The Quality Mechanical Camera: Japan vs. Germany

[capitalq]

<p>One of the reasons I enjoy visiting this site almost everyday I'm near a computer is to read the knowledgeable (and often amusing) insights on classic vintage camera gear. As a student of history, I found this recent post from <strong>Peter de Waal</strong> particularly good -- it has a blend of historical, social and economic insights on how the Japanese overtook the Germans after WW2. I've reproduced part of it below as I'm very interested in hearing what others have to say on the topic....</p>

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=1669610">Peter de Waal</a> <a href="http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub6.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jun 08, 2010; 05:26 p.m.</p>

<p> </p>

<p >"I think it's interesting to consider how we got here. The manufacture and assembly of quality mechanical cameras is a labour intensive process requiring a highly-trained work force. The Japanese camera makers consolidated in the late 1950's and launched a price war, attacking German camera manufacturing supremacy. They were able to do this for two reasons: (1) the victorious Allies cancelled German patents as part of the war reparations (eg. Operation PAPERCLIP), and (2) they implimented statistical quality control methods as advocated by W. Edwards Deming. At the same time the Japan Camera Inspection Institute (JCII) checked every piece that was exported to ensure it functioned. Up till that point it was common for new cameras not to work right out of the box. Returns and work-overs were commonplace. This hit the German camera industry hard, as craft-based production and assembly was still commonplace.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >By the late 1960's this price war had become fratricidal as wages in Japan had risen, resulting in a generalised fall in profits. In 1971 Nixon broke the gold standard, devaluing the US dollar and the price of German camera imports rose rapidly. German camera manufacturing collapsed. The end of the West German Zeiss and Voigtlander operations set the scene for a reduction in quality. It was no longer necessary to make things at a level of fit and finish comparable to the West Germans. In the 1970's the Japanese camera companies further reduced production costs by ending precision mechanical construction and substituting cheaper electronic designs and fully automated production line techniques.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >German manufacturers also attempted to cut costs. But the move to Japan by Zeiss in the 1970's was not the success they had hoped for. The Contax-Yashica cameras are renowned for electronic failure, with the first model, the RTS, being the most reliable. Many of these "Contax" cameras are now 25-35 years old and are very flaky. Amongst the repairers I know the RTS 2 and 3 are considered a real liability. The Nikon FE has a great reputation for reliability (which I can personally vouch for), unlike the FA and EM. Electronic Minolta's and Pentax's, Olympus OM-2's and 4's, Canon A-series, T-series (50,70,90) & EOS film cameras are a nightmare to work on because of the ageing flexible circuit board issue and fail often. Some of these cameras also have LCD screen controls that are leaking or turning black and are no longer available. Local repairers are wary of doing a full service on (for example) a 30 year-old Canon AE-1, because of the necessity of removing the flexible PCB and the high probability of it's failure. I hear that this issue has even affected the New Zealand Army - which still uses AE-1's, but with old FD breach-lock lenses, as the plastic New FD mount ones disintegrated long ago.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Most electronic auto-exposure cameras of the 1980's and '90's are now in the hands of their second or third owners. The spread of auto-focus technologies in the 1990's further added to the burden of complexity for camera technicians. People buying such old electronic cameras are generally not in a position to afford the high repair costs.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >In the early 2000's photography devolved into a few tribes of users. Apart from those still using film cameras, these were (1) very expensive high-end DSLR gear for working photojournalists and a small number of advanced amateurs, (2) a quality digital point and shoot market, and (3) cell-phone imagery. Cell phones have a very short working life, something under a year. This is all well and good so long as cell phones are cheap or free, but the last statistic I heard was that 20% of US users have cancelled their phone plans this year. No more free cam-phones!</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Professional photographers will always need new cameras, because they trash theirs mercilessly. However, this is a tiny market that "Canikon" runs at cost, or even makes a loss on, for the advertising value and prestige.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Producing digital cameras is a difficult, financially risky business. Production volumes have to be massive to offset the huge set-up costs. Companies need large retained profits to do this. Often the sums needed are so large that they must borrow money or enter into joint ventures. With today's economic climate the appetite for financial "risk" is hovering around zero. Credit has dried up.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >There may not be enough serious digital amateurs to keep the manufacturers in business. At least not enough that want to spend serious money. It will be interesting to see which of the Japanese camera companies survives the current recession. It will be ironic if Cosina Voigtlander with it's film cameras and manual lens manufacturing is one of them!</p>

<p > </p>

<p >What I think we are seeing is the young or newly poor picking up old film gear because they can no longer afford the new digital stuff. When you shoot digital you are on a treadmill. The cameras seem to last about three years before problems set in, provided you don't drop them.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >A friend of mine fixes cameras for Canon. Even in a small place like New Zealand, an average Monday morning sees around 600 damaged or faulty Canon digi cameras arrive at the door. The repairers of Nikon, Pentax and Sony have similar experiences, with different numbers.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >According to my Canon contact, in most cases damaged digi-cams are just written off. Any substantial drop will be enough to kill the average plastic digi zoom. Working on them is a nightmare. They are full of fragile tissue-like flexible copper circuit boards that are coated in glue and wrapped around the plastic lens mechanicals. The body shells are slid over the bundle of lens and circuits and a few screws are done up for appearances sake. To dismantle these units, you have to use hexane to soften the glue and then try and remove the shells without tearing any of the circuits...</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Let's face it, the Japanese camera manufacturers in the 1960's saw a niche, and that was people who wanted to look like professional photojournalists, but couldn't tell an f-stop from a bus-stop.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >The Agfa Optima was the first such camera that promised to deliver correct or adequate exposure to the average person who wasn't willing to study photography (or didn't have the ability to master it) so that they could participate in the boom-time post holiday ritual of 'the slide show'.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Later cameras such as the shutter-priority Konica Auto Reflex in the 1960's and the various electronic aperture-priority cameras starting with the Pentax ES extended that largesse so that holiday plonkers could look like pukka photojournalists.</p>

<p > </p>

<p>Because I mostly shoot slides, when I used such systems I found myself spending most of my time trying to second-guess average and centre-weighted auto-exposure systems. The discovery of the simplicity of the semi-spot meter systems in my Leicaflex SL and M5 has greatly increased my productivity. And, before anybody says it, I know the OM-2 et al have spot meters, but they don't have Leica lenses. Results, results, results. That's what counts." </p>

[User_4525289]

<p>Oh my.<br /> You quite a writer. Do you know that Anton Checkov once said? "Briefness is a sister of a talent". What is the point of that text can you summarize it three words.</p>

[capitalq]

<p>Peter: I've read many an article on the rise of the Japanese camera industry after WW2 but I've not quite seen a reference to Richard Nixon. Well done.</p>

<p>But I'm not sure that you can explain the decline of the Germans to simply the abandonment of the Gold Standard. Germans exports certainly became more expensive in the 70s, but that certainly didn't stop their formidable industry of building quality automobiles. No, unlike their cars, the Germans stopped innovating on SLRs and allowed the Japanese to refine, improve and surpass them. The Japanese, like the Germans, have a culture of quality and attention to detail. But I believe they also have a certain aesthetic sense when it comes to industrial design. Some of the cameras you've mentioned are not only ingenious little mechanical instruments, they are (I dare say) close to mass-produced objects of art. Take for example the non-technical concept of 'bokkeh' -- Japanese engineers truly believed in this kind of artsy stuff. </p>

<p>Also, I'm not sure that the Japanese simply capitalized on a 'niche' of people who wanted to look like photojournalists. After all, this was a a pretty large market that sold millions of cameras over the span of the Golden Age (late 1950s-early 80s) and supported several strong manufacturers. No, I believe the times were different and the market was different. My father, who bought a Canon FX in 1965, truly appreciated the design and build quality. He had no pretensions of being a photojournalist -- he simply appreciated quality even if he was only shooting snaps of his family. After the Golden Age, the typical user became less interested in quality and more interested in convenience. This ultimately led to the decline of the supremacy of the SLR and the demise of many quality manufacturers (sadly, including Konica). </p>

<p>Oddly, I think the times may be changing back. The rise of affordable DSLRs is reintroducing a new generation to the SLR and the use of quality glass. And I think we may also be seeing a resurgent interest in vintage gear precisely because of this -- not because of "the young or the newly poor". Photography has never been a hobby for the "poor". Last I checked, the balance sheets of Nikon and Canon were just fine. They and others are still introducing new products and upgrades at an almost ridiculous pace. No, I'm generally hopeful about the future of the SLR. After all, there's a certain tactile satisfaction to pressing the shutter release and feeling the mirror slap... </p>

[User_502260]

<p>It is difficult to compare German and Japanese cameras for quality because similar camera types were only made in both places in any numbers for a short time. Zeiss had worked on prototype SLR cameras with eye level pentaprisms before WWII but shelved the project because of war production needs. By the time the war ended, much of the Zeiss manufacturing capability wound up on the wrong side of the East-West divide. This allowed the earliest of these SLRs to be manufactured in East Germany and with not very high quality. The focal plane shutter SLR was more versatile for some types of shooting but several camera companies in Japan and Germany made mirror box attachments for their RF cameras. Between the time that the Contax D SLR was introduced and when the Zeiss Contarex appeared, aproximately twelve years elapsed. During this time most smaller format work was done with TLRs and RFs. For the 35mm SLR with an eye level pentaprism 1959 was the turning point. In this year and in the next few years many companies introduced 35mm SLRs with focal plane shutters. Leitz would not have an SLR for several more years. In comparing the quality of German and Japanese cameras the most important event was the introduction of the Nikon F. It was adapted from the Nikon RF cameras just as the Contax D was adapted from pre-war Contax RF cameras. The mechanical standard of the Nikon F was so high that the quality argument was effectively over. If a camera like the Contax D had been made in West Germany in 1947 it probably would not have had the mechanical quality of the Nikon F of 1959 but it would have given Zeiss the chance to experiment with different designs and improve the quality over time. <br>

Nikon's modular design enabled it to make enough improvements over time so that the F which was first used either with a separate meter or with a selenium meter would eventually evolve into the FTN with center weighted CdS metering. The Contarex line included interesting camera and lens designs and features which would eventually find their way into many other cameras. On as much of an apples to apples basis as you can achieve when comparing different systems the Nikon F is considered more reliable and more durable than any of the Contarex models. This doesn't mean you can't still get good results with a Contarex, only that you need to be much more dedicated. The Contarex equipment is much more expensive, harder to find and more difficut to get serviced. The German camera industry was not as adept as the Japanese industry in making the jump to SLR cameras. <br>

It doesn't make much sense to compare electronic Japanese cameras of the mid 1970s to earlier mechanical German cameras. I say this because if you look at Japanese mechanical cameras from that time many are still very capable picture takers. These include the Minolta SRTs, Canon FTb, Canon F-1, Konica Autoreflex T2, Nikon F, Nikon F2, Nikkormat FTN, Pentax Spotmatic II and others. It's true that as a group, the early electronic cameras SLRs are mostly not doing very well now. Some of these are: Nikkormat EL, Nikkormat ELW, Pentax ES, Konica FS-1, Canon AE-1, Canon AE-1 Program, Fujica ST801, Fujica ST901, Mamiya ZE, Minolta XG series. The Nikon FE and FE2 cameras have stayed in working condition a lot longer. The Minolta X-700 and X-370 models can suffer electronic failure but are easily repaired in most cases. These cameras are not mechanically as robust as the Nikon FE and FE2 models but can still work for a long time it they aren't treated too roughly.<br>

If the New Zealand army wants to keep using Canon film SLRs it can easily buy as many used Canon FTb and FTbN cameras as it needs and get them overhauled. They will then last a good long time. I don't find it a problem to shoot slide film with different metering systems. You just need to konw what you are pointing at and have some experience. Having said that I would rather shoot slide film with a Canon F-1 than with a Nikkormat FTN. I recently got my first DSLR and I was surprised to see how narrow its temperature operating range is compared to that of a Canon F-1 or Nikon F2. I wouldn't be too hard on the Japanese electronic cameras. They had a place in the market. They allowed people to have a lot of convenience for a price they could afford. They were not made to last forever and in absolute terms were not as high in quality as some of their contemporary mechanical counterparts. Remember that the same company with made the AE-1 also made the F-1N. The same company which made the EM also made the F3. </p>

[iqbal]

<p>Capital Q: Thanks for the post. It is quite educational, though I can't vouch for the accuracy of many references, as I am not a student of photography... I think, fall of the Gold Standard in 1970s had significant economic impact on global trade. Basically it resulted in the depreciation of US $ against other currencies. In other words, German currency (DMark) would have appreciated, resulting in increasing cost.</p>

[capitalq]

<p>Jeff: Very interesting observation: "If a camera like the Contax D had been made in West Germany in 1947 it probably would not have had the mechanical quality of the Nikon F of 1959"... </p>

<p>Iqbal: I'm not disagreeing with your point. My point is that the depreciation of the US$ did not cause the collapse of all German exports. Americans still saw value in Mercedes, BMW -- even the VW Bug. </p>

[rustys pics]

<p>The Japanese already had an excellent optical manufacturing capability by WWII. They just had to re-tool for civilian use and export. Years ago I was in Wal Mart looking at Digicams. There was an old fellow there with a WWII veteran hat. I thanked him for serving, and we began talking about cameras. He told me this interesting anecdote which I'll tell in the first person;<br>

<em>"Not long after the war we were in Tokyo on leave. We decided to go down to Tokyo Bay where several Japanese Warships were waiting to be scrapped. We saw a submarine, and a Japanese officer on board, and asked him if we could have a tour. He obliged us, and at one point invited us to look through the periscope, which was trained on Mount Fuji. I had looked through scopes on U.S. subs before, but when I looked through this Japanese scope I was shocked at how clear and crisp the image was! I could actually see the snow blowing on Mt. Fuji. I remarked that with optics like this, I couldn't believe the Japanese lost the war. He smiled and said; "This periscope was made by Nippon Kogaku. Soon they will be making a camera for people to buy. I hope you will try it". </em><br>

The gentleman said a few months later he bought one of the first "Nikon" rangefinder cameras it was superb, and he used it for decades before he finally sold it for far less than it was worth. So you see, the Japanese already had an excellent camera and optical industry. They began by refining some of the German Contax and Leica designs, and then creating their own superb cameras at a very good price point.</p>

[tony_lockerbie]

<p>I think that the last paragraph by Russ sums it all up. The Japanese cameras took the best from the German designs and combined them with their excellent optics to make well priced usable cameras.<br>

I still feel that the "pinnacle" of quality camera construction was in the German cameras in the fifties and sixties. Most notable being the Leica M2/M3 and the Rolleiflexes.</p>

[charles_stobbs3]

IMHO a decline began when light seals replaced precision metal forming.

[k5083]

<p>Peter's is an interesting and wide-ranging perspective, though definitely a perspective. Although nominally about Germany and Japan, it is in large part about the United States, and how the U.S.'s role as the bottomless well of high-income consumers makes it the ultimate referee in the competition. One of the themes has to do with evolving notions (again, focusing on the U.S.) of what "quality" means. Quality can be expressed in terms of materials used, precision fitting components, jewel-like finishes, maintainability, reliability, mass producibility, durability, value for money, innovativeness/novelty, and even (almost invisibly in this discussion) the fidelity of images that can be produced. Remember images? </p>

<p>When we talk about prewar and to some extent postwar German quality, the kind Tony L. is talking about, we mean precision, high finish, durability, and to some extent reliability and maintainability, but not so much mass producibility or economy. In the opposite corner of the market you had Kodak whose products could fairly be characterized as of very high quality using different criteria. Selling to well-heeled U.S. consumers was a matter of persuading them of your criteria of quality and then, of course, offering a product that met them.</p>

<p>Japan created, in the years after WWII, a new formula of quality across various products, which proved compelling for consumers in the U.S. and the rest of the world. They used innovative techniques to combine mass producibility and value with relatively high precision, and they did it through simplicity, careful choice of materials, and closely controlled manufacturing processes which in turn lent good reliability, maintainability, and durability. They were thus able to eat some of Kodak's lunch on quality as well as Leica's lunch on cost, exactly in the way that Toyota would later eat Chrysler's lunch and also challenge Benz. </p>

<p>What Peter is talking about with the brittle circuit boards and the defective Canons represents yet another evolution in the definition of quality, one whether maintainability and durability are intentionally discarded in favor of disposability and a short obsolescence cycle. There was a time when this would have been unacceptable to most consumers; that time is gone, at least for the affluent Americans who drive the global market. Innovativeness and novelty probably are more highly prized than ever, and of course a short life cycle is consistent with that. Precision means something different than it used to, being extremely impressive on the microscopic level. Incredible complexity, besides eliminating maintainability, is at war with reliability which is still a highly regarded value, and the balance that has been struck between these two is no mean achievement.</p>

<p>And then, of course, there is the image. I have heard it rumored that some people use these things to make pictures. Just like it doesn't always matter whether a sports car is fast, it doesn't always matter whether a camera can make good pictures; but sometimes it does. In this forum especially, we are sensitive to the fact that definitions of quality images have changed much more rapidly and dramatically than conceptions of quality machines. Many of us have had occasion to remark that in important respects, a photo from a low-end prewar 6x9 folder available for $30 is of higher quality than anything that the best 35-mm-form-factor DSLR on the market can make, but in so doing we adopt criteria of image quality just as archaic as the notion that a camera should feel like a hand-crafted piece of jewelry. Expectations about images have to change as the technology does, although it is not at all clear whether they mostly lead or follow.</p>

 

[bob_miller4]

<p>So if our newer cameras don't meet some previous image quality standard, it's the standard that has to be fixed?</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>This is a complex issue, and the "gold standard" issue is more of a symptom than a <em>cause</em> of events.</p>

<p>Things are seldom as they seem to persons who look for single causes.</p>

<p>I think that the slurs above on East German innovation, design, and production standards are unjustified, even if commonly held in the West. The Japanese producers were quick enough to acknowledge that by the most sincere form of appreciation, if not in their company histories.</p>

 

[k5083]

<p><em>"So if our newer cameras don't meet some previous image quality standard, it's the standard that has to be fixed?"</em></p>

<p>Exactly. Just like the quality standard of a clean shave had to be fixed for electric shavers. They're safe, they're fast, they're convenient, they're sexy (so we're told, anyway) and the results are never better than a day's growth after using a blade. It had to become acceptable to show up at work with what previously would have been unforgivable stubble for electric shavers to be widely adopted. The standard for good food had to be fixed before we could enjoy using microwave ovens and toaster ovens and drip coffee makers, not to mention our technologically advanced foods themselves. Perceptions about the quality of the output have to stay in tune with what can be produced by things that may be adopted for other reasons. Mind you, I'm not saying that the pictures makeable with modern equipment are inferior in every way, or in most ways, or overall, compared with those made by previous generations of cameras. Only that they are inferior <em>in some ways </em>that used to matter to many consumers but no longer do, at least not enough to create resistance to the new gear.</p>

<p> </p>

[don_essedi]

<p>Some things not covered in Peter's article: market saturation especially the slr market in the late 1980s. Those well-built Japanese 1960s slrs were still working like new in the 1980s (and still doing so in the 21st century). The ability of film manufacturers (aka "Kodak") to infuence camera making (such as introducing a new film size and the camera to load it into). Digital resolved both matters for Japan Camera, Inc.</p>

 

[joseph_c._ohlsen]

<p>That is all very interesting but a few facts have been omitted. </p>

<p>First, no one has mentioned the influence of German shutter companies like Compur and Prontor on the industry. These co.s had a long relationship with most German camera co.s and, no doubt, investments in them as well. I've read that their influence delayed focal plane shutter adoption thus giving the Japanese industry a good head start. For example, look at cameras like the Contaflex, Retina Reflex, Agfa Flex, Agfa Selectaflex, and similar. All have leaf shutters from Compur or Prontor. The leaf shutter severely limited lens interchangeability flexibility and most such lenses for those cameras were "slower" aperture-wise than lenses for focal plane designed cameras. </p>

<p>Next omission is the influence of EPOI (Ehrenreich Photo-Optical Industries) and Ehrenreich who "discovered" Nikon, got monopoly distribution rights and imported them to the U.S. To put it mildly, Ehrenreich heavily influenced photo magazine reviewers alledgely by fair means or foul, pushed Nikons on newspaper dept.s, etc. </p>

<p>As soon as one Japanese camera was "accepted" it opened the door to explore all the others. It didn't hurt any that Japanese cameras were really cheap compared to American and German cameras. For example, the Yashica A was $29.95 compared to an American Ciro-flex at $85. or the Kodak Reflex II at about $85. The closest German equivalent was the Peerflekta at about $59. </p>

<p>Additionally Herbert Keppler (of Pop. Photo. magazine) served as an advisor to most Japanese manufacturers giving them feedback and insider advice to improve their eq. </p>

<p>One other factor is the "We are the industry leader." mentality and the reliance on the tried and true of the German industry. Surely, the Contax, Leica, Exakta, Robot, etc. would never be bested. </p>

<p>As for reliability, quality, etc., the Japanese were very sensitive about that and being seen as worthy so the cameras/lenses were "over-built" and, with maintenance, could potentially last a lifetime. Once the cameras were accepted and time went forward and the Germans were no longer a threat, the cameras started letting up on their quality using plastic in place of metal as in the top/bottom of the Canon AE-1 Program. Eventually, the industry found out it could sell anything to snapshooters and the SLR was toppled in favor of the AF point-and-shoot. Even zoom lenses became acceptable even though they were a bit less than sharper than a single focal length lens. First the 2x zooms were intro'd (35-70mm). Next it went to 3x (35-105mm). Eventually you had 28-210mm zooms. </p>

[User_502260]

<p>I once heard someone say that the Mercedes Benz was as good as it needed to be while the Rolls Royce was as good as it could be. Cameras which were sold primarily to non-professionals went to electronic systems because if they hadn't, the mechanical cameras would have become too expensive for too many potential buyers. When the Canon AE-1 came out in 1976 it was sold with a breech lock FD lens. Canon figured out that even if it could reduce the cost of the body it still needed to reduce the cost of the lens. The New FD mount did not come onto the market for another three years. Do I think my New FD lenses are as well made as my breech lock FD lenses? No I don't. Some newer designs were only made in the New FD mount so you didn't have a choice with them. This really started with Canon before the AE-1. The aperture ring on the older FL lenses (excluding the 35/3.5, 135/3.5 and 300/4.5) is much better built than the aperture ring on the breech lock FD lenses. The idea was that eventually most FD lenses would be used on the O or A setting so the ring wouldn't get as much wear. Along with this decrease in the mechanical quality of the aperture ring came better SSC coating and full aperture metering. Something is lost and something is gained.<br>

When I was in grade school I had a Sony reel to reel tape deck. The sound quality was very good. My younger brother later had a cassette tape deck but with Dolby noise reduction. It didn't have the same sound quality as the reel to reel deck but it was much smaller and more convenient to use. There are some very good electric shavers on the market today. If they are used properly and maintained they do not leave you looking like you shaved with a blade a day earlier. My father's 1968 station wagon was large, heavy and could tow a nice sized trailer. On the highway it got mileage in the low teens. The car had a 383 ci V8 with a three speed automatic transmission, bias ply tires and rear drum brakes and a Holly carburetor. Six people could sit in it if someone in the back seat didn't mind the transmission hump. My minivan will seat seven people comfortably. It has a 210 ci V6 with a five speed automatic transmission, radial tires, four wheel disc brakes, stability control, fuel injection, variable valve timing and 4 valves per cylinder. It can get mileage on the low 20s on the highway. Both cars came with AC and a roof rack. The minivan is rated to tow only 3,500 pounds. The station wagon could tow a lot more. Which one is better? I prefer the minivan.<br>

The fact that mass market cameras were not all built to the standards of professional models is not something to feel bad about. It's the same way for most comsumer products. We are in a unique time when excellent professional level film cameras can be bought for very little and there is still a good selection of film to use with them. I want to enjoy this time for as long as it exists. My mostly plastic DSLR is always there (at least for the few years it will probably last) if I get tired of film cameras. </p>

 

[JDMvW]

<p>Ah yes, some of the things Jeff is talking about are a result of processes sometimes known as Gresham's Law (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gresham%27s_law">link</a>).<br>

But for quality issues</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the Mercedes Benz was as good as it needed to be while the Rolls Royce was as good as it could be</p>

</blockquote>

<p>is only true if you understand that "as good as it could be" means "as good as British engineers could make it" which, fine automobile as the RR is, is not the same thing. In the same sense, but in a more restricted way, the Checker or the Volvo, in their classic periods, could be said to be as good as their makers could manage.<br>

Both the Checker and the older, large Volvo sedans have been described as what would happen if an insane engineer tried to build a <em><strong>perfect</strong></em> 1953 Chevrolet. The more recent Rolls Royce was what happened when similarly insane British engineers tried to build a perfect 1928 Austin Seven Swallow Saloon.</p>

<p>And for that matter, there is more than a little truth to an assertion that the Nikon F is a successful effort by Japanese engineers to build a perfect Praktina. Pentacon's own effort to that end did not work out so well.</p>

<p>:-}</p>

[dan_fromm2]

<p>This discussion is too US-centric for words.</p>

<p>European merchant lens-makers and camera makers nearly all failed during the 1970s. They didn't just lose the US market, they lost their domestic markets. The Europeans couldn't compete on price, in part because of expensive labor, in part because of stupidity. "Deming thought" took a long time to catch on outside of Japan. It still hasn't caught on in the US. Sorry, stupidity isn't the right word, complacency and ignorance might be better.</p>

<p>The only surviving European lens makers of any size are German or serve small and very demanding markets, viz. "Hollywood" and the military. As for the military, if the lenses I have that were made for aerial cameras (makers include Zeiss [bRD], TTH, Elcan, S.F.O.M., LOMO), the military didn't get better than the civilian market. Modern mapping lenses are so expensive because they're large, have many elements, and are made in very small numbers. Cine lenses are small, otherwise are the same story.</p>

<p>I don't think there are any surviving European makers of 35 mm cameras. Manufacture of cameras that use 120 film has pretty well been done in world-wide by digital.</p>

[mfophotos]

<p>Another thing that deserves mention is marketing and perception. If you look at camera ads from the 1950s-70s, it clear to see the evolution of how cameras and lenses were marketed, and I believe that is one aspect in which most European manufacturers really lagged. Where they may have concentrated on how precise and fine their cameras were, the ad people for Canon, Minolta, Pentax, Nikon focused on how exciting their cameras were, often featuring (as in the case of Minolta) scantily-clad women. Thus, the perception by the consumer that using those cameras might also make one a better photographer, or at least the possibility of being a "hip" photographer. Those ad agencies merely took a page out of Kodak's book, where perception is a great marketing tool. On top of that, getting very good optics with sensible accessories and lenses at a better price point that the Leicas didn't hurt, either. I will also say that for every highly regarded European camera, there were twice as many clunkers. </p>

[mfophotos]

<p>Oh, and one more thing. The Copal-Square shutter was a huge improvement over silk shutters, roller blinds, etc. That came out of Japan. It became the defacto standard for many SLRs and some RF cameras. Too many European SLR manufacturers were caught up in the lens-shutter cameras and as time has passed, we see how badly many of those have aged.<br>

http://silvergrain.org/Photo-Tech/Konica-History.html</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>The invention of a vertical metal shutter in 1961 by the Japanese certainly caught those 1936 Zeiss people by surprise. (Admittedly there were cloth ribbons as a part of the Contax II shutter.) Kiev continued to make these with very reliable results from 1946 on.</p>

<p>Mark's perspective here overlooks much that happened on the east side of the 1945 division of Germany.</p>

[mfophotos]

<p>But my point about marketing is spot on. </p>

[User_502260]

<p>For me, the section of Ivor Matanle's book which deals with Eastern Block cameras was very interesting. During the Cold War years both politics and economics determined where Eastern Block cameras would be seen and purchased. In the U.S. there were importers for some cameras like Exakta. The Contax D and its variants did not really have any competition because in their early years there weren't any other 35mm SLRs with eye level pentaprisms. I don't know which company with any volume of sales was second but it was probably Exakta. In any case the Contax D was pretty expensive and you could have bought a much better engineered RF camera for the same price. By the late 1950s the East German SLRs had to compete with Japanese SLRs. Most Americans did not see many East German or other Eastern Block cameras after the late 1950s.<br>

On the other side of the Atlantic things were different. It took England a long time after the war to get back on its feet economically. One of the results was very high import duties. The same Japanese camera which was considered a good value in the U.S. was too expensive for many people in England when they also had to pay the import duty. Eastern Block cameras had a low enough price point that they were considered worthwhile in England. The Eastern Block was a sizeable "internal market." I suspect that cameras from these countries were exported at fairly low prices because their governments were eager to get their hands on foreign currency. Features of West German and Eastern Block cameras found their way into Japanese cameras some time later. The Contarex Super Electronic had a stepless shutter attachment for Aperture Prioroity automation. A similar design was eventually incorporated into the Pentax ES. The electronic contacts in the lens mount of Pentacon cameras were later adopted by Japanese camera makers. A similar concept was used in the original Canon EOS camera mount and now we have the 'G' Nikkors which have the contacts but no longer even have a mechanical aperture ring the user can turn. The Pentax 6X7 appeared in about 1970 but the Pentacon 6, with a similar layout, was around years earlier. I had my eye on a Pentacon 6X6 SLR for some time. When I was finally ready to get one, prices for medium format cameras had dropped so much that I got a Bronica. I now have eight Bronicas. <br>

In looking strictly at mechanical 35mm SLRs the Leicaflex Standards, SL and SL2 (+ MOT models) are considered to be very well made. A properly working Contarex was also considered to be a durable camera. Much later we had the Leica R6.2. That model, because it's mechanical, still commands a high price. The mechanical Contax made by Yashica was the S2. Contax SLR cameras did not sell very well at least in the U.S. but the price for the mechanical model even in good condition is probably a lot lower than that of the R6.2. The Rollei 35mm SLRs prior to the 2000SL did not have a very good reputation for reliability. Today a lot more people seem to be looking for the Y/C Zeiss lenses than for the Contax bodies. Against these European models you have the Nikon F, Nikon F2, Canon F-1, Canon F-1n, Canon F-1N if you count the hybrid shutter, Topcon Super DM, Minolta XK and all of the non-system cameras like the Nikkormats, Konica Autoreflexes Minolta SRTs, Pentax Spotmatics and Olympus OMs. In the great scheme of things I don't think either German or Japanese manufacturers had a monopoly on high quality mechanical cameras. Very good ones were made in both places. If we could turn back time so that WWII never happened and Germany wasn't divided and there was no tightly controlled Eastern block then the history of camera making would undoubtedly have been different.<br>

Our view of how good these camera all were is partly clouded by the fact that we know how they have aged. A Nikon FTN finder is usually found in non-working condition. The same is true of many early Nikon F2 meter prisms. Many Nikkormats have erratic meter needles. Older Konica Autoreflex cameras have stuck shutter mechanisms. It's a long list. Collecting and using old cameras is like driving a very old car. It can sometimes be a frustrating experience. You never know when something might fall off. Still, if you can manage the experience it can be rewarding. I just don't get the same feeling using an electronic camera that I get using a Canon F-1. Good pictures can be taken with both. It's just a matter of what you like. </p>

[subbarayan_prasanna]

<p>I think that Marketing was one of the main problems, also helped by the US and UK financing of the Japanese camera industry, as <strong>Mark</strong> mentioned. (Similar things happened with the Automobile industry too. One cannot draw an inference that the US auto industry lagged behind [technologically] the Japanese auto industry.) The marketing was also aided by the US Courts ruling against the Dresden Camera Companies and making it difficult [if not impossible] for them to sell their brands in the US [e.g.the Elbaflex, the Varex versus VX in Exakta, etc.]. There has been no survey or statistics on the number of cameras [Japanese and German-DDR] that have been at the repair shop compared to the base numbers produced of each model. Without such it is impossible to establish the durability and reliability of the cameras on either side. The market success does not necessarily indicate quality; the large middle class market has also shifted the emphasis from old time quality and durability perceptions to a use and throw away type of pattern. The fountain pen industry is a classic example of that. The problem is more complex, as <strong>JDM</strong> points out. The labor costs, material supply and blockade, exchange rates, political initiatives, plain prejudices and misconceptions about one's own technological achievements as opposed to those of others, all played their part in these. My understanding of this after using both Japanese, FSU and DDR cameras and US, German and Japanese cars. Yes, I used to tune and repair all of them, too. Regards, sp.</p>

[capitalq]

<p>I had a feeling that this post would generate some very informed (and opinionated) views. I've learned quite a few things from reading the posts above. Thanks to all for contributing.</p>

<p>Russ: That's quite a story on meeting that WW2 vet who toured the Japanese sub. I was certainly aware that the Japanese had an advanced pre-war optics industry but I didn't know Nikon built periscopes!</p>

<p>Tony: Not sure I agree that the Japanese simply took the best from the Germans and put it together at a lower price point. While the Germans may have perfected the RF and invented the SLR, history shows that it was the Japanese innovations and designs that led them to the pinnacle in SLR design. The fact that they did it cheaper is a bonus.</p>

<p>August: Very entertaining read. Yes, I too have heard a rumour that these devices are intended to somehow capture light and produce images. But manufacturing techniques, quality control discipline, or a hungry US consumer market alone does not explain the rise of the Japanese camera industry. Let's face it, after WW2 Japan was a beaten and occupied nation -- reviled in most places in the world. "Made in Japan" was a toxic brand. Yet, they were able to overcome this history and dominate the camera industry in a fairly short span of time. It can be argued that the success of the Nikon F lifted not only the entire Japanese camera industry but changed how the world viewed Japanese engineering and technology. This "boost to morale" impacted other industries, notably automotive and then consumer electronics. My point is that it is the humble SLR that changed the way the world looked at Japan and how it viewed itself. </p>

<p>Mark: I agree with your point about marketing. The Japanese were simply better at it than the Europeans. One only has to look at an old Minolta or Konica manual to see a fetching and stylish woman holding a camera versus the short novella one has to read to figure out how to operate an Exakta. Alas, US 'marketers' such as Beseler probably did not do a very good job for Topcon in the US.</p>