A lens that has been stored in an inappropriate environment, i.e. one that is dark and humid, may provide the perfect conditions for the growth of fungus. Fungus takes the form of tendril or web-like structures on the surface of the lens. The fungus secretes an acid that etches a lenses’ multicoating. This sort of damage can be permanent, and hard to remove. Too much fungus will lower contrast, and way too much will give darker, fuzzier images as it blocks light. Fungus is bad news – avoid lenses with it, however small the “infection”.
⑥ Yellowing
Coatings on lenses often yellow in time. Glass in general does not yellow, but lens coatings, or at least older ones do. This is also true of glass made with radioactive elements, e.g. Thorium, to reduce refraction.
⑦ Bubbles
Some lenses pre-1970 had defects caused by the optical glass manufacturing process which left a few pin-prick sized air bubbles inside the glass. These bubbles may come from different sources, but in most cases the source is imperfect refining. They look like tiny dust specks when viewed with the naked eye, but if magnified, they are indeed bubbles.
⑧ Separation
Lens groups are most often held together with some type of glue. In modern lenses this is usually a UV-cured epoxy. Vintage lenses typically use epoxy, polyester, and urethane-based adhesives, and some pre-WW2 lenses use Canada balsam (basically a resin from balsam fir trees). The balsam was used because it has a refractive index that is similar to crown glass and is invisible when dry. Unfortunately, Canada balsam is not resistant to temperature extremes or solvents. A degradation of the adhesive will result in the lens delamination. This usually manifests itself as a multicoloured band or blobs around the edge of a lens with coatings, or a white band/blobs on lenses with few or no coatings (but it can also occur in the centre of a lens). A small amount of separation on the edges of a lens will likely have little effect on image quality. A large amount may cause a decrease in contrast, flare and ghosting, softer edges, loss of sharpness, and a difficulty in focusing.
Fixing anomalies
Is it possible to rectify these optical defects? The table below provides a quick guide, and later posts will explore some of these defects in more detail.
Defect
Repairable?
Lens disassembly required?
Notes
scratches
maybe
no
It is hard to remove scratches, especially deep scratches, although fine scratches might be able to be buffed or polished out (some people suggest toothpaste).
haze/fog
yes
yes
It might be possible to use a cleaning solution to reduce or suppress the haze.
dust
yes
yes/no
Dust on external lens surfaces is easy to clean. Internal dust is harder because it requires lens disassembly.
blemishes
no
no
Multicoating damage cannot be repaired.
fungus
maybe
yes
It is possible to repair low levels of fungal infections, but it does require lens disassembly. Heavy fungal infections are not repairable.
yellowing
yes
no
Yellowing caused by the presence of Thorium can be reduced using UV lights.
bubbles
no
no
Intrinsic to the lens glass, consider it a feature of certain older lenses.
separation
no
yes
Separated lens groups are basically not fixable. Fixing these requires lens separation, re-centering and re-cementing.
There are a number of physical anomalies that can be found on the optics of vintage lenses. Regardless of the abnormalities of the lens body, the critical part is the optics. Sometimes people classify lenses as “a little rough”, or “needs some attention”. These can be red flags. Note that when shopping for vintage lenses in person, take an LED flashlight along as it will help peer inside the lens to determine if it is fit for use.
① Scratches
Glass doesn’t scratch that easily, but coatings do. Scratches are easy to detect, because they usually occur on the visible, exposed glass elements. Scratches usually occur on the front or rear element of a lens. They signify obvious signs of wear, or possibly damage. Small scratches will have little effect on an image, but deep scratches will. A few small scratches on the front element will not impair performance significantly – the reason is the depth of field generally works to negate their impact. The exceptions are macro lenses and wide-angle lenses. A large number of tiny scratches may also reduce the contrast of a lens. Scratches on the rear lens will be more problematic (it is best to avoid lenses with scratched rear elements). Because there is less distance between the element and the sensor/film, most scratches will appear on the resulting picture. Deep scratches can be a sign of severe trauma. Also check for pitting. Sometimes lenses have light scratches which are caused by poor lens cleaning/polishing techniques.
② Haze or fog
Haze can be anything that settles out of the air inside the lens onto the inner surfaces of the glass. The lubricants on the aperture mechanism and in the focus threads can vaporize over time and then resettle onto the glass, and with enough time other things (dust, salt-air, fungus) can get in and collect on the glass, to the point that they are dense enough to refract the light themselves and spread it around as a “foggy” look to pictures. Haze actually gets worse with age. This may be an indication that the lens was poorly constructed, or poorly stored.
A smoky haze diffuses light equally over the entire image. This is generally caused by trillions of particles much smaller then the wavelengths of light, smearing the light over all areas equally, simply making blacks gray and reducing the overall contrast. Oily haze on the other hand has tiny droplets larger than the wavelengths of light. Because the oily haze diverts light, the haloes are much stronger and more visible.
③ Dust
Dust particles somehow get into lenses. A small bit of dust will make little or no difference to image quality. Larger specks or clumps of dust should be avoided. Check for dust by shining a light through the lens. Dust may be especially prevalent in vintage zoom lenses where the increased movement can result in dust infiltrating the inner components of the lens. So how does dust get inside the lens? Vintage lenses are not air sealed, i.e. weather sealed, meaning that air moves in and out, and of course it carries dust with it. Zoom lenses with barrels that extend out essentially “pump” air/dust into the core of the lens. In reality, small amounts of dust will impede very little of the light passing through a lens, and its impact on the image quality is minimal. Inexpensive and simple lenses can be easily disassembled and cleaned, however re-assembling the lens may again introduce dust (unless you have a clean room). Large amounts of dust may be indicative of poor long-term storage.
④ Blemishes
Many vintage lenses have lens elements that are coated with layers of some non-reflective optical material. These multicoatings minimize light reflection and the resulting lens flare and ghosting. Blemishes are regions on a lens where material has been smeared or removed by physical damage, a manufacturing defect, use of an incorrect solvent, or even being eaten away by fungus. A small blemish likely won’t affect image quality.
A lens with a super-deep scratch. Being on the rear element, this will effect the image.
Which 35mm SLR camera had the first pentaprism? Was it the Rectaflex or the Contax S? This question has turned into a bit of a conundrum over the years – many sources cite the Contax S as the first, with just as many opting for the Rectaflex. This discussion tries to provide some insight into the timeline of pentaprism use by looking at both the patents for cameras containing pentaprisms, and the cameras actually produced. Note that some original historical patents are hard to find, e.g. those from Italy.
In all probability the idea of using a pentaprism in a camera had been floating around for a while. On 28 January 1933, German architect Kurt Staudinger was issued a patent for a reflex device with eye level vision, which used a pentaprism-like system (DE556783A, “Vorrichtung fuer Reflexkameras” (Device for reflex cameras). The invention related to a device which “…is intended to convert the horizontal and reversed image projected into the screen into a vertical, upright and reversed image.” However instead of using a prism, this was actually a series of mirrors, i.e. a penta-mirror. Although he tried to interest German camera makers, none were seemingly that eager. At the time there was likely was too much invested in rangefinder cameras to think that an alternative was worthwhile. The only German patent to cite this work was that of Arno Rothe (DE741844A, sub. May 5, 1939) who proposed a reflex camera using mirrors which allowed for both waist level, and eye-level viewing.
Fig.1: The concept of Kurt Staudinger
From about 1937 Zeiss Ikon began work on a 35mm reflex camera with a pentaprism eye-level viewfinder in the Camera Development Department. The camera was named the Syntax, and on September 2, 1940 Zeiss Ikon applied for a utility patent in Germany. Research has failed to find the German patent, but two patents associated with the camera were filed in France: FR884054 (sub. August 9, 1941) “Photographic apparatus constructed in particular in the form of a monocular mirror reflex camera”, and FR875596 (sub. August 9, 1941) “Mirror camera with photoelectric exposure meter forming part of the camera”. Both applications cite the filing of associated German utility patents on August 23, 1940. There is another Swiss patent submitted by Zeiss Ikon on 18 January 1943 (CH241034) – “Spiegelprisma mit konstanter Ablenkung” or “Mirror prism with constant deflection”. This gives further credence to the fact that Zeiss Ikon was working on a pentaprism for a camera.
Fig.2: Drawing of Zeiss’s Syntax camera from the French patent and a drawing of a “spiegelprisma” from the Swiss patent.
Work was slow, but it has been suggested that there was a working model by 1944, supposedly a Contax II body with its metal vertical focal-plane shutter, however having its view/rangefinder replaced by a reflex mirror, delivering an upright and right-way-round image via a roof pentaprism to the eyepiece [1]. However the viewfinder image was too dark, and required f/2 and faster lenses. A diagram of the Syntax from the French patent is shown in Figure 2. According to Siegfried Böhm, design engineer with Zeiss Ikon, there were a series of issues with the Syntax [1]. The camera was complex, and would have required 750 parts to produce, in part due to the vertical shutter, and external bayonet lens mount of the Contax II. Böhm was working on the design for a horizontal focal-plane shutter, however on February 13, 1945, everything related to the project was destroyed by Allied air raids.
Fig.3: Advertisements for the first two pentaprism cameras
The first SLR manufactured with a pentaprism was the Rectaflex. It was the brainchild of Italian lawyer and camera enthusiast Telemaco Corsi (1899-1974), and was the only Italian SLR ever produced. Work began in 1946, and a prototype was shown at the Milan Fair in 1947 (this model used a mirror system instead of a prism). This system seems to be described in a Swiss patent issued in 1949 (CH264025 based on an Italian patent filed in 1947). At the same fair a year later, a working prototype called the Standard 947 was introduced, with the production model A.1000 for sale in September 1948. Only 1150-odd copies were produced, with Rectaflex introducing the B.2000 in April of 1949, and the B.3000 in September. A patent for this pentaprism system is also described in a Swiss patent issued 1954 (CH298155, filed Jul.5/1951) – “Complementary sighting device in a photographic camera equipped with a reflector mirror viewfinder.”, and a West German patent (DE938764) filed the same month.
Fig.4: The Rectaflex pentaprism patents
The Wrayflex was England’s only attempt at developing a 35mm SLR. On Sept. 2, 1952 Wray (Cameras) Limited received a patent for “Reflex Camera with Curtain Shutter” (US2,608.921, filed on 21 May 1948). It matched a UK patent applied for on May 21, 1947 (GB2608921X), describing an SLR which contains a “pentagonal prism”, which appeared at the bottom of the camera, basically upside-down. However this “prototype” never seems to have been put into production.
Fig.5: The patent for the Wray Optical
Instead the Wrayflex production model used a mirror which folds backwards and upwards when the shutter is released. This means there was no space for installing a roof prism – instead the Wrayflex used two mirrors, arranged so as to reflect the ground-glass image twice – this arrangement provides an image which is laterally reversed, but the right way up. The two mirrors must be accurately positioned so that there is no possibility of misalignment. The Wrayflex I and Ia both used mirrors, it wasn’t until the Wrayflex II in 1959 that a pentaprism was incorporated. In addition to the Wrayflex, there is also a patents by Belgian Jean de Wouters d’Oplinter (1905-1973), applied for in Belgium on February 11, and May 29, 1941. The French version of the patent, “Improvements to photographic cameras and similar devices”, was issued on November 10, 1942 (FR879245), however this camera was never produced.
Fig.5: The mirror system of the Wrayflex and the patent for the d’Oplinter camera
In September 1949, Rectaflex was to received some competition in the form of the Contax S from VEB Zeiss Ikon. The development of the Contax S (also known as the Spiegel-Contax) basically involved recycling the wartime Syntax project. The camera was introduced in 1949. The prism on the Contax S was built into the camera body. The view was life-sized, a result of three factors: the focal length of the lens, the prism itself, and the small magnifying eyepiece behind the prism. Many early prisms were bright in the centre, but susceptible to fall-off in the corners. Later SLRs used systems to overcome this problem – e.g. condensing lenses underneath the ground glass, a flat fresnel lens which spreads out the light, and increases brightness in the corners. While there were a number of patents filed for this camera, most had to do with the shutter mechanism, and shutter release [2]. There don’t seem to be any patents that relate specifically to the pentaprism mechanism (there are war-era patents but that’s another story). Zeiss Ikon certainly marketed their camera in the light that this was the most significant advance since the SLR itself.
Here is the camera being hailed as the most significant advance in camera design since the first miniature itself. The twin-image, coupled range-finder has given way to a single viewer, the Prisma-Scope which enables you to sight directly through the camera lens. You see a life-size image, always upright and non-reversed, that spins into sharp focus with a twist of the lens barrel. For the first time in a single lens reflex, all focusing and viewing takes place at direct eye level. Without sacrificing the compact qualities of the miniature, the nuisance of parallax is forever eliminated … accessory lenses require no coupling with special and costly range-finders … close-up photography requires only the addition of extension tubes. Here is the most versatile camera ever created!
The third pentaprism 35mm SLR was by Swiss company ALPA. However they went in another direction, choosing a prism derived from an Abbe prism, the Kern prism. The main difference between this and a pentaprism prism is the fact that the latter provides a 90° image, while the former is only 45°. So the early ALPA-Prisma Reflex cameras (introduced in 1949) offered an oblique view, not a perpendicular view. This feature continued until the Model 6c of 1960.
What about the Ihagee Exakta? Well the company that basically created the 35mm SLR was slower to adopt the pentaprism. It was not until 1949 that they incorporated the use of an auxiliary prism, the “Prismenaufsatz”, which provided a corrected right to left image (however it did make the camera top-heavy). Finally in 1950 Ihagee, introduced the Exakta Varex. As ALPA’s system did not produce an eye-level image, this really makes the Varex the third camera with an eye-level pentaprism. It was also the first SLR with an interchangeable viewfinder, as the waist-level viewfinder was still the most common of the period. The first Japanese pentaprism SLR did not appear until the Miranda T in 1955, followed by the Asahi Pentax, Minolta SR-2, Zunow, Nikon F and the Yashica Pentamatic.
So who was first? From a practical viewpoint of a manufactured camera, it was the Rectaflex. But I guess it depends on how you interpret history.
Further reading
Schulz, A., “From Syntax to Praktina”, Zeiss Historica, 30(1) pp.7-16 (2008)
Contax S und Pentacon – History, patents, and design issues with the Spiegel-Contax
The state of a lens can tell a lot about how it was previously treated. There are many different aspects to choosing a vintage lens. One important aspect is physical condition. There are a number of things that cause a lens to lack perfection, some you can overlook, while others could indicate a lens should be avoided. Don’t forget these vintage lenses are anywhere from 30-75 years old, and they will not be in pristine condition (or if they are you will pay a premium). A lens may be pristine from an external viewpoint, but have issues with the aperture or focusing mechanism. Or it may be completely functional, yet be aesthetically distraught.
There are several different levels of lens examination. Obviously in an ideal world you could slot the lens on a camera and take some pictures, however that isn’t always feasible, and deep testing isn’t really an option in a store. Sometimes lenses are only available in online stores, so you have to rely on the quality of the stores vetting processes. The tests described below look at the physical properties of a lens, and does not test the optical characteristics by shooting test pictures. Please note that obviously if you are buying online, you cannot physically check the lens. And therefore must rely on the lenses quality being properly described. If buying online, purchase from a reputable shop. Note the 🕸️ symbol used below refers to hints for online purchasing.
① Lens body defects – scratches and dents
No vintage lens will be in perfect condition, unless it has sat in its box stored away somewhere and never been used (the so-called “new old-stock”). The first thing to check is what the lens looks like externally. Many vintage lens bodies are largely constructed of metal which has a tendency to scratch and dent. Scratches on the lens body are usually not that big a deal, dents are another matter altogether. Usually a dent will typically occur at either end of the lens, and can signify that the lens has been dropped. Some lenses are of course built like tanks, and can withstand a drop better than others. Damage to the lens mount will make it almost impossible to mount the lens. Conversely damage at the thread end will mean an inability to mount a filter (it means either replacing the front component, or for a minor issue using a lens vise to restore the thread).
Fig.1: Various types of physical damage to a lens
A dented filter ring is usually the result of a lens falling and landing on the front edge which could mean the lens elements have been knocked out of alignment. Lens bodies made of plastic will also scratch, however dropping them will likely cause more damage. It is also possible that a lens can lose coating, through abrasion or chipping. This is common in old chrome-plated lenses, as shown in the sample photograph in Figure 2.
Fig.2: More types of physical damage including the loss of coating on a lens body.
🕸️ A series of photos covering all aspects of the camera will help determine the shape it’s in.
② Movement of lens parts
Vintage lenses are composed of several different cylinders that move when the aperture or focus ring is activated. The first thing to do when testing a lens is to check it by gently moving the components, extending the segments, and rocking the whole lens. Basically this helps determine if any of the sections are loose, or if there are any loose components rattling around inside the lens. Next look to see if all the external screws are present, and if the front ring accepts a filter. Visible markings such as stripped screws might be indicative of disassembly/reassembly and internal issues in the past. Loss of some paint or wearing of rubber parts isn’t usually a problem.
③ Lens mount
The mount should be checked, firstly for compatibility, but also for damage. The mount can be checked by mounting it on an appropriate mount converter. It should go on easily, yet firmly, without any looseness. Does the locking pin catch properly? Check that a mount actually exists for converting the lens to a digital camera. For example some lenses such as the E. Ludwig Meritar 50mm f/2.9 were made for Altix cameras which have a breech-lock type mount, which is hard to find adapters for.
🕸️ A snapshot of the rear of the lens helps document the lens mount, which is especially important for less common lens mounts.
④ Aperture mechanism, i.e. diaphragm
Testing the aperture is a necessity, if the aperture on a lens is not performing well, it will feel loose and not well connected. An aperture that is slow to open or close may signify issues with the aperture mechanism. If the aperture mechanism does not move the aperture blades at all, there are serious issues. The number one thing to check is to make sure the aperture actually opens and closes smoothly (sometimes the aperture ring moves, but the diaphragm blades do not). Other things to check depend on the type of mechanism:
Manualmechanism – The simplest mechanism involves the aperture ring turning from the fully open position (smallest f-number) to the closed position (largest f-number).
Aperture pre-set mechanism – The pre-set ring should be set to the closed position, and then the second ring which closes the aperture should be rotated. Also make sure the pre-set ring rotates freely.
Auto-aperture mechanism – This mechanism uses a device that leaves the lens aperture open for as long as possible, and closes the aperture to a set f-stop simultaneously with shooting. In order to check the aperture, depress the pin of the mechanism, then rotate the aperture ring from open wide to closed. The diaphragm should open-close without issue.
⑤ Aperture – iris blades
Apart from the free movement of the diaphragm (iris) blades, the other thing to check for is whether they are dry or oily. Iris blades should be clean and dry – they do not require lubrication. Some aperture blades may appear oily which means it will be hard for them to open and close in a smooth manner. When oil is present on the aperture blades, there is friction from the oil’s viscosity and this impedes the quick closing action during exposure. The aperture takes too long to stop down, and as a result the shutter has already activated, and the photo can become overexposed. Where does the oil come from? An oily aperture is typically caused by exposure to heat. The focus mechanism of a lens uses lubricants, and heat can causes these lubricants break down, and to leak.
Fig.3: Oily iris blades in a Kilfitt Tele-Kilar 300mm
The best way to determine the state of the blades is to view them from the front by flashing an LED flashlight into the lens and look down on the blades. Oil will appear as a circle, or small triangular “wings”. A patterned discolouration is a sure sign of oily blades. Play with the aperture ring to check its “snappiness” – it should open and close easily without resistance or a feel of “sticking”. Dry blades are certainly better, but there are certain lenses (e.g. Helios) that are not greatly impacted by the presence of a small amount of oil. Some aperture blades may also have rust on them, this could be indicative of the lens being stored in a sub-optimal environment, e.g. one that is humid.
⑥ Lens focus mechanism
Rotate the focus ring back and forth a few times from the minimum focusing distance (MDF) position to the opposite (infinity) position. The focusing ring by itself should rotate smoothly, without hesitation or any sticking. A focus that is overly tight can lead to improper focus, whereas a loose focus means the focus can shift with the slightest move. What we are looking for here is whether or not the lens moves smoothly and doesn’t catch or have a gritty sensation. A stiff movement may be indicative of issues with the grease used to lubricate the focusing mechanism. Are there any dull spots where the focus mechanism doesn’t feel as smooth or gets slightly stuck? This might mean degrading grease and could need to be repaired. Make sure the focus doesn’t stick slightly at either extreme. If the focus ring doesn’t move at all, then it is likely the grease lubrication has solidified to the point where it is stopping movement.
⑦ Lens markings
It may seem trivial, but lens markings are important in identifying a lens. This information includes manufacturer, trademark, focal length, maximum aperture, coatings (e.g. multi-coating). See the post on lens markings. 🕸️ A snapshot of the front of the lens often means a serious reseller. A poor or unreadable picture suggests that reseller does not know how to sell the lenses and most likely an amateur.
⑧ Lens body defects – dirt, grime and corrosion
If a lens seems dirty and grimy, it may be indicative of how well the lens wasn’t cared for. Dirt and grime usually appear in textured surfaces which are subject to being hand-manipulated, such as the focus ring. Oil and sweat (from the skin) are deposited when these regions are touched and subsequently attract dirt. Failure to clean a lens will mean a built-up of grime over time. This dirt may eventually migrated to the interior of the lens by means of nearby lens openings. Sometimes vintage chrome-plated lenses appear green, and this is something commonly known as “green corrosion”. This can be the result of corrosion of the brass/copper underneath the chrome (chrome surfaces typically have a underlay). As brass contains copper, the copper reacts with oxygen, forming the greenish-blue layer, copper-oxide.
Fig.4: Dirt, grime and corrosion
If the outside of the lens looks and feels okay, then it is time to investigate the optics.
For years we have seen the gradual creep of increased photosites on sensors (images have pixels, sensors have photosites – pixels don’t really have a dimension, whereas photosites do). The question is, how many photosites is too many photosites (within the physical constraints of a sensor)? It doesn’t matter the type of sensor, they have all become more congested – Micro-Four-Thirds has crept up to 25MP (Panasonic DC-GH6), APS-C to 40MP (Fuji X-T5), and full-frame to 60MP (Sony A7R-V).
Manufacturers have been cramming more photosites into their sensors for years now, while the sensors themselves haven’t grown any larger. When the first Four Thirds (FT) sensor camera, the Olympus E1, appeared in 2005 it had 2560×1920 photosites (5MP). The latest rendition of the FT sensor, on the 2023 Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 II has 5776×4336 photosites (25MP), on the same sized sensor. So what this means of course is that ultimately photosites get smaller. For example the photosite pitch has changed from 6.89μm to 3μm, which doesn’t seem terrible, until you calculate the area of a photosite: 47.47μm2 to 9μm2, which is quite a disparity (pitch is not really the best indicator when comparing photosites, area is better, because it provides an indication of light gathering area). Yes, its five times more photosites, but each photosite is only 16% the area of the original.
Are smaller photosites a good thing? Many would argue that it doesn’t matter, but at some point there will be some diminishing returns. Part of the problem is the notion that more pixels in an image means better quality. But image quality is an amalgam of many differing things beyond sensor and photosite size including the type of sensor, the file type (JPEG vs. RAW), the photographers knowledge, and above all the quality of a lens. Regardless of how many megapixels there are in an image – if a lens is of poor optical quality, it will nearly always manifest in a lower-quality image.
The difference in size between a 24MP and 40MP APS-C sensor. The 40MP photosite (9.12μm2) is 60% the size of the 24MP photosite (15.21μm2).
However when something is reduced in size, there are always potential side-effects. Small photosites might be more susceptible to things like noise because despite algorithmic means of noise suppression, it is impossible to eliminate it completely. Larger pixels also collect more light, and as a result are better at averaging out errant information. If you have two different sized sensors with the same amount of photosites, then the larger sensor will arguably deliver better image quality. The question is whether or not photosites are just getting too small on some of these sensors? When will MFT or APS-C reach the point where adding more photosites is counterproductive?
Some manufacturers like Fuji have circumvented this issue by introducing new larger sensor medium format cameras like the GFX 50S II (44×33mm, 51MP) which has a photosite size of 5.3µm – more resolution, but not at the expense of photosite size. Larger sensors typically have larger photosites, resulting in more light being captured and a better dynamic range. These cameras and their lenses are obviously more expensive, but they are designed for people that need high resolution images. The reality is that the average photographer doesn’t need sensors with more photosites – the images produced are just too large and unwieldy for most applications.
The reality is, that cramming more photosites into any of these sensors does not really make any sense. It is possible that the pixel increase is just a smokescreen for the fact that there is little else in the way of camera/sensor innovations. I mean there are the stacked sensors, but their development has been slow – the Foveon X3 has shown little use beyond those found in Sigma cameras (they haven’t really taken off, probably due in part to the cost). Other stacked CMOS sensors are in development, but again it is slow. So to keep people buying cameras, companies need to cram in more photosites, i.e. more megapixels. Other things haven’t changed much either, I mean aperture is aperture right? For example autofocus algorithms haven’t taken a major step forward, and the usability hasn’t done much of anything (except perhaps catering to video shooters). Let’s face it, the race for megapixels is over. Like really over. Yet every new generation of cameras seems to increase the number slightly.
The Olympus E-1 was introduced in 2003, the first interchangeable lens camera designed specifically from the ground up to be digital. It would provide the beginning for what would become the “E-System”, containing the 4/3″, or “Four Thirds” sensor. The camera contained a 5-megapixel CCD sensor from Kodak. The 4/3″ sensor had a size of 17.3mm×13.0mm. The size of the film was akin to that of 110 film, with an aspect ratio of 3:2, which breaks from the traditional 35mm 4:3 format.
The E-1 had a magnesium-alloy body, which was solid, dense, and built like a proverbial tank. The camera is also weather-sealed, and offered a feature many through was revolutionary – a “Supersonic Wave Filter”, to clean off the dust on the imaging sensor. From a digital perspective, Olympus designed a lens mount that was wide in relation to the sensor or image-circle diagonal. This enabled the design of lenses to be such that they minimized the angle of light-ray incidence into the corners of the frame. Instead of starting from scratch, Canon, Konica-Minolta, Nikon and Pentax just took their film SLR mounts and installed smaller sensors in bodies based on their film models. The lens system was also designed from scratch.
The tank in guise of a camera
The E-1, with its sensor smaller that the APS-C already available had both pros and cons. A smaller sensor meant lenses could be both physically smaller and lighter. A 50mm lens would be about the same size as other 50mm lenses, but with the crop-factor, it would actually be a 100mm lens. 4/3rd’s was an incredibly good system for telephoto’s because they were half the size and shape than their full-frame counterparts.
Although quite an innovative camera, it never really seemed to take off in a professional sense. It didn’t have continuous shooting or even the auto-focus speed needed for genres like sports photography. It also fell short on the megapixel side of things, as the Canon EOS-1Ds with its full-frame 11-magapixel sensor had already appeared in 2002. A year later in 2004, the Olympus E-300 had already bypassed the 5MP with 8MP, making the E-1 somewhat obsolete from a resolution viewpoint. The E-1’s photosite pitch was also smaller than most of its APS-C rivals sporting 6MP sensors.
A camera either tells a lie, or does not tell a lie. It may seem somewhat confusing, but it is all a matter of perspective.
The camera, being a machine, cannot really lie because the picture it is taking is what it is designed to take. Therefore every unmanipulated photograph, no matter its context is essentially true. This includes the use of things like film simulations – if the settings in a Fujifilm camera are modified to take a photograph using a simulation to mimic Kodak Porta 400 film, then the picture produced is true. On the other hand, the human eye, being subject to the interpretation of the brain often sees things differently from the camera lens with the result being that what the camera perceives as true, appears as false. In other words, it is the human eye that lies, or deceives us. Therefore to make the cameras rendition correspond closer to the humans perception, a photographer may have to force a camera to effectively tell a lie. The resulting picture then is a constructive lie, because the lie serves a constructive purpose.
Consider as an example, cars driving down a road. Since your eyes can follow the cars in transit, you can perceive them in the form of sharp images, while understanding that the cars are actually moving. A camera, using the appropriate fast shutter speed, will freeze the scene, effectively giving the erroneous impression that the cars on the road are standing still. There is no real difference between a picture of the cars in motion, or standing still. Motion can be rendered in the photograph with blur – using a slow shutter speed will cause a slight blur in the rendering of the picture. The eye does not see this blur in real life, so the photograph would not be true, but rather a constructive lie. The resulting image is much more descriptive of the scene.
The constructive lie and moving cars
Another example of a constructive lie deals with the colour temperature of a scene. The lighting in a scene may not create the most optimal scene from a visual perspective, perhaps due to the temperature of the light source, resulting in what is known as a colour cast. As a result a photographer may modify the temperature by means of a white balancing setting to the point where the eye perceives it as “normal”. For example a scene lit by a tungsten light would have an orange hue. A photograph taken of this scene would have a corresponding colour cast, which would be rejected by the brain as seeming “unnatural”, because colour memory makes us see things in the same light as a sunlit scene. This is another case where the photograph of the scene is “true”, and the corrected version is false – constructive lie.
The constructive lie and the ‘keystone effect’
The third example is the classic one where tall building appear somewhat skewed, leaning back into the scene – what is known as the keystone effect. This convergence of parallel lines is a perfectly natural example of perspective, which is perfectly acceptable in the horizontal plane, e.g. railway tracks, but seemingly deplorable in the vertical plane. Converging lines are easy to fix, either by means of the tilt-shift lens, or using software (some cameras have this built-in), with the resulting image being a constructive lie as opposed to the seeing the building as it really appears.
Photographing large objects in the landscape can be tricky. Some are near impossible, for example bridges. An exceptional example is the Landwasser Viaduct, part of the Rhaetian Railway in Graubünden, Switzerland. The best possible shot is taken from the valley beneath, preferably with a train crossing the viaduct, but that’s not a shot possible for everybody, because most people are on the train, and therefore won’t get anywhere near the perspective of a ground shot. It’s the same with many of these famous bridges, and viaducts. Some, like the Glenfinnan Viaduct, often known as “The Harry Potter Bridge“, are easier to photograph (there are some good instructions to help find the most optimal spots). Not to say that the Landwasser Viaduct can’t be photographed, there are also good commentaries on doing that as well.
Dunnotarr Castle in Scotland. Although the castle itself is not a “large” object, it becomes large when combined with the headland.If it wasn’t perched on a rocky headland, the resulting image would be quite flat, however the combination of man-made and natural features gives the photograph a great deal of depth.
While train journeys are fun, actually photographing things from the train doesn’t always produce the images people expect. It’s the same with large objects of any sort. Sometimes the best images these days are taken using drones, because they are able to take in the whole landscape. But not everyone has a drone available, and in some places they have actually cracked down on them over the past few years. landscape scenes in Iceland are monumental when taken from a drone… these are perspectives of features like waterfalls that just can’t be achieved any other way. But at nearly every major tourist site in Iceland, you will see ‘No Drone’ signs, e.g. Gullfoss waterfall.
So if you are interested in photographing a large natural, or man-made object, what’s the best approach? There are two good methods. Firstly, shooting from a distance, to provide an overall outlook. This involves finding the best position that allows for an uninterrupted view, and makes an interesting shot. Secondly, shooting up-close, providing a near perspective of the object, photographing just a portion of the structure and bringing things like texture and intricate detailing into play. Describing an object visually should never be just a one-perspective deal. It should incorporate different granularity of details, which help describe the object as a whole. You also want to be cognizant that you don’t just create the same picture that the masses do.
The Culloden Viaduct from a distance.
A perspective view.
As a case in point, consider these photographs of Culloden Viaduct, just east of Inverness, Scotland. This is an easy viaduct to get both a distant shot, and close shots, as a road goes directly underneath the southern portion of the viaduct. There are many options here, shooting it from the distance to provide an overall viewpoint of the viaduct, or from one end to provide a perspective. The viaduct is a long linear feature, which means distance shots make it appear small in relation to the rest of the photograph. The photograph also feels “flat”, something that can be partially fixed by shooting from an elevated position (which is above the feature being photographed, and hence the value of drone-based photography). A perspective view will often allow the scale of the structure to be included, in addition to a more 3D feel.
The interplay of arches
A close-up view of the arches
Close-up shots will fail to show the viaduct in its entirety, but will instead portray more architectural details, in this case, the design of the arches. It also provides more of a three-dimensional perspective of the viaduct than long-distance shots. it is the arches that make this viaduct interesting, and a distance shot will not do them justice. A close-up view exposes the tapered structure of the piers, and the precise nature of the arches. You can even goes as far as taking shots of individual components of an object to illustrate things like texture, and interplay of materials.
P.S. Naturally, aerial shots acquire with a drone do provide much more of a perspective of an object in the context of its surroundings, but that isn’t always realistic for the average photographer.
It’s funny how people get so tied up with the technical side of photography. They worry about the number of megapixels, the sharpness of the lens, and other such mundane things. Sure these are importance, but if you concentrate too much on the technical aspects of cameras and lenses, you miss out on the pure joy of taking photographs – I mean that’s the whole point right? Despite what people think, photography is not really a technical art. Sure there are lots of technical aspects to the art of photography (e.g. chemistry, physics), but these are but a means to an end.
People often tend to believe that fancier cameras and more megapixels makes them a better photographer. It doesn’t. Good photos come from experience, and an ability to observe the world around you in such a manner that allows meaningful photographs to be taken. The device being used should almost be an afterthought, although simpler is often better. Good photographs do not come from Photoshop… if there was no substance in the photograph to begin with, manipulating it in any manner will not induce any more aesthetic appeal, will not add any more meaning.
Good photography is about what you have inside your mind. It is the sum of all your life experiences and your aesthetic point of view, your interpretation of the world around you. A camera is merely a light capturing tool. You can make a photograph using a very expensive Leica, or a cheap disposable. At the end of the day, it is all about the aesthetic you are trying to achieve, and the story you want to tell.
Wes Anderson’s movies are always somewhat surrealistic. In Asteroid City we are taken to a remote one-café desert town in Nevada, in 1955. The town’s claim to fame is that it is built next to a 3000-year-old meteor crater and adjoining space observatory. The movie follows a writer on his world famous fictional play about a grieving father who travels with his tech-obsessed family to Asteroid City to compete in a junior stargazer’s convention, only to have his world view disrupted forever.
There looks to be a distant atomic explosion, which photographer Augie Steenbeck captures on his camera.
The camera is supposedly a Müller Schmid, “Swiss Mountain Camera”. But of course it isn’t. Does the “Swiss Mountain Camera” have some loose nod to the Swiss camera brand ALPA? Does Müller Schmid signify anyone? The closest association I could find is a Joey Schmid-Muller (1950-), a Swiss/Australian surrealist artist. Sure, Anderson could have pulled the name out of thin air, but I highly doubt it.
The camera of course may seem familiar to some. It seems like a rangefinder camera that came from Zeiss Ikon – perhaps a Contax? In the 1950s these cameras were produced in West Germany by Zeiss Ikon AG in the form of the Contax IIa and IIIa. Or it could have been a pre-1945 Contax II or III. The Contax III is an obvious contender, because it looks familiar, but there are two issues. Pre-war Contax III’s did not have a flash sync, and the film rewind knob was much taller. So it isn’t a Contax III. Instead we have to look further east, to Ukraine. After WW2, much of the Contax production line was taken as war reparations from the Zeiss-Ikon factories, to the Zavod Arsenal facility in Kiev. Production then started on Contax-döppelganger Kiev brand cameras in 1947 (the early models, Kiev 2, are believed to have been made from original Zeiss Ikon stock).
Why it’s a Kiev 4!
Now the Zavod factory made a bunch of different Kiev cameras, both metered and unmetered. The bump on the top identifies this as a metered Kiev. The most likely candidate is one of the most common Kiev’s, the Kiev-4, produced between 1957-79. All that has been done to this camera to convert it to a Müller Schmid is that three marking plates have been overlaid on the exiting camera – one for “Müller Schmid”, one for “Swiss Mountain Camera” plus a small Swiss flag, and one for “LAND-LOCKED” (is this somehow a nod to the fact that Switzerland is a land-locked country?). They are metal overlays because you can see the open seams in some areas.
What about the lens? It is just marked as “COMBAT LENS”, a 5cm, f/2 lens – again there is no such brand – obviously a node to the fact that Steenbeck is a war photographer. In all likelihood the lens is a Jupiter-8 50mm f/2 lens, which was the standard lens on the Kiev-4 (a copy of the Zeiss Sonnar lens of 1929). Want to buy a Kiev 4? They aren’t that expensive, you can pick one up from between US$100-200, but I would suggest buying one from a reputable source such as Fedka.com.
Crafting Pixels 