Why have many Japanese camera bodies eight edges?

[konrad_beck1]

<p>I noticed that many (classical) Japanese camera bodies have a similar 8-edge design. When they just copied the Leica, they also used the round bodies (I am talking about the left/right sides of the bodies). But when both Nikon and Canon came out with their own developments trying to combine the best from the Leica (round) and Contax (boxy), they came up "rounding" the bodies by introducing two 135o angles per 90o turn. This design continued over a long time into the SLR period (Nikon F, Canon F-1 etc.). In the case of Olympus, the (O)M-1 and the following single digit bodies had the edges smoothed out, just to re-appear in their double-digit bodies, looking similar to the Canon AE-1.</p>

<p>My questions are: Does this 8-edges design reflect on the aesthetical feelings of Japanese culture? Or their perceived thinking of what the Western World (export) might like? Is the edged design easier (=cheaper) to produce (I am talking about the pre-1980s metal, not plastic bodies)? Is there any "first" body which used this edgy design? (So far, as the earliest I have seen the Nikon I rangefinder from 1948 using this design, but I haven't looked too hard).</p>

[marc_rochkind]

The Nikon F designer wanted a simple design based on rectangles, circles, and triangles, with sharp edges. Note the squared-off lens mount compared to, say, the Canonflex of the same year. And the way the prism housing comes to a point, unnecessarily since that part of the prism isn't used. (And the prism may not even extend that far upwards--I haven't disassembled a Nikon finder to see. Barely can afford one as is.)

 

Just as likely, as you say, it was traditional for early Japanese SLRs. I have an Asahiflex IIb (Sears Tower 23) with the 8-sided body, a very early Japanese SLR, but that design detail is probably taken from the German cameras, which the early Asahiflexes seem to be based on.

 

As you say, the Leica is rounded, while the Contax S (and I guess Contax rangefinders) were 8-sided.

 

Later Japanese SLRs seemed to go with a squarish profile with gently rounded corners. None that I have in my collection are completely rounded like Leicas.

 

Certainly the bulbous Exakta is horrible. Looks bad, and hard to hold, too.

 

Not sure I answered the question...

 

--Marc

[JDMvW]

<p>It reflects more than anything else the dependence of early Japanese camera design on European originals. The Nikon F is a copy of the Nikon RF with a prism on it. And the 8-sided shape of the Nikon RF came from the Contax of which the early Nikons were pretty near clones.<br>

This was perfectly legal because the Allied Control Commission had released all German camera patents, designs, etc., for free use by all the world. The idea I'm sure was to allow the American, British, French, and Soviet makers to make their own Leicas, but ironically it made the Japanese industry free to borrow and, yes, improve the European originals.</p>

<p>Marc, are you <strong><em>trying</em> </strong> to be a troll and lurk under your bridge to start controversies?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Certainly the bulbous Exakta is horrible. Looks bad, and hard to hold, too.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ach, du lieber Gott, man! These are fighting words around the Classic Manual Camera forum.</p><div></div>

[marc_rochkind]

Not trying to be a troll, JDM... it is a natural gift.

 

But, I do admit, that were a beauty contest held between an Exakta (not Exa--they're cute), an Argus C3, and any other collection of cameras, the Exakta would finish no worse than second from last.

 

On the other hand, I have read comments in various places about the ugliness of the Contarex Bullseye, which I consider beautiful, if ridiculously overdone. Has that 8-sided shape, though. I think some of the Contarex engineers wanted to give it 12 sides, but were somehow persuaded to be more minimalist.

 

--Marc

[roseberry guitars]

<p>In many Asian cultures "8" has a connection with money/wealth. Maybe it was a sign to the "wealth gods" that they wanted to sell lots of cameras and make lots of money???</p>

[jim_momary]

<p>Perhaps, in part, it was related to ease of manufacture.<br>

Making things out of metal, including castings, is always simpler with planes and angles than with rounded contours and indeterminate surfaces. This was very true back when things were made on simpler machines by humans.<br>

Today, programed CNC work-centers can spit out a hyperbola as simply as a flat plane. So the rules of efficient manufature today are all different.<br>

Analogous to spherical lenses compared to the relatively new aspherics; some things simply could not be done 50 years ago. Remember rectangular, beige, box PCs? Try to find one today that's not curvy and sexy and in some 'statement' color.<br>

My 2 cents.<br>

Jim</p>

[patrick j dempsey]

<p>It's a design that originates with folding cameras. There are basically two styles of bodies for folding roll-film cameras.... round ends and octagonal ends. These two designs represent the best designs for a body that contains a roll of film spinning directly inside of it. Both designs were efficient and allowed the camera to be held easily and slip into and out of a pocket easily. Zeiss built octagonal ended folding cameras. When Zeiss went to build a 35mm rangefinder, they copied the body style from their folding cameras. Their SLR was based on the Contax RF, so it follows that design as well. Leica decided to follow the designs of round ended folding cameras, probably because they were bottom loading so they didn't even need flats on the very ends, and so many companies built cameras that copy this approach. Especially for the early rangefinder cameras, their was a conscious effort for designers to make something that looks like a folding camera. In the 50's, boxy cameras became popular that had square ends, and Zeiss is guilty of making many RF cameras in this style, which influenced generations of square cornered PNS cameras. Olympus SLR's designed by Maitani follow a very different design based on hexagons and many cameras that followed the OM1 copied the hexagonal layout.</p>

[patrick j dempsey]

<p>Basically, it's all about the efficiency of having the exterior shape of the camera be the same as the functional interior shape.</p>

[subbarayan_prasanna]

<p>Many considered the Exakta as a beauty of the late "Art Nouveau" style of designing in the first machine age. That included even the engraved lettering and the earlier crank handles. I guess each one unto his taste and 'telos'. Most Japanese cameras in the early years seem to be copied from Dresden designs. Post-War East Germany seems to have made a lot of deals [not so transparent] with manufacturers in Japan. In a way it also helped in marketing the Japanese cameras; I guess the Japanese makers did not want to surprise the market with totally new looking designs. But worked it up gradually over the years. The predominant market in those years was the US. And one may recall the theme of the slogan "there are no surprises at Holiday Inn" for the market's preferences.sp.</p>

[peter_naylor1]

<p>Hi, Konrad I thiink a very good case in point dating-wise with Japanese SLRs is the Miranda D, which came out in April 1960 still with those hex-angled sides, but within a few months had acquired rounded ones which remained on all Mirandas from then on.</p>

<p>With regard to 1930s folders, I'm something of a collector of art-deco stuff and therefore prefer to see angled ends rather than rounded ones, but it's a personal thing, with 'Beauty Being In The Eye Of The Beholder'. So I would totally disagree with Marc's view of the Exakta as being plug-ugly and the Exa 'cute'. I reckon the reverse is the case, with the Exa always reminding me somehow of a little toad. My early-type Exakta Varex 11a with the embossed lettering consistently draws admiration whenever I take it along to our Camera Collectors Club meeting, on the other hand. Chacun a son gout, I guess ....</p>

<p>I did a feature and write-up on the Varex 11a in my Flickr Portfolio Pages here:<br>

<a href="

<p>PETE IN A MILD PERTH</p>

[kevin h. y. lui.]

<p>Many Japanese, and also Chinese, prefer 8 because it sounds like wishing someone wealth. But I don't think it is related to the design.<br />I like the 8-edge design, since the feeling of holding is much stronger than the round bodies (for some cameras). I think Nikon is the first who make this popular and hence other bands followed. The production cost maight not be related since I know the difference between round / angular edge is very small. <br />Dealing with bodies, I don't like Exakta. 'Too round' and not easy to hold.</p>

[patrick j dempsey]

<p>Kevin... notice that Nikon was following close in the footsteps of the Contax rangefinders.</p>

[charles_stobbs3]

Obviously they were all copying Nagel Cameras like the early Retinas.

[peter_naylor1]

<p>Now that I think of it, there was one rather strange Japanese 35mm camera from the late 50s which hedged its bets on edge design - the Walz Wide. This was one of those mainly Japanese 'wide-angle' cameras from the late 50s/early 60s that came with a standard 3.5 cm/35mm FL lens ie ideal for group and party pics but maybe not so handy for landscape stuff.</p>

<p>What also made it unique AFAIK is that is came with rounded edges at the front, but hex-angled ones at the rear. OK so that might seem a bit weird, but it actually fits nicely in large hands like mine. I did a pic/write-up on it here:<br>

<a href=" </p>

<p>PETE IN PERTH</p>

[marc_rochkind]

Peter--

 

Nice site... I will take your comments there on the various Exaktas to heart, and maybe try to look at my Exaktas with fresh eyes. Truth is, I did like the nameplate, It was the overall shape that I apparently can't sufficiently appreciate...

maybe because I am convex myself? ;-)

 

--Marc

[konrad_beck1]

<p>Thanks, everybody for your thoughts. I think Patrick Dempsey has a good point in that back loading cameras required somewhere flat edges for the locking mechanism of the back, whereas bottom loaders had less restrictions. Over the weekend, I looked throughKoichi Sugiyama's "The Collector’s Guide to Japanese Cameras", and I found a 1933 folder for 6x9 plate and 120 film, which already had the octagon shape.<strong><em><br /> </em> </strong> </p>

[patrick j dempsey]

<p>Konrad... check out the Olympus Semi and Semi II folders. Olympus originally sold cameras under their name with Zuiko optics made in-house and the rest was made by different manufacturers. The earlier Olympus Semi of 1936 had round ends and the Semi II of 1937 had octagonal (or maybe more precisely hexagonal) ends. Subsequent Olympus folders continued the octagonal shape. The original Semi bodies were copies of the Balda Baldax cameras. I think all of the Balda folders, and even the Baldina 35mm rigid viewfinder/rangefinder cameras have round ends.</p>

<p>Minolta also had a Semi-Minolta folder... this also apparently went through an early rounded ends and later octagonal ends versions. (Perhaps the bodies were supplied by the same manufacturer as the Semi-Olympus?) A fairly popular Japanese camera with rounded ends is the Minolta A and A2:<br>

http://www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Minolta_A</p>

<p>Minolta skipped octagonal corners on the A series and finished the line off with the A5, which had square ends like the later Hi-Matic cameras and SRT cameras. The Minolta A evolved out of their Leica mount camera, the Minolta 35, clearly a copy of the Leica III. In an interesting contrast, Canon's Leica clones had octagonal ends! Regardless, the rounded ends can be seen in Minotla's SR line of SLR's... although the cameras are basically square with a little bit of roundness. Minolta dropped the rounded ends altogether with the final version of the SR-7, which lead into the SRT series, which started the trend of squared off Minoltas.</p>