Konica SLRs...What can you tell me about them?

[Andy Collins]

<p>I mentioned in someone else's thread a couple of weeks ago that I'd bought a Konica Autoreflex T at a thrift store in Manhattan for $20. It came with a Hexanon 57mm f/1.4 lens that looks big and beautiful. The camera works very nicely although there may be a short in the meter's on/off switch; the meter needle seems to jiggle when I turn it off and then back on. Minor issue, that and the small dent on the top deck near the rewind knob. Otherwise, the camera is in excellent shape. It has a very stiff shutter button, a feature that Ivor Matanle says was a problem to some when the camera was first introduced way back when. I happen to like it though, and I like the heft that the camera has. It feels like a quality camera...so just how good is it? How did the Konica SLRs stack up against the offerings from Canon , Nikon, Minolta, et al? If you were to pick a Konica model which would it be and why? I will post pictures of the camera and <em>from</em> the camera as soon as I finish the roll of film currently in it. I'm eager to hear what you all have to say about these cameras.</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>A friend of mine had that model. I wouldn't personally put it in the high end Nikon F/Canon F-1 category, but it would be in the Nikkormat FTN/Canon FT b category. Funny you mention the stiff shutter release. It brings back memories, and yes, it was that way right out of the box. My friend loved his, but bought a Nikon F2AS later on. I don't recall him doing a lot of photography with it though. I think you have one of the better models, though my memory is a little more sketchy about them these days. There are lots of good references, like Camerapedia.org: http://www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Konica_Autoreflex#Autoreflex_A.</p>

[minhnguyen9113]

<p>I first got a used T4 with a power winder at a swap meet almost 20 years ago and later get a T with 57mm 1.4 like yours. As Michael I think it is in the Canon Ft or Nikkomat range. The T3 I got on Ebay lately is better look and performance. Now I'm looking for the dual- format (full and half frame)</p>

[ernest-b]

<p>If you're not already aware of it, this website, a labor of love and a real contribution by its creator, has many answers:</p>

<p> http://www.buhla.de/Foto/Konica/eKonicaStart.html</p>

<p>I've used the T3, FT-1, T4, and TC bodies, as well as most of the Konica AR lenses. The Konica products have been, in my experience, <em>outstanding.</em> In terms of image quality, I think the AR line of lenses holds its own against any maker's line of that era.</p>

<p>In terms of "which is best", the general consensus is that Konica's T3N (the "new" model T3, with a few minor refinements) represents the high-water mark in the series of full-size manual SLR's; that the T4 was best among the follow-on, compact bodies; and that among battery-wound SLR's, the FT-1 holds pride of place. </p>

<p>But even the humble TC, which sells for just a few dollars now on eBay, is an excellent camera. (It lacks slow speeds below 1/10 sec, and a few other bells and whistles; but it is otherwise a very solid and capable machine.) A cosmetic flaw affecting all the compact SLR models (TC, T4, etc) is that the original body covering--almost without exception--has shrunk with age. But that's an easy fix with an inexpensive replacement cover from cameraleather.com or one of the other suppliers. The shrinking-cover syndrome did not affect Konica's full-body SLR's. The shutter release on the T3 has been described by a number of writers as "buttery smooth," and on mine, that is true.</p>

<p>I've used Pentax, Minolta, Canon and other SLR's of the same period, and liked them all (and still do). But it would be hard to discount the Konica T3N and FT-1, if forced to name a favorite. The Konica bodies I've had have been completely reliable and their lenses are stellar. What I like best is the images they produce.</p>

<p> </p>

[chuck_foreman1]

I recall seeing one of these dual frame jobbies at the second-hand shop about ten years ago...

They wanted about 100DM and I was sorely tempted. Sounds like you made quite a bargain.

I have a 90 mm Hexanon for the Konica Omega M and it is a very fine piece of glass. I have tried a few time to get the Konica S2, but the word's out, and if not already broken, it commands a reasonable

price. I'm really interested to see how you made out with this lens!

[marc_rochkind]

My first SLR and the first camera I bought new was a Konica FP that I got in late 1963 or early 1964, a few months before I took it to the 1964/65 World's Fair in New York. I used it until 1976, when I upgraded to the then-new Canon AE-1.

 

Here are some photos I took at the Fair in 1964:

 

http://basepath.com/galleries/index.php?dir=1964-65+New+York+World%27s+Fair

 

My FP would occasionally fire the shutter during rewind, something I later learned was common. Grease was too stiff or something like that. Went in for repair, but came back unfixed. While in New York in June 1964 I went personally with my father (I was only 17) to Konica's office and complained. The man gave me a brand new one right then and there!

 

At some point I gave my Konica away, so a year or so ago I replaced it with a used one:

 

http://basepath.com/index-real.php?url=blogentry/2008-01-25.htm

 

Just last week I bought an Auto-Reflex (note hyphen) on eBay for about $80. Should arrive today or tomorrow--I'll post pictures. This camera is notable for being the first with completely automatic exposure setting and for switching, even in mid-roll, between half- and full-frame.

 

As Michael says, Konicas weren't in the Nikon class, but were excellent camera nonetheless. They were the first, or nearly the first, to have an all-metal Copal Square (I think that's the name) shutter, traveling vertically. Synced to 1/125 or something like that.

 

--Marc

[daverhaas]

<p>In 1978 I bought my first Konica TC - I was debating between the equivalent Nikon and Canon of the time and ended up going with the Konica. </p>

<p>My choice came down a couple of things:</p>

<p>1. Flash sync speed - Konica was the only camera that had a 1/125 sync speed from the models I could afford.<br>

2. Konica was the only manufactor that had a mechanical shutter. The dealer showed me on Nikon, Pentax, Olympus, etc... what happened when you removed the battery. Konica worked at all shutter speeds. Others either didn't work at all or gave you a 1/60 shutter speed.</p>

<p>Great bodies... durable as all get out.<br>

<br />Dave</p>

 

[the celt 2]

<p>Hey Andy, I have a lot of Konica equipment that was my Dads, let me know if you're interested in getting a good deal. PM me if you are, and I'll send you a list of what I have. Then you could make me an offer.</p>

[User_502260]

<p>I started with Konica cameras in 1971 and still use them. All old cameras have some particular things which need attention over time. The person who is the expert in servicing Konica cameras is Greg Weber. He can be reached at <a href="mailto:gweber@webercamera.com">gweber@webercamera.com.</a> Without Greg's help I probably wouldn't still be using my Konica SLR cameras. </p>

[dave_green5]

<p>The Konica cameras were well made, capable cameras, but until the TC and T4, very heavy. I think that the Nikkormat and Canon FTb were good comparisons.</p>

<p>One thing that should not be discounted is how superb the Hexanon family of lenses were. They were absolutely the equals of any other family of lenses from the same era. Konica's lens designers were pretty conservative, and they don't have too many lenses that are among the fastest in class, but they were known for superb rendering characteristics and bokeh.</p>

[Mike Gammill]

<p>As a former Konica dealer I can add a few things. Our family camera shop began selling Konicas with the T3, A3, C-35 and Auto S-2. The A3 lacked a meter switch and hot shot but you could add one. Later, the T3 was updgraded to the T3N. Some, but not all, T3N's had split image focusing. Well built and accurate metering and with the previous versions: Autoreflex T and T2, helped make shutter priority automation popular. Later, the Canon AE-1 would eclipse it with its autowinder and dedicated flash, but the Konica would work manually without batteries, and the AE-1 (yes, we sold them too) was as dead as a can of Spam without a battery. Konica offered some great optics, including a 57mm f 1.2. Konica never offered the system accessories like Canon and Nikon or as wide of a range of lenses so they really didn't compete with the Nikon F2AS or Canon F1. WHile the meters in some of the T series may not have held up, mechnically, they are worth acquiring and using.</p>

[Member69643]

<p>I became interested in Konica last year and acquired a T3, FT-1, and FS-1. The T-3 is a remarkable beast, and the Konica AR lenses are superb. I have only Konica AR primes so I can't speak for the zooms, but the 28 to 200 mm lenses I own are my first choice when I want to do B&W work. My T3 is nearly always loaded with Fuji Acros or Tmax 400. The meter is accurate enough but seems to be a little on the underexposed side. I use that to advantage and can always get good handheld shots in low light.</p>

[patrick j dempsey]

<p>I played with a TC recently... lowest shutter speed was 1/8th... but it wouldn't meter below 1/60th, with the meter needle swinging up to the top for every speed under 1/60th... I suppose to prevent you from using speeds below hand-hold speed.... why even both with a tripod socket? Other than that, the construction seemed good enough and the shutter was in tip-top shape, visually firing as close to the marked speeds as I could tell. My friend shot three rolls in "auto" mode and got back three black rolls of film. The akaline cells in it where apparently enough to move the meter some times but not enough to get the camera to work properly. We put in some fresh zinc-air's and the meter seemed accurate! Cool camera, although somewhat limiting.... I'm sure the T is very nice and the lenses... well they are legendary!</p>

[richard_oleson]

<p>The Konicas are very well built generally, I would agree with the assessments above that place them about even with the Nikkormat in quality.</p>

<p>They have one notable weakness, and a design approach that tends to compound it: First, the center terminal in the battery box is not held in by a screw - it's just attached by a couple of plastic studs that are prone to breaking off under the constant stress of the spring force of the terminal, leaving you without a light meter. Second, this would be an easy repair if, like most similar cameras, the battery box could be removed out the bottom. But Konica designed the camera so that you have to remove the entire mirror box from the camera in order to do this simple repair... it turns it into a pretty major repair job, you might as well go ahead and service the shutter while you're in there.</p>

<p>The good news is that you don't lose the camera, only the meter. Of course, the camera's landmark autoexposure function goes with it.</p>

<p>As far as models, the above applies to the Autoreflex T, T3, A and A3 (I assume there must be a T2 and A2 somewhere but I've never bumped into one). These were Konica's full size line, and they were all nearly identical. The A/A3 was slightly stripped down as a price leader, but the quality is the same; and the refinements from 1 to 3 in each series are subtle. After these came the smaller T4 and TC. The T4 doesn't seem to have lost anything in quality or ruggedness in the downsizing. The TC has a few shutter speeds missing at the slow end, otherwise it's very similar to the T4.</p>

[Mike Gammill]

<p>A further note on the Konica Autoreflex models: Most of them will hold the meter reading when the shutter release is partially depressed. A simple, but effective solution to the problem of locking in meter readings in difficult light that other makers tackled by offering an additional button to press or with instructions to switch to manual. Even the Konica RF cameras offered that feature.<br>

A note on battery compartments: The later FT-1 and FS-1 Konicas with built-in winders also required some care as their battery holders were somewhat fragile. When we sold Konica we had several brough in with that problem.</p>

[patrick_stack]

<p>Hi, Andy -</p>

<p>A friends Dad had passed away, friend was all about P&S, knowing I liked photography he gave Dad's camera and lenses to me. A black Autoreflex T, with prime Hexanon 35, 57 f1.4, 135 and 300 lenses. I had never used Konica before, was an SRT-101 and OM-1n user at that time, and frankly had mistakenly sorta looked down my nose at the brand. It felt big and heavy, the shutter sounded like a John Deere transmission, the fit and finish was not a thing to behold.</p>

<p>Camera and lenses were well cared for and worked fine, I had it all serviced by pro shop and put it to use. Still sounded awful and looked a bit tacky next to high end camera's, but what a great surprise when I saw what those Hexanon lenses produced. Totally pleased, I think completely on par with the Minolta and Olympus lenses. Sharp, great color, overall a home run and free, a found camera that made it's way to me. My friend was very pleased to see it being used, I hope his Dad would have been happy as well.</p>

<p>I added the CRIS battery adaptor and the light meter functioned perfectly. The camera served me completely reliably, with lot's of use for about 12-13 years. It was special because it came from a good friend, also because it performed very well and reliably for a long time. Most of the 35mm stuff was donated to high schools that offer photography courses and continue to serve still, the "T" among them. Seems fitting.</p>

<p>Enjoy it, you'll have a ball.</p>

<p>Patrick</p>

<p> </p>

[ralf_j.]

<p>Andy - my 2 cents on the above comments. I have 3 Konicas, an FP, a Autoreflex A and a Autoreflex TC. I have 0 complaints for any of them and the optics are fantastic, however they did shoot themselves in the foot during their slr production run; I am thinking that that may have turned people off.</p>

<p>You see, my Konica FP's lens mount is different from the Autoreflex series, they changed their mount early in their slr production run. Surely the mount was changed by other camera companies(except for Nikon), but Canon for example had the FL/FD mount well into 80s for almost 25 years when they switched to the EOS mount, Minolta had the SR mount alive until very recently(2003-2004) by offering the last in a glorious line the Minolta X-370s which was selling new at B&H until 2004; so did Yashica/Contax.<br>

So to recap, the Konicas were never as popular as the rest of brands mentioned here, and charging top market prices for their cameras did not help matters either.</p>

[Matthew Currie]

<p>I have a couple of T3's, one that I got long ago at a yard sale with damage from being dropped, but in working order, and another later one with split image screen that I recently got. The dropped one had its viewfinder bezel torn off, but fortunately came with the flash bracket and the extra bezel screw to hold it on. The newer one lacked the bracket, but its bezel was intact, so now I have a nice minty one complete.</p>

<p>Pros: completely mechanical, works without batteries; hefty and well made; good flash sync speed; good lenses; adequate metering. Viewfinder display of aperture makes shutter priority easy to work with.</p>

<p>Cons: mediocre viewfinder; noisy; requires battery workarounds; removable hot shoe bracket is vulnerable to breakage, and not always found on used examples.</p>

<p>I've used mine as a general knockabout camera for years. I use hearing aid batteries in mine, but even with these it is necessary to compensate by 2/3 of a stop to avoid underexposure. The T3 has an unusual battery check setup, which is dependent on the ASA setting, and this makes compensation for odd batteries very easy. Just set the camera as specified, with lens off, shutter at 125 and ASA 100, push the test lever, and then adjust ASA until the needle hits the mark. Both of my T3's behave exactly the same, asking for 2/3 reduction in ASA, and both give very accurate meter readings that way. If you're using hearing aid batteries, wait an hour or so before testing. The initial voltage is high, but becomes stable soon after.</p>

[Mike Gammill]

<p>When my family opened a camera shop in 1974, Konica was the first brand of SLR we carried. One year my dad sold enough Konica SLR's to win a free trip from Berkey Marketing (the Konica distributer at the time.) Although we later sold Yashica, Minolta, Contax, Canon, Olympus, and Fuji, the Konica's we sold introduced numerous people to SLR photography that had previously thought the SLR too difficult to use.<br>

Andy- you will have a great time with your Konica.</p>

[Andy Collins]

<p>Thanks guys for such encouragement! While I knew Konica was a maker of excellent cameras (my KAS2 comes immediately to mind) I had no idea how they compared to the brands I'm familiar with. It certainly sounds like a keeper and one to play around with a lot. The Hexanon 57/1.4 is a gaping thing of beauty and even the profile of the camera is a treat for the eyes. I'm eager to see the results from this lens.</p>

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>I could be wrong about this, so you history buffs please correct me if need be, but I had read somewhere that with all lenses made in Japan, in order to get the little gold "passed" sticker on your gear the makers lenses had to pass strict quality control standards. Those standards were established using Konica Hexanon SLR lenses.</p>

[dan_b.4]

<p>So, Mr. Rochkind, <em>you're</em> the guy who outbid me on the Auto-Reflex! They've gotten pretty pricey lately but I hope to snag one sooner or later.</p>

[michael_michaelski]

<p>Rick,<br>

The T(2) is somewhat like the T3(N), in that the markings are the same, but there are features that are different. the T-1 had the on-off switch on the top back of the camera, where the T-2 had it around the shutter release (that is the most visible difference). If you don't mind going to Flickr, you can see (most) of my Konica's on > . As was said before, Greg Weber is the person to go for if you want your's fixed. If you are really interested, you might also visit the 'konicaslr' forum on Yahoo groups.<br>

Mike (who still has his first Konica (T2), but it no longer works - my second one, purchased in 1971, is still working fine).</p>

[vfg]

<p>In my humble opinion; Konica Cameras from the sixties into the eighties were one of the most under rated systems anywhere. It is also my opinion that most Hexanon glass was and still is some of the best glass anywhere at any price. To better the quality of a Hexanon 50mm f1.7 you would have to spend a sizable amount of cash.<br>

The lenses that commonly came on the Konica range finders typically ran circles around most of the Japanese glass, of then or now. If you hope to find lenses that resolve at a higher rate, be prepared to spend two or three times what you would on good Japanese glass today. There are some glass makers in Europe that do very well, but not with any real superior qualities.<br>

I have 4 working Canon Kits, top of the line being my F1n kit or maybe my T90 kit. My Konica T3 is as good in my hand as any, and then when I consider the quality of the lenses, well I always have a Konica kit by my side, I also use a FT1 and a FS1, both of which are great reliable cameras. Canon and Nikon can come close to Hexanon if you are using their higher end lenses, but I prefer the high contrast, super sharpness and superior colors achieved with Hexanon.</p>