outhouse to the penthouse...if any single E lens served to draw positive attention to Series E, here's your winner. At a relatively svelte 520 grams (18.3 oz.) the 75-150 was the hottest short telephoto zoom going amongst portrait and product-shooting Nikon pros in the early-'80s. Designed by Yutaka Iizuka (he was also responsible for the 120/4 Medical Nikkor & 50-300/4.5 ED Zoom Nikkor) as the first of the E Zooms, it was definitely the most popular and production outstripped its compatriots with nearly 265,000 produced over five years for an annual rate of almost 53,000. While it definitely belies its E roots with a loosey-goosey-creepy zoom ring, it is still a well-built (and also multicoated ;-)) lens, and remains a steal at current prices ($75 USD in excellent condition). Tale #42 of The Thousand and One Nights.

70-210/4 - Built nearly to Nikkor levels, as evidenced by its 730 gram (25.7 oz) weight, this was the last of the Series E lenses to debut in December 1981, and being another zoom, with the costlier multicoating. Nikon saw fit to transition this lens into the first AF Nikkor telephoto zoom in 1986, so it couldn't be all that bad ;-). Mostly, it was too large and heavy for sustained success in the AF era, so it was quickly replaced with a 70-210/4-5.6 optic that liposuctioned over 20% from its weight (notice the loss of the constant f/4 maximum aperture to accomplish that). Nikon still managed to punch out 185,000 of the MF version in 4 years at a rate of 46,250 per year. Compare that to the 80-200/4 AI-s Nikkor with 150,000 produced from 1981-98 (8,800 per year). The Nikkor had a slight edge in performance, particularly with resistance to flare and ghosting, but otherwise, it was pretty much a wash optically.

So Why Did Nikon Kill Series E?

If the optical performance, by and large, was there and the lenses sold well, why on earth would Nikon nix a whole range of top-selling lenses? The answer lies in two areas: one internal and the other external.

The first was alluded to in the descriptions of the three Series E zooms above: Nikon was losing the battle of production cost versus optical capability. Nikon's Quality Assurance Department would not allow the bean counters to meet their targets at the expense of Nikon's optical reputation, an untenable situation. And with zooms only becoming more and more popular, the multicoating battles were not going to go away. So Nikon simply stopped designing for Series E after the 70-210/4 layout was completed. Internally, Series E was an albatross that held down profits precisely at a time when the SLR bust was taking hold and financial pressures were rising. But, Nikon couldn't just do without Series E just yet. Another four years would elapse before Series E would die. Which leads to the other, external, factor...

The second area was the industry pivot to AF in 1985. The debut of Minolta's Alpha/Maxxum/Dynax AF system in February 1985 provided more than enough cover (the incentive was already there ;-)) for Nikon to ditch Series E as they prioritized AF development. The fact that many of the Series E optical designs and construction techniques were simply ported over to AF showed their actual viability. As manual focus quickly became niche as far as sales of new gear was concerned, Nikon did as they have done in the mirrorless era: push higher-margin gear and ditch the lower-end of the market as much as possible. Manual focus Nikkors survived in Nikon's lineup for decades following the launch of the AF era. Therein lies the point...NIKKORS...higher-positioned than Series E, with accordingly higher margins. So, no great mystery as to the denouement of Nikon's budget-friendly, but bottom-line-eating, batch of lenses.

Should You Buy One Today?

As far as value per dollar went, it was never a contest between Series E lenses and their corresponding Nikkors when they were new. You got 90-95% of the performance and optical quality for half the price. As with anything, the law of diminishing returns makes that last 5-10% the hardest and most expensive gain to make. But the demarcation between the two is more blurry in the used market of today, especially when we are talking zooms. The depreciation on MF Zoom Nikkors from the late-'70's to mid-'80s is staggering. We are talking 90+% adjusting for inflation. So you can often find a full-on Nikkor for close to the same price or even less sometimes than the corresponding E; the penalty, in most cases, being weight. That is why the 75-150/3.5 E continues to be the most popular E zoom. It is the only one with an appreciable weight advantage over a similar Nikkor (the 50-135/3.5 was the closest, and it weighs a third again as much) And that is what will be the deciding factor when it comes to the prime lenses, too. The major advantage of Series E primes over Nikkors today is weight savings. And that would be the only real reason to seek one out specifically, unless you are a fan of single-coated normal or medium telephoto lenses :-).

Okay, so searching out E lenses may not be as rewarding financially as it used to be. By far, your chances of encountering an E are highest as part of a kit or package, especially if you come across an EM, FG, FG-20, or F-301 (N2000). So should you just toss it and get thee to the nearest Nikkor? That's totally up to you, but I would recommend giving the E a chance first. Even if you find that you prefer a Nikkor, having a lightweight backup lens is never a bad thing. Lens hoods are an excellent add-on for any Series E (or Nikkor, for that matter), and will help them to maintain contrast in brighter conditions. Aside from the 70-210/4 (62mm), all Series E lenses used Nikon's standard 52mm diameter filter thread, so any 52mm or 62mm threaded Nikkor hood will work for the corresponding focal length in E (all of which had dedicated accessory or built-in hoods for each focal length). Here is a brief rundown of the pros, cons, and Nikkor alternatives to each Series E:

28/2.8 (HR-6 hood) - Pros: light weight and good performance. Cons: Very short 60-degree focus throw can make nailing focus quite challenging. Heavy vignetting. Corners trail the center for sharpness considerably. Alternatives: The 28/3.5 AI or AI-s Nikkor can be had for the same money with better optical performance and a 200-degree or 90-degree focus throw and better build quality.
35/2.5 (HR-4 hood) - Pros: same as the 28/2.8. Cons: Prices are no better than equivalent Nikkors and build quality is obviously lesser. Alternatives: AI or AI-s Nikkor 35/2.8.
50/1.8 (HR-4 hood) - Pros: same as the 28 & 35. Cons: Close-focus distance of 0.6m vs. 0.45 for standard Nikkors; for some people single coating is a con, for others it means more character :-). Alternatives: If you want the light weight and pancake dimensions with 0.45m close focus, look for a New AI-s version from Japan: Serial #s from 2050001-226xxxx. If you want a traditional "long-nose", look for AI Serial #s from 176xxxx-216xxxx or AI-s Serial #s from 313xxxx-330xxxx.
100/2.8 (HR-5 Hood) - Pros: same as the 28, 35, & 50. Weight savings over the 105/2.5 is considerable. Cons: For some, lack of multicoating, and the appearance of the bokeh is less-desirable than that of the 105/2.5. Alternatives: the 105/2.5 in AI or AI-s form. With patience you can score an AI for the same money as the E; the AI-s will almost always be another $50-100 USD.
135/2.8 E (Buit-in hood) - Pros: The lightest 135mm lens you will find from Nikon. Cons: Still relatively heavy for the focal length. Multicoating not as advanced as the 135mm Nikkors. Alternatives: the 135/3.5 or 2.8 AI or AI-s Nikkors. The 3.5s are roughly equivalent on price and the 2.8s are generally higher, but watch carefully, some E's are priced as high as 2.8 Nikkors!
36-72/3.5 (HK-8 hood) - Pros: Constant aperture (can you tell I'm reaching here? ;-)) Cons: Heavy for its category; not great optically, just meh... Alternatives: If you want a cheap, light, good little standard zoom for a Nikon, the 35-70/3.3-4.5 AI-s Nikkor that replaced the 36-72/3.5 is the ticket. Same or less money, better optically, 33% lighter, two-touch zoom (that might be a con for some). No. Brainer.
75-150/3.5 (HN-21 hood) - Pros: Optically excellent, lightweight for the era, cheap as chips. Cons: Develops loose, creepy zoom ring; early ones had cheesy stamped protective ears for rear element; go for Serial #s 189xxxx and up and you will avoid that issue. Alternatives: The 50-135/3.5 AI-s Nikkor is 35% heavier and a touch pricier, but still a great deal at $100 USD or less. It can also suffer from a creepy zoom ring, but is still more solid than the 75-150/3.5 E. Watch out for fungus and mold in the lowest-priced ones. You can't go wrong with either lens. Weight is the biggest difference.
70-210/4 (HN-24 hood) - Pros: Good all around, no glaring flaws; price. Cons: Heavy; not quite as good optically as the 80-200/4 or 80-200/4.5 Nikkors. Alternatives: 80-200/4 AI-s Nikkor or 80-200/4.5 AI Nikkor w/ Serial #s 760xxx to 913xxx. Weight is within 10% for all of them. The late f/4.5 can be had for $100 USD or a bit more and is still regarded by many as the best MF telephoto zoom in this class that Nikon ever made; the 800-200/4 has the best coatings, and thus flare and ghosting resistance, and runs about the same in price. The Series E can be had for less than $100 USD.

Wrap-Up

When held up to the standard of any other economy-level OEM SLR lenses of the late-'70s & early-'80s (such as Minolta Celtics and Pentax Takumar Bayonets) Series E glass is, at the very least, a match for (and often better than) them. And when they were selling new, the value proposition versus Nikkor optics was undeniable (you got far more than 50% of the performance for half the price :-)). The fact that most of them can go for nearly the same price as a corresponding Nikkor, nowadays, only serves to underscore that the optical quality is there. But, aside from the weight-savings, that is also precisely the reason why you should look at a Nikkor equivalent when considering a Series E lens today. The present value-per-dollar situation has reversed from 40 years ago: if you can get 5-10% more performance for the same or just a fraction more money, why not? The only real exception is when you purchase a package of an SLR and lens(es). In that case, the glass is often basically a throw-in and the value proposition goes back up. Bottom line? Series E glass is just as usable as it ever was (which was pretty darn good :-)) whether mounted on an F3 or FG, just don't overpay for it. Seriousl-E ;-).

References:

Roland's Nikon Pages @ http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/lenses.html#top
Various Tales from The Thousand and One Nights @ https://imaging.nikon.com
Nikon Series E Lenses Brochure (Feb. 1981) @ www.pacificarimcamera.com
Nikon Series E Lenses Brochure (May 1981)
Nikon Series E Lenses Brochure (Sept. 1982)
Several entries on Google Patents

Nikon EM, FG, & FG-20 - The "Littlest" Nikons

Wed, 16 Jun 2021 01:00:00 GMT

Updated Feb. 17, 2022

Maybe tomorrow, I'll find what I call home,
Until tomorrow, you know I'm free to roam.

So if you want to join me for a while,
Just grab your hat, come travel light, that's hobo style.

-- excerpt from "Maybe Tomorrow", theme song from "The Littlest Hobo" --

The revival of The Littlest Hobo aired on Canadian television from 1979 to 1985 and continued in syndication throughout the rest of (and beyond) my childhood. I didn't like dogs much at the time so I thought that the show was by turns hokey, cheesy, lame...you name it (Macgyver was far more suited to my rarefied juvenile tastes and definitely not cheesy or hokey at all ;-)). Little did I realize that a similar situation was occurring simultaneously in the world of Nikon SLRs. Please allow me to introduce the hobo family of Nikon SLRs that was introduced in 1979 and discontinued in 1985 (coincidence or convergence? You be the judge ;-)).

In March of 1979, Nikon first dared to venture into that most voracious and volatile sector of the SLR market: consumer SLRs. Oh, the horror for dyed-in-the-wool Nikonistas! Stooping to the level of Canon and their gauche, glass-reinforced polymer A-whatevers? Unthinkable! What was next...pitiful, plastic point & shoots?? (Now, now, just step back from that ledge and take a deep breath...that wouldn't happen for another four years ;-)) Where was the pride...the heritage...that was Nikon??? Well, blame America. After all, it was American dealers that were clamoring for a less expensive alternative to the FE. Add to that the age-old adversary of market saturation. Everything was going along swimmingly in Nikon's traditional professional and enthusiast slots. But those two sectors, while maintaining very loyal followings, were mature markets and overall growth was minimal. Entry-level SLRs were the happening thing. And so begat Nikon their first economy SLR, the aptly-labelled EM.

The First of the Little Nikons

Now, this was no small step for Nikon, as they themselves have said:

With the completion of 4 different product lineups of F3, FE, FM, EM targeting different classes of users, our brand image changed from "Nikon, the manufacturer of high-end SLR cameras" to "Nikon, the all-round single-lens reflex (SLR) manufacturer". The 4 product lines were referred to as Super Nikon, Simple Nikon, Compact Nikon, and Little Nikon, respectively, and the product strategy was successfully established to accommodate a wide variety of consumers from beginners to professional photographers.

That Nikon was still unsure of this pared-down paradigm and was taking baby steps was shown by their delay of the EM's release in Japan by a year to coincide with the introduction of the hotly-anticipated F3 in March 1980. Now this was noteworthy, as almost every new Japanese SLR at the time was always released first in Japan and then a bit later to the rest of the world. It seemed like Nikon was hoping to slide the EM on the F3's coattails in Japan because they were afraid of the reaction of the Japanese press and typical Nikonians to this change of brand identity. That was not a wholly-unrealistic fear. Right from the get go, there was a "red-haired stepchild" sort of mindset predominating in some quarters at Nikon itself towards the EM, its Series E lenses, and other E accessories. You can almost see certain Nikon executives holding their nose as they dared to defile their hallowed hallways with this consumer SLR swill. So it shouldn't have been a shock for that same attitude to be found outside Nikon among those who fancied themselves aficionados of the brand.

Even the purportedly affectionate term "Little" Nikon had a backhanded undercurrent to it. The EM was truly the most "compact" Nikon, so why not give it that distinction over the not-precisely petite FM? "Little" implied that it wasn't a grown-up Nikon. Reinforcing this perception was the egregious title bestowed by Nikon on the EM as the "SLR Camera for Women". Sadly, such a misogynistic viewpoint was hardly confined to Nikon at that time (the other manufacturers at the time were no better at best, and some were even more blatant in their SLR sexism). Even if the smaller size of the EM did make it a better fit for the majority of female hands, the choice of such terms as "cute" and "easy-to-use" to promote the EM specifically to women showed, not just an outright lack of understanding of what female photographers truly valued and why, but more glaringly it implied that "regular" SLRs were too sophisticated for them to handle. (Nikon would continue with this Neanderthal thinking for years to come, and could never quite understand why their SLR marketing to women always came up short in terms of sales success). The reason why most of the photographers I know appreciate simple, direct operation is not because it requires lesser intellectual capacity, but so that they can devote more of that capacity to composition and emotional investment in the moment instead of fiddling with a bunch of "features" that very often lead to missed opportunities for their tech-crazed, spec-dazed counterparts. Unfortunately, this uppity attitude was mirrored by plenty of Nikon acolytes and salespersons who knew that "real" photographers needed "more" from their equipment. Funnily enough, nobody seemed to care that Canon, Minolta, Olympus, and Pentax were selling boatloads of consumer SLRs alongside their more advanced models, but woe betide Nikon for doing so ;-).

The EM was in direct competition with such models as: the Canon AV-1 (another SLR created at the behest of American dealers), the Konica TC, the Minolta XG-1/XG-A/X-7, the Olympus OM-10, the Pentax MV/MV-1, and the Yashica FR II. Like every other Japanese SLR manufacturer, Nikon was hoping to use the entry-level EM as the gateway for consumers to its higher-level offerings and thus expand the nearly-stagnant enthusiast demographic. While we can see that they failed to accomplish that objective (as did the entire SLR industry), it is going too far to term the EM and its descendants as sales failures. In 1980 alone, Nikon moved over 400,000 units of the Little Nikon, making it their best-selling SLR by far that year. From 1979 to 1985, Nikon sold well over 1.5 million EMs (48 months approximately in production), over 1.1 million FGs (44 months approx. production), and over 600,000 FG-20s (18 months approx. production). I can think of worse "failures" than over 3 million cameras sold in that time period ;-). Interestingly, Canon sold over 950,000 AV-1s from 1979-84, so it seems that there was plenty of room for a low-cost aperture-priority SLR at the time, even for someone as heavily-invested in shutter-priority SLRs as Canon was (they only managed to sell 8 million of those from 1976-84 ;-)). Minolta sold roughly the same amount of their base XG-1/XG-A/X-7 models from 1978-84 as Nikon did the EM (for a total of over 5 million consumer Minolta SLRs over the same period). And Pentax sold around 2.2 million of its consumer-targeted M- & P-series bodies during that time. So yes...the EM was a failure; it failed to undersell its direct competitors from Canon, Minolta, and Pentax during its time on the market ;-). The FG-20 had the added misfortune of running directly into the avalanching Auto Focus (AF) revolution starting with 35mm compacts and then SLRs, which shortened its lifespan prematurely. It had the highest monthly rate of production among the three Little Nikons, and would have easily sold well over a million units if market conditions would have permitted it.

Yes, the EM was the cheapest, most basic Nikon SLR of its time, and not by a little. But make no mistake, Nikon was serious about it, tasking famed Italian designer Giorgetto Giugiaro's firm Italdesign with styling it, making the elegant EM the first to market in a long line of Italdesign-penned Nikons (Giugiaro had been working on the F3 prior to the EM, but it would not appear for another year after the EM's introduction). Nikonistas may have plenty of invective otherwise for the camera, but you rarely hear the styling being called into question ;-).

The heart of any camera is its shutter, and all of the Little Nikons would use the tried-and-true Seiko MFC-E that had proven itself in the Pentax ME, Minolta XDs, Leica R4, and others. It was reliable as the tides and quiet to boot. Nikon was not cutting corners as far as that went (Canon, Minolta, and Olympus used cheaper cloth shutters in their base models). Another feature that was not exactly common among budget SLRs (and was noteworthy for its absence on the FM/FE duo) was a ratcheting film advance mechanism. While most of its competitors made do with single-stroke units (meaning that you had to perform the entire stroke in one movement, instead of several short strokes if you wished), the designer of the EM's film advance stated, "I don't like cameras that don't wind fractionally!" So the EM got its ratcheting film advance :-).

So where did Nikon cut costs?

The most obvious place was the use of plastic top and bottom plates and numerous internal parts (such as the cams for the ratchet mechanism for the film advance), a practice that had already been adopted industry-wide on most entry-level SLRs. Contrary to popular belief (even today), such a substitution does not render an SLR a quivering puddle of polymer on the floor. By the late-1980's even some professional and many enthusiast SLRs would feature the same basic hybrid (plastic body panels over a metal chassis) construction. Such compromises saved on cost and on weight: the EM was over 20% lighter than the next-lightest Nikons (FM/FE again) and it sported dimensions that placed it firmly among the most compact SLRs available at the time.
Features like depth-of-field (DOF) preview, autoexposure (AE) lock, a full-information (showing the recommended and set shutter speed and aperture values) viewfinder, TTL flash, and a PC (Pronto Compur) flash sync. socket were all no-shows on the EM. But the same could be said for every other SLR in its class.
More pertinent to the actual photographic results was the lack of an air or flywheel damper for the reflex mirror (again, standard procedure for consumer-level SLRs). This, coupled with the lower mass of the Little Nikons, meant a greater amount of vibration that could manifest itself when shutter speeds fell below 1/60 sec. Even here, though, the EM (& family) retained a feature of higher-end Nikons that many other brands' high-end models completely lacked: when the self-timer was used, the mirror swung up immediately and then the timer counted down the set time until exposure, thus allowing the mirror vibration to completely dissipate by the time the shutter fired. AKA "poor man's mirror lock-up" :-). This was obviously not practical for all situations, but it was at least available on the budget Nikons; the same could not be said for any of their direct (and very successful) competitors.
Another area where Nikon tried to trim fat was with the electronics of the EM, reverting to early-1970's resistor technology for the aperture/meter control system. This would prove to take a bit of meat and bone with it, leading to jumpy or dead meter needles as dirt would accumulate and the carbon resistor ring used would wear prematurely (just as it did with pre-1975 F2 meters). Nikon would address this shortcoming with the later Little Nikons. It was in many of the small detail areas where other cuts were made, but the basic chassis and workings of the EM were plenty sufficient for its intended role in Nikon's SLR hierarchy.

No, the EM didn't have a titanium shutter...or interchangeable viewfinders or focusing screens...or a 4 frames per second (fps) motor drive (you did get 2 fps with the MD-E and 3.2 fps with the later MD-14, though :-)). Nor was it rated for 150,000 shutter cycles. There is nothing more asinine among armchair photo gearheads than complaining that lower-end models lack the features of or are not intended to last as long as advanced ones. That's the whole point of making a simpler, less-expensive version! If you wanted all those bells and whistles & top build quality, you needed to belly up to the counter and lay down four times the cash for your F3 (priced at B&H in 1982 for $1,792 USD and adjusted for inflation in 2021, as are all prices in this article) and then walk out with all those things and 35% more weight. Oh, and that was the price with the "pathetic" Nikon Series E 50/1.8 included on both cameras. Series E lenses were forbidden to be labelled as "Nikkors", even if some of them shared identical optics (such as our friendly bog-standard 50/1.8 E, which only lacked the multicoating of the Nikkor version) with their exalted siblings. Funny that Nikon would have let such a disgrace to the Nikkor family name even be sold with an F3 (look it up in B&H Photo's listings in any period photo rag; the "real" Nikkor 50/1.8 added another $110 USD to grace your Nikon body with its presence ;-)).

Speaking of which, the whole idea that the Series E line of lenses was somehow a failure for Nikon gives the aforementioned archetype of asinine a real run for its money. Claims abound on the good ol' Interwebs (where everything must be true, otherwise they couldn't put it on there ;-)) that Series E was such a disappointment for Nikon that they quickly discontinued them (many of the same out-of-school tales also claim that they were re-badged third-party or subcontracted lenses). Umm...yeah...they appeared in 1979 and were "discontinued" at the end of 1985 along with the entire lineup of Little Nikons. Hmmm...something happened in February 1985...just trying to put my finger on...it...Ohhh yeah, AUTO FOCUS SLRs finally came good and Nikon delivered their first one in the spring of 1986. Hmmm, I wonder what happened to the sales of all manual focus SLRs and lenses once that happened?

More telling about Series E lenses was what Nikon actually did with them, both prior to, and after the AF revolution started. Along with not dignifying Series E with the Nikkor designation upon introduction, Nikon also initially styled them distinctly (large square nubs on the focus rings and aperture rings, for instance) from standard Nikkors. Come May 1981, Nikon did the strangest thing: they re-styled the whole E lineup to more closely resemble AI Nikkors. Whaaat?! At first they were worried that Series E might sully the rest of the lineup, or worse, cannibalize sales (so let's make sure they look real different) and now they were trying to unify the two lens lines?? Yeesh, Nikon (face meet palm). Simply put, pros, real honest-to-goodness professionals, had discovered that light-weight and light-on-the-pocketbook Series E lenses, such as the 75-150/3.5, were better optically than they had any right to be and were snapping them up like hotcakes (Nikon is an optics company at its core, after all, and the optical designers hadn't gotten the memo to mail it in. Building an inexpensive yet good-performing lens was an open invitation for them to prove their chops :-)). This caused Nikon to reconsider their own attitude toward the E lenses, and so they partially walked back their initial intentions for them and decided that a closer resemblance to Nikkors might actually induce more "upgrading" by consumers to standard Nikkors. Of all eight eventual Series E lenses (five primes and three zooms) only two, the 50/1.8 and the 100/2.8, did not receive some version of Nikon's NIC multicoating. Indeed, just like the EM, their physical construction made use of cheaper, lighter materials, but optically they generally gave up little, if anything, to their Nikkor equivalents. Nikon's changed attitude was evidenced further by their decision-making about the final version of the AI-s Nikkor 50/1.8 that sold for the last two decades (August 1985 - 2005) of its life. Faced with increasing cost pressures, Nikon simply took the Series E...multicoated it...and bestowed upon it that which had been previously heretical: the designation of (halo appears) "Nikkor". The same optical formula still serves in the AF Nikkor 50/1.8D. Oh, but that was only the beginning: Nikon desperately needed to fill out its AF Nikkor lineup in 1986, so back to the Series E well for the 28/2.8 (lasted until 1995) and the 70-210/4 designs. No changes optically, but they were magically AF "Nikkors" now ;-). For better or worse, most AF Nikkors drew far more from the materials and construction techniques developed with Series E than from the standard manual focus AI-s Nikkor lineup.

FG - The Next Generation

It is often stated that the FG was the replacement for the EM in May 1982. But rather than simply replacing the EM, which was only three years old at that point, Nikon was actually seeking to compete with the best-selling Canon AE-1 Program and Minolta X-700 models by offering a Program SLR of their own, based on the EM. The features added to the FG underscore that:

Program and Manual exposure modes along with the Aperture-priority (Auto) mode of the EM
In both P & A modes, the FG used "instantaneous stopped-down" exposure measurement (Nikon's version of Minolta's "Final Check" metering) to adjust the shutter speed precisely to match the actual taking aperture, making for more accurate exposures. This feature is especially handy when using non-AI-s Nikkor lenses that use the older non-linear AI aperture mechanism. A negligible disadvantage is that this operation adds 10 - 15 milliseconds to the time lag than when using Manual mode, which the vast majority of users never even notice.
LED viewfinder readout
TTL (Through-the-lens) flash metering
Exposure Compensation dial featuring +/- 2 EV in 1/3-steps, in addition to the +2 EV push button on the front of the EM.
The slow shutter speed beeper could be manually disabled.
To facilitate getting the FG ready for action more quickly when loading fresh film, Nikon designed the camera to disable the meter and automatically set a shutter speed of 1/90 sec. until the frame counter reached "1". This was to prevent long shutter speeds when the camera was in P or A mode and a lens cap was installed when alternately advancing the film and firing the shutter to reach "1" on the frame counter.
Removable finger grip.
Improved ISO range of 12 - 3200 versus 25 - 1600.
The black painted "sash" of the FM, FE, & F3 models. This was an accent line between the leatherette and the top and bottom plates. It had been deleted from the EM from the start to save money. Again, Nikon was clearly upscaling the FG from its parent platform.
Even the fact that it was named "F"G showed Nikon's desire to more closely associate it with their their other Fx-bodies, such as the FE and FM. Sales brochures also subtly pushed it out of the EM's realm by featuring it with Nikkor lenses rather than Series E lenses.

The fact that the EM remained in the lineup for two more years (at 2/3s the cost of the FG) plainly showed that Nikon was trying to fill another market slot with its latest "Little Nikon". The EM would not be replaced until February/March 1984, and that was when its true successor, the FG-20, appeared on the scene with the FG staying right where it was in the Nikon SLR hierarchy.

The Last...and Littlest...Little Nikon

The FG-20 would have the shortest lifespan of all the Little Nikons, not even lasting two years. This had nothing to do with a lack of capability or some fatal flaw, however. As alluded to earlier, AF compacts were surging in popularity from 1981-onward, and were devouring the market share of all entry-level SLRs (in 1981 the market was 53% SLRs vs. 47% compacts; by 1985 that had swung to 30% SLRs vs. 70% compacts). With the advent of AF SLRs from 1985 forward, the fate of all manual focus (MF) consumer SLRs was sealed, and the FG-20 was no exception. Nikon would replace both the FG and FG-20 in one fell swoop, with their final in-house MF consumer design, the F-301 (N2000 in North America) in September 1985. For my money, the FG-20 actually offers the best bang-for-the-buck of the three Little Nikons. It took a few features and improvements mostly accrued from the FG, while getting a 20% bump in price point over the EM. These included:

A full manual mode with shutter speed dial.
The warning beeper was selectable for Aperture-priority mode versus the always-on beeper of the EM, and was automatically disabled for Manual mode.
ISO range expanded to 3200 from 1600 at the top end.
Flash-ready LED in the viewfinder.
A 5% reduction in weight from the EM and 10% less than the FG.
Internally, Nikon's patented functional resistance element (FRE) that was used for transmitting the aperture value from the metering coupling lever to the meter on the higher-level Nikons replaced the easily-fouled unprotected resistor track on the EM, greatly improving the long-term reliability of the meter.
From Dec. 1984 onward, a new "K2" focusing screen was installed, featuring a more blackout-resistant split-image rangefinder that prefigured the even better Brite View screen that would appear on the F-301 in Sept. 1985. This new focusing screen also superseded the previous replacement part for repairs.

Are the Little Nikons Worth Using Today?

Matching my youthful disdain for The Littlest Hobo, for decades the Little Nikons have been dismissed by "serious" 35mm enthusiasts. This was understandable, and even logical to a point, when the values of FMs & FEs bottomed out in the 2000s and could be had for the same or only a few bucks more. And if the feel of your camera and lenses comprises a major portion of the satisfaction you get from your photography, the enthusiast-level bodies will obviously outdo the Little Nikons, even as values of such vintage bodies continue to strengthen. The real advantages of the Little Nikons and their Series E lenses are: their compactness, weight-savings, and price point. While a good FM/FE combined with a 50/1.8 or 1.4 Nikkor will run you at least $250 USD from a reputable source, you can score an FG or FG-20 with a Series E 50/1.8 for half of that in equivalent condition. You can nab an EM for even less, but you are running into a clear case of less overall bang for your buck, in my opinion. The improvements in construction and capability made with the FG-20 make seeking out an EM a bit of a waste in my mind. But if you score a great deal or happen to inherit one, by all means just go out and enjoy it. It will produce exactly the same pictures as its descendants. As far as the FG versus the FG-20: the simplicity and ergonomics of the -20 outweigh the TTL flash, Program mode, and exposure compensation (EC) capabilities of the FG. I personally don't use Program, and use flash or EC rarely. However, if any or all of those features are important to you or if you prefer LEDs to a needle meter readout, go for the FG.

Of the three, the FG-20 seems to be the most underrated today. But there are aspects to its operation that inch it just ahead of the other two for me:

That Bleeping Beeper - If you don't like the slow shutter speed or overexposure "bleeping" (Nikon's own word choice in the manual ;-)) warnings of the EM, your only recourse is to remove the top cover and snip the wire. The FG, of course, improved on this by providing a dedicated switch to turn the beeper off if you want. But the FG-20 managed to simplify this further by simply incorporating the beeper mode into the shutter speed dial (replacing the "P" for Program of the FG). And as a show that its designers actually used SLRs: the beeper mode is placed after the standard Aperture-priority A mode setting. The dial locks at both positions, so this means that you don't have to go through the beeper setting to get to standard A, something that I have encountered on other SLRs. Small thing? Absolutely, but it's just one less thing to worry about. This also means that the beeper is automatically disabled at any manual setting, and it eliminated another switch and its wiring from the FG.
FREdom - The addition of the FRE from the higher-level Nikons is another real advantage for the FG-20 over the EM. A jumpy or unresponsive meter needle is quite a common encounter with well-used EMs today, and it usually stems from a dirty (or worn) resistor which requires removal of the top plate and cleaning to restore performance. The FRE is more reliable in this regard and thereby saves on maintenance.
Ergonomics - You wouldn't think a little contour here and a little slope there would be a big deal, and maybe it's not, but those little tweaks, along with the horizontal self-timer switch on the FG-20 make it the most comfortable of the three for me to hold and operate (even without the small fingergrip of the FG).
Meter Operation - While the -20 behaves identically to the FG when set to A during film loading (the meter is inoperative and the shutter speed is automatically set to 1/90 sec. until frame 1 is reached), if you happen to set it to a manual speed other than M90 or B, the meter is fully functional and the shutter will fire at the set speed. For those people that like to squeeze out every last frame, this little feature can come in handy.
Battery Consumption - All of the Little Nikons are just fine when it comes to battery usage, especially the super-simple EM circuit, but the FG-20 beats out the FG, due to the latter's "final check" metering procedure. Depending on the mode it takes 25% (Manual) to 50% (Auto) less power to run the FG-20 meter than the FG's.

The Little Nikons were the last in-house, consumer-level, manual advance, manual focus SLRs that Nikon ever developed (the later FM-10 and FE-10 models were badge-engineered Cosinas). As such, they rate just above sewer rats with Nikonistas. But, as I came to have a better appreciation of dogs as I aged, so I have come to appreciate the virtues of simple, lightweight SLRs that just do the job with a minimum of fuss. Sure, you can always find something wanting in comparison to something else. Or you can take something for what it actually is and just go out and enjoy it. Your fanciest Nikkor lens can't tell if its mounted on an F2 or an FG-20, so it will perform exactly the same, regardless. So what if an EM or an FG is not an FE or F3, or any other higher-level Nikon?It doesn't have to be. Just accept if for what it is and get on with life. Or don't, and rail against the universe if that makes you happy ;-).

Recently, an FG-20 joined my Nikon fleet. Maybe tomorrow, a Little Nikon will settle down to find a home with you. Or maybe it will just keep moving on :-). Meanwhile, I'm going to just grab my hat...

References:

Debut of Nikon F3 @ https://imaging.nikon.com/history/chronicle/history-f3
Part 12: "Nikon FG / FG-20" @ https://imaging.nikon.com/history/chronicle
Seiko MFC-E @ http://knippsen.blogspot.com/2012/06/seiko-mfc-e.html
CIPA Total Shipments of Film Cameras @ https://www.cipa.jp/stats/report_e.html
SLR Production Numbers @ http://knippsen.blogspot.com
Nikon FG Lab Report from Popular Photography July 1983 p. 60
Nikon FG-20 Lab Report from Popular Photography May 1985 p. 55
Nikon Series E Lens Brochure - Sept. 1982
Various Nikon Instruction Manuals @ www.butkus.org/chinon
Nikon Repair Manuals for the EM, FG, & FG-20 @ www.learncamerarepair.com
Nikon Compendium: Handbook of the Nikon System by Hillebrand & Hauschild

Olympus OM-1: The SLR Game Changer

Sat, 08 May 2021 23:30:00 GMT

A late-production example of the diminutive OM-1 MD with even later-production OM Zuiko 50/1.8

Updated May 21, 2021

Game Changer. An overused phrase nowadays to be sure, but when applied appropriately it conveys an unmistakable break with the past and an opening up of previously unthought-of possibilities. So it was with the Bobby Orr of SLRs - what came to be called the Olympus OM-1. Bobby Orr??? It's like this, eh. Like Bobby Orr totally changed hockey forever, eh. Like, before Bobby Orr, defensemen didn't lead the rush, eh, or score more than 21 goals a season, eh (he did so for 7 consecutive years, topping out at 46 in 1975), or like score more than 60 points in a season, eh (he scored over 100 for 6 straight years, winning two scoring titles along the way, something no defenseman has done before or since). Or win MVP, eh (three years consecutively, only one other defenseman has won MVP once in the last 50 years). Or win Best Defenseman in the league like eight times in row, eh. And he did all that on like, one knee, eh (his left knee was first seriously injured in his second year in the NHL and he would have 13 or 14 surgeries on it over the course of his career). But his effect on the game was far more pronounced than just the record books. Offensively-minded defensemen (paradox, anyone? ;-)) became indispensable in hockey. Arena construction went nuts in New England as thousands of kids were turned on to hockey by "numbah foah, Bawbee Oah". He turned casual or non-fans into hockey lifers. GAME. CHANGER. In the same era, the Olympus OM-1 did likewise for 35mm SLRs. In this article we will concentrate mostly on the features, operation, and handling of the OM-1 and how it changed the SLR landscape and 35mm photography forever.

An Auspicious Debut

At its unveiling in July 1972 (after five years in development), Olympus designated the camera M-1, after its chief designer, Yoshihisa Maitani. And the entire system to be built around it was to be the M-System. That was all hunky dory until Leitz saw it at Photokina in September of that year, threw a hissy fit, and protested that only they had the right to use the "M" designation for their interchangeable lens 35mm rangefinder and viewfinder cameras such as the M1 (note the lack of a hyphen). It didn't matter that a single letter could not actually be trademarked nor that Olympus was applying this to an S...L...R. Of course, Leica had been dealing with Japanese copycatting for well over 30 years by this point, so their oversensitivity shouldn't have come as a surprise. To rub a little more salt in the wound, they had been taking a royal butt-kicking as far as sales went for nigh-on a decade now from these same manufacturers, particularly when it came to SLRs ;-).

Anyhoo, rather than waste time arguing with the wound-up Wetzlarians, Olympus simply acquiesced and renamed the system "OM" on the spot (examples of which started to appear in early-1973) and it seems that they told Leitz that there had only been 5,000 M-1s produced and that they would destroy the rest of the top plates with the M-1 embossing ;-). This feather-unruffling worked, even if the truth was stretched a bit. Olympus had put a lot into M-1 production and they were not about to just trash a bunch of perfectly good parts. So they used up their existing supplies and reserved most of the M-1s for sale in Asia and could still sell 5,000 M-1s in Europe without incurring any further ire from Leitz (remember, this was pre-Internet and globalization was still a twinkle in the eye). M-1 production extended until at least February 1973 (ascertained by date-codes under the film door pressure plates).

Whether called M-1 or OM-1, the result was still the same: the camera was the talk of the industry and Olympus proceeded to absolutely bury Leitz when it came to sales (surprise, surprise), which came to well over a million copies before the camera was updated as the OM-1N in 1979. For comparison, total Leica SLR production from 1964 - 2009 was around 488,000 (for 13 separate models). And as for their vaunted M-series, Leitz managed to produce just under 52,000 Leica M4, M4-2, M5, and MDa models combined from 1972 - 79. So, Olympus didn't make out too bad with their nice-guy attitude :-). The irony in all of this was Maitani-san's affection for Leica, as his personal camera had been a Leica IIIf, and it was the compact, dense nature of that body and its lenses which inspired his approach to designing a better SLR. For some lemon juice in the papercut for Leitz (who renamed themselves Leica after their most famous product in 1986), we now know that about 52,000 Olympus M-1s (oh my, the irony no longer drips, it is a torrent ;-)) did manage to escape into the wild before the nomenclature change took effect :-o.

The OM-1 was intended for professional and advanced amateur use. It was tested for 100,000 shutter actuations (equivalent to the Nikon F & F2 and Canon F-1) in conditions ranging from -20 to +50 Celsius (-4 to +122 Fahrenheit), while reducing weight to 740 grams (26.1 oz) with a 50/1.4 lens mounted versus 1,185 grams (41.8 oz) for the Nikon F Photomic FTN and 1,180 grams (41.6 oz) for the Canon F-1 with their respective 50/1.4 lenses mounted. Initially, the Nikon and Canon models had the advantage of attaching an accessory Motor Drive, but Olympus rectified this in 1974 with the introduction of the OM-1MD (initially, a sticker was added to the front of the camera with a permanent smaller inset plate soon replacing the sticker).

Features Unique to the OM-1 Upon Its Introduction

Aside from the obvious downsizing and weight-reduction from standard SLRs of the day, the OM-1 introduced some other elemental changes to SLR design that were soon emulated by its competitors:

Air-Dampened Mirror - Vibration caused by the movement of the mirror out of the light path to the film was a long-standing bugaboo for the SLR. Until the OM-1 came along, dampening of this vibration was left to a skinny foam bumper on most SLRs. Along with the miniaturization of a multitude of other components, one of the most inspired innovations by Olympus was a miniature shock absorber that utilized an air-piston/cylinder combination to absorb much of the energy produced by the swinging mirror. Air-dampers soon were popping up on all sorts of other SLRs due to their efficacy in reducing the effects of mirror-slap in pictures below 1/125 sec. shutter speeds.
Viewfinder - Average SLR viewfinders in 1972 showed the subject from 0.8 - 0.85x magnification with a 50mm lens focused at infinity. And showed 90 - 94% of the actual area that would be rendered on film. Nikon prided themselves on having a 100% area viewfinder @ 0.8x magnification on the F & F2. With the OM-1, Olympus took the approach of more magnification (0.92x) with 97% coverage, just a tick behind the top-flight Nikons. All other things being equal, more magnification contributes the most to ease of manual focusing with an SLR. The bump from 0.8x to 0.92x is noticeable. They coupled this with a wider angle of view than normal to provide the best overall viewfinder experience among SLRs at the time, and it could be argued, of all time. Olympus was also one of the first SLR makers to adopt silver prism coatings versus the aluminum-based prism coatings used by most of their competitors. They paired this with the first multicoated reflex mirror to achieve a 70%-brighter viewfinder than the industry norm. Again, this set off a spate of bigger, brighter viewfinders among the other manufacturers.
Interchangeable Focusing Screens (IFS) - It was a truth universally acknowledged, that a professional-calibre SLR must have user-interchangeable viewfinders & focusing screens. Interchangeable viewfinders necessitate adding more structure, and therefore bulk and weight, to an SLR. Maitani was having none of that, so he exhorted his team to find an alternative that would still allow for the interchanging of focusing screens while retaining the overall strength advantage and size & weight savings of a fixed prism finder. In another first, they came up with a swing-down latching frame that was accessed through the lens mount and that could be opened with a small tweezer which also served to allow the user to grab a tab on the exposed focusing screen (you do not want to get your grubby fingerprints all over the screen ;-)) for removal and then do the same in reverse with the replacement screen, all in a matter of seconds. Olympus also deleted the standard condenser section of an SLR focusing screen and compensated for this by curving the bottom surface of the pentaprism. This allowed them to substantially reduce the thickness of the screen. The combination of these efforts and the elimination of the integrated frame-on-screen approach used by other manufacturers saved weight on the order of 88% (14 grams, which was a lot when you worked for Maitani ;-)). Olympus' solution for interchangeable focusing screens became the industry standard (Contax RTS/II/III, Pentax MX, all enthusiast Nikons from the FE forward, all enthusiast Canons from the AE-1 Program forward, all professional and enthusiast Canon EOS bodies, and all professional Minolta Maxxum/Dynax bodies to mention a few) and is still used on the latest professional and prosumer DSLRs. Even Nikon gave in with the F6, their final professional film SLR ;-).
Lens Size and DOF Preview - Having the lightest and most compact SLR would be of marginal benefit if the lenses were not matched for it. Overall balance and handling would have suffered if Olympus had just left it at that. And here was another far reaching innovation: size and weight-reduction of the entire OM lens system. OM lens lengths and weights ranged from 20 - 30% less than their rivals in 1972. This set off a flurry of weight and size reduction amongst the other Japanese lens makers that extended into the mid-1980s. Until the Pentax SMC-M series of lenses first started appearing in 1976, you could guarantee that Olympus would have the smallest and lightest lens for a given focal length/maximum aperture value (and even then, they were always in the mix). The OM team also decided to incorporate the depth-of-field preview system into the lenses rather than the body. While this was nothing new, it allowed for one less control to take up precious space in the OM-1's very dense internal layout and also had the added benefit of making any future manual focus OM bodies DOF-preview-capable.
Motor Drive - The 5 frames per second (fps) performance of the OM-1MD without mirror lock-up (MLU) was without peer among mainstream professional or enthusiast cameras at its introduction and was only matched by the Pentax MX (1976) and Canon A-1 (1978) throughout the remainder of the 1970's (the Nikon F & Canon F-1 topped out at 3 fps, and the Minolta XK Motor & Nikon F2 at 3.5 fps without MLU). Sure, both Nikon and Canon came out with special high-speed versions of the F, F2 and F-1, but these were reserved solely for professional photojournalists covering the Olympic Games. Such hi-strung beasts lacked exposure meters, automatic aperture stop-down capability, and resorted to MLU (Nikon F) or a fixed pellicle-style mirror (Canon F-1 & Nikon F2 MD100) to achieve 7, 9, and 10 fps, respectively. And they were ridiculously bulky and heavy with double the power requirements (16 or 20 AAs) of the standard versions.

Layout and Handling

At a casual first glance from the front, the OM-1 (apart from its size) does not appear to differ much from traditional SLRs as far as control layout is concerned. There is the familiar dial to the left of the film advance lever, with the rewind knob and self-timer lever also in their common locations. But as soon as you hold the camera in your hands and gaze down upon the top deck, you are immediately struck by the strangest set of shutter speed markings from 25 - 1600, with 25, 50, 100, 200, 400, 800, and 1600 marked in yellow on the dial. What the hey?! Then you see three letters on the inside circumference of the dial "A...S...A". Aha! So it's not a shutter speed dial at all...it's the film speed dial (ASA was the precursor to ISO). Almost simultaneously, your left middle finger and thumb have cradled the aperture ring. You now glance at it and...what's that? B, 1, 2, 4, 8, 15, 30, 60, 125, 250, 500, 1000? Have you woken up in some Salvador Dali-themed photographer's nightmare?? Nope, welcome to the shutter speed ring ;-). Want to make a guess for the aperture ring's location? Too late, your left index finger has already found it. So what gives?

ASA (ISO) Film Speed Dial

Shutter Speed, Focus, & Aperture Rings

We have a couple of things to unpack here: 1) optimization of internal space, and 2) Maitani's favored technique for photography.

The internal right side of then-current SLRs was customarily crowded with mechanisms for the meter needle, shutter speed control, and film advance. In order to increase flexibility, Maitani elected to move the shutter speed control closer to the actual shutter workings located in the bottom of the body. Doing so concurrently freed up space to place the ASA dial directly above the galvanometer for the meter, further improving modularity. This contributed more than anything else to the width-reduction of the OM-1 over its contemporaries (as much as 12mm or 7/16").
In Maitani's own words: "In my style of photography, while supporting the lens you can focus, check the depth of field, and change the shutter speed. That's quite an improvement I think." This left-hand-centric control philosophy meant that the right index finger was always on the shutter button in order to capture the "decisive moment". And don't forget that his Leica experience had conditioned him to having the aperture ring at the front of the lens, too. In the interests of ultimate responsiveness, Maitani even went so far as to veto any sort of shutter release locking mechanism, which did not please all magazine testers: "When the camera went on sale, the camera magazines pointed this out and severely criticized it. The counter-argument I wrote then was that you might waste a frame because there's no shutter lock, but in my experience sometimes you don't get two chances to take a photo. You miss that unexpected photo opportunity. Whatever camera I'm carrying, I prefer to have the shutter ready to fire immediately." (I cannot fault his reasoning on that :-)). This also keeps one from developing the habit of leaving the shutter cocked when the camera is returned to its bag, and thus decreasing the lifespan of the springs used to activate the mechanical shutter.

The location of the film rewind release was another variation from the norm, being easily activated by the right index finger on the front of the camera, instead of fumbling around on the bottom or having to remove a "Never-ready" case to access it. While downsizing was a basic tenet, a deliberate effort was made to keep control sizes as large or even larger than the full-size competition.

If you are coming from a traditional Japanese SLR, the OM-1 definitely takes some getting used to. But if you are willing to stick with it and use it the way its designer intended, operation soon becomes instinctive. Yes, there is no display of the set shutter speed or aperture value in the viewfinder, but as your muscle memory builds you begin to intuitively sense the settings. For example, with the two opposed shutter ring gripping surfaces at 3 and 9 o'clock, you know that the shutter speed is set at 1/30 sec. The DOF preview button on the lens falls right into the curve of your left middle finger. The OM-1 rewards repetition.

The OM Zuiko focusing ring rubber is one of the grippiest in vintage SLRdom. Olympus developed a fine-grained diamond-pyramidal pattern that grabs your fingertips more securely, with less pressure required, than any other rubber-gripped series of lenses in my experience. As far as the feel of the other controls goes, everything has a feeling of solidity and quality, with maybe the film advance being the only thing that can feel a bit rough compared to such gems as Minolta XEs or XDs, but this can depend a lot on the condition of the particular copy and whether it needs a CLA (clean, lube, adjust).

Impact on the Industry

At a time when the overall sales of fully-mechanical, manual exposure SLRs were beginning to fall as electronically-controlled Auto Exposure (AE) models were taking off, the OM-1 bucked that trend, averaging sales of nearly 200,000 per year until it received a light refresh to become the OM-1N in 1979. It would continue to be produced in that form until 1987, making for a very successful 15-year run. Olympus positioned it perfectly in the marketplace, with its pricing far below the Canon, Minolta, and Nikon professional models and right in line with their enthusiast-level SLRs, while offering a feature-set distinctly weighted to the pro side. For example, in 1977, Competitive Camera of NYC had the OM-1 with 50/1.4 Zuiko (740 grams/26 oz) priced at $1,135 USD (inflation-adjusted to 2021, as are all prices in this article), with the Motor Drive 1/M.18V Battery Grip & Holder adding $1,445 and 610 grams (21.5 oz) including 12 AA batteries. Compare that to:

Canon's top amateur mechanical model, the full-size FTbN w/ FD 50/1.4 ($1,115 USD), which had no provision for motor drive or IFS, and weighed 1055 grams (37 oz). The Canon F-1 w/ FD 50/1.4 came in at $1,855 USD and 1085 grams (38 oz) as the 50/1.4 had been given a 45 gram weight reduction in 1973 following the introduction of the OM-1 (hmmm...I wonder why? ;-)). The Motor Drive for the F-1 added another $1,465 and 920 grams (32 oz) including 10 AA batteries.
Minolta's top amateur mechanical model, the SRT-202/SRT-303b/SR-505 w/ MD-Rokkor 50/1.4, which also had no motor drive or IFS and weighed 945 grams (33 oz), cost $1,075 USD. The professional XK/X-1 w/ 50/1.4 MD-Rokkor bumped the weight to 1140 grams (40 oz) in non-motorized form for a cool $2,165 USD, nearly double the OM-1 & 50/1.4 combo. And the XK Motor version with lens and batteries would pulverize the scales and your bank account to the tune of 1895 grams (67 oz) and $5,260 USD.
Nikon's FM was their brand-new top amateur mechanical model in 1977, obviously designed after the OM-1 came on the scene and it showed: its 845 gram weight with the also-new 50/1.4 AI Nikkor was at least getting closer to the OM-1 than Canon's and Minolta's end-of-life full-size amateur models. The FM did have a more modern vertical shutter, but with the same speed range as the OM-1, and a faster-acting gallium photodiode (GPD) meter, but no IFS or independent MLU (the mirror did swing up and lock when the self-timer was activated). These were not massive advantages by any stretch. But you had to pay $450 USD more for the Nikon combo. The FM's accessory MD-11 motor drive topped out at 3.5 fps (versus 5 for the OM-1's) and tacked on another $680 USD and 600 grams (21 oz) with 8 AA batteries for a combined total of $2,265 USD versus the $2,580 USD for the OM-1 w/ 50/1.4 & Motor Drive combo. And here comes the big one...the F2A w/ 50/1.4: $2,290 @ 1085 grams (38 oz); and add another $2,330 to spin your film with the MD-2 at 3.5 fps without MLU while adding another 840 grams (30 oz) of weight. So you could buy two OM-1s for the price of a single F2A :-). And add a motor drive for $900 USD less than the Nikon MD-2...while saving 575 grams (20 oz) of weight per body/motor drive combo. For pros used to carrying at least two or three bodies at a time, that started to add up quickly, in terms of dollars and slipped discs ;-).
Pentax' MX of 1976 was the most direct response to the success of the OM-1 from any manufacturer. Pentax basically said, "we will do whatever it takes to match or beat the OM-1 in every specification". The MX undercut the Olympus by 0.5mm (0.020") in width and height (let me know if you can feel that difference in hand ;-)), was 2.5mm shorter with a 50/1.4 lens mounted and weighed exactly the same configured as such, while shaving 15 grams off of the Olympus as a body only. Pentax sacrificed MLU to achieve this, while using a GPD meter and a basically-identical shutter configuration. They bumped the viewfinder to 0.97x @ 95% coverage (at the cost of eye relief) with full shutter and aperture information in the viewfinder along with an LED meter readout. They adopted the IFS system with 8 screen choices available, the air damper for the mirror, a motor drive system that gave (gasp!) 5 fps with a very familiar grip configuration including a vertical battery pack that held 12 AAs and weighed 663 grams (ooh, missed the OM Motor Drive 1 with Grip by 53 grams) ;-). The top and bottom plates on the MX are some of the thinnest you'll find on a vintage SLR illustrating the lengths Pentax went to in order to compete with Olympus. And last but not least, Pentax introduced an entirely new line of SMC-M lenses, only a year after they had introduced an entirely new line of SMC Pentax lenses. And they went ballistic in their efforts to reduce size and weight knocking up to 50% of the weight from some optics. In many cases, Pentax accomplished this by simplifying the optical formulas of these lenses (glass is the heaviest component in a lens, after all ;-)). This obsession with weight reduction did exact a toll, however. For just one example, the SMC Pentax 20/4 weighed 300 grams (10.6 oz) with 12 elements, the SMC-M version dropped to 150 grams (5.3 oz) and 8 elements. There was no way that Pentax would be able to maintain the same overall optical performance with such a reduction in the number of elements. They obviously felt the tradeoff was acceptable, though, as the OM Zuiko 21/3.5 sported 7 elements and came in at 180 grams (6.3 oz) and that was their real target with the SMC-M lenses. The MX w/ SMC-M 50/1.4 sold for $1,215 USD at Competitive Camera in 1977, just above the OM-1 combo. The Motor Drive MX/Battery Grip M added $1,300 USD to that, which made it a virtual wash if you chose to equip your OM-1 or MX with a proper motor drive.

Even more than the sales success, it was cases like the Pentax MX that drove home the impact the OM-1 had on the SLR business. By the end of the 1970s, Olympus had pushed their way into the top echelon of Japanese SLR makers, expanding the long-standing "Big 4" into a "Big 5". Bodies and lens lineups throughout the industry were put on diets. The full-size SLR was dead.

The OM-1 Today

By the time the OM-1N came along in 1979, electronic SLRs had really taken over as far as market share was concerned. Olympus' own OM-2, introduced in 1975, was another success for the company. Even more noticeable was the runaway ascendancy of consumer-targeted electronic SLRs, following the introduction of the Canon AE-1 in 1976. Olympus added their OM-10 to the consumer cornucopia in 1978. The OM-1N found itself superseded in the lineup by the OM-3, Olympus' final pro mechanical SLR offering in 1983, but remained in production until 1987 with the last remnants selling through 1988 for $710 USD (remember that is inflation-adjusted) with a 50/1.4 lens. That was the price of surviving into the Auto Focus (AF) era. Many an OM-1 was relegated to an attic, basement, or closet, pushed aside by all-automatic point & shoots (my Dad referred to them as PhDs - Push here Dummy ;-)), or the latest whiz-bang polycarbonate pretender to the throne. There have been both benefits and consequences from the banishment of these beauties for decades. The benefits being that many low-mileage OM-1s (especially OM-1Ns) are still around, needing only a bit of love to resuscitate them.

The biggest problem encountered by potential OM-1(N) (and OM-2(N)) buyers nowadays is the de-silvering of the pentaprism due to deterioration of the foam that Olympus used to "protect" the prism from outside damage. While most full-size SLRs had relied on a rather large air gap between the prism and the outer housing to provide a buffer zone from impacts to prevent prism breakage, with the OM-1 that was out of the question in their desire to reduce bulk. So, their solution was to pack the much-smaller gap with foam to provide a similar level of protection. Which worked fine...until the chemical process of the degradation of the foam would eat the silver coating of the prism. This shows up as grey, green, or black patches in the viewfinder or kind of a wispy or shimmery effect, particularly in the bottom half of the viewfinder. If you are looking at obtaining an OM-1, your first order of business should be to evaluate the viewfinder. Even if it looks good, be prepared to have any existing foam removed (you can DIY or have this done by a repair tech) as it will just be a matter of time before deterioration sets in. Interestingly, on OM-1 bodies with seven-digit serial numbers roughly between 111xxxx - 163xxxx, the foam was deleted from the factory according to John Hermanson, a long-time factory-trained Olympus technician (check out his website www.zuiko.com). With the start of OM-1N production, the foam returned, so you will definitely want to make sure it is removed if you get one. In practice, the foam offered little in the way of additional protection, so you really lose nothing by getting rid of it. Of course, replacement prisms are long-gone now, so the only way to replace a corroded one is to find a donor OM body with a good prism (the same prism was also used on the OM-10, OM-20/OM-G, OM-30/OM-F, and OM-40/OM-PC and they are to be preferred for replacements as none of the consumer models used the foam, according to John) and make the transfer. Here is a video for DIY foam removal:

Aside from the foam, the OM-1N or late-production OM-1 bodies are to be preferred. Olympus made 19 internal improvements from the M-1 to the MD version and 15 more over the remainder of OM-1MD production to the OM-1N's debut. The most noticeable changes to the OM-1N were the inclusion of a flash ready & correct flash exposure LED indicator in the viewfinder and a subtly reshaped film advance lever & rewind release button. Other additions included: contacts for databacks, and modified springs in the film door to hold the film cartridge in place more securely. Obviously, your best chance of finding a good prism will be with a late OM-1 and if flash operation is not a big deal for you, you will get nearly all of the other internal improvements that came with the OM-1N.

The next issue to be aware of with any OM-1 (or OM-2) is failure of the film to advance completely to the next frame. This stems from a need for a proper CLA of the film advance mechanism. It uses a clutch system that will fail to engage fully if it has suffered contamination or excessive wear. Really, budgeting for a complete CLA is the course of wisdom if you want to get the most enjoyment and life out of any vintage SLR. The OM-1 was designed to be serviced and repaired, it was not throwaway. So a CLA is always worth it, in my mind.

Another problem that can be addressed while a CLA is being performed is the meter circuit, which was designed for the 1.35V 625 mercury cell that has been banned for a long time now. A Schottky diode can be installed into the power chain that will properly adjust the voltage for use with the current 1.55V SR44/357 silver oxide cell (with an o-ring installed around its circumference to center it properly in the battery chamber). John Hermanson includes this modification with his standard OM-1 CLA service. An alternative is to use the MR-9 battery adapter (around $30 - $40 USD, nowadays) that uses the smaller 386 silver oxide cell to power the meter. This adapter had a diode integrated in its construction to achieve the same effect as the conversion. The drawback being that the 386 cell has less capacity than the 357 and will thus not last as long.

Other than those few niggles, the OM-1 remains one of the finest mechanical SLRs ever to be produced. The combination of compactness, light weight, rugged build, superb viewfinder, responsive controls, and the extensive OM system of lenses and accessories make it a great candidate for beginner or connoisseur, alike. SLRs were never the same after the OM-1, and if that doesn't make it a Game Changer, I guess I don't know what does :-).

References:

OM-1 @ https://www.olympus-global.com
Special Lecture - the OM-1 - the XA Series @ https://www.olympus-global.com
The Olympus M-1 Information Page @ http://olympus.dementix.org
Olympus OM System - Concepts and Overview @ http://olympus.dementix.org
Various Olympus Brochures @ www.pacificrimcamera.com
Camtech Photo Services @ www.zuiko.com
Leica M Serial #s @ https://cameraquest.com/mtype.htm
Leica R-system cameras @ https://www.apotelyt.com/camera-line/leica-r-system
Bobby Orr Statistics @ https://www.hockey-reference.com/players/o/orrbo01.html