Second tier SLRs of the late 60s

[conrad_hoffman]

And there is no escape from that motor drive sound even today- watch TV shows where they are obviously using digital cameras, yet they dub in the classic film camera motor drive sound so we know a picture has been taken!

[tito sobrinho]

Mr. Chin...my mistake in incorporating the OM in the list! The Maitani compact design SLR Olympus was launched in 1972.

 

Still a camera for the amateur and not rugged as the F!

 

That was what I wrote, motor F-36 and if you did not understand, I could write F-36 ELECTRIC MOTOR DRIVE just for you.

 

...and the F-36 ELECTRIC MOTOR DRIVE was not cordless. It had a long cord from the battery pack to the F-36 MOTOR DRIVE. The battery pack had to hang over the one shoulder. Yes siree!

 

Please tell me which other '60s SLR had an ELECTRIC MOTOR DRIVE?

 

There is a S-36 ELECTRIC MOTOR DRIVE for the Nikon Rangefinder SP, S3. But this, will be a discussion for another day concerning its variations.

 

Cheers, Tito.

[alan c.]

after early after-market conversions like the jacobson remopak conversions, nikon

did make the F-36 "Cordless Battery Pack" for the motor-drive which is the big handle

with shutter button and the chamber for 8 AA batteries. This replaced the corded

battery pack with C batteries and is certainly considered the "classic" incarnation of

the F-36 motor-drive.

[gary_watson]

Face it, even second-rank SLRs of the late '60s were expensive affairs. A wide angle+a 135 and fast 50-58mm would put a big dent in a Nixon-era middle-class household budget. Minoltas were good(maybe better)value for amateurs uninterested in Nikon's pricey specialty optics and huge accessory inventory that so endeared them to pros. An SRT remains vastly better-handling than a Nikkormat with its tortuous shutter speed dial concentric with the lens mount. I bought a lightly-used 101 ten years back when I drifted back into photography after a long hiatus. Along with its 58/1.4, I got a 35/2.8, a 135/2.8 and a NOS 200/3.5 that I've enjoyed greatly. I've since bought into Nikon but still love the many shots of my growing son that my second-rate SRT outfit produced. They were over-built, over-engineered tanks that never seemed to quit.

[dave_leonard]

>Face it, even second-rank SLRs of the late '60s were expensive affairs. A wide angle+a 135 and fast 50-58mm would put a big dent in a Nixon-era middle-class household budget.<

 

You know, as far as I'm concerned, a digital SLR that takes pics as good or better than a 60's SLR still puts a big dent in the budget.

 

Dave :)

[wayne_cornell2]

I had a black Nikon FTn with the 36 exp. motor drive. Wish I had kept it given the price those drives fetch now. As I remember, the drives weren't interchangable--had to be fitted to a specific camera. My only problem was a trigger button that sometimes worked--sometimes didn't. No matter how much cleaning of contacts, etc. I did, I never knew for sure if the motor was going to fire the first time I pushed the button.

 

One of the reasons Nikon got the jump on other manufacturers was that it was one of the first slrs that would meter without stopping down the lens.

[conrad_hoffman]

Drifting way off topic now, but a while back someone who was getting rid of a bunch of stuff gave me a Minolta X-370 with a dinged lens. The last Minolta I touched was that SRT-101 30+ years ago. I was extremely impressed with the X-370, and picked up a couple Minolta lenses off the local shops used rack for next to nothing. The bottom has really fallen out of the 35mm SLR market. IMO, the quality of Minoltas later offerings seems to be as good as the early stuff, and fantastically cost effective if you go with used. The finder on the thing is large and bright, and no problem with glasses.

[dan_fromm2]

This discussion has focused too closely on Japanese SLRs that were made in large numbers. In their day, they were all seen as much better than european, mainly German, leaf shutter SLRs.

 

As for example, cameras from Agfa, Voigtlaender, and Zeiss Ikon. Also Regula SLRs, even though the Regula Reflex SLC(?) 2000 was one of the first to market with a 1/2000 top shutter speed.

 

Canon, Minolta, Nikon, and Pentax all stood out from a number of their Japanese competitors. Kowa, for example, Miranda, Petri, Yashica, and leaf-shutter (NOT focal plane shutter) Topcons.

 

I mean, if we're going to talk trash, let's talk trash, let's not talk about, um, choice morsels. Am I the only one who remembers that old junk?

[gary_watson]

Nostalgia for the stuff Dan hankers after really depends on a fairly large population of survivors. That doesn't seem to be the case with most non-SLR Japanese cameras of the '60s and earlier. So-so sales, poor representation in the U.S. market, and often non-existent service combined to doom these "off brands." Weirder still are odd-ball cheapies intended for the Japanese market only, like FujiPets that copied '50s Kodak plastic Brownies.This stuff is highly collectible now in Japan.

[dan_fromm1]

Nostalgia? Hankering? Me? Are you crazy, Gary?

 

I investigated all those things when contemplating what my first 35 mm camera was to be. First impulse, to get a screw mount Leica, was killed by the realization that they're not much good for closeup work. That was a good reason not to get a cheap fixed-lens leaf shutter rangefinder camera, of which there were many around, either. The Japanese ones that many people here prize stood out from their really cheap and nasty Japanese and German brethren.

 

But if I'd wanted a Kowa or a Petri or a Contaflex or Icarex or ... I could have got one. Could have got a Nikon F, for that matter, but in my hands an F with a 50/1.4 and a Photomic prism felt very front-heavy. A Nikkormat suited me better.

 

At that time I was in Germany. I'm not sure whether many of the cameras I declined to buy were sold in the US, but I certainly remember ads for most of the SLRs in MP and PP.

 

Cheers,

[summitar]

The Japanese are not only masters at engineering and manufacture of precision gear, they are absolute geniuses at ergonomics whether it is cameras, autos, fishing reels or bicycles. Every function is well thought out and the controls are just where they should be. I love my Leica screwmounts for rugged precision but Mein Gott, what were they thinking when it comes to loading film, squinty separate VF/RF, separate high and low shutter speed controls, a spinning shutter control that can only be set after you advance the film, absence of lever winds and built in light meters, accessories that were often clunky and ugly, setting the aperture on a Elmar, weird filter threads for the Summitar (I won't mention the lens hood from hell}.

[glen_johnson1]

There was a distinct difference between top pro SLRs of that period and less expensive models in terms of build. The best SLRs were assembled with tighter tolerances and smaller lubricant gaps and bearings instead of sleeve bushings, making for better mechanical performance, especially in cold weather.

[TomHildreth]

I think Kerry's classifications are pretty accurate. Some thoughts on the Minolta line: I bought my first SLR (A Minolta SRT-101) in 1968, and have shot Minolta film cameras ever since. Had I been a pro, I probably would have desired to obtain Nikon equipment, but as an amateur I never found it possible to justify the cost of switching brands.

 

In retrospect, one mistake I made with lenses was in departing from the Rokkor line. Even those were pricey for me at times, so I bought more affordable 3rd party glass. My images taken through the years would be of higher technical quality had I stayed with Rokkor glass. In recent years I have added various Rokkor lenses to my kit via KEH, and I can see that they are better than what I had been using.

 

With the SRT-101, it appeared to me that the metering system was pretty innacurate in bright snow scenes. I had to open up about 2

f-stops to get proper exposure for winter shots.

 

One thing that mystifies me to this day, and the reason I sold off two of my earlier Minolta SLRs is that after a few years of medium use, I started getting too many shots that were not tack-sharp. Almost as though the lenses were wide open, though they were not. This happened with an SRT-101 and an SRT-SC. It didn't seem to be my technique, because when I replaced the older body with a new one, I got sharp photos again. Though I had the bodies professionally serviced by Minolta, I have always suspected some optical alignment problem to be the culprit. Anyone experienced this problem?

 

I can't compare Minolta to any of the other brands mentioned, but I would like to say that I have changed lenses on bayonet mount Minoltas thousands of times and have never had a problem. To call their lens mount system reliable is an understatement.

 

 

Opinion: Believe it or not, I have used two Minolta X-370 bodies as my main shooters for 20 years now. I have probably exposed 10,000 frames with each one. Yes, they have been in the shop one or twice each for repairs, and again for CLA. This does not indicate to me that these are not good cameras. I continue to see disparaging remarks about the X-370 body, and this is clearly not my experience. The X-370 surely is one of the most cost effective shooters available. I don't display my transportation subjects in art galleries, but I have probably published in print at least 2,000 photos taken with these cameras. Proof enough of their quality.

[TomHildreth]

H'mm, now that I've had a couple of moments to reflect on the statement I made above, I see it needs correction. The 2,000 photos are from all cameras, including Minolta models earlier than the

X-370. The X-370 probably accounted for 500 or so photos published in print. My error.

[grahams]

Tom said "Believe it or not, I have used two Minolta X-370 bodies as my main shooters for 20 years now. I have probably exposed 10,000 frames with each one."

 

I ran an X300 with a motor winder on the slide copy stand in my lab for three years. It exposed an average of ten rolls of E6 36exp duplicating film per day and never missed a beat. We did a lot of duplicating for some pretty big advertising agencies, sometimes hundreds of copies of one slide. When I departed, it was still going strong. I gained a whole lot of respect for that camera. I think that the X300/350/370/have the same shutter and transport mechanism.

[richard_keistler]

My first SLR, bought in high school, was a Miranda Sensorex II, the one with the 'arm' on the side of the lens and body for full aperture metering. Unlike a prior submission, I found the camera extremely reliable, getting me through two years of college photography and making money with it at the same time. I bought it over some of the other brands because of the interchangeable prism and the convenience of macro work with the waist level finder. Fit and finish were not up to the later Nikon and Leica cameras I bought but was certainly comparable to the other '2nd tier' cameras. Miranda had a reputation problem back then because lenses were made by Soligor--indeed, some of the lenses said 'Miranda Soligor'. Didn't bother me, I had only a 35 and 135, all I could afford, and used supplemental closeup lenses. I still have work done on that camera and it still pleases me. I bought a Pellix in college because the concept intrigued me, but as others found, the technology wasn't really there yet. Plus, of course, the FL lenses required stopping down. You want to see something interesting? Go back and look at either PopPhoto or ModPhoto from the 60's or 70's, and notice the variety of articles. The columnists were terrific, the amount of technical information in just about every issue was amazing. I was thinking I was being nostalgic until I recently bought a bunch off of E-Bay. Compare to today's photo mags and you'll see why I don't subscribe anymore. I'm still glad I started serious-type photography in the 60's, wonder whether we'll ever equal that quality. Doubt it.

[bill_thorlin]

Can only speak about Minolta. After much research I bought the SRT101 in Nairobi in 1969 ( used my first Christmas bonus). I did check out Canon and Nikon ( and I think Pentax ) equivalents but somehow the 101 just felt great and the controls seemed to come easily to hand ( or should I say finger ). Others in the office had Canon/Nikon/Pentax and all I can say is that the results with the 101 were at least as good and to my mind better ( I used Rokkor lenses which I am sure helped ).

 

This camera survived going up Mount Kenya, the salt and sand down at the coast, the sweltering heat of Dar, the heat and peculiar atmosphere of the soda lakes, deep sea fishing trips ( I fished only once ),light aircraft trips including hail suppression scheme frights, I do not know how many safaris to game parks, reserves and out of the way places often in choking dust especially in Amboseli, trips round the rest of Africa and also round Europe and of course for the family snapshots. Some of the roads in East Africa resembled corrugated iron roofs or the surface of the moon.

 

Two of my children have used this for photography courses with the usual youthful exuberance and ham-fistedness. I have always looked after my gear carefully but have never had it serviced. I still have literally hundreds of slides and prints some of which were used commercially and they are still worth viewing/browsing.

 

I still have the old workhorse, functioning as well as ever and it is due one of it's outings soon.

 

What more can you ask of a camera ?

[grahams]

Richard said" The columnists were terrific, the amount of technical information in just about every issue was amazing."

 

I totally agree - but then again the average amateur had to actually KNOW something about photography to get good results from the equipment of the day - there was no all-singing and dancing computerised plastic fantastic to be had - so the magazines catered to this need. Nowdays, I don't think many of the "contributing editors" of the photo magazines here in the UK actually know how an image is formed!

[dan_fromm1]

Graham Seretta wrote about Modern Photography and Popular Photography as they were in the '60s and '70s: "I totally agree - but then again the average amateur had to actually KNOW something about photography to get good results from the equipment of the day - there was no all-singing and dancing computerised plastic fantastic to be had - so the magazines catered to this need."

 

Graham, I can't agree with you. I took up photography in 1970. By then 35 mm SLRs had reached the point where all one had to do to get well-exposed well-focused color slides was follow the camera's on-board meter's advice and learn to focus. Microprism screens made focusing easy for lenses that weren't too extreme. Autoexposure and autofocus are crutches that my friends and I got along without back then. We could walk on our own, and I still do. My little FM2N is just an improved Nikkormat FTN. My Graphics are still exactly what they've always been.

 

Flash was then and still is a deep mystery to most people. I don't understand why, but it is. The big advance in taming electronic flash was the thyrister controlled self-quenching flash. They were around by the mid-70s, required no changes to the cameras used with 'em. TTL auto flash is another crutch.

 

In recent years, but before my town's public library threw out their MPs and PPs, I went through all issues from the '60s through the mid-'80s looking for tests of equipment I was contemplating buying. Where MP and PP and, yes BJP although I haven't had access to it for decades, of those years stand out from, say, PP as it is now, is in their recurring educational articles. MP and PP ran 'em on about a two year cycle. PP of today doesn't do anything like that and MP has been dead for quite a while.

 

If there's been a change, its been in the people using cameras. Back then, a fair number of users wanted to understand the mysteries and understood that they had to be on top of the craft. I don't know why, but nowadays it seems that proportionately fewer amateur photographers want to do little more than stand behind the camera and push the button. Witness the numerous questions posted on photo.net by people who know so little about what they're doing that they can't even ask for help very well.

 

About the magazines' contents. Lens tests of the 1960s seem pretty uninformative. MP did better lens tests in the '70s and early '80s than PP. But to my taste, PP's current "SQF" charts are much more informative than any of the old lens tests I keep. Those charts give a pretty clear indication of what a lens can't produce. What more can a prospective buyer want?

 

Cheers,

 

Dan

[grahams]

Dan - You confirm my point:"Back then, a fair number of users wanted to understand the mysteries and understood that they had to be on top of the craft. I don't know why, but nowadays it seems that proportionately fewer amateur photographers want to do little more than stand behind the camera and push the button."

[dan_fromm1]

Graham, thanks for the response. I still doubt we're quite in agreement.

 

You wrote that "but then again the average amateur HAD to actually KNOW something about photography to get good results from the equipment of the day" (emphasis added). I wrote "Back then, a fair number of users WANTED to understand the mysteries and understood that they had to be on top of the craft." (emphasis added)

 

Its a question of choice versus necessity. I remember vividly how little I liked my first efforts and that I understood I'd have to learn how to use my new equipment to advantage to do better. Nowadays all I hear from people with digital cameras is "If I shoot enough, I'll get some good ones."

 

My first efforts were, though, as well exposed and as in focus as the digital guys' "good ones." I still have them. They still fail on composition overall, on placement of the plane of best focus, on depth of field, and on motion control. There's more to the taking side of the craft than getting good exposure and focusing on something in the frame. And I had to learn all that.

 

Cheers,

[bill_thorlin]

The vast majority of people I know and know of that are good at something ( from archery to zooming ) learnt the basics first. There is the very,very rare genius but for the rest of us it is basics first.