The controversy over ‘miniature’ cameras

/ 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.

Fig.2: Too many miniatures

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

Further reading:

  1. “What is a Miniature Camera?”, The Amateur Photographer & Cinematographer, p.15 Nov.4 (1936)
  2. Simpson, B.Z., “Letters to the Editor: What is a Miniature Camera?”, The Amateur Photographer & Cinematographer, Jan.6 (1937)
  3. “Modern Miniature Cameras”, The Amateur Photographer & Cinematographer, pp.40-46, Mar.10 (1937)

Vintage lens makers − Novoflex (Germany)

/ spqr / Leave a comment

Novoflex is a German maker of lenses and camera accessories (macro bellows, tripods, tilt-shift bellows, etc.). It was founded in 1948 by photographer Karl Müller Jr. In 1949 the company produced the reflex housings for Leica, which allowed SLR lenses to be modified for use on Leica cameras. These were initially marketed under the name Reproflex, until being changed to Novoflex in 1950. From 1954 housings were also made for Contax cameras.

Fig.1: The basic Novoflex Follow-Focus lens system

In 1956 they started production of their first lenses, the Novoflex Follow Focus lenses. The Follow Focus lens system was interesting because it included a pistol-grip focusing device that allows the user to go from infinity to minimum focus in a split second. Essentially it provides one-handed focusing. According to the company this was useful for “wildlife subjects in full flight, sports, the fleeting moment, the unexpected are unusual picture opportunities that must be taken at peak-action.”

Fig.2: The telescoping lens and Noflexar

This was followed in 1960 with nesting telephoto lenses, advertised as ‘telescopic tele lenses’. These were designed in order to make telephoto lenses easier to transport, being able to collapse to half their size. The focusing unit could be equipped with lens heads for 400mm and 640mm. In 1962 the company introduced the ‘2-in-1 lens’, 35mm f/3.5 Noflexar, a macro wide-angle lens with a focusing range from infinity to 2.75”, and a reproduction ratio of 1:2. In 1969 the company started making automatic bellows devices. The company had an extensive range of ancillary products for many camera systems. This included a wide-angle macro lenses, bellow units, follow-focus lenses, slide copiers, and associated coupling adapters.

Fig.3: Vintage ads for Novoflex lenses

Novoflex is still an active company, producing photographic accessories such as auto-bellows, tripods, macro systems and camera-lens adapters.

Are pre-war cameras reliable for practical use?

/ 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.

Where does colour come from?

/ spqr / Leave a comment

Light from the sun has appears to have no hue or colour of its own; it is “white” light. But it actually does contain all colours, and if it is projected through a prism it will be separated into a band of colours like a rainbow. A coloured object, for example a flower, has colour because when light strikes it, the flower petals reflect their hue components or wavelengths of the light while absorbing other colours. In the example below the flower reflects the ‘magenta’ components, and the human eye being sensitive to these reflected wavelengths, sees them as magenta. Dyes, such as those found in paint, and colour prints acts just like the flower does in selectively absorbing and reflecting certain wavelengths of light and therefore producing colour.

Prime vs. zoom lenses − Help with choosing a lens

/ spqr / Leave a comment

Trying to choose between a zoom and a prime lens can be challenging, mainly because they probably shouldn’t be compared in the first place. Basically they offer different outcomes. A prime is almost a lens specialized for a particular task, whereas a zoom can be more of a “jack-of-all-trades”. There are also different types of each of these lenses. There are expensive fast primes, and less-expensive primes with a slower maximum aperture. There are also native primes from the camera manufacturer, and third-party primes. The same criteria can be applied to zoom lenses. Table 1 summarizes some of the key differences between prime and zoom lenses.

characteristicprimezoom
price+ simple build, less expensive− complex build, more expensive
aperture+ brighter, wider aperture (faster)
e.g. f/1.2 to f/2		− darker, narrower aperture (slower)
sharpness+ sharper images, fewer optical deficiencies− less sharpness, some distortion
versatility− less versatile+ more versatile
size and weight+ lighter and more compact
− have to carry more lenses		− bulkier and heavier
+ need to carry fewer lenses
Table 1: Key differences between prime and zoom

A zoom provides a level of flexibility that a prime does not, but this comes with some trade-offs. The first thing a zoom lens typically gives up is speed, i.e. how wide the aperture opens up. Prime lenses on the other hand are fast, and some are super-fast. Note that prime lenses are nearly always smaller and lighter than zooms. Many things influence the size and weight of a lens including whether it is a pro-grade lens (often contain more glass), or whether it has a large maximum aperture (again requiring a bigger lens with more glass). Every lens has its pros and cons.

Fig.1: A very basic schema for choosing a prime or zoom lens

Despite the fact that prime lenses are often lauded for their specific nature, i.e. suited to one particular task, zoom lenses can also be categorized in this manner. For example someone might choose a 17-28mm full-frame lens for landscapes, providing some scope. In addition, although a good zoom lens may be more expensive than a prime, more prime lenses may be needed to equal the range of coverage, thereby leading to more cost. There are also some lenses that don’t work very well as a zoom, e.g. fish-eye lenses.

When selecting a prime lens it is often the case of deciding on an application, and then which lens meets all the criteria. For example, a trip to Iceland may warrant a wide-angle lens that is weatherproof (because the weather can change every 5 minutes in Iceland) − in this case something like a 24mm ultra-wide would be optimal. Alternatively, some photographers might opt for even a wider lens, e.g. 16/18mm due to the ‘largeness’ of the landscape. Choosing a zoom lens on the other hand can be a little more challenging. This is because there are often a variety of options. For example, choosing a 50mm prime means you get a 50mm lens, with perhaps the only variability being the speed (maximum aperture) of the lens. But there may be more than one option for choosing a particular zoom lens. Figure 2 shows a flowchart which considers some of the main factors to consider when choosing a zoom lens.

Fig.2: Factors to consider when choosing a zoom lens

Figure 3 shows an example of choosing a wide zoom lens for a Fuji-X camera (APS-C), using the above factors. There isn’t that much difference between the lenses with respect to AOV (angle-of-view), but as each factor is considered, more lenses are filtered out. At the end only three of the five lenses satisfy the criteria considered, and then it comes down to price. If we were choosing this for the trip to Iceland then we might want the greatest flexibility in focal lengths, for example the Fujifilm 10-24mm (FF equivalent 15-36mm). If maximum aperture is an issue, then either the Tamron or Sigma are fine alternatives.

Fig.3: An example of choosing a Fuji (wide) zoom lens for landscape

There are some situations where one lens is just enough. Mountain enthusiast Jakub Cejpek talks about using the Fujifilm XF10-24mm/F4 on a mountain trek. He chose mirrorless for its ‘lightweight style’, and the 10-24mm lens for its versatility, knowing that changing lenses in impossible, ‘time is rare, and weather conditions are tough’.

Do you ✱need✱ a new lens?

/ spqr / Leave a comment

Buying lenses can lead some to a phenomena known in many crafts as GAS, or Gear Acquisition Syndrome. In photography it refers to the compulsive need to buy more and more equipment, in particular, lenses.

How do you know if you have GAS? Well perhaps you have a bunch of lenses with overlapping focal lengths? Or a really expensive lens, such as an uber-fast f/1.2 lens that has sat on a shelf since the day you bought it? Do you have a tilt-shift or fish-eye lens that you used once or twice? Do you collect lenses from particular manufacturers just because you like things in sets? Then it’s likely that you are afflicted. This affliction may be worse if you have half a dozen camera bodies.

An inexpensive, fun, creative lens to shoot with.

It occurs because new lenses keep appearing, ones with new features, or just some sort of novelty (go on you really need that circular fish-eye, don’t you?). A lens that is just that little bit sharper, or even newer. Manufacturers often rely on lens GAS, because few people splurge out on a new camera body every year, but lenses, well that’s another matter altogether.

So how to decide when you need a lens? Here are some questions to ask yourself:

  • Do your current lenses inhibit your ability to be creative?
  • Is there a genre of photography you want to try which requires a new lens?
  • Will the lens be used more than once?
  • Is the lens affordable? (and is there more than one option)?

If you said yes to all the above, then it can probably be justified. Having said that, sometimes you just want a new lens, and there is certainly nothing wrong with that.

What was the worst SLR?

/ 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.

Further reading:

On the colour of vintage cameras

/ spqr / Leave a comment

White is out, except on a few vintage models. Real gold is definitely out unless one was given a gold one by the manufacturers for being such a good photographer. So are animal skins (snake, mink or otherwise). But most important, all colours that look right for boats lost at sea (orange, red, yellow, etc.) are wrong for real cameras. This is because cameras finished in vivid colours may reflect onto the subject and thus produce unnatural hues in the final results.

The key choice is then between chrome and black. Most standard finishes are black and chrome but the status element increases as the total volume of chrome reduces, and the black increases. An all black camera, made thus by the manufacturers, is the hallmark of the very serious amateur and some professionals. Slightly upmarket of this is the mixed chrome/black example with the chrome bits hand-painted matt black. This spells dedicated amateur or the professional who is important enough not to care and does not have to answer to a newspaper for the equipment. The finishing touch in this scale is the odd spot of white paint on all the dials at the most commonly used settings. Definitely the ultimate professional image or superb fakery.

John Courtis ‘Bluff your way in photography’ (1993)

Vintage lens makers − Kinoptik (France)

/ spqr / Leave a comment

Kinoptik was founded in Paris in 1932 by Georges Grosset and Georges Perthuis. Grosset began by creating 35mm camera optics with a series of Apochromat lenses in 1939 (lenses with better correction of chromatic and spherical aberrations), all with the same double-gauss optical structure.

The workshop was destroyed by the RAF in March 1942. Production resumed in the summer, however during the German occupation they were forced to produce Askania camera sights. However this didn’t stop Grosset from designing two new lenses, the Fulgior 50mm f/1.3 (which was used on the Rectaflex), and the Apochromat-C 32mm f/2.8. Postwar, French cinema boomed and Kinoptik concentrated its efforts on the cinema business. It designed numerous lenses for 16mm, Super-16 and 35mm cine cameras.

In the early 1950s they also diversified into optical systems for microfilm, medical radiology, and control of industrial furnaces. The company bore the Japanese competition in the 1960s better than most of its European counterparts due to its business in professional cinema equipment. From a 35mm perspective, Kinoptik produced a number of lenses for ALPA, as well as Leica, Nikon, Canon and Minolta. Examples include the Apochromat 100mm f/2 and the Aplanat 500mm f/5.6. The Apochromat 100mm f/2 was described as having exclusive correction of all primary colours, critical sharpness and highest contrast, even at full aperture.

Fig.1: Various Kinoptik lenses

After the death of Georges Grosset, his wife Marie-Louise Grosset took over running of the company, and hired French optician Edgar Hugues (1915-2004) who became technical director of the company from 1957-1964. He designed the 75mm f/1.1, 100mm f/1.3 as well as the Lynxar 60mm f/0.7, arguably the fastest French lens ever created. He also designed the Tegea rectilinear “fish-eye” lenses (130° angle-of-view for 24×36mm). One such lens, the Tegea 9.8mm f/1.8 was used by the likes of Stanley Kubrick in films like A Clockwork Orange (1971) and The Shining (1980).

In 1981 the company was sold to Société de Fabrication d’Instruments de Mesure, after which it underwent numerous integrations, mergers, and acquisitions before closing in 2003. The lenses were by no means inexpensive. In 1980 prices, the 50mm f/2 Macro-Apochromat sold for US$999, and the 100mm f/2 Auto-Apochromat for US$799. Vintage Kinoptik lenses are still vogue in the film industry, often rehoused in new bodies. The Apochromat 100mm f/2 sells for anywhere from US$5000-7000 on todays market.