1963 SLR Cameras Compared

Modern Photography in their September 1963 issue has a nice comparison chart of all the available SLRs.

 

 

SLRs Compared 1 sm 2

Modern tests the new Anscochrome films.

 

 

MP Anscochrome 1 sm 2

How to get sharp pictures with tele lenses.

 

 

Tele Lenses 1 sm 2

Aren't RFs sharper?

 

 

Sharper 1 sm 2

Keppler discusses inexpensive tele lenses.

 

 

Keppler 1 sm 2

The 35mm column discusses film and developers.

 

 

35mm 1 sm 2

Here is the Too Hot to Handle column.

 

 

THTH 1 sm 2

Several light meters are tested this month.

 

 

MT 1 sm 2

Did you know Carl Zeiss was a toy maker?

 

 

TT 1 sm 2

Here are this month's camera equipment ads.

 

 

Exakta 1 sm 2

Keppler takes a look at close-ups.

 

 

Close-ups 1 sm 2

You can see the entire collection of magazine scans at my website here.

 

 

A Look Back – Photography Magazine Scans

Here are this month's dealer ads.

 

 

Ever-Snap 1 sm 2

Also a great issue. With the SLR comparison I'm guessing this issue would have been a keeper for some time.

Anscochromes delivered the goods although they did tend to fade over the years.

My dad had a lot of old magazines from those days but I don't think he had this one. Thanks again.

Mike - I'm glad I used so much Kodachrome back in the days. They still look good.

I used a lot of Kodachrome as well. I did shoot some Fujichrome R-100 (E4) back in the 70's especially when it was on sale. I liked it better than Ektachrome-X and High Speed Ektachrome. I never tried any of the Anscochromes in 35mm although I did shoot a few rolls of Super 8 GAF (Anscochrome).

Another great post, thanks for sharing. The article on using tele lenses is still useful today.

 

I liked the case of an old Ford swapped for a Minolta in THTH.

Thanks again Marc. The SLR comparison was very entertaining in that some of those cameras still command the numbers listed in the article. The death of film has been greatly exaggerated.

It is interesting how the best one isn't mentioned. That goes to show that best things are always obscured.

the rangefinder vs slr article is obviously not true, which means it was performed by amateurs.

It is interesting how the best one isn't mentioned. That goes to show that best things are always obscured.

 

the rangefinder vs slr article is obviously not true, which means it was performed by amateurs.

 

These are not even good hindsight, much less insight.

 

Thanks, as always to Marc.

The RF vs reflex article is interesting. I often wonder why no manufacturer (that I am aware of) ever brought to market a camera with hydraulically or pneumatically or even magnetically damped mirror travel. Then again, having worked for one of the major Japanese manufacturers I can attest to how oblivious they were to how people used their products. To illustrate my point, they never even imagined videographers would capitalize on the inherent benefits of an SLR when shooting digital video. The users had developed an entire workflow around the camera and the last people to know about it was the company/Engineers who developed it. Edited October 3, 2018 by andyfalsetta

Mirror damping is an interesting question--if it slows down the exposure sequence then the camera is less responsive in candid situations and moments are lost. That said, some cameras definitely do a better job on this than others: my Pentax MX bodies could be reliably hand held at 1/30 with 50 and shorter lenses, but almost never at 1/15 while my Pentax LX bodies were frequently good at 1/15 with these same lenses. The bizarre part of this was that the LX felt like it had more shock from mirror movement, but it was on the return to the down position, not on the way up when it matters most for sharpness.