"Vectis wrecked us" / the S-1 APS SLR

[howardstanbury]

<p>So said the former Minolta VP of marketing for North America in his <a href="http://www.shutterbug.com/content/vectis-wrecked-us">famous Shutterbug article</a> a few years ago. He said Minolta was the driving force behind the APS format, persuading Fujifilm, Kodak, Canon and Nikon to back the format.</p>

<p>You can read the article to get more of the reasoning about the ruination of Minolta by Vectis; this post will try to look at the pinnacle of the Vectis system, the S-1 APS SLR, which was launched in 1996.</p>

 

<center><a title="S-1 front view by FlickrDelusions, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8376/8516366794_17f937d3eb_c.jpg" alt="S-1 front view" width="800" height="667" /></a>

<p><em>Vectis S-1 with battery pack</em></p>

</center>

<p>While the camera is not as pleasant as say the <a href="/modern-film-cameras-forum/00bMdn">Olympus Centurion</a> to look at, I do like the clean lines and the overall appearance of the S-1, a sort of beefed-up uncle to the NEX-6 or -7. Clever use of mirrors and prisms enable the viewfinder to be placed at back left of the camera so that right-eyed shooters can use the camera without pressing their nose against the body. And the ungainly hump of a pentaprism is avoided in this camera.</p>

 

<center><a title="S-1 top view by FlickrDelusions, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8389/8515254459_2b38fdc55b_c.jpg" alt="S-1 top view" width="798" height="800" /></a>

<p><em>S-1 top view, with 50mm f/3.5 macro lens<br /></em></p>

</center>

<p>The Vectis system included a number of zoom lenses and a couple of primes; latterly lenses were shared with the RD-3000 digital SLR and one, the V-17mm, was designated for use only on the RD-3000. By 2000 the S-1 was served by two complementary pairs of zooms (28-56 & 56-170 and 22-80 & 80-240 APO), a long 25-150mm zoom, a 50mm macro and a 400mm mirror telephoto. The camera and a walk-around lens like the 22-80 is quite light compared with mainstream SLRs and was an attractive option for travel photography.</p>

<p>Minolta did make an adapter for alpha-mount lenses to be placed on Vectis cameras, but this is very rare. I would logve there to be an interface for Vectis lens to be placed on NEX or Micro 4/3 cameras. Sadly none exists.</p>

 

<center><a title="28mm /2 by FlickrDelusions, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8463/8425501778_4e2cefeea7_c.jpg" alt="28mm /2" width="800" height="713" /></a>

<p><em>Vectis 28-56mm zoom</em></p>

</center>

<p>The rear of the camera is unfussy and offers a simple control system for selecting from a range of scene and programmable settings. A manual mode is also provided.</p>

<center>

 

<a title="Vectis S-1 rear by FlickrDelusions, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8095/8515253093_d608e18f1f_c.jpg" alt="Vectis S-1 rear" width="536" height="800" /></a>

<p><em>S-1 rear panel</em></p>

</center>

<p> A spring-loaded flap, just below the Mode button, reveals more controls for setting time, date, flash, remote, and print functions.</p>

<center>

 

<a title="Hidden control panel by FlickrDelusions, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8243/8516367480_ffdd1c5219.jpg" alt="Hidden control panel" width="500" height="328" /></a>

<p><em>S-1 hidden control panel</em></p>

</center>

<p> The S-1 body was also 'splash proof' and the camera offered mid-roll change. There is an on-camera flash and the camera was compatible with the Minolta flash system at the time, including wireless ratio flash.</p>

<p><strong>Example photos</strong><br>

All taken on outdated Kodak Advantix Ultra 200 film, scanned commercially.</p>

<p><a title="Headington Cross by FlickrDelusions, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8238/8469068084_b840eddd83_c.jpg" alt="Headington Cross" width="459" height="800" /></a><br>

<em>Headington Cross, Oxford / Minolta V 22-80 f/4-5.6 at 22 mm</em></p>

<p><a title="Shark / New Road Layout by FlickrDelusions, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8090/8467976921_42fc70867b_c.jpg" alt="Shark / New Road Layout" width="459" height="800" /></a><br>

<em>Headington shark, Oxford / Minolta V 25-150 f/4.5-6.3 at 25 mm</em></p>

<p><a title="Bridge of Sighs by FlickrDelusions, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8235/8467979391_7606fe4e67_c.jpg" alt="Bridge of Sighs" width="800" height="459" /></a><br>

<em>Oxford's Bridge of Sighs / Minolta V 28-56 f/4-5.6 at 28mm</em></p>

<p><a title="Camera detail /1 by FlickrDelusions, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8507/8469077516_872b033035_c.jpg" alt="Camera detail /1" width="459" height="800" /></a><br>

<em>Detail from the Radcliffe Camera, Oxford</em></p>

<p><a title="Clementine by FlickrDelusions, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8392/8467983715_3607fce26d_c.jpg" alt="Clementine" width="800" height="459" /></a><br>

<em>Clementine / Minolta V macro 50mm f/3.5</em></p>

[fred_c1]

<p>Thanks Howard for a piece of Minolta's history.</p>

<p>They should have learned a lesson from the disc film/camera failures. Instead of miniaturizing film format, Minolta should have miniaturize cameras like Olympus did with their Inifnity/mju series.</p>

<p>The TC-1 was a step in the right direction. And how about an affordable CLE with AF and a high quality fixed lens, in the style of the Contax and Yashica Ts, or Ricoh's GR1? Too bad neither was not developed into a full series of cameras.</p>

[tsappas]

<p>Interesting article Howard<br>

I still own a Nikon Pronea s with 2 lenses and a grip ,i bought that camera when i was climbing high mountains,it was very light and very reliable,the biggest problem i had was the quality of film.The Fuji Nexia 100 gold was excellent in all formats,when i could not get it any more and i started using Kodak 200 the grain on the panoramic photos was so visible i stopped using it and went digital.<br>

Maybe Minolta invested too much in the system for a company of its size,don't forget it was a transition period in photography and camera companies were trying to find a new direction for their products<br>

By the way,very decent photos from long expired film</p>

[kevin mayo]

<p>I still have one in a closet somewhere</p>

[mfophotos]

<p>Nice article, Howard. I owned a Vectis S-1 with a zoom and the 50mm macro about a decade ago, and thought it was an excellent system. I have some prints on the wall that I took with that macro lens. APS wasn't necessarily a bad system, but developing costs were much higher than getting a roll of 35mm done. And of course, as we know, digital was on the upswing and APS was the first victim. However, I think the small cameras that Minolta and Canon and Fuji produced were very good, and made the transition to digital go more quickly than it might otherwise have gone. Interesting to me that the first Olympus DSLR looks an awful lot like the Vectis S-1.</p>

 

[steve m smith]

<p>I have often wondered why they used the name Vectis.</p>

<p>It is the old Roman name for the Isle of Wight (in England) where I live.</p>

[tom_cheshire]

<p>I found one at a yard sale with two lenses for $10. I left it there.</p>

[ralf_j.]

<p>Howard, this is my favorite APS SLR, I have 3 lenses for it, and use it every time I get a chance, however, processing APS is becoming harder these days. I posted a couple of photos taken with my S-1 and 56-170 in your Centurion post.</p>

<p>Your photos are fabulous, and the close up of that tangerine is amazing. Well done, and I am glad to see, that I am not alone still using this less than popular format.</p>

[Mike Gammill]

Great job. Nowadays one can grab a Vectis outfit for peanuts, but you have to search for film.

[User_502260]

<p>Minolta had problems before the Vectis cameras came out. The patent suit from Honeywell didn't help either. I do not find the Vectis S-1 as pleasant to use as the Pronea S. My two lenses are the 28-56 and the 50 macro. Maybe if I had a 22-80 I would like it more. I use the 20-60 on the Pronea S most of the time. The APS SLR lenses are all pretty slow so I miss Nexia 800 more than any of the other APS films. </p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<blockquote>

<p>I found one at a yard sale with two lenses for $10. I left it there.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>LOL :-)</p>

[Member69643]

<blockquote>

<p>I found one at a yard sale with two lenses for $10. I left it there.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You left which there, the ten dollars or the camera? :)</p>

[robbz_fotoz]

<p>this is an interesting post considering I have recently purchased the Canon answer to APS, this being the EOS IX, with only the lack of availability of the film as the fly in the ointment. It's available but I think only on Amazon.</p>

[User_502260]

<p>Call Unique Photo in Fairfield, NJ. They have some which is still in date.</p>

[robbz_fotoz]

<p>Jeff: I am not a quirky camera collector but when an unexpected trade and purchase developed with a friend from Cypress, Greece, I did a little research on the APS format, vaguely remembering it was touted as the "new 35mm" and said yes. These bodies are sheerly overbuilt and overdesigned. They use all of my EF lenses so that adds to the fun. Film was actually still available a few weeks after it arrived at Walmart then gone, so I need film to try out the quirks. The 22-55mm lens was issued for this camera so I'll use that one to start out. Thank you much for your replies, your responses in all other forums, as you really help (me). I'm not sure how much longer the APS film format will be around so I'd better stockpile and freeze a stash. </p><div></div>

[mwmcbroom]

<p>Interesting. I never knew Minolta was the driving force behind APS. Me, I never bought into it, although I'll admit to being briefly tempted by the original Canon Elf. It definitely had the cute factor going for it. I liked some of the features of APS, but what put me off about it was the smaller image size. To me 35mm is as small as one should ever go. And I still to this day believe that APS's undoing was its small image size. I still don't understand the mindset that led to the decision to go with a smaller image. They should have stuck with what worked and just designed a new cartridge and system around 35mm film stock. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.</p>

[robbz_fotoz]

<p>Michael: words well spoken. I have no clue what the camera industry thought was going to happen ... after years and years and so much history with 35mm cameras and film, we were going to march to our death off the cliff like lemmings clutching this new APS technology? Canon alone, had to have taken a bath on their offerings and lost money with the initial release of the EOS IX, then the quick dumbing down of the EOS Lite. Back in 1995 / 1996, I can't imagine spending almost a 1000 dollars on the IX which is what it cost. But for a mere 30 bucks I was willing to try it in 2012, when I found some new old stock for purchase from a desperate seller in Cypress. Mint, boxed, complete with original paperwork. Too much serious technology to brush off this innovation as trifling but a real curiosity today. The camera design alone is rather sexy. And it takes all EF lenses as well. Perhaps the beginning studies for Canon's eventual APS-C digital crop sensor? Surely APS has become photography's equivalent of an Edsel. But as long as I can get APS film I'll indulge my quirkiness.</p>

[carbon_dragon]

<p>I was a Minolta user when this camera came out. I was intrigued at the time. But you could get a 35mm SLR for almost the same size, so you weren't really gaining much and you lost the ability to use all the 35mm film and enlargers and scanners, etc. Nowhere near worth it. And the negatives inside the cartridge thing didn't appeal to me either because it meant I couldn't look at the negatives with a loupe. </p>

<p>Should never have gotten beyond a show camera at a camera show. I would have preferred a little Minolta TC-1 but with tiny interchangeable lenses!</p>

[Member69643]

<p>After months, years, of being out of the APS film game, I came across a deal on a Vectis S-1 and bought it. Why? Nostalgia. I now have the means to afford APS film and processing too. </p>

<p>In retrospect, the article from the Minolta guy is interesting, but hollow. No proof, no numbers, only a vague accusation. I always thought APS was Kodak's baby. Lots of "guilt" to go around but Minolta was just one of the culprits. The striking anti-digital direction though, is now apparent.</p>

 

<ol>

<li>APS could not be home developed. Processing. You were unable to use it for private pictures. Digital was the exact opposite. Everything was private.</li>

<li>The ultimate goal was processing. Everybody in the APS game was in it to make and sell more prints. There were three print sizes, every roll developed came with an index print for easy ordering more prints, and the focus on smaller prints made the smaller negative mostly irrelevant. Digital was never about printing. Still isn't</li>

<li>Huge price. Compared to 35mm APS was a big price jump. I recall, when I owned a Pronea S, that it was a special event to shoot a roll. It cost that much extra to develop. Digital of course, has no developing cost. Buy once and you're "done" :)</li>

<li>When APS and digital first came out, the smaller image size appeared to increase sharpness. Greater DOF and slow lenses. Digital's holy grail lately has been "full frame" cameras which - give us what we had in 35mm to begin with. What's old is new again.</li>

</ol>

[howardstanbury]

<p>Interesting observations, Patrick. I had a Vectis point and shoot at the time, and it was expensive to run. There was nothing predictable about processing costs - slip in a few H- or P-format photographs and the costs soon spiralled. Now processors charge a flat rate which is barely a premium over the 35mm equivalent.</p>

<p>APS was always a convenience format, like 110, 126, Disc and others before it. Easy loading and the promise of mid-roll change (rarely used in my experience) were enticing, but 35mm cameras were getting better and better for easy loading and mid-roll change wasn't out of the question on some models.</p>

<p>Digital has a capability for making printing 'easy' (DPOF, PictBridge) but I don't think these are widely used, even by those who make prints from digital files.</p>

<p>The small image area was the deal breaker for most, I think. When you look at an APS negative, and here's a full scan, it does look like more area could have been devoted to picture and less to data:</p>

<p><a title="St Andrews lavender | full APS-H scan by FlickrDelusions, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4117/4799878487_5374912d8c_z.jpg" alt="St Andrews lavender | full APS-H scan" width="640" height="488" /></a></p>

<p>Nobody makes APS film now, as far as I am aware, which is a real shame. I have some rolls to use up while there are processors willing to supply the services. I can't really see people like Lomography reviving the format - it's too clinical and sterile to work for that audience.</p>

[robbz_fotoz]

<p>Howard: thanks for your informative post. I kinda agree it was too much technology for it's time although some of that tech eventually trickled down (at least) into Canon's APS-c digital sensors I believe. Why the major camera brands got carried away and thought this was the "new" 35mm I don't know. Digital was about to pounce on the film market (but as God is my witness, let there ALWAYS be film) so any film was on it's way to becoming old technology. But to pay over 1200 dollars just for the Canon EOX IX APS camera in 1996 was a bit obscene. For anyone who did I wonder how they felt about 2002 when the market dropped out ? As far as APS film goes you can still order it from Amazon.com I have two EOS IX bodies I purchased for about 20 dollars each, brand new, in the box and it would be a pity not to run a maiden roll of film through them at least once before I put them in the trophy case.</p>