Understanding condition terms used to sell vintage photographic gear

February 13, 2026February 13, 2026 / 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?

February 5, 2026 / 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).

Vintage SLR cameras – the phantom Zunowflex

November 9, 2025 / spqr / Leave a comment

Zunow was a Japanese company best known for it’s innovation in superfast lenses. During the last few years of its existence, the company designed a couple of camera’s including a prototype of a Leica copy, the Teica, and their first 35mm SLR, the Zunow Pentaflex or ‘Zunowflex’. Work on the camera supposedly began around 1956, but it was only produced for a short time, from 1958-1959). The Zunowflex had a compact design, inspired by the likes of the Miranda T, or even the Praktina.

The design of the Zunow Pentaflex was initiated by Kiyoshi Arao, the managing director in charge of technology who had been transferred from Chiyoda Kogaku Seiko Co., Ltd. Zunow Optical was originally a lens factory with no experience in camera bodies, and Arao himself had little experience with 35mm SLRs, so went on to study the Miranda. Arao would leave the company due to conflicts around the time of the camera’s release (joining Mamiya Optical). The camera was first announced in the April 1958 issue of the monthly magazine Shashin Kōgyō.

This camera brought solutions to many of the issues outstanding with SLRs together into one camera. It was a very aesthetically pleasing camera, with a streamlined look, that would become normal for cameras in the 1960s. The elegant look was designed by Kenji Ekuan from GK Industrial Research Institute. Ekuan was an industrial designed best known for designing Kikkoman’s iconic soy sauce bottle, and a series of Japanese trains. The design was started from a completely new idea, taking the spirit of ancient Japanese “Noh” as its model, combining complex mechanisms into a simple and concise form.

*_{Fig.1: The Zunow SLR with a Zunow 5cm f/1.8 lens}*

Where it broke from convention was the fact that the shutter release was front mounted, similar to how the Exakta and Miranda cameras were laid out, and the speed dial was situated beneath the wind lever, a concept which didn’t appear until much later on the Canon AE-1. It had a removable pentaprism, and interchangeable focusing screens. Supposedly a waist-level viewfinder was also available. It also had a right-hand front shutter release, and a lever wind, not found on many SLRs of the period (except for the Exakta which was left-handed, the Mecaflex, and the Asahi Pentax). The camera had a focal-plane shutter with speeds from 1 to 1/1000 sec, plus B.

It was the first Japanese camera to have an internally coupled automatic lens diaphragm, the “ZUNOWmatic” diaphragm system, when most cameras of the era had a pre-set system, meaning a lever had to be moved to open the diaphragm after the photograph had been taken. It worked like this: when the shutter release is triggered, “the automatic diaphragm actuating ring revolves and trips the auto-diaphragm “tail” of the lens mount, diaphragm closes down to previously determined aperture, mirror springs up out of the way, Shutter operates, mirror then returns to normal “seeing” position, diaphragm actuating ring revolves again, kicks the pin back into position and reopens diaphragm to maximum aperture” [1].

The instant return mirror, was something Zunow called the “Wink Return”, which supposedly was quiet, or put another way – “quiet it is, silent it is not” [1]. In its marketing material the company suggested that traditional SLRs had issues with mirror return, i.e. there is a shock, and the sound of the shutter is loud. The “wink Return” was suppose to eliminate unpleasant noise and shock with almost no blackout effect. The lever was considered by some to be “heavy”, but the shutter release is “surprising light” [1]. There is a single shutter speed dial, with equally spaced speeds (which few SLRs had), which allowed for the choice of intermediary speeds. Another unique feature is an internal synchro-switch which automatically sets FP or X sync as shutter speeds are changed from fast to slow. The downside is that the camera was heavy at 620g.

_{Fig.2: The minimalistic clean lines of lines of the camera gave it a very aesthetically appealing feel.}

One potential limitation of the camera was its proprietary breech mount, and a range of only six lenses: 35mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.8, 58mm f/1.2, 100mm f/2, 200mm f/4, 400mm f/5.6, and 800mm f/8. Only the lenses 100mm and shorter had auto diaphragms. There were lens mount adapters to allow the use of M42, Exakta and L39 lenses, likely reducing the need to produce an entire range of lenses. Supposedly the lens provided with the camera was the Zunow 58mm f/1.2, which would have been the fastest SLR lens of the period (the only evidence of its existence seem to be the ads in Figure 2).

However in all reality there were issues with the camera. Adding new features to a camera implies that a substantial amount of testing must be performed before mass production commences. It has been suggested that hundreds of cameras were sold, however a lack of quality control meant many were returned [2] (this may be in part because most of the parts were outsourced, with the factory only doing assembly [3]). Other parts of the system, such as other interchangeable viewfinders were also lacking. There were also functional problems with the camera, for example the fully automatic aperture was slow, resulting in incidents of the aperture lagging behind the shutter [2]. Of the cameras existing today apparently few work perfectly [2].

The camera was only sold in Japan, and in total only about 500 were produced (at the rate of 8 cameras per day [1]). In 1959 the speculation was that it would be expensive in the US, as the Zunow + 58mm f/1.2 lens sold for US$300 in Japan. However Zunow was in a poor financial situation and was not able to capitalize on the design, closing the company in 1961. These cameras are now extremely rare. Auctions, where they occur then to suggest prices of around the US$20,000 mark.

Specifications:

Type: 35mm SLR camera
Manufacturer: Zunow (Japan)
Model: Zunowflex
Production period: 1958−1959
Format: 24×36mm on 135 film
Lens mount: breech
Standard lens: 5.8cm f/1.2, 5cm f/1.8
Shutter: focal-plane, single-axis non-rotating dial type
Shutter speeds: 1 to 1/1000 sec., B
Viewfinder: SLR with non-removable pentaprism
Mirror: “Wink return” system
Exposure meter: −
Flash synchronization: FP, X automatic switching
Self-timer: −
Aperture control: Instant opening and closing type built into the body, fully-automatic
Film advance: 180° operation lever wind, prevention of double exposures, automatic frame counter
Weight/dimensions: 615 grams / 144×88×56mm

The controversy over ‘miniature’ cameras

October 21, 2025 / spqr / Leave a comment

In the years following the arrival of the Leica (1926) the process of using it came to be known as ‘miniature photography’. Magazines of the period were full of techniques under the heading ‘miniature camera’, and the term itself would last until the early 1950s (the term was unknown before the Leica). Prior to this it was the age of large format cameras, which is any format larger than 9×12cm with one of the most common being the 10×13cm (4×5″). Probably the smallest format camera prior to 1926 was the Kodak Vest Pocket (VP) camera (1912-1934) which produced an image 2½×1⅝” (6.4×4.1cm) in size. By the early 1930s, photographers had become very miniature camera conscious. Big was out, small was in, but miniature started to evolve beyond 35mm, including any camera which took pictures smaller than 6×6cm (2¼×2¼”).

_{Fig.1: A comparison of ‘miniature’ size formats}

The question is why were formats like 6×6cm included in the definition of miniature? Inevitably, in view of the success of 35mm film cameras like the Leica other cameras began to appear in the category, essentially creating an industry within an industry in which manufacturers vied with one another to produce innovations based on the miniature theme. However in many cases these manufacturers just broadened the category to fit their camera rather than produce anything innovative. By the mid-1930s, there were circa four categories of miniature cameras:

Small roll-film, film-pack or plate cameras, with negatives 2¼×3¼” or smaller that have one lens and a fixed bellows. Cameras included the Zeiss Ikonta (4.5/6/9×6cm), Foth Derby(24×36), Kodak Retina (24×36mm), and Voigtländer Virtus (4.5×6cm).
Rangefinder cameras with a single lens or interchangeable lenses with negative sizes from 24×36mm to 2¼×3¼”. Cameras included the Leitz Leica and Zeiss Contax (24×36mm), Zeiss Super Ikonta (4.5/6×6cm) and Super Nettel (24×36mm).
Single lens reflex cameras, which have a single lens with negatives ranging from 24×36mm to 4×6.5cm. This includes cameras like the Exakta (4×6.5cm), Kine Exakta (24×36mm), National Graflex (6×6.5cm), and Noviflex (6×6cm).
Twin lens reflex cameras which have two lenses, and Cameras included the likes of the Rolleiflex and Rolleicord (6×6cm), Zeiss Ikoflex (6×6cm), Voigtländer Brilliant and Superb (6×6cm), Welta Perfekta (6×6cm). Many of these were limited to a single focal length. Another camera was the Zeiss Contaflex (24×36mm) which had a built-in electric cell exposure meter.

Indeed the March 10th, 1937 issue of The Amateur Photographer & Cinematographer outlines the ‘Modern Miniature Cameras’ available at the time by size [3]: a total of 98 cameras − 24×36mm (20), 24×36mm reflex (2), 3×4cm (15), 3×4cm reflex (1), 4×4cm reflex (1), 4×6.5cm (8), 4×6.5cm reflex (3), 4×6.5cm on 3¼×2¼ film (23), 6×6cm on 3¼×2¼ film (7), 6×6cm reflex (13), and five non-standard.

In late 1936 a heated debate on the topic started in the ‘Letters to the Editor’ section of The Amateur Photographer & Cinematographer. It stemmed from an article in the November 4th 1936 issue titled ‘What is a Miniature Camera?’ [1]. In it the definition of a miniature camera was one which took a picture of 6×6cm (2¼×2¼) or less. However the article also suggested that a camera taking a 4.5×6cm picture on 3½×2½ film (using a mask) could also be classed as a miniature. What followed was a litany of responses. In the Jan.6 1937 issue, one B.Z. Simpson suggested that “the only rationale definition of the miniature camera relates to the area of the negative used which must for the purpose be smaller than the V.P. size negative.” He goes on to say that “cameras using V.P. size… are not miniature at all, but ordinary size cameras.” [2].

Now we have 2¼” square and even 3¼×2¼” users crying out to be allowed within the ‘select circle’. If this matter goes much farther we shall shortly have the man with the half-plate calling himself a miniaturist.
_{Murdoch, J.N., “Letters to the Editor: Miniature Cameras”, The Amateur Photographer & Cinematographer, Jan.13 (1937)}

Some seemed to settle on the idea of 5 square inches being the threshold, which would include 2¼×2¼ (6×6cm) cameras. Other objected to 6×6cm cameras being left out on the principle that the square shape utilizes the maximum area of the circular lens field (never mind that to compare a square image to a 24×36mm you would really be talking about a 36×36mm). Still others seemed to think the concept of miniature could be defined based on the focal length of the normal lens employed, e.g. 5cm for 24×36mm. It seemed that no-one wanted to be left out. The trend would continue until the industry was interrupted by the war, after which it was fundamentally altered.

By the early 1950s, the 6×6 had morphed on into its own category, the medium-format camera, and many of the other formats had disappeared altogether as the world’s photographers embraced 35mm. The miniature category itself contracted back to 35mm, but opened to include many differing types of 35mm. Here are some 35mm camera types from the early 1950s:

Rangefinder cameras with interchangeable lenses − e.g. Canon IV-S2, Zeiss Contax IIa/IIIa, Foca Universal, Leica IIf/IIIf, Nikon
Rangefinder cameras with fixed lenses − e.g. Argus C4, Kodak Retina IIa, Voigtländer Vitessa
Rangefinder cameras with fixed lenses + separate film-shutter wind − e.g. Zeiss Ikon Contessa 35, Konica I/II, Voigtländer Vito III.
Viewfinder cameras with fixed lenses + separate film-shutter wind − e.g. Argus A4, Zeiss Ikon Contina, Welta Welti, Kodak Retinette, King Regula I/II, Braun Paxette
Rapid sequence cameras − e.g. Robot Star
Reflex cameras, waist-level − e.g. Alpa 4, Exa, Exakta VX, Praktiflex FX, Praktica FX
Reflex cameras, eye-level − e.g. Alpa 5/6, Contax S/D, Rectaflex

Are pre-war cameras reliable for practical use?

September 27, 2025September 27, 2025 / spqr / Leave a comment

Cameras from the 1930s, especially early SLRs and Leica-type rangefinders may be some of the most sought after ones, but are they worth buying? Well perhaps if they are to used solely as part of a collection, because many may be too old for practical use.

Many of the cameras from this period, be they Leica’s, Contax’s or Exakta’s, are old – now anywhere from 85-95 years old. Although they were mostly handcrafted using solid materials, it’s crazy to think that their lifespan was expected to be 30 years, let along 90. For example the Kine Exakta was a huge design advance when it was introduced in 1936, but these SLRs are seldom that useful today. There is no guarantee that the cloth shutter has held up well to the many decades of use, and in all likelihood decades of little use. The machinery inside each camera, much like a classic mechanical watch, has likely been subjected to wear and tear, and infiltration of dust. Even if the shutter appears to work, there is no assurance that the shutter speeds will at all be accurate. A shutter typically relies on a complex system of gears, springs, curtains, and ribbons. Friction and lubrication are critical for accurate speeds, especially at faster shutter speeds. If not properly maintained, the shutter speeds can become inconsistent. Old cameras were extremely complex, and complexity never ages well.

_{Fig.1: The shutter mechanism of a post-war Exakta VX, very similar to the original, and suffered from the same issues. In fact Ihagee never stopped using cloth shutters. (This picture comes from the website http://www.zorkikat.com, archived on WayBackMachine)}

Personally, I think that buying a pre-war SLR should be regarded as being something of a lottery. Whereas it might have been easy to find someone to repair these cameras in the 1990s, this has become much harder. Parts are also hard to find, and often require a “donor” camera, but these cameras are old as well. I would suggest if you really want to buy one to use, that you also find a cheap “for parts” camera, although replacing a shutter curtain will require more than an “old” donor (cloth shutter curtains will degrade even in perfect storage conditions). And repairs won’t be cheap. An alternative might be buying old cameras from a very reputable store that deals in old cameras, and has vetted and possibly serviced the camera. Yes, it will be more expensive, however the hassle and cost of repairs may be even more.

*_{Fig.2: Pros and cons of the pre-war Kine Exakta}*

There are of course different “levels” of repairs. Shutter speeds that all test as working, but may be slow, with the worn mechanisms that cause the shutter curtain to stick, or operate at incorrect speeds. There may also be dusty viewfinders, dirty mirrors, and general aging of parts. Cloth shutter curtains may also have pinhole perforations or even tears, leading to light leaks. The shutter curtains of many of these early cameras were also controlled using silk ribbons, which are also prone to wear and tear over time. Shutter issues are more challenging to repair, because it is time consuming to strip a camera back to get at the shutter mechanism. Bottom-line, repairs are labour intensive and hence expensive.

Of course the war years may be even more dubious. Although cameras were produced in smaller amounts, there were caveats to this period. Firstly, shortages of raw materials, and in some cases of appropriately skilled technicians meant that cameras could have been produced below the standard of pre-war years. There was also a distinct lack of parts, so fixes to cameras were often made on an ad hoc basis.

*_{Fig.3: Pros and cons of the pre-war Contax}*

Reliable may be a questionable adjective when it comes to old things, especially old mechanical things. A camera can sit in its original box for 90 years, never opened and still age. It may be that even a “mint” condition camera will work for a few rolls of film and then stop dead in its tracks. Ivor Matanle, in his 1986 book Collecting and Using Classic Cameras, said this of pre-war Exaktas: ‘The pre-war Exaktas are attractive, but are now old and usually less reliable – a fact that is hardly surprising, in view of their complexity.’. If someone were interested in vintage cameras for practical use, I would steer the towards post-war cameras, and then in reality to those of the late 1950s, and 1960s – the quality is likely better, and they are a bit younger. If you buy a pre-war camera for use, then you have to live with the notion that at some point it may just become something to look at.

Vintage SLR cameras – the Alsaflex, a French SLR

February 19, 2025July 6, 2025 / spqr / Leave a comment

This is a story of another camera that could have been quite successful, but unfortunately didn’t make it past the initial batch of cameras. Alsaphot was the photographic department of a French company called Alsetex, and produced cameras from 1949 to 1970. Using a brand logo which incorporated an Alsatian stork, the company produced a broad range of cameras. This included the Dauphin I, II and III, small 6×6 reflex cameras in the style of the Voigtländer Brilliant and the Cima (4×6), Ajax (6×6), and D’Assas (6×6) viewfindser cameras.

In 1947 the company hired French inventor Lucien Dodin (1900-1989) as technical director. Dodin designed two cameras, the Cyclops, and Alsaflex. The Cyclops, which appeared in 1950 was a 6×9cm format camera. Dodin’s claim to fame was the design of the “stigmometer”, or Dodin telemeter, more commonly known as the split-image rangefinder, something found in many SLRs.

*Fig.1: The aesthetically pleasing Alsaflex*

The Alsaflex was an SLR camera which used the 24×24mm format on 35mm film, and incorporated Dodin’s stigmometer. The viewfinder was reduced in size by using lateral reflection, the retractable mirror pivoting around a vertical axis – essentially a Porro prism. The camera was innovative because it was quite compact for an SLR. It sported a bayonet mount with interchangeable lenses, with a Saphir Boyer 40mm f/3.5 (with automatic aperture selection) as the standard lens. The shutter was of a new design, made of metal and in the shape of a fan, with speeds from 1 to 1/2400 sec. The body of the camera was die-cast (150mm×70mm×42mm) with a back that could open to accommodate carious accessories. The camera has a rapid lever actuation which causes the film to advance, the mirror and the frame counter to be set up, and the shutter to cock in a single movement. When activated during shutter release, the mirror retracts without vibration.

*Fig.2: Advertising the camera that never really made it big*

A second variant, the Dudragne is a special, much simpler model of the Alsaflex, without a horizontal viewfinder eyepiece, X-sync and 1/100 speeds, and made to be used with a retinograph (instrument for examining the retina of the eye) made by Dudragne. Interestingly, the license for the viewfinder using the Porro prism would be taken over in 1963 by Olympus for the Pen F series. The camera appeared in advertising in early 1950, suggesting it would be released in May 1950, but in reality it would be 1952, and very few would be produced. It was advertised as having an “optically coupled rangefinder independent of the focal length of the lens”.

Alsaphot itself declined in the 1960s with the rise of both German and Japanese imports. In 1954 the Alsaflex with a Saphir Boyer 50mm f/2.8 was advertised for 138,000 Frs or about C$384 [1]. When the occasional camera go on sale, the price is generally in the range of €3000-5000.

In January 1954, 1 Canadian $ equals about 360 Old French Francs.

Vintage SLR cameras – The mythical Malik Reflex

February 10, 2025July 6, 2025 / spqr / Leave a comment

Some cameras were designed to be rare. They were often prototypes, or cameras that were just made in small quantities that very rarely come on the market. Such is the SLR produced by French company Malik. Malik was a company who produced included projectors, enlargers, a 9×12 camera (pre-WW2) and tripods, all made in France. Pierre Couffin was the sister company which was a distributor of cameras, like the Robot, and Leidox. Both were founded by Ets Pierre Couffin.

*Fig.1: Some of the advertising for Malik and the Malik Reflex*

The Reflex Zoomalik was presented at Photokina in 1960. It was an SLR that came standard with a zoom lens, which was unusual for the time period. It was a 35-75mm f/2.8 (preset, 16 elements, although some reports note 14 or even 17). The literature seems to talk more about the lens than the camera – the fact that it is “only 75mm in length for a diameter of 55mm, hardly larger than a classic 90mm lens”. Changing the focal length on the lens was done by means of a large side wheel. The camera had a series of features: focal-plane shutter, five speeds (1/30, 1/60, 1/120, 1/250, and 1/500), crank rewind, removable rear, die-cast metal body. One curious feature was that the film-winding lever was in the front of the camera, which did not allow fast wind-on using the thumb. It was a well advertised camera, appearing in numerous industry magazines, and even a journal, The French Review [1].

*Fig.2: Some of the few pictures of the camera*

A press release in L’Express (June 16, 1960) suggested it would be the first SLR manufactured in France. It also said the camera was design in consultation with American company Bell & Howell of which Couffin was the French agent. It was suggested the camera would be provide serious competition for the Bessamatic from Voigtlander.

Modern Photography described the camera in the following way [2]:

The picture of the camera is an excellent example of French retouching and airbrush work. Production? By the time you are reading this, Maliks should be flowing from the production line like champagne. At the price of $200 for camera and lens, it’s a bargain even if the camera is never made.

But it was only ever produced as a pilot series, and abandoned before production began. It’s hard to know why it fell apart, possibly because the company had little experience in actual producing cameras (other Malik cameras, like the Malik, Auto Malik, and Super Auto Malik were manufactured by German company Leidorf). Or perhaps the idea of a zoom lens as the main lens of a camera was just too radical for the time – the Zoomar 36-82mm had only appeared in 1959, and many photographers were still sceptical. Likely it was a combination of events, not least of which would have been increased competition from Japanese camera companies.

Further reading:

“Smallest-Best of its Type”, The French Review, 34(5) p.513 (Apr. 1961)
“The French Touch”, Modern Photography, 24(9) pp.18,28 (1960)
Couffin – Malik – Appareils photo

Tips for inspecting vintage SLR cameras

December 26, 2024 / spqr / Leave a comment

Examining vintage cameras is a little bit trickier than lenses, largely because of the variability found in camera bodies. For example there are rangefinders, SLRs, and compacts, some with interchangeable lenses, other with fixed lenses. Below is a list of things to look for. Ultimately a vintage camera can only really be tested by running a couple of films through it. Some online resellers do this, especially if the camera has some value.

① Overall appearance

Start with what the camera looks like. Are there any indicators of DIY repairs, glue or tape residue? Then check the camera body for major dents and dings. These will stand out on vintage camera bodies as many were made of metal. Visible dents are likely are indication that the camera has been dropped, and potentially damaged things inside. The presence of small dings, dents, and scratches are probably just signs of normal use. Vintage camera bodies were often covered with a leatherette, so it is good to check if it is lifting from the camera body. This is more of a cosmetic issue, and is relatively easy to either re-glue, or replace. If the exterior of the camera is grimy, or has green corrosion, there may be further issues inside, indicative of improper storage.

*Fig.1: Some red flags on damaged cameras (if they are cheap, they may be fine for parts)*

If you are physically examining the camera, as opposed to buying it online, then I would also give the camera a good smell. If it has any sort of musty smell, then it might indicate it was stored somewhere with less than optimal conditions, e.g. an attic or basement. This might be indicative of problems inside the camera that you can’t see – avoid it.

② Functionality

The first thing to check is that there isn’t anything missing from the camera, e.g. buttons, levers, etc, and that there isn’t anything broken, e.g. film advance lever. Check that the external controls (shutter speed selector, aperture selector, ISO selector, etc.) all work properly. Does the film advance lever or knob work? Is it smooth? It should be possible to engage the film advance lever, and then fire off the shutter – there shouldn’t be any weird noises, or lagging when the lever is engaged. Also make sure the film counter is advancing with every frame advance. It is often suggested not to touch the self-timer on old mechanical cameras, as they can be problematic.

*Fig.2: Some of the things to consider on a fully manual camera (no light meter, or battery)*

③ Camera optics

This refers to the viewfinder and focusing screen. The viewfinder should be clear, not cloudy, and not infected by fungus. A small bit of dust isn’t going to be a bother, because it won’t show up on any photographs, but scratches and cloudiness may interfere with focusing. Also do a visual check of the mirror. Some mirrors can have scratches, corrosion, fungus, or even de-silver over time. Mirrors can also get stuck when the shutter is released, and not return to the proper position. In cameras with batteries, mirror lock-up can occur because of no battery (or it has a low charge), where the mirror remains in the locked position once the shutter is fired.

④ Shutter

Check the physical condition of the shutter, e.g. tears, creases, pinholes, or mould/degradation (cloth), or dents (metal). Does the shutter work? Press the shutter button – can you hear the shutter open and close? Look through the lens (on a fixed lens), through the front camera opening, or via the open back of the camera to watch the shutter open and close. Sometimes a camera might have fairly accurate high speeds, but not actually fire on speeds slower than 1/125s. The shutter speed is one of the most critical components of a vintage camera body, and honestly the hardest to test without proper equipment. The best way in-situ might be to test the camera side-by-side with a camera known to be accurate. There are distinct differences in sound from a fast (1/1000) to slow (1/30) speed. Very few places have the equipment to accurately test a cameras shutter speeds.

*Fig.3: Examples of types of shutter curtain damage*

⑤ Light seals

Older cameras have light seals that fail – the foam strips across the back of the camera with the film door is opened. They often aren’t apparent until a film is run through the camera. They are honestly one of the easier things to repair, so it is not a big issue.

⑥ Light meters

If the camera has a light meter, make sure it is working. There are a wide variety of exposure meters fitted to vintage cameras, from simple uncoupled ones that just measure the amount of light to complex systems which set the exposure on the camera automatically. If the meter is not functioning, the camera can often still be used in manual mode using an external light meter and transferring the settings to the camera. Typically selenium cell meters are the most common inoperable meter – they don’t need a battery to operate, however the selenium does delete over time (note that cameras with meters that have not been exposed to light may still function well).

Many of the uncoupled light meters are recognizable as a light cell on the camera body, and a meter (typically on the top plate). The best way to check these is to test how the meter responds to light – point it at dark and light areas, and compare the readings. Does the meter needle move when the light level changes? If not then check the battery if there is one. Online, many resellers will describe the light meter as not being tested. As long as you are comfortable not using a light meter, it shouldn’t matter.

⑦ Batteries

This is the one thing people tend to forget about. If there is no battery, then the camera is much simpler, and there is much less to go wrong. Firstly see if there is any damage to the battery compartment, e.g. corrosion, caused by leaking batteries. Ideally the camera will contain a battery already (if it doesn’t have one it can be a red-flag, because it makes it harder to test the camera). It is also good to check the type of battery. Is it still possible to get the required battery? For example many old cameras used mercury oxide batteries, such as the PX13 and PX625, for their CdS (cadmium sulfide) metering systems. Mercuric oxide batteries provide a constant and stable 1.35 volts over most of their life. However they were outlawed in many places in the 1980s and so an alternative has to be found (which isn’t as problematic as it may sound). If there are markings on the compartment door (or it is hard to open), or there is green/white build-up in the compartment itself, this might indicate the camera suffered from battery leakage at some point.

Note: Many cameras with serious maladies are usually sold for parts only or repairs. Given that the cost of many repairs these days is prohibitive, e.g. changing a shutter curtain or fixing shutter speeds, it is best to avoid damaged cameras.

Vintage cameras – The porro prism

October 10, 2024January 28, 2025 / spqr / Leave a comment

While the pentaprism is well known, the mainstay of 35mm SLR cameras, the use of the porro prism is less so. The porro prism was invented in 1854, by Italian inventor Ignazio Porro (1801-1875). Its simplest form had one lens, where the image is inverted in the plane in which reflection takes place, but, as there are two reflections, there is no reversion. However porro prisms are never used singly, they are more commonly used in pairs – a double Porro prism, with the second prism being rotated 90° with respect to the first. The effect of this double-prism is an image which is rotated 180°.

The double Porro prism is commonly used in binoculars, which manifests itself in the distinctive offset zig-zag shape of the binoculars. It has also been used in the construction of terrestrial telescopes since the second half of the 19th century. The greatest difference between a Porro prism and a regular pentaprism is that it bends light 90° in one reflection, whereas a pentaprism uses two reflections to bend light through the same angle.

*Fig.2: The effect of a Porro-prism in a camera*

In the 1930’s Zeiss Ikon had been working on a 35mm SLR camera with a straight-view viewfinder, and a true laterally correct image, roughly at the same time as work on the Syntax camera. On September 8, 1938, a German patent application was made, the existence of which can only be concluded with the help of a note in a Swiss patent, No. CH214,918 submitted on August 1939. It described a prism finder system, and from the drawings it is evident that one of the two prisms in the system was formed from a rectangular half-cube – the porro prism.

*Fig.3: The early Zeiss porro-prism system*

There are however some issues with the use of the prism in an SLR. It is somewhat undesirable if there is a long path for the light to travel between the focusing screen and the eyepiece. Naturally a telescope has a long focal length, and a narrow image angle-of-view (AOV), the exact opposite of an SLR viewfinder. What is wanted in an SLR viewfinder is an image with the highest possible magnification – the long light paths of the Porro system only allows a small magnification on the screen image. The viewfinder might then produce small, somewhat dark images. Porro prisms have therefore never really become established in camera construction.

The first production camera to use the Porro prism may have been the Duflex (DUlovits reFLEX), primarily because at the time the use of a pentaprism was deemed too expensive (the camera came to market in 1949). The most well known camera however is the Olympus PEN F, half-frame camera (and the Olympus E-300 digital camera, 2005). The path of light for the Olympus PEN is shown in Figure 4. Light enters through the lens, and is reflected to the left via the quick return mirror (A). The light is reflected upward by the prism (B), is turned to the right by the upper (semi-transparent) mirror (C), and passes through the three-piece eye lens for magnifying the image (D) (0.8×) before it is reflected backward by the eye prism (E), and reaches the photographers eyes.

*Fig.4: The Olympus PEN porro-prism system*

The camera had some of the same issues as cited above. A test report of the Olympus PEN FT, in Camera magazine in Oct/Nov 1967 concluded the following: “…bending the light as it does around four corners and through several lenses, does present a bit of a problem to the viewer – light is lost to the metering system and this makes for a slightly dim image at the operator’s end.”. There is a reason for this – as the light comes from the first prism and strikes the mirror, a certain amount of the light is absorbed by the “light acceptor” which is subsequently read by the meter and translated to the TTL number.

Note: The Porro prism from the Zeiss Ikon patent also exists in the US system, published as an Alien Property Custodian on May 4, 1943. It seems that a patent was applied for on November 16, 1939 under the title “View Finders”, with the author being Heinz Küppenbender.

Choosing a vintage SLR camera – buying FAQ

September 11, 2024 / spqr / Leave a comment

This FAQ deals more with the purchasing side of things of SLR cameras.

What is the average price of a vintage SLR?

There is no such thing. See below.

What sort of things impact price?

The cost of a vintage SLR is directly associated with a number of differing things. Firstly things like brand and rarity. Rare cameras cost a lot, sometimes it doesn’t even matter that their condition is somewhat mediocre. Next there is the brand, specific type, year of manufacture, condition, i.e. what works, and what doesn’t, and of course the spec of the lens attached to the camera. Some cameras will sell just as bodies, and others will be coupled together with a lens of some sort – it might be the stock lens the camera camera with, or perhaps something similar.

Why are some cameras so expensive?

Some cameras are expensive, either because the camera is rare, or has some attribute that makes it more expensive, or a review by someone with a lot of followers has pushed prices up. It also depends on the condition of a camera, those in pristine condition will have a greater value associated with them.

Are prices sometimes overinflated?

Basically yes. Sometimes this is due to someone’s belief that a camera (or lens) is worth far more than it actually is. Sometimes it is because of availability – there may have been 10,000 copies of a camera manufactured, but if only two are currently available on the market, it will invariably push up the price. Desirability also helps over-inflate prices.

Is price equitable with value?

Not always. Someone might advertise a camera for $4000, even though it’s value may only be $2500 – this may be related to availability (or possibly the camera is just overpriced).

This is an extremely inexpensive manual SLR, usually around $100-250 (with lens). It has three different designations, for the markets it was sold in: SRT102 (North America), SRT330 (Europe), and SRT Super (Asia)

What is the cheapest SLR?

There are quite a few cheap SLRs on the market. For example Asahi Pentax sold over 4 million Spotmatic cameras between 1960 and 1977 – a Spotmatic SP1000 can go as cheap as C$150, whereas a Spotmatic F might go for C$350. Generally lesser-known brands are always less expensive, e.g. Konica, Miranda, Yashica.

Is the market for vintage cameras the same as that for vintage lenses?

No, largely because there is one end-user for cameras, and two for lenses. Lenses will be bought by people who (i) want to use them on a film camera, or (ii) want to use them on a digital camera. Photographers purchasing vintage cameras will only use them for film, and may only purchase one or two film cameras (useless they have GAP), whereas lens purchasers may buy many.

Should I take a risk on a cheap camera?

Sometimes there are sellers who are selling a camera without knowing what they have, usually because it was part of an estate, and not something they normally deal with. If the item is cheap enough, there is likely very little risk, but if it seems too expensive (or seems to have excessive shipping), avoid it. This is especially true if the item is marked “rare”.

How do you know a camera will be in good condition?

You don’t, unless you buy it from a reputable dealer. Someone who has been dealing in vintage photographic equipment for a long time, and sells a good amount of it will provide a good insight into a particular camera body, including providing a quality rating. Otherwise, without a full evaluation it is difficult to know exactly how well a camera will function. For example, unless shutter speeds are tested, there is no way to properly determine that they function accurately. The word “functioning” is pretty vague if there aren’t any qualifying statements. It could just mean the person has played with all the knobs and levers, and they work. Whether the shutter speeds are accurate is another thing altogether.

Are there red-flags for purchasing cameras online?

Yes – if a listing somewhere only has 1-2 images, and offers no real description, then stay well clear – unless of course it is a $500 camera selling for $20, and even then you have to wonder if there is anything wrong with it.

Is eBay any good?

Like anything, it really depends on the seller. Some sell only camera gear, and have been doing it for a while, or have a physical shop and use eBay as their storefront. Always check the resellers ratings, and review comments.

There are a lot of vintage cameras available on eBay from Japan – are they trustworthy?

In most circumstances yes. There are a lot of physical camera stores in Japan, so its no surprise that there are a lot of online stores. Japanese resellers are amongst the best around, because nearly all of them rate every aspect of a camera, cosmetic and functional. If something seems like a bargain it is likely because there are a lot of vintage cameras in Japan.

What should camera ratings include?

If we take the example of Japanese resellers, there are normally four categories: overall condition, appearance, optics, and functionality (body and lens). Appearance deals with aesthetics of the lens, and indicates any defects present on the lens body, e.g. scratches or scuffs. Optics deals with the presence of absence of optical issues: haze, fungus, balsam separation, scratches, dust. Finally functionality deals with the operation of the lens, and camera (e.g. shutter speeds).

What does “untested” mean?

If a posting is marked as untested, it basically means exactly that, you are buying the camera “as is”. There is usually some basic information on condition, but the camera functions haven’t been tested in any manner, i.e. shutter speeds, or with film. If a camera is marked as “parts-only”, it means exactly that, i.e. it does not function properly.