john_bear

<p><strong>BeBu</strong> - the ones I know are the Contax 137 MA, Contax 137 MD, and Yashica FX-D. You'll find manuals online.</p>

<p>I think I've answered my own question. <br> <strong>Semi-continuous variables are variables that must take a value between their minimum and maximum.</strong><br> Therefore, all those camera models since the original 1968 Yashica TL Electro X introduced electronic step less shutter speeds have in fact been semi-continuously, and not continuously variable shutters.<br /><br> It appears to be the case that only Yashica and Contax eventually published a specification that was wholly accurate.<br /></p>

<p>Here is an example of what I'm trying to understand. The Yashica TL Electro X of the late 1960s/early 1970s had an electronic step less shutter. According to the advertising material, this was explained as follows ... "<em>it enables you to select that one ideal speed - even 1/278 sec., if required</em>".<br> The Pentax ES advertising similarly said the electronically timed shutter would run at intermediate speeds, and gives the random examples of "<em>1/444 or 1/777 sec</em>.".<br> Fujica said the ST901 shutter operated at "<em>infinitesimal increments for exact exposure instead of the geometrical progression stepped shutter speeds offered by conventional cameras</em>".<br> All these cameras were specified as "continuously variable". Even the Pentax ME Super was described as having "<em>step less shutter</em>" speeds<br> Then in the 1980s, camera's user manuals specifically stated speeds were <strong>semi-continuously variable</strong>, suggesting they were not like the 1970s cameras, and had some sort of limited steps to the shutter speeds.<br> I'm wondering if this "difference" was nothing more than a legislation driven change of wording, because there cannot be a continuously variable number of steps between say 1 sec., and 1/1000 sec.: the number of steps is large but finite.<br> While the early camera manufacturers explain continuously variable, the later ones do not define semi-continuously variable. I just want to know what a semi-continuous shutter is. Facts rather than speculation would be appreciated :-)</p>

<p>In the 1970s, cameras like the Pentax ES II, and Fujica ST901 offered electronically controlled continuously variable shutter speeds.<br> A few years later, 1980s cameras like the Contax 137s and Yashica FX-D, for example, had semi continuously variable shutter speeds.<br> Does anyone know exactly what semi continuous means?<br> I don't understand why it appears that as time moved forward, technology seems to have stepped backwards, and cameras reduced their capability from continuously variable to semi continuously?<br> Grateful for any insights.</p>

<p>It's back ...<br> <img src="http://www.portraits.srv2.com/scam.png" alt="" width="794" height="240" /></p>

<p><strong>Richard W</strong> - that's it. <br> As for the bait - well I recently found a miss-listed Leica III for a pound. Had a good look at the photos and it was definitely genuine. Sadly others found it too, so the bid quickly climbed beyond my reach.</p>

<p><strong>Brian S</strong> - sadly ebay don't make it easy to report such things.<br> Because you never get to the listing page, you can't click the "report it" link on that page. I've looked at other ways of reporting but the only route is to phone ebay, and I have no idea how much that's going to cost me. It's a clever scam, because even if I called ebay, I cannot give them an item number ... because the re-direct cuts-in before you get to see it.<br> I have posted a message on the ebay community pages, and it appears there are others reporting listings that work the same way. Anyway, I thought I'd raise it here, because the bogus ebay log-in page is very good. However ... the laptop doesn't recognise the page as belonging to my saved passwords, and the lack of an auto-complete should make folks think ... before giving away their details to some rascal.<br> By the way - I didn't get caught-out ... it was obvious there was something amiss !!!</p>

<p>Unfortunately I can't remember what the model is (one I've never heard of before), but there is a rather deluxe looking larger format type camera (it's all black with a wooden grip) that is being listed on Ebay for £1 with free post and packing.<br /><br />When you click on the listing, the page redirects to what looks like an Ebay login-in screen, but it isn't ... the address is another domain. <br /><br />This is clearly an attempt to capture Ebay user's passwords.<br /><br />The listing is impossible to report, because the re-direct means you never get to the Ebay page where the camera is listed ... where the report link can be found.<br /><br />This listing seems to come and go ... it gets removed and re-listed frequently. If I see it again, I'll add the exact details here.<br /></p>

<p>Kowa were not very well known for their cameras (which were mass market offerings), but they did apparently have a very good reputation for cinematic projector lenses, and were a major supplier. Personally, I wouldn't buy anything if I wasn't sure what it was.</p>

<p>Thanks for the explanations.</p> <p>I've Googled other images of this camera, and having now seen its back-side, it's clear that the viewfinder eyepiece is offset ... not in line with... the viewfinder objective lens, indicating that mirrors or prisms are changing the path of the light.</p> <p>I don't really care what a Keplerian finder is, who invented it, and what century they did it in: I simply wanted to know why it was different from any other viewfinder, hoped someone would know, and be willing and able to explain it.</p> <p>JDM has my deepest sympathy.</p>

<p>Ah ... if Google was my friend then this forum would not exist, because I (and everybody else) would be able to find the answer to every question. I've found plenty of references to Kepler, and Keplerian but I don't understand their wisdom in the context of looking through a little window on a camera. My brain can reason that it's a little reverse telescope without any help, but I want to understand it a bit more than that.</p>

<p>Can anyone explain what a Keplerian viewfinder is?<br> I was looking at a Kowa SW on camera-wiki, and it's got this strange little viewfinder that is described as a Keplerian.<br> <a href="http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Kowa_SW">http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Kowa_SW/</a></p>

<p><strong>Brad</strong> - your enthusiasm is infectious ... I can feel the joy in your photos. It makes me realise I need to get some film in one of my many cameras. Thanks for posting</p>

<p>Sorry to buck the Nikon trend, but I'm a Fujica fan. Their ST series SLRs were objects of desire for a young boy who never had a hope of owning one ... well not until some 40 years later.<br> The ST701 (the first SLR to use Silicon photo diodes) came in three variations. It started life with a raised shiny Fujica pentaprism logo, which was engraved and painted in version 2. Version 3 had a more design tweaks of the plastic replacing metal variety, plus it got a split screen focusing spot and a hot shoe (possibly the first SLR with one).<br> The ST801 (the first SLR to use viewfinder LEDs) went the same way as the ST701, with the logo change thing, resulting in two versions.<br> The ST901 (the first SLR with a viewfinder digital display) had no variants.<br> Final came the ST601, which got a name change each time it mutated, so I guess that doesn't really count? However, it's a camera of mysterious logic, since it's changes were sometimes not apparently worth the effort!<br> <strong>Christian</strong> - I share your fascination: it's like watching evolution.</p>

<p>No ... it's still there ... which is good because no body does it better (sounds like a line from a song). </p>

<p>Nice one <strong>Mike</strong>. If the world were full of people as generous as you, it would be a very nice place. Power to your Karma!</p>

<p>Thanks <strong>Q.G.</strong> I'd read a German translation, but ... well, let's say it didn't translate very well.</p> <p>Thanks <strong>Rick</strong>. I had this feeling you would know ;-) (because you seem to be the Grand Master of photographic knowledge).</p>

<p>Is anyone familiar with this camera (or the "S", or anything similar), and can they explain the Paratronic shutter, and why there appears to be two CdS light cells?</p> <p>So far as I know, the Paratronic is a single bladed shutter, but that's the sum of my knowledge. Also I'm assuming those two things that look like light cells are what they appear to be?</p> <p>Thanks in anticipation.</p> <p> </p>

<p>The parameters of my collecting (of 44 at the last count) is:</p> <p>1. Affordability (hey this is just a hobby ... a whim ... so I have nothing very deluxe), and<br> 2. 35mm format between the 1950s and early 1980s, when a brain was still required to operate a camera (and zoom lenses had not yet replaced the use of legs to frame a shot appropriately).</p> <p>My tastes are:<br> a. cameras that were the first to do something new, or in a new way,<br> b. quirky stuff that didn't quite catch-on, but seemed like a good idea, and<br> c. shinny things that look pretty.</p> <p><a href="http://www.camera.portraits.srv2.com">My 35mm film camera collection</a></p>

<p>Haha ... camera crap ... you are not alone!</p>

<p>Me too ... I just love the little spike popping out of the shutter release. Wonder why it didn't catch-on?</p>

<p><strong>Bernard</strong> - this is really useful stuff. Wouldn't it be fantastic if info like this could be collected and deposited somewhere, so we could just lookup what to do with any particular camera. </p>

<p><strong>Michael McBroom</strong> - you build custom guitars! Oh ... have you got a website? I'd love to take a look.<br> Apologies to others for diverting from cameras to my other love.</p>

<p>I moved to digital in about 2002 - for everyday photography. I bought a Leica Digilux, partly because it seemed to be one of the best digital cameras available at that time (excepting the stupidly expensive stuff), and partly because it looks like a proper camera, and has dials for familiar functions where you expect them to be (coming from film). I still use it, almost every week. Would I use a camera phone - hell no!!!</p>

<p>I would tend to agree that the match needle system, as found in Spotmatics, is elegantly simple, and was never truly bettered. I favour (spelled correctly with a "u" - because I'm English) the Spotmatic F, because open aperture metering is a real creature comfort. However, the F is so prone to the dodgy battery contact, and that meter has no off switch, making it a less than perfect camera. For that reason, I don't think the Spotmatics qualify as the pinnacle of anything, especially when you consider that Pentax lagged behind the competition in terms of innovation.</p>