Why do people like pre-1970s cameras?

/ spqr / Leave a comment

Well mostly it has to do with with aesthetics and simplicity, but also authenticity, and nostalgia.

From the dawn of the 35mm SLR in 1936 up until the mid 1960s, most cameras were manufactured using traditional engineering methods, with the materials once associated with precision – brass, steel, aluminum, and an abundance of glass. These cameras were often overwhelmingly heavy, and crammed full of mechanical things. As the 1970s evolved, so too did the revolution in materials and technology that was to seal the fate of the German camera industry, and elevate the Japanese camera industry. There was little room for the hand-crafted camera in the world of the mass-market SLR. In some ways it also lead to an interest in “classic” cameras from the 1950s and 60s. As the 1970s progressed, camera designers used increasing amounts of plastic to build cameras, from camera casings to film-transport gearings. These cameras were also chock full of electronics − electronically timed shutters allowed for increased accuracy and a greater range of shutter speeds, replacing mechanically systems derived from the watch industry. There were also electronic exposure-measurement systems to replace the electro-mechanical galvanometer systems of old. All these new enhancements made cameras lighter, offered more functionality, and probably most significantly reduced their cost.

Some say the Nikon F was named after the first letter of its chief engineer’s name Masahiko Fuketa. First appearing in 1959 it became the gold standard for professional cameras. The “F” ventured with expeditions to Everest, was dragged through war-torn Vietnam, and went to space with the Apollo 15 mission.

Especially grievous may be cameras from the mid-1980s to the 1990s. There is a darker side to these purely electronic cameras − they need a power source, and electronics sometimes age poorly. It may be possible, albeit costly, to fix a manual camera but electronic components are almost impossible to fix. Some of these cameras were also left on the shelf with batteries in them, which leak over time, causing further issues. However the changes of the electronic age came at a cost. In the case of cameras, that loss was expressed in a lack of aesthetic appeal, engineering quality, “toughness”, and hand-crafted precision. The industry had swapped the engineer and craftsman for the scientist and technician. The chrome top-plate, so common amongst SLRs had been replaced by plastic. Even lenses would become encased in plastic, maybe as a means of making them lighter and more resilient. That’s not to say the cameras were bad, just that they had lost something in the translation to the modern era.

In many respects these pre-1970s cameras are what some may term “classic” cameras. What this means is somewhat subjective − to some it might mean meticulously engineered, and aesthetically pleasing. To others it might be a somewhat mechanical odd-ball, or a camera that was the first to have some sort of new camera feature or innovation. Sometimes though it is pure nostalgia − the ability to take pictures with a classic camera, made by a classic camera company before many went the way of the dodo. Vintage cameras help capture the true aesthetic of film, before things became too automated. Of course the camera itself is only part of the story, a vessel per se, because the real character comes from the character infused in individual lenses of the period, and the distinct characteristics of the film being used (grain, colour rendition, etc.).

Some people long for an analog past, for cameras where you can experience the craftsmanship that went into building these cameras. They may not be perfect anymore, but many have stood the test of time much better than their contemporary brethren.

The masquerade of many more megapixels

/ spqr / Leave a comment

Yes, it’s 2026 and we are still discussing megapixels.

In the early years of digital photography, the leap from 3 to 5 megapixels (MP) was a monumental change, manifesting in the Olympus E-1 in 2003. A few years later, 7-8 megapixels seemed to be more than adequate for a digital camera. But like many things, the number of photosites on digital sensors crept up as the years slipped by − from 10-12 to 16, then 20, and 24, 40. We are now living the actuality of peak-pixel.

Megapixels were, for a long time, a good way to help market a camera. They helped quantify why one camera was better than another in the most basic terms. The problem was that beyond the pure number of pixels, there was never really any explanation as to why “more” was better. Would 24MP truly produce a better postcard sized image than 16MP? Oh but there would be more detail wouldn’t there? Well not that the human eye could perceive. Those cameras producing images with 60 or 100 megapixels − they are for people that print big, and by that I mean feet, not inches. For example a camera producing a 60MP print at 200dpi would allow for a maximum size of 48×32 inches (1210×804 mm), but one with only 26MP still provides a 31×20 inch poster.

The problem with megapixels is that having 26MP is pointless if the image appears disjointed, poorly exposed or out of focus. Is there some point to spending a large amount of time digitally altering a photograph to make it seem more aesthetically pleasing? And you know what would be worse, having an image with 40 or 60 million pixels that has the same issues − needing what amounts to cosmetic surgery to look better. But some people still seem to think that more pixels will solve their problem with mediocre photographs. However it has never been about pixel quantity, but rather about pixel quality.

Fig.1: Various photosite sizes from modern sensors. Notice that many are around 3.77 microns in size, from sensors ranging from APS-C to medium format. This means that the only real quantifiable differences between these sensors is the quantity of photosites in the sensor.

There seems to be this adage that more photosites equals a better sensor, but that is simply not true. The quality of an image is intrinsically tied to how much light a photosite can receive, interpret, and ultimately record as a pixel. Bigger photosites mean less noise, and a higher dynamic range. Try and squeeze more photosites in a sensor, and the image quality will start to drop off. A better scenario might be bigger photosites = better sensors.

Advertising has never made mention of the fact that as more photosites were squeezed into a sensor, they get smaller. There are also intrinsic limits to how small photosites can get. APS-C sensors seem to have maxed out at roughly 40MP, with photosites approximately 3.0×3.0µm in size, the same size as the diameter of spiders silk (to put that into context the average human hair is 70µm in diameter). Manufacturers could push APS-C sensors toward 60MP, but this faces significant engineering challenges. There would be issues with diffraction at wider apertures leading to image softening, higher noise at high ISO values, and limitations of lenses being able to resolve details. Some might even argue that 26 million photosites is too many for an APS-C sensor.

As it stands, most people don’t need a camera with any more than 24-26MPs, especially when some cameras are now incorporating pixel-shift high resolution modes to facilitate high resolution images. For example the Fujifilm X-T5 features a Pixel Shift Multi-Shot mode that produces 160MP-images by combining 20 RAW frames, using IBIS to shift the 40.2MP sensor. Improvements in the quality of pixels will only come about with innovative new sensor technologies, e.g. stacked sensors.

Note: Sensors have photosites (which have dimensions), while images have pixels (which are dimensionless).

Vintage lenses − the first aspherical lenses

/ spqr / 2 Comments

When super-speed movie films started to appear in the 1950s, the industry began to yearn for super-speed lenses to match the advanced film speeds. The worlds first aspherical lens appeared in 1955, developed by a small American company, the Elgeet Optical Company of Rochester NY. The lens was the Elgeet Golden Navitar 12mm f/1.2 wide angle lens for 16mm movie cameras. It was a 9-element lens which incorporated aspheric lens elements in addition to using rare-earth elements. Its claim to fame may have been the fact that it was 66% faster than an f/1.5 lens (which were quite common in the cine industry), covered 4.5 times the area of a normal one-inch lens and delivered sharp images over a 60° AOV. If only spherical lenses had been used in the design extra element would have been required.

Fig.1: The first of two very different aspherical lenses (aspheric lenses are shown coloured).

Now the honour of being the first aspherical lens for an SLR goes to OP Fisheye-Nikkor 10mm f/5.6. Introduced in 1968, it created a 180° circular field of view. This was a fisheye lens offering the first orthographic projection, which in simple terms means the lens has a larger central image and the image at the periphery is smaller. It is difficult to create this sort of a lens using spherical lenses, and so a aspheric lens is used in the front to provide an accurate projection.

Notes:

  • The Elgeet Optical Company was founded in March 1946, and made interesting lenses for a long while. In 1962 they briefly acquired German company Steinheil (Munich), selling it on after two years to Lear Siegler. In 1972 the company was reorganized into Navitar, which still operates today. The name is an acronym for the founders: London, Goldstein, and Terbuska.

Further reading:

  1. Ginsberg, R.H., “Aspherics Promise Faster Cine Lenses”, American Cinematographer, 37(4), pp.246-249 (Apr. 1946)

Yoshihisa Maitani on photographers

/ spqr / Leave a comment

“A photographer’s duty is to improve and increase his techniques! For knowledge of technique is the only tool for ensuring that the camera may be used to its maximum capability. So many photographers overestimate the function of the camera by itself – but I’m afraid a cook who relies on nothing but a sharp knife has no guarantee of producing excellent dishes.”

Yoshihisa Maitani

What is an aspheric lens?

/ spqr / Leave a comment

When you look at modern lens literature there is often one thing that is often hyped up – the use of aspherical lenses. Or put another way, lenses that contain elements that are aspherical. But what are they, and why do they matter?

Due to its radius of curvature, a lens forms a real image on a certain plane. In the early days of photography, all lenses had a shape which was spherical. Spherical lens are the easiest shape to make, but they tend to disperse the rays of light passing through them so that they do not focus at the same point. This can lead to a lack of sharpness and clarity, particularly at the edges of an image, and with wider apertures. The use of spherical lenses can cause a deficiency known as spherical aberration. It was discovered that an aspherical lens shape would eliminate this type of aberration, owing to the fact that the curvature of the lens could be used to converge light rays to a single point.

Fig.1: The Kinoptik 5.7mm f/1.8 Tegea – the inverted telephoto system of this lens for 16mm cameras uses a front component with a parabolic surface. Here an aspheric surface is used to control the higher order effects of astigmatism and distortion.

An aspherical lens is simply a lens that doesn’t have a spherical surface shape. Most standard lenses are composed of spherical elements, many of which aren’t really able to direct the light reaching the edges of the lens elements to the same focal point as the light reaching its centre. They were all the rage in the 1950s : “Aspheric lens elements are lenses of non-round shapes. Their non-spherical form allows them to reshape light rays which are normally distorted as they pass through a spherical lens system.” [1]. Essentially aspherical elements are used to help correct misalignment’s in the path of light as it traverses through the lens. They help compensate for spherical aberration and distortion which cannot be completely eliminated using conventional spherical elements alone.

In an aspherical lens, the subtle curvature of the lens can be used to converge the rays of light and bring them to a sharp focus. The degree of asphericity is greatly exaggerated in the illustration (in Fig.2) – it is not visible to the naked eye in an actual aspherical lens element.

Fig.2: The difference between a spherical and aspherical lens

Aspherical lens elements help to compensate for distortion in wide-angle lenses, and reduce or even eliminate spherical aberrations in fast lenses (those with large maximum apertures). Aspherical lenses offer greater design latitude, raise performance, permit the use of fewer lens elements, and allow a more compact size. This is because traditional lens design involves complicated arrangements of different types of lenses to minimize optical deficiencies, but sometimes an aspherical lens can replace multiple lenses resulting in a lighter, more compact design (which is good for things like zoom lenses).

Fig.3: The effect of light rays passing through a spherical and an aspherical lens

However designing and manufacturing aspherical lenses is much more difficult than spherical ones. It’s one of the things that makes lenses containing aspherical elements more expensive than others. The problem is that the degree of asphericity is often super small, and so manufacturing tolerances can be within 0.1 microns. There are four core processes by which modern aspherical lenses are manufactured:

  • Ground − Individual lenses are ground and polished, typically for elements with large diameters. The most expensive manufacturing process, but also the most precise.
  • Plastic moulded − Formed by injecting optical-grade resin into an aspherical surface mould. They are light weight, and can be mass produced at a low cost. Good for improving the image quality of entry-level lenses.
  • Glass moulded − Formed by softening optical glass using high temperatures and then shaping it in an aspherical metal mould. More precise than plastic-moulded lenses, they are still less expensive than ground elements, making them optimal for consumer lenses.
  • Moulded polymers − A standard glass spherical lens is used onto which is moulded a thin layer of a photopolymer using an aspheric mould. Used for high-volume precision applications.
Fig.4: An example of a modern wide-angle lens with aspherical elements (Sigma 17mm F4 DG DN).

What are the downsides of aspherical lenses? One issue is that sometimes it can lead to non-uniform rendering of out-of-focus highlights. This effect usually manifests itself as an ‘onion-like’ texture of concentric rings, or a ‘wooly-like’ texture, and is caused by very slight defects in the surface of aspherical element. It is difficult to predict such effect, but usually it occurs when the highlights are small enough and far enough out of focus.

The first mass produced aspheric lens was introduced in 1955 by the Elgeet Optical Company, the Golden Navitar 12mm f/1.2 lens for 16mm film. The first interchangeable SLR lens to incorporate an aspherical lens element was the Nikon Fisheye-Nikkor 10mm f/5.6 (1968). The first Canon lens with an aspherical element was the FD 55mm f/1.2AL (1971).

Further reading:

  1. Ginsberg, R.H., “Aspherics Promise Faster Cine Lenses”, American Cinematographer, 37(4), pp.246-249 (Apr. 1956)

Moriyama on meaningfulness

/ spqr / Leave a comment

“The only way you can ensure that a shot will ever be at all meaningful is if you take it. Don’t think too hard about it beforehand, don’t be too self-conscious or rational − just press the shutter button. There’ll be all the time in the world for other people to come along later and attach whatever implications or ‘meaning’ they like to it.”

Daido Moriyama How I Take Photographs, Takeshi Nakamoto (2019)

Vintage lenses − Interchangeable lenses were never really that interchangeable

/ spqr / Leave a comment

With SLRs becoming more common in the 1950s, so too was the idea of interchangeable lenses. It was possible to but one camera, and a myriad of lenses with different focal lengths to use with it. But the idea of interchangeable likely confused some people, as it turns out that in many cases interchangeable did not really mean interchangeable at all. Interchangeable in the SLR context of the word really just meant not fixed, i.e. the lens could be changed on a camera. But to some interchangeable might have meant the ability to use any lens on any camera.

The problem was one of standardization, or rather a lack there-of. When 35mm cameras first evolved, camera mounts evolved quite organically. Rangefinder cameras started with the 39mm screw mount of the Leica and bayonet mount of the Contax. In 1936 Ihagee released the Kine-Exakta the world’s first 35mm SLR, and also the first with a bayonet-mount, perhaps in deference to Leica’s screw mount. There were definite benefits to a bayonet-mount – they were quick and easy to change. But they were also more expensive to manufacture. In 1939 Kamera-Werkstätten would introduce the Praktiflex, which had an M40 screw mount. There was nothing to really stop any manufacturer from introducing a new SLR with a unique mount. From an economical viewpoint, a unique mount makes complete sense, because it guarantees users can only purchase system lenses, and not be able to venture into third-party lenses. It also makes life a little simpler, and there may be some benefit to lenses tailored specifically to a camera. The Praktina from Kamera Werkstätten was such a camera, debuting a new breech-lock lens mount, which meant that the lens environment was very restricted, and lenses used on previous KW systems could not be used, forcing the photographer to buy new lenses. There is also the caveat of the manufacturer actually having to provide an assortment of lenses − SLRs which are released with a limited ecosystem of lenses have historically not been very successful.

Interestingly, mounts that were patented, such as the Exakta mount could not be used by unlicensed lens manufacturers, whereas those who used screw lenses were uninhibited because it would almost be impossible to obtain a patent for what is essentially a screw thread (which is why Leica-copies all used the same screw mount). The Leica M39 mount was based on the Whitworth thread form, and while it may have been possible to obtain a utility patent on some novel use of a thread mount on a camera using 35mm film, the thread itself was not patentable, perhaps because different diameter mounts were already being used on microscopes. The concept of interchangeable lenses resonated well with manufacturers of SLR cameras with focal-plane shutters. Those who designed leaf-shutters were another thing altogether. SLR cameras like Agfaflex, Bessamatic, Contaflex, and the Retina Reflex could only use the interchangeable lenses specifically made for their cameras, because having a behind-the-lens shutters meant that the interchangeable lenses weren’t ‘complete’ lenses as a common portion of the lens system was integral to the system.

Fig.1: The Contaflex had a very limited ecosystem of lenses, i.e. some four basic lenses. In addition the fastest lens was the Tessar f/2.8 50mm.

In 1949 both Praktiflex and Contax cameras had adopted yet another mount, the M42 screw mount. For some reason there was something about the M42 that became popular, perhaps because it was not patented, and a little larger than the previous screw mounts. By the mid-1950s then, two SLR camera mounts seemed to have risen to the top: Exakta and M42. As a lot of SLRs from this period originated from East Germany, the use of common lens mounts likely made sense considering the state-owned lens manufacturers. For example lens manufacturer Meyer Optik would produce lenses for both the M42 and Exakta mounts. Of course adopting a “standard” mount did not always result in plain sailing. A M42 lens from one company did not always exactly fit the M42 camera mount of another, and those that did coupled to the camera body effectively. A good example is again the Kamera-Werkstätten Praktina. Produced from 1953 to 1960, the lenses for the system had five different diaphragm control mechanisms: manual, preset, preset with trigger release, semi-automatic, and automatic. Preset and manual lenses in Praktina mounts fit all Praktina cameras [1]. However the semi-automatic lenses made for the Praktina FX would fit, but not work on the Praktina IIa, and the fully automatic lenses for the Praktina IIa, would fit, but not work on the older Praktina FX. The reason is that on the Praktina FX the actuating pin moves forward, and on the IIa it moves backwards.

The M42 mount may have been the only truly interchangeable lens ecosystem which evolved. The mount was in production for decades, and a slew of camera manufacturers adopted the mount: Praktica, Zenit-E, Asahi Pentax, Chinon, Cosina, Mamiya, Fuji, Yashica, and even Olympus. To support these cameras, over fifty different manufacturers made lenses for the M42 mount, amounting to probably thousands of different lens models (a precise estimate is somewhat difficult). By the mid-1960s, many camera manufacturers had decided to move towards proprietary mounts. In many cases this was away from screw-mounts to bayonet-style mounts which allowed for: (i) larger diameter mounts; (ii) securer mechanisms for fast and reliable lens change and (iii) mechanisms to allow with aperture coupling with light meters. This might have been considered by some to be purely based on non-conformity, but likely had some underpinnings in the competitive nature of camera manufacturing. To this end, independent lens manufacturers produced single lenses with a series of adapters, which could be changed for those with multiple camera systems. Good examples of this were Kilfitt (they produced more adapters than lenses), Tamron (Adaptall) [2], and Novoflex.

Fig.2: The Tamron Adaptall/Adaptall-2 system was perhaps the personification of interchangeability. It allowed their lenses to be couples with some 25 different camera mounts

So lenses were only really interchangeable in the largest of systems, i.e. Exakta, and M42 the latter of which may have been the most successful. There was a small window of interchangeability, but only in so much that it relates to the existence of adapters, and a cameras ability to use other lenses. For example ALPA cameras had a flange-focal-distance (FFD) of 37.8mm, which means it could provide adapters for mounting systems with a FFD greater than 37.8mm (of which there were many). Many systems had a large FFD, meaning their ability to use interchangeable lenses from other systems was limited.

There has never been one all-encompassing, ubiquitous means of attaching a lens to a camera. The closest we came was the screw-mount M42, its reign yielded to that of the bayonet mount, a victim of its own limitations. At this juncture, many manufacturers went with their own proprietary mounts in part to facilitate automatic apertures and other the inclusion of electronics in lenses. True interchangeability may actually exist in the guise of specific brand biomes. A good example here is the Leica M-mount, which was introduced in 1954 and is still used on Leica cameras today, allowing even older analog lenses to be used on a modern digital camera.

NB: What is interesting is that in the rangefinder realm, so many of the clones produced just copied the L39 mount of the Leica (although in reality there were some issues with 39mm standardization as well). The lack of interest here may have had less to do with any lofty ideas of standardization, but rather providing access to a cheaper Leica, and easy access to a slew of existing lenses.

Further reading:

  1. The Praktina System
  2. Tamron: About Adaptall-2

Ultrafast lenses – The fastest ever design?

/ spqr / Leave a comment

There is a lens described in a classified CIA briefing, which was never built [1]. The lens was designed by Shoroto Yoshido, a lens designer from the Sendai Science Laboratory, who supposedly achieved a relative aperture of f/0.519 using 5 elements. The lens only had one aspheric surface. But its design was somewhat crazy, the focal plane almost touches the the extremely curved rear lens. There is very little else written about this lens.

Fig.1: The design of the Yoshido f/0.519 lens

Further reading:

  1. Merigold, P.A., “Aspheric Optical Systems”, CIA Reading Room (released Nov.21, 2005)

Understanding condition terms used to sell vintage photographic gear

/ spqr / Leave a comment

Descriptions of camera gear, regardless of the website aren’t always as truthful as they could be. People use a number of terms to mask the true condition of an item. Some unfortunately do it not knowing any better, perhaps because they don’t sell many cameras or lenses. As usual, stick with sellers that have good feedback, and test the things they sell. A listing that doesn’t really describe the functionality of the lens or camera is one to be avoided, even if it does seem inexpensive (unless it is so cheap you are willing to spin the wheel). Beware that sometimes terms are used to gloss over the fact that there are issues. For instance with lenses sometimes the issues with the optics are fully described, but focusing ability, and aperture control are ignored.

Now on to some of the terms used. Note that many of these terms can be quite subjective.

“Mint”

A term used to theoretically describe a camera or lens that is 100% like the day it left the factory, i.e. pristine or unblemished. The reality is that very few cameras or lenses are pristine. Sometimes the term is used in a roundabout way to describe the cosmetic appearance of a camera or lens with little regard to functionality. Does not guarantee a camera functions, or has even been tested. (See previous post)

“Near mint”

A term used to describe a camera or lens that is close to mint, but not quite. Often used to rate an item in terms of appearance, e.g. minimal scratches, rather than function. Does not guarantee a camera has been tested. Traditionally it describes something that looks as if it was just taken out of the box, or has been handled with extreme care. The definition can be subjective, often causing tension between buyers (expecting perfection) and sellers (who may allow minor defects).

“Minimal traces of use”

This usually implies a camera hasn’t been used that much. But how can one really guarantee how much a 50-year old camera has or hasn’t been used. A camera could look in pristine condition cosmetically, and have been used to take thousands of photos. Unlike a digital camera, there is no way to gauge shutter activations on a film camera.

“Signs of use” / “signs of wear”

Most cameras will show some signs of use. This is a catch-all term used to say that cosmetically it won’t be perfect. Perhaps a few scuffs and scratches, perhaps peeling leatherette, or a bit dirty. It obviously means that camera has been used, and is in fair or good condition. It usually says very little about the condition of the internal components.

“As is”

This means you get it in the state it currently is, with all its faults, known or unknown. It’s a bit superfluous because that’s the same state most things are bought in. Read between the lines and this implies that it has not been tested, and likely has something wrong with it. It’s a catch-all for “buyer-beware”.

“Beautiful”

Terms like beautiful are often used to describe the overall quality of an item, especially with optics. It is such a subjective term that it is pretty meaningless. If describing a lens, then it is better to use terms that relate directly to whether or not it has defects, e.g. the presence of haze, fungus, scratches, dust. I think it is okay when being used to describe a lens whose design is aesthetically pleasing.

“It works properly”

But does it? Unless the camera has been tested using film, it is impossible to say it works properly. A cursory review of a camera may determine that things “work”, but are the shutter speeds accurate? Does the shutter work properly? Are there any light leaks? The same with lenses, which can be tested easily by attaching to a mirrorless system and actually taking photos.

“CLA’d” / “overhauled”

Supposedly the camera/lens has been serviced, CLA means “Clean, lube and adjust”. It is a comprehensive maintenance service performed on cameras (and lenses) to restore them to proper working order. Often there is very little evidence of this, e.g. a description of what was actually performed during the service. If the camera/lens seems too cheap this is a red flag, because a CLA can cost C$150-400.

“Rare”

When something is “rare” it means there are very few of them, or at least very few for sale. The term is a quite overused in the photographic realm. For example the Canon “dream” lens, the 50mm f/0.95 could be considered somewhat uncommon, because only 20,000 were produced in comparison to some (a more common lenses may have had a few hundred thousand produced). Yet they are sometimes marked as “rare” which they are not, there are a lot for sale − what they are is expensive, but expensive does not necessarily equal rare. The Meyer Optik Domiron 50mm f/2 on the other hand is a rare lens − produced for about 6 months and prized for its “swirly bokeh”.

“Not tested”

This may be code for defective. Cosmetically the camera may look fine, however functionality has not been investigated at all. Buy at your own risk. It could be a hidden gem for a good price, or something that sits on a shelf.

“For parts” / “repair”

Exactly as it presents, “for parts” means that the item has some sort of defect that prevents its use. Basically another code for defective. For a camera this might mean a defective shutter, for a lens an aperture mechanism that is stuck. It of course can be used as a donor camera to fix a camera. As very few people are likely to use it for parts, except perhaps easy to access external things, these are bought to sit on a shelf, or pull-apart for fun.

Exaggerated ratings

There a certain places which tend to exaggerate ratings, and use the term “mint”, and “near mint” a lot. There is no standardization in ratings, and some are verging on ridiculous. One I have seen had the following system for appearance: brand new (100%), like new (99%), top-mint (97-98%), mint (95-96%), near mint (93-94%), excellent (91-92%), very good (89-90%), and “for parts” (80-85%). There are also some with ratings such as Exc+ to Exc+++++, implying five levels of excellent between “near mint” and “for parts”, which is also ridiculous.

The terms used to describe a lens or camera are only good if used in context. I guess we can be somewhat lucky that people don’t use the terms “epic”, or “mythical” in their descriptions. However some people do use the term “legendary” which I think is okay to use with lenses, but only if they are truly legendary. What does a good condition description look like? Here is one for a Praktina IIa:

“Good overall condition. Some signs of wear are present. The shutter fires, but the speeds do not appear to be accurate. The shutter curtain coating is cracked and no longer light-tight. The lens’s aperture and focus rings function correctly. The lens is free of scratches, delamination, and fungus. There is some haze inside the lens. Bayonet mount lens (specifically for Praktina cameras).”

Is there such a thing as a “mint” vintage camera?

/ spqr / Leave a comment

I don’t particularly like the use of the term “mint” in advertisements for camera gear, particularly vintage cameras (well and lenses as well). I mean what does “mint” really mean? Look it up in the dictionary and it means “pristine, perfect, immaculate, unblemished”. If I bought a new camera today it certainly could be described in this manner, but a vintage camera? Hardly.

The term mint originates from numismatics (coin collecting), where it was used to describe a coin that had never been in circulation and retained its original, flawless appearance. It is easy to describe things like coins, stamps, and comic books in this manner, as the term is only really associated with the cosmetic appearance. It’s a bit harder to use with things that have mechanical innards. The outside of a camera can be mint, but the inside could be decrepit. Mint in the context of cameras typically means the item shows “minimal to no signs of use”. But the problem is the a camera that isn’t used isn’t guaranteed to function. Consider a 1960s SLR that has never been unboxed. Being roughly 55-65 years old, it could have dry or gummed up lubricants, or shutters that lag. Most likely it will suffer from degraded materials: deteriorated light seals and mirror dampers, peeling leatherette, light meter decay, prism corrosion, etc.

Fig.1: One of the few cameras which is truly mint

Japanese resellers have a tendency to grade everything photographic based on condition, which is certainly laudable, considering many people selling cameras do not (some barely offer a decent description). The problem is that everyone has their own scale, which is often very subjective in nature. One I recently saw one that associated “Very Good” with 65% “works good, mostly with dings or dents”. No where in my book is 65% very good. On the same scale “mint” was described as “almost no signs of use”, below “like new” and “brand new”. So one person’s “mint” is another persons “not quite 100%”. So why do so many Japanese resellers sell so many “mint” lenses? Well, Japan has a lot of specialized retailers, and a lot of supply. That being said, Japaneses resellers are notorious for overusing “mint” in their descriptions, sometimes when the camera has minor flaws.

Let’s face it, a “mint” vintage camera may not exist, or if it does it would be in original packaging, never really opened (the new old stock). But even then, cameras in the 1950s and 60s likely didn’t come in shrink-wrapped boxes, with the camera itself wrapped in some sort of covering. As such, unless stored in a perfect environ, it would be subject to the same temperature and humidity changes as anything else. Cardboard stops nothing (although if it the camera was contained in a leather case it might be better). A good reseller will have a reasonable series of condition grades. Furthermore they would never use the term mint, because it really is too specific. If something is unused, it is better to designate it “new”, and instead use the term “near mint” to describe a camera with very light signs of wear. There is of course more credence given to a camera being sold with the original box and paperwork, because then it almost feels like some care was taken with the use and storage of the camera.

Also something that is in original condition is not necessarily mint. A mint camera implies that it works, like 100% − it has accurate shutter speeds (including slow speeds), smooth mirror actuation, clear viewfinder, a light meter that functions properly, no degraded parts… the whole shebang. Sometimes you have to be careful, as an ad may use the term mint in the title, yet only define the cosmetic condition as mint in the item description. Even the use of the term near mint can be very subjective, ranging from average to excellent. I mean how near is near? And don’t even get me started on “rare” cameras.

A mint camera or lens should be one which truly is pristine, and therefore a term that is used extremely sparingly. It is the sort of gear found at photographic purveyors such as Coeln (Vienna).