Vintage SLR cameras − Was the Pentina the worst East German SLR design?

August 28, 2026August 28, 2026 / spqr / Leave a comment

John Courtis in his book “Bluff you way in Photography” (1993) suggested that the worst camera to come out of East Germany was the Pentina. Or to put it in his words: “To find out why, ask a camera repairer. They won’t touch them now, and wouldn’t even when contemporary spares were available. It also had a non-standard lens mount and looked chunky at a time when everyone else was trying not to.”

Appearing at the 1960 spring trade fair, the camera was produced for a very short period from early 1961 to early 1965, as four variants. It was a legacy of Zeiss-Ikon, made by VEB Kamera-und-Kinowerke Dresden which would morph into VEB Pentacon in 1964. Of course the goal of these state companies was not really to produce the best cameras, but to produce cameras that would generate income. The communists felt they could produce cameras which rivalled those of the West, but a lot cheaper. The cameras produced were good, but although the state owned companies had the talent, they were often constrained by limited financial resources and low-quality materials.

The Pentina seemed like a step forward, but its Achilles’ heel lay in its overcomplicated design. It had a minimalist, rectangular design and was a very strange camera. By looking at it you wouldn’t have thought it was an SLR, but that’s exactly what it was, with the pentaprism hidden inside the flat top. It also sported a leaf shutter which was quite an unusual coming from the Dresden camera industry which had always used focal plane shutters exclusively − the Carl Zeiss Foundation basically had a monopoly on leaf shutters by the 1930s, but both Deckel and Gauthier were situated in West Germany, making it more difficult to obtain leaf shutters in Dresden. Why did Dresden follow the path of a leaf-shutter? Possibly because of the Contaflex, the successful leaf-shutter camera being produced by Zeiss-Ikon Stuttgart. But the West Germans loved leaf-shutters, probably to the point of distraction as they shunned the rise of the focal-plane shutter.

“Without a doubt the Pentina is the neatest, cleanest design for a SLR that can be found anywhere. There isn’t even a slight prism hump on the body… There are no protrusions anywhere and no gobs of chrome. The Pentina also incorporates a number of different features which mark it as a camera which was engineered from scratch. The camera performed faultlessly throughout the entire test period!”
Modern Photography Test Report.

Lacking access to West German shutters, Zeiss-Ikon Dresden developed the Prestor-00 reflex leaf-shutter, capable of enabling flash synchronization across all shutter speeds. But this shutter was an expensive choice which meant that the camera was not affordable for the average East-German worker (some estimates put the price at 790DM in 1961).

*_{Fig.2: Most of the controls were on the underside of the camera. Considering many of these were only needed once during the use of a roll of film, was this a valid idea?}*

Designed by Jürgen Peters, the camera was very aesthetically pleasing, with very clean lines, and minimalistic, hiding the rewind knobs and other controls on the underside of the camera. Even the rapid advance lever was integrated into the body to the left of the viewfinder prism, and was almost flush with the camera, hidden inside its rectangular body with only the grip protruding [6].

The body was probably not designed from the aesthetic perspective but rather to reduce the fragmented appearance of SLRs, creating what a streamlined modern SLR should be. This can be seen in the 1959 utility patent from VEB Feinmess Dresden [3]. A further utility patent [4] shows how the viewfinder, pentaprism, meter, and mechanical components are integrated into the frame of the camera. This process was described by Claus Prochnow as “Design der Ingenieure” or “Engineer’s design”, related to the evolution of the Rolleiflex in the 1930s, the basic idea being that with the external form dictating the internal construction. The fundamental idea of German cameras was to build a camera which was easy to disassemble and repair: an inner housing with the mechanical accoutrements surrounded by a outer housing. But for the Pentina this was deemed to be too expensive, so it was just closed in with sheet metal components around a frame.

*_{Fig.3: The Pentina had a myriad of patents associated with it.}*

However the users needs were different to the designers. Many users didn’t exactly care if the camera was minimalistic, in fact they may have shunned it for the shear lack of visible controls, and “non-standard” features. One of the issues was the use of selenium cells in light meters, which were viewed negatively, especially since by 1962 the Minolta SR-7 introduced a CdS light meter. The Pentina had a primitive light meter coupled to the shutter speed and aperture, however it could only be viewed from the top of the camera, not through the viewfinder. There was a solution, in patent form anyway [5], however it never seems to have been implemented.

There were however, a slew of issues with the camera:

No instant return mirror − The shutter had to be cocked so the mirror would return to the viewing position.
Unorthodox controls − Both shutter speed and aperture controls are on the camera body, i.e. the aperture is in the lens, but the means of controlling it are on the body.
Controls on the underside − The bottom of the camera houses the rewind knob, the ASA dial for the meter, a tripod socket, a rewind release button, and a film type reminder dial.
Too few lenses − The camera had a breech-lock bayonet mount, but only four lenses were available for it (30/50/85/135mm).
No long telephoto lenses − The behind-the-lens leaf shutter limited lens selection to a maximum focal length of 135mm.
Difficulty in servicing − The design made accessing the inner workings of the camera challenging. The camera had a one-piece chromium finished aluminum frame. According to one source there were camera mechanics who, out of sheer desperation at the difficulty of disassembling this sheet metal frame, simply cut it in half at the bottom [1].
Modern aesthetic − A failure to be recognized as a full SLR.

With all these apparent issues, the camera could really be described as somewhat half-finished, rushed out in an attempt to meet the need for hard Western currency. In reality it was no better a camera than the Werra V, another minimalistic camera which did offer an exposure meter which was visible in the viewfinder. Only approximately 45,000 units were produced, compared to half a million units of the Werra. The Pentina was, in the words of Kampermann on the Dutch blog Vintage-Photo, the result of “…megalomania, building something that had never been built before, extravagant in design and over-complicated in technical innovation” [2].

The Pentina was ultimately a flop in Western markets. The camera may have been touted as “world class” within East Germany, but this was not the case in the West. It was a complex design, which likely was not cheap to produce. When Western sales collapsed, the remaining cameras had to sold within East Germany, and even with a discount that was a struggle. The Pentina arrived at a time of upheaval in the German camera industry, with increased dominance of Japanese cameras brimming with new technology offered mass-produced cameras at a better price point, with exceptional service.

Notes:

Although the Pentina camera from VEB Kamera-und-Kinowerke Dresden, the patents are actually from VEB Feinmess Dresden which was not a part of VEB Kamera-und-Kinowerke.
The design was copied by Nikon, creating the Auto35, which was also not successful.

Further reading:

Heinz Schrauf, “Pentina – Sein oder Nicht-Design?”, Photo Deal, IV, pp.8-13 (2000)
“The Psychedelic Pentina”, Kampermann (March 23, 2023)
VEB Feinmess Dresden, (DE1.815.672) “Kamera” (Oct.12, 1959) Same as AT217.852.
VEB Feinmess Dresden, (DE1.817.705) “Fotografische Spiegelreflex-Kamera” (Nov.19, 1959)
Ziegler, H., Daeche, H-J., (DD24511) “Spiegelreflex-Suchereinruchtung mit eingespiegelten Einstellwerten” (Mar.17, 1959)
VEB Feinmess Dresden, (DE1.814.619) “Schnellaufzugseinrichtung für photographische Kameras” (Oct.10, 1959)
ZeissIkonVEB https://zeissikonveb.de/start/kameras/pentina-1.html

Why do people like pre-1970s cameras?

April 27, 2026 / 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.

Vintage SLR cameras – the Mecaflex

December 9, 2025 / spqr / Leave a comment

The Mecaflex is a 35mm SLR made by German designer Heinz Kilfitt, who is better known for having designed the successful Robot camera, and high precision lenses such as the Macro Kilar, and Voigtländer Zoomar (the first 35mm zoom lens). Presented at Photokina in 1951, it was first sold in 1953, they were manufactured for Kilfitt by Metz Apparatefabrik located in Fürth, Bavaria (West Germany). Production by Metz continued until 1958 but few units were actually built. Metz, dissatisfied with the collaboration withdrew from the partnership shortly afterwards. Production then shifted to Société d’Etude et Recherche Optique et Acoustique (S.E.R.O.A.) a camera maker in Monaco. This camera is better known as the Kilfitt Mecaflex, with the lenses also produced by Kilfitt.

It was a very aesthetically pleasing and compact camera at 9×6.5×6.5cm. However it was quite heavy at 700g. It had a flip-top cover which gave it very clean lines when closed. When opened to 90 degrees, the cover revealed the waist-level viewfinder and top-plate controls. The size of its exposures was a smaller 24×24mm, providing for more images on a film roll (some 50). One of interesting features was an early spring-loaded diaphragm. When the shutter and spring-loaded diaphragm mechanism of the Mecaflex are cocked, a bright, parallax-free ground-glass image appears, and this remains bright until the shutter is released. A push-up finder was also provided as an accessory. which could be inserted into the viewfinder

Like many other West German cameras, it too incorporated a Prontor behind-the-lens leaf shutter with speeds of 1 to 1/300s (+B). The camera had a bayonet mount, and used lenses designed by Kilfitt, and it was usually paired with a Kilar 40mm f/3.5 or f/2.8. The other lenses were the 40mm Makro-Kilar’s and Tele-Kilar 105mm f/4.5. Some additional lenses were made under license by SOM Berthiot (Paris). The camera was produced until 1958. It is possible to still find these for around C$1300-2000.

Specifications:

Type: 35mm SLR camera
Manufacturer: Metz (West Germany) ver.1, Kilfitt ver.2
Model: Mecaflex
Production period: 1953−1958
Format: 24×24mm on 135 film
Lens mount: bayonet
Standard lens: Kilar 40mm f/3.5
Shutter: leaf-shutter, Prontor-Reflex behind-the-lens
Shutter speeds: 1 to 1/300 sec., B (1 to 1/250s, B in the SEROA camera)
Viewfinder: waist-level viewfinder + central split-image rangefinder
Mirror: yes
Exposure meter: −
Flash synchronization: X, M
Self-timer: −
Aperture control: −
Film advance: lever wind
Weight/dimensions: 700 grams / 900×650×650mm

What was the worst SLR?

August 25, 2025 / spqr / Leave a comment

Some people collect what others would consider to be the most horrendous cameras. But what are considered the worst? A camera can obviously be bad for any number of reasons. It might be unreliable, ugly, lack usability, too heavy, too light, crappy lenses or useless without batteries. Some were too complex, and challenging at the best of times. Others had that one feature that just didn’t work well, condemning a perfectly good camera. Incorporating a proprietary lens mount that nobody else used, or only offering half a dozen lenses also condemned a camera. But while a whole slew of cameras might fit the criteria, it is hard to list them because of subjective opinion. If a camera only lasted in a catalogue for one year, then in all likelihood even the manufacturer thought ill of it.

The only place that didn’t produce any bad cameras (or any good ones for that matter) was the Southern Hemisphere, where arguably very few cameras were ever made. The Japanese on the whole produced good cameras, with a few exceptions. One is a camera made by Japanese company Tokiwa Seiki K.K., which operated in the 1950s. There were a lot of start-up camera manufacturers during this period, all trying to cash in on the market… not all were successful at what they produced. They produced a number of 120, and a few 35mm SLRs, one of which was the Firstflex 35 (or any one of Soligor-35, Windsorflex-35 and Lafayette-35). Produced in 1955 it was a leaf-shutter SLR with a waist-level viewfinder and specialized bayonet mount. The second version of the camera (1958), had a pentaprism viewfinder and Exakta lens mount, but it had a shutter that doubled as a mirror, and only two speeds, 1/125s and B. Hardly at all useful. Its successor, the PLUSflex-35 added 1/60s.

*The Firstflex 35 and Pentina cameras − not exactly ugly, but suffering from design flaws.*

On the German side there is the Pentina, made by VEB Kamera- und Kinowerke Dresden in the 1960s. This camera used a leaf shutter which was a departure from the usual focal-plane shutter used in East Germany, and likely somewhat of a backwards step as East Germany lost its ability to produce high-end leaf shutters after the war (both companies of the leaf-shutter monopoly, Deckel and Gauthier were situated in West Germany), meaning they had to reinvent the technology. But the camera had a non-standard bayonet mount, a meagre choice of four lenses, and was extremely chunky looking as the designers had opted for ‘clean design’ with the camera enclosing the pentaprism, rather than exposing it with a roof-shaped top. According to various sources this camera could be summed up by the fact that they were hated by repairmen. The Pentina was, in the words of Kampermann on the Dutch blog Vintage-Photo, the result of ‘...megalomania, building something that had never been built before, extravagant in design and over-complicated in technical innovation’. The Pentina may have been the most extraordinary design of an SLR of the period, but its eccentric design may have lead to its short production period, with only 45,000 units were built between 1961 and 1965 with as many as seven variants.

Note that identifying the ‘worst’ SLR is a very individualistic endeavour. One person’s Dali is another ones Monet, so to speak.

Vintage SLR cameras – the alternate mirror system of the Konica Domirex

June 9, 2025July 6, 2025 / spqr / Leave a comment

The Konica Domirex was a prototype SLR camera which made its debut at Photokina in 1963. It had a very unique mirror mechanism, that effectively eliminated the need for the mirror to flip-up when the shutter release was triggered. The Domirex was a fixed-lens SLR with a 4-speed Seiko leaf shutter, and a Hexanon 57mm f/2.4 lens (but it actually looked like a rangefinder camera). The camera was described in US patent US3274912A, ‘Single-Lens Reflex Camera’, (1966, submitted 1962).

The concept was based on the idea of a beam-splitter reflex (BSR) which appeared in the mid 1960s [1]. Unlike an SLR which uses a mirror to reflect incoming light from the lens up through a pentaprism or waist-level viewfinder, the BSR deflects only a small portion of the light up through the viewfinder, with the remainder continuing on to the image plane. This was by no means a new concept, a similar idea had been used for a number of years in 16mm cine cameras – Bolex-REX and Arriflex 16.

In the case of the Domirex it works in the following manner. Between the lens elements is a small optical block containing two small “asterisk-shaped” semi-reflective silvered surfaces, placed in the path of the light rays. These “mirrors” are fixed and inclined at 45° (these are off-axis, one to the left and one to the right), and carefully positioned so not as to cause issues with the exposed image. They send a portion of light from the lens to the roof prism, while the remaining light continues its trajectory towards the film. The roof prism takes up less space in the top of the housing but protrudes slightly towards the front, covering the upper part of the optical block. The camera also had both horizontal and vertical split-image rangefinders for focusing, and did not use ground-glass for focusing (which might have hindered the minimal amount of light passing through the viewfinder).

*Fig.2: The beam-split reflex mechanism of the Domirex*

Norman Rothschild reviewed the prototype in 1965 in Popular Photography [2]. The first thing he noted was “the one thing you’d expect to hear, is absolutely missing”, of course he is referring to the sound of the mirror. This design has the distinct advantage of not needing a large mirror that has to flip up in order for the light to pass through to the image plane during exposure. A large mirror causes mirror-black out, even if only for an instant, vibration, and of course noise. Get rid of the moving mirror, and there is no black-out, no vibration, and very little noise.

There were of course some inherent downsides to the design. As only a small amount of light is sent to the viewfinder, the viewfinder image would be much darker, than when 100% of light is reflected by means of a mirror. Could this loss of light have been a problem? Rothschild [2] suggested that the light loss was around 20%, meaning 80% of the light passed through to the image plane. But he seems to have had no problem focusing the camera, even in “relatively dim light”. This may be been due to the quality of the pentaprism, the lack of ground-glass, and split-rangefinder.

*Fig.3: The Konica patent precursor to the Domirex*

Perhaps the greatest problem would be the lack of interchangeable lenses. The prototype would have had to be modified to allow for interchangeable lenses. This could be accomplished by creating lenses incorporating the 45° reflective surfaces – but this would ultimately make them more expensive than traditional lenses. The camera also used a leaf-type shutter, which was certainly on the way out in the early 1960s, supplanted by the focal-plane shutter. By 1963 there was likely too much influence from existing SLR technologies to attempt to release a new technology. It is distinctly possible that as Mike Eckman suggests [3], the Canon Pellix, released in 1965, was a better option. It was a more conventional 35mm SLR, but with a semi-reflective mirror that accomplished the same aim as the BSR. But it offered a ground-glass, fully interchangeable lenses and a focal-plane shutter.

Rothschild though that the beam-splitting reflex design would eventually succeed in becoming part of the overall SLR market [2]. Rothschild’s final comment in the article was “the Dominex is worth waiting for, even if this takes a while.”. Sadly he would be wrong. Having likely made only prototypes, there aren’t many of these cameras about, however one of the original prototypes sold in spring 2024 for €12,000.

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

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.

Why choose a vintage SLR?

August 7, 2024August 7, 2024 / spqr / Leave a comment

There are generally two camps when looking at vintage photographic gear: those interested in using vintage lenses on digital cameras, and those interested in shooting with a vintage camera. The first have little or no interest in shooting with film, the latter likely focus on it. There is also a third category – the collector, and their needs might be distinctly different from active users of vintage gear. People choose vintage SLR cameras for a number of reasons (an SLR is just one choice amongst 35mm cameras, people also opt for rangefinder cameras, or point-and-shoot). Perhaps they want to get back to basics, and use with a system that has complete manual functionality, or perhaps they are interested in experimenting with film. It could be they just like the feel and process of using a film camera, or even for nostalgic reasons. It is in many respects a much more fundamental, slow form of photography, even though it requires much more participation from the perspective of calculating the right exposure, choosing the appropriate film etc.

There are a number of choices

Vintage SLR’s come in many different forms – fully manual to some level of automation can be accommodated in some manner. For example the cameras produced in the 1950s to the mid 1960s are all-metal, and all-mechanical (manual focusing, exposure and film advance). They are often very aesthetically pleasing and have lens options which often produce artistic renderings. After this came the first auto exposure SLRs, which meant shutter-priority followed by aperture-priority. These cameras still had a lot of mechanical parts, but some of the functionality was taken over by solid-state electronics. The introduction of electronic SLRs pushed automation ever further. From the mid-1970s until the late 1980s came the electronic SLRs became the norm mostly to cut both costs and mechanical complexity. These camera bodies contain more plastic, and the first program-auto exposure settings.

SLRs are good for many photographic genres

Of course another motive focuses on the type of photography the camera is going to be used for. This is important because it allows a set minimum requirements to be established. There are some genres of photography that are better suited to the use of vintage cameras than others. General everyday or travel photography, landscapes, street or portrait photography are ideally suited to vintage cameras. This is because these genres are suited to manual focusing, and adjustment of exposure settings on the fly. Alternatively, wildlife or sports photography are not the best genres for a vintage camera (despite the plethora of telephoto lenses on the market). Both these genres generally require telephoto lenses, which with manual focusing isn’t optimal. Some people likely chose a mechanical SLR in order to experiment with street-photography at the most basic level, or an electronic SLR for travel photography.

*Fig 1: Many SLRs offer a very simple tactile experience*

The tactile experience is often better than with digital

Although there are many differing forms of 35mm cameras, SLRs do stand out for their tactile experience. Early SLRs were entirely manual, meaning that there were many differing parameters which had to be manually modified in order to obtain the correct exposure. This means cameras had various lever and knobs which had to be adjusted – there is the shutter button, adjustments for film speed, shutter speed, and on the lens, aperture and focus mechanisms. There is a level of interaction which is a vastly more tactile experience than pushing a button, or setting a menu item on a digital camera.

Analog is nostalgic

Analog photography can be somewhat limiting, in that there isn’t a memory card with limitless capability to store photographs. Film will limit the number of pictures able to be taken, so every shot has to count. This amps up the level of creativity, forcing the photographer to slow down, observe the surrounding world, and think about the picture being taken. Choosing a vintage 35mm SLR, or even a rangefinder for that matter, means embarking on a more participatory experience, where the level of self expressiveness is determined by the complexity of the camera itself. The physical nature of film – loading it, winding it on, hearing the shutter open and close – combine to provide a more natural [pure] experience.

*Fig 2: Price points (Cad$) of various SLRs (in good+ condition)*

SLRs are available at a good price

Vintage SLRs are available at many different price ranges. Yes there are expensive SLRs – usually this has to do with scarceness. For example someone might be interested in a 1936 Exakta Kine 35mm SLR, the first SLR, which could be worth anywhere from C$3000-4000. Or perhaps an ALPA camera, which are generally upwards of C$1200. But there are plenty of relatively inexpensive cameras, partially because there were so many manufacturers in the 1960s, and so many cameras were produced. You can find an Olympus, Pentax, or Minolta camera (body only) for between C$300 and C$500 (certified/restored). Less well-known brands of the period are even cheaper, e.g. Konica, Petri, Ricoh, Yashica, Miranda, Fujica etc, often including a 50mm lens.

SLRs are well built

Before the more extensive use of plastics in the 1970s, metal was king. Many cameras up until this period (and even beyond) used a die-cast metal body, which means the cameras were built tough.

SLRs are educational

One of the issues with digital cameras is that so much is automated. That’s not a bad thing in a lot of situations because it allows you to concentrate on framing the shot. However because of this, the inner workings of the camera are sometimes lost to the photographer. An SLR will also help the novice learn the fundamentals of photography – the hard way. This means you have to gain a more intimate understanding of how things like shutter speeds, apertures, and exposure works. However on the flip-side you do gain better control of the photographic process.

Choosing a vintage SLR camera – technical FAQ

August 2, 2024September 9, 2024 / spqr / Leave a comment

This FAQ deals more with the “tech” side of things. Vintage cameras are mostly mechanical, i.e. they are filled with gears and doohickeys of all sorts.

How complex are vintage cameras?

Quite complex, at least from a mechanical perspective. The earlier rangefinders may have been somewhat less complex, but as cameras attained more features, the mechanical complexity increased. They are a world away from the early plate cameras with very moving parts. In some respects electronically controlled cameras can often have simpler designs.

Which brands are most dependable?

This is really hard to pinpoint. You really have to go off reliability, popularity, and reviews. Every manufacturer created good SLRs, and ones that were less that stellar. The less dependable cameras are often those that have known mechanical issues, obscure mechanisms (e.g. “new” shutter mechanisms, or materials that just didn’t work), or have poor usability. If this question is asked on some forum, everyone will have a different answer.

Which brands to avoid?

I don’t like to pigeonhole brands, but for the novice I would honestly avoid East German and Russian SLRs. There should be a lot of these cameras, but in reality there often aren’t, perhaps because they haven’t stood the test of time. The exception is the manual Ihagee Exakta cameras, which generally are quite good from a mechanical viewpoint.

What’s the most important technical issue with vintage cameras?

Arguably the most critical things have to do with the shutter. Shutters are generally constructed of light-tight cloth, metal, or plastic curtains, all of which can be damaged. Does the shutter actually work properly on all shutter speeds, i.e. does it open and close, and not get hung up somewhere? In some cameras the shutter will work fine for fast speeds and perhaps get hung up on one or two of the slower speeds. You can usually test this by opening up the back of the camera and checking the shutter at each speed setting. More critical may be whether or not the shutter speeds are accurate. Again some may be, others may not be.

Are batteries an issue?

There are vintage cameras that use batteries, mostly those that use meters of some sort, or contain electronics. Some vintage cameras use Mercury-oxide batteries which are a problem, because sometimes can’t often be satisfactorily replaced (they were banned in the late 1990s). Also, sometimes even when you find a battery, aging electronics can lead to issues. I have a Minolta X11 (specified to use S76 1.5V “silver-oxide” batteries) which works well, except for one thing – the batteries drain really quickly. This was a quick fix though, only add the batteries when the camera is actually being used.

Are SLR cameras repairable?

Yes, but these days it is sometimes hard to find people that fix them, and it can be expensive. Some repair specialists just remedy specific camera brands. It is also an issue of how readily parts are available – if you have a camera where a lot were made, (say 500,000) it is obviously easier to find donor cameras to provide parts than it is a vintage camera where very few were made. A film camera CLA (Clean, Lube, Adjust) can cost anywhere from C$150-300. In some cases it may be preferable to pay more for a certified camera rather than go through the hassle of repairing an inexpensive one.

*Manual cameras are pretty complex inside (Asahi Spotmatic, 1964)*

Can I fix a camera myself?

Hmmm… yes and no. Let me put it into context. If a camera is cheap you could try and fix it, depending of course on the complexity of the issue. To do this, you need to have the right tools, and probably a camera manual. The problem is that sometimes the sheer age (50-80 years) can mean things are seized up, and un-seizing can sometimes lead to things breaking. I would honestly not go down that path (having tried fixing something simple, it just broke something else). It takes a lot of patience and quite a bit of knowledge to pull things apart and put them back together in working order. Even manual cameras are complex – the innards are a haven of interwoven mechanical things. Open a camera at your own peril.

Are light meters an issue?

Invariably yes. Some of the meters, like the early selenium meters can often work quite well, whereas the Cadmium Sulfide (CdS) meters may not work as well. Sometimes cameras will be advertised as “meter not functioning”. Sometimes due to age, the light meter may not be that accurate anyway, so it might be best to use an external light meter, or even a digital one.

Are there issues with electronic 35mm SLRs?

Yes, electronics don’t always stand the test of time well. Electronics tend to be adverse towards moisture, and dust, which will find their way into a camera and cause issues. It may be possible to find (or even manufacture) mechanical part replacements, electronics are another thing altogether. That being said, electronic cameras are usually quite reliable.