Tips for inspecting vintage SLR cameras

/ 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 lens makers – Angénieux (France)

/ spqr / Leave a comment

Pierre Angénieux (1907-1998) was born in Saint-Héand near Lyon in 1907. In 1928 he graduated with a engineering degree and a year later received a degree in optical engineering. In 1930 he joined Pathé, a company involved in the motion picture industry in France. In 1935 he founded a manufacturing company specializing in cinematic gear in Paris. Initial production was primarily for military purposes, and this was discontinued during WW2. During the war, 35mm lenses were manufactured predominantly for the Swiss Alpa camera. The first lenses ca. 1938 were the 50mm f/2.9, and 50mm f/1.8 (for Alpa). In 1940 the Paris workshop was closed, and work relocated to Saint-Héand.

In 1950 Angénieux eleased the first retrofocus lens. These lenses used an inverted-telephoto design, with the negative lens group at the front of the lens, increasing the back focal distance. The first lenses were intended for rangefinder cameras, but the design was ideal for 35mm SLRs which allowed a wide-angle lens without interfering with the moving mirror. The first lens was the Retrofocus R1 series – 35mm, f/2.5. This was followed by the R11 28mm f/3.5 in 1953, and the R61 24mm f/3.5 in 1957. The Retrofocus design allowed wide-angle lenses on the range of interchangeable lens SLRs developed in the 1950s. By the 1950s they were producing 45,000 retrofocus lenses a year.

The most famous Angénieux retrofocus lenses

This “retrofocus” design moved the optical focal point further to the front of the lens, using an additional lens element. A focal length shorter than 40mm was achieved by placing a diverging lens with a very large diameter in the front of the optical system. Traditional lenses using the Gaussian-double design could not be positioned close enough to the image plane without hindering the movement of the mirror in SLR cameras. Angénieux also made standard lenses in 50mm, 75mm, 90mm, 135mm and 180mm focal lengths.

In 1951 Angénieux adapted the Retrofocus lens or cine lenses, 8mm, 16mm, and 35mm. In 1960 the first Angénieux 35mm cine zoom was released, the 35-140mm f/3.5. This was followed by a litany of cine zoom lenses. NASA was to use Angénieux’s 25mm f/0.95 lens in the Ranger 7-9 missions. The NASA Gemini missions used Maurer 16mm cameras with 18mm f/2, 25mm f/0.95, and 75mm f/2.5 cameras, optics which would again appear on the Apollo 7, 8, 9, and 10 missions – on Apollo 11 the lenses would help record Neil Armstrong’s first steps on the Moon. Angénieux’s work with NASA would continue through the space shuttle era.

The company still makes cine lenses.

Notable lenses: 24mm f/3.5 (1957); 28mm f/3.5 (1953); 35mm f/2.5 (1950)

Vintage lens makers – Schacht (Germany)

/ spqr / Leave a comment

Schacht was founded by Albert Schacht in 1948 in Munich (Germany). Albert Schacht had a long pedigree of lens design. From 1913-1919 he was an operations manager at Carl Zeiss Jena, followed by seven years at ICA A.G., before it was merged into Zeiss Ikon (Dresden) where he continued until 1939. During the war years until 1946 he was a technical director at Steinheil in Munich. Schacht focused on designing and building lenses for 35mm film cameras. In 1954 production was moved to Ulm. Schacht manufactured interchangeable lenses in the range of 35-200mm for all common camera connections. Most lenses at Schacht were designed by Ludwig Bertele, who founded an optics office in Switzerland in 1946 with the help of Wild Heerbrugg.

The first interchangeable SLR lens manufactured was the Albinar, 13.5cm f/4.5 in 1952. It was produced exclusively for export to the USA and with an Exakta bayonet connection. It wasn’t really a telephoto, but rather just used a simple 4-lens design. Production was then expanded to include three more common focal lengths: the Travenar 50mm f/2.8, 85mm f/2.8, and 135mm f/3.5. The Albinar was renamed Travegon in 1954. They were available in Alpa, Exakta, Praktica (M42), Pentacon, and Leica mounts. In 1956 a wide-angle Travegon 35mm f/3.5 was introduced. Schacht produced lenses in the most popular focal lengths, and was one of the first lens manufacturers to deliver SLR lenses with an automatic aperture.

Fig.1: Advertisements from Schacht

Most of its early lenses were of standard 1950s aluminum construction. In the 1960’s Schacht changed the visual appearance of their lenses to match those of other manufacturers, i.e. a black lens with a zebra-style design which initially incorporated berg-and-tal stype controls, opting eventually for a more modest raised style of grip. These are generally considered good quality lenses, however not as common as other brands. Early lenses are marked as A. Schacht Munchen, older ones A. Schacht Ulm. Brands included: Albinar, Travenar, Travegon, Travelon, Travegar, Travenon, sometimes with the prefix tele- S-, M-, or Tele-.

Fig.2: Schacht changed their design over the years from an aluminum aesthetic to black with a zebra-style look.

In 1967 the company was acquired by Constantin Rauch. In 1969 the optics division was sold on to the Wilhelm Will KG company in Wetzlar. Due to production difficulties, lens production ended in 1970.

Notable lenses: Travenar 135mm f/3.5

Further reading:

The aesthetic appeal of mid-century vintage lenses

/ spqr / Leave a comment

When you look at modern lenses, there isn’t much that sets them apart. They are usually pretty plain black cylinders, partially due to the consistency of modern lens design. The same could not be said of vintage lenses. Maybe this has something to do with the fact that many vintage lenses were made by companies that focused purely on lenses, and as such tried hard to differentiate their lenses from their competitors. For example a company like Meyer Optik Gorlitz manufactured lenses for cameras using the Exakta mount had to compete for the consumer spending with lenses from a myriad of other companies (at least 25-30).

Over time the appearance of lenses naturally changed, as new materials were introduced, often for the purpose of reducing the overall cost of lenses. For example, many early 35mm lenses had a shiny, chrome-like appearance. The earliest, pre-war lenses were often made of chrome-plated brass. As the Second World War progressed, shortages or re-direction of materials like brass led some manufacturers had begun to transition towards aluminum, which was both less expensive, easier to manufacture, and produced a lighter lens. While these early aluminum lenses were aesthetically pleasing there was little that differentiated them in a world where there was an increasing number of 3rd party lens manufacturers.

Fig.1: Evolution of the aluminum design of the Zeiss Jena Biotar 58mm f/2

When it first appeared as a lens material, aluminum was chic. The 1950s was the age of aluminum, which was a symbol of modernism. Many of the largest aluminum producers pursued new markets to absorb their increased wartime production capacity, used in everything from drink cans to kitchenware and Airstream trailers (there was also extra aluminum from scrapping of war surplus aircraft etc.). These aluminum lenses were initially clear-coated to reduce the likelihood of tarnishing, but eventually anodized to provide a robust black coating. Also in the 1950s, lens manufacturers to realize changing trends in lens design – buyers had moved away from the idea of pure practicality, and focused also on design. This wasn’t really surprising considering the broad scope of modernist design during this period – design tended to favour sleek and streamlined silhouettes. It is interesting to note that most of the aesthetically pleasing lenses of the post-1950 period originated from Germany.

Fig.2: Every lens manufacturer had a different interpretation of both “berg-and-tal”, and the black-and-white “zebra” aesthetic

The first notable change was the gradual move towards what in German manufacturers called the “berg und tal” design, or rather “mountain and valley” design of the grips on a lens – usually knurled depressions milled into the surface of the ring (but also the opposite like the lenses of Steinheil where the depressions are smooth and the mountains are knurled). English-speaking regions often referred to this as a “knurled grip”. Appearing in the early 1950s, it was particularly common for focusing rings, making them more prominent, and likely more ergonomic, i.e. easier to grip. Some lenses started with the focusing ring, and eventually used the same design on the aperture ring. Prior to this most lenses used a simple straight knurl on the adjustment rings.

Towards the end of the 1950s, the pure-aluminum design transitioned to a combination of silver and black anodized aluminum. The lens bodies themselves were mostly black, with the “berg und tal” designs alternating between black and silver. This alternating pattern is what is colloquially known as “zebra” design. Many lens manufacturers utilized the zebra aesthetic in one form or another including Schacht, Enna, Steinheil, Schneider-Kreuznach, Meyer Optik, Rodenstock, ISCO etc..

Fig.3: Meyer Optik had an interesting twist on the zebra design. There were very few of these lenses and they are very minimalistic in design.

Zeiss probably produced the best known examples of the zebra aesthetic design with the Pancolar and Flektogon series of lenses. Although these lenses did not appear until the early 1960s, they bypassed the more prominent berg-und-tal in favour of a much subdued black-and-white knurled grip (which is also something Meyer Optik did with lenses like the Lydith 30mm). This design for both focusing and aperture rings replaced the rough textured rings of the earlier lenses. Some call these lenses the “Star Wars lens”. The Pancolar 50mm f/2 appeared ca. 1960 in the form of an f/2 lens with dual black-silver body encompassing a “converging-distance” depth of field range indicator, and either a textured or nubbed rubber focusing ring. This evolved a few years later to the classic “zebra” design, shortly before the release of the classic Pancolar 50mm f/1.8, which also sported the zebra design. By the 1970s, the Pancolar 50mm f/1.8 had morphed into a complete black configuration with a large rubber cross knurling focus grip and a finely knurled aperture ring.

Fig.4: Evolution of design aesthetics of the Zeiss Pancolar 50mm lens.

Japanese manufacturers transitioned from aluminum/chrome to black bypassing the zebra design. The one exception seems to be the Asahi Auto-Takumar 55mm F/1.8, which appeared in 1958, but is the sole example of zebra design (at least by Asahi). Japanese manufacturers did however embrace the berg-and-tal design.

Fig.5: Some lens companies couldn’t settle on a design. Here we have differing focus ring designs from the same Meyer Optik catalog in the 1960s

By the mid-1960s many camera manufacturers were producing their own lenses, particularly in Japan. As such lenses became more consistent, with little need to compete with other lens manufacturers. There were still 3rd party lens manufacturers but their perspective was to concentrate more on the manufacture of inexpensive lenses. Most lenses transitioned to using standardized, nonchalant black aluminum lenses, with the onus being more on the quality of the optics. Grips transitioned from berg-und-tal to a flatter, square-grooved style, still using a in black/chrome contrast (which likely resulted in a cost saving). By the mid-1970s focus rings were provided with a ribbed rubber coating, still common today on some lenses.

Fig.6: Berg-und-tal overkill?
Fig.7: One of the few Japanese zebra lenses.

Today, the sleek aluminum lenses are sought after because of their “retro” appeal, as too are the zebra lenses.

A short introduction to the film slide

/ spqr / Leave a comment

A “slide” in the more common use of the word refers to a translucent positive image which is held inside a cardboard sleeve, or plastic frame (or mount). A positive image is created using reversal film, whereas negative film produces an inverted or reversed image (which in turn is used to make a paper photo). When a slide is held up to the light, it is possible to see the scene as it was shot rather than the “negative” of the scene. Slides are typically viewed using a slide projector which projects the image against a white screen. Without the mount, the film would not be able to “slide” from one image to another when inside the magazine of a projector.

The classic Kodachrome slide

The slide is not a modern phenomena. The earliest was likely the Lantern slide, also known as the “magic lantern”. It was an early type of image projector which appeared in the 17th century which projected glass slides onto various surfaces. With the advent of photographic processes in the mid-19th century, magic lantern slides were black-and-white positive images, created with the wet collodion or a dry gelatine process on glass. Slide shows became a popular pastime in the Victorian period, but they were not the same as modern film slides.

Examples of colour slides

It 1826 Nicéphore Niépce invented the first form of negative photography, but it would take nearly a century before its use in flexible celluloid film became a reality. The earliest commercially successful reversal process came into being in 1907 with the Lumière Autochrome. It was an additive screen-plate method using a panchromatic emulsion on a thin glass plate coated with a layer of dyed potato starch grains. It was Leopold Godowsky Jr., and Leopold Mannes working with Kodak Research Laboratories who in April 1935 produced the first commercially successful reversal film – Kodachrome (first as a 16mm movie film, and in May 1936 as 8mm, 135 and 828 film formats). Based on the subtractive method, the Kodachrome films contained no colour dye couplers, these were added during processing. In 1936 Agfa introduced Agfa Neu, which had the dye couplers integrated into the emulsion, making processing somewhat easier than Kodachrome.

For sparkling pictures big as life. . . . Kodak 35 mm color slides.

Kodak’s commercial slogan during the 1950s

There are different types of reversal film, based on the type of processing. The first, which includes films like Kodachrome, uses the K-14 process. Kodachrome is essentially a B&W stock film, with the colour added during the 14-step development process. That means it has no integrated colour couplers. Kodachrome was an incredible film from the perspective of the richness and vibrancy of the colours it produced – from muted greens and blues to bold reds and yellows. However developing Kodachrome was both complex and expensive, which would eventually see the rise of films like Ektachrome, which used the E-6 development process (a 6-step process). Films like Ektachome have different emulsion layers, each of which is sensitive to a different colour of light. There are also chemicals called dye couplers present in the film. After slide film is developed, the image that results from the interaction of the emulsion with the developer is positive.

Common slide mount sizes

Many companies made reversal films, typically acknowledged through the use of the “chrome” synonym – e.g. Agfachrome (Agfa), Fujichrome (Fuji), Ektachrome (Kodak), Scotchchrome (3M, after buying Italian filmmaker Ferrania), Ilfochrome (Ilford), Peruchrome (Perutz), and Anscochrome (the US arm of Agfa). The initial Kodachrome had a very slow speed (10 ASA), this was replaced in 1961 by Kodachrome II (1961) which produced sharper images, and had a faster speed (25 ASA). In 1962 Kodak introduced Kodachrome X (ASA 64). Kodak’s other transparency film was Ektachrome, which was much faster than Kodachrome. In 1959 High Speed Ektachrome was introduced, providing a ASA 160 colour film (by 1968 this had been pushed to ASA 400).

FormatYear it appearedTransparency size (w×h)Notes
35mm /135193536mm × 24mmvery common
Super 13536mm × 28mm
110197217mm × 13mmalso on 1”×1” slides (mini 110)
Half-frame1950s24mm × 18mm
126196328mm × 28mm
1271912-199540mm × 40mm
Super 1271912-1995rare
Table 1: Characteristics of slide sizes

What about the “slide” side of things? A patent for a “Transparency Mount” was submitted by Henry C. Staehle of Eastman Kodak in October 1938, and received it in December 1939. Its was described as “a pair of overlapping flaps formed from a single strip of sheet material such, for example, as paper.”. Early slide mounts were mostly made of cardboard, but as plastic became more common, various designs appeared. Most cardboard mounts were either hinged on one side or two separate pieces, glued together after the emulsion was sandwiched between the two sides of the frame. There were also systems for the DIYer, where the emulsion could simply be inserted to the slide frame. Plastic frames were either welded together or designed in an adjustable format, i.e. the film frame could be inserted and removed. The exterior dimension of most common slide formats is 2 inches by 2 inches. There were many different sizes of slides, all on a standard 2″×2″ mount, to encompass the myriad of differing films formats during the period. Slides are usually colour – interestingly, black-and-white reversal film does exist but is relatively uncommon.

Some different types of slide frames

Slides were popular from the 1960’s probably up until the early 1990’s. It was an easy way to get a high-quality projected image in a pre-digital era. Slides were a popular medium for tourists to take pictures with, and then beguile visitors with a carousel of slides depicting tales of their travels. Slide film is still available today, all of which uses the E-6 process. E-6 slide film is a lot less forgiving as it has a lower ISO value but produces vivid colour with evidence of finer grain. Modern slide films include Kodak Ektachrome 100, Fujifilm Velvia 50, and Fujifilm Fujichrome Provia 100.

Further reading:

Lenses make a camera

/ spqr / Leave a comment

In the 1980s, Fuji ran magazine ads with the headline shown below. It was to proclaim how good their lenses were, in a time when competition among camera manufacturers was high. Does this statement still hold true in the digital age?

Vintage lens makers – Kern (Switzerland)

/ spqr / Leave a comment

The Kern company was established by Jakob Kern (1790-1867) in the Swiss Canton of Aargau in 1819. Over the years it was involved in the design and manufacturing of drawing tools, surveying instruments, binoculars, army optics, and camera optics.

The start of the First World War was problematic for Kern because it put a strain on the procurement of lenses and prisms for use in surveying instruments. The parts were sourced entirely from abroad, and so Kern decided to establish their own optics production. At the same time the company was looking for products to expand beyond surveying equipment, which ultimately lead to the choice to develop cameras, binoculars, and associated optics. After the war there was growing competition from new surveying instruments producer Wild Heerbrugg (Heerbrugg, SG).

The foray into lenses was spear-headed by Walther Zschokke (1870-1951). Born in Gontenschwil, Aargau, he started as an optician’s apprentice at the Steinheil company in Munich in 1888. In 1895 together with Max Loehr he founded Steinheil’s branch workshop in Paris, and in 1901 he moved to the Goerz company, Berlin-Friedenau where he developed lenses such as the wide-angle Hypergon and the Goerz Dagor. From 1914 to 1918, Zschokke ran the “Sendlinger optical glassworks” founded by Rudolf Steilheil, and then 1919 returned to work for Kern, developing their first lenses. He left the company in 1925.

Early Kern products

In 1923 the company also began manufacturing “plate” cameras, with the first model being the “Bijou”. They followed this with roll-film cameras, a 35mm stereo camera. The company was also involved in making 3rd-party lenses, e.g. to equip the wooden cameras from the Swiss company Frey & Co.

The first cinematic and projection lenses appeared in the late 1920s, particularly for the Bolex film cameras (designed by Jacques Bogopolsky of ALPA fame). After the takeover of Bol S.A. in 1930 by Paillard S.A., there was close cooperation between the two companies. In 1937 Paillard developed the 8mm Bolex which would have a substantial impact on lens development. Kern would supply the Paillard-Bolex cameras with lenses with brand names such as Switar (high aperture), Pizar (cheaper lenses), and Vario-Switar. In 1946 Kern and Paillard jointly founded the company Yvar in Geneva to produce the Yvar cinema lenses. A lot of cinema lenses were produced over the years including the Switar 5.5mm f/1.8 (a 8/4 design by Hans Schlumpf), and the 13mm f/0.9 (a 10/5 design also by Schlumpf).

Kern also built a whole series of varifocal lenses. The first was made for the Bolex 16mm in 1955 by Dr. Raimond Stettler – it was the Vario-Switar 21-75mm f/2.8. There were no computers at the time, so he calculated the complicated optics by hand using logarithmic tables. This lens was not produced, however provided research for the first mass-produced Vario lens – the Vario-Switar 18-86mm f/2.5. This lens was the first computer calculated lens, designed by Dr. Stettler and Walter Zuercher, and released in 1960. By 1964 one million lenses had been produced in the Aarau and Yvar S.A. factories. Paillard S.A. was responsible for this success as most Bolex film cameras were equipped with Switar lenses for 8mm, Super-8mm and 16mm formats.

An ALPA brochure for the Switar 50mm f/1.8

Kern only really made one focal length of 35mm lens, and typically only for one company – ALPA. At the end of the 1940s, Pignons S.A. approached Kern regarding lenses for its ALPA series cameras. Of course during this period there was a lot of competition from both German and French optical companies. Hans Schlumpf, who had achieved remarkable things with his cinema-Switars, created the Photo-Switar in 1950, followed in 1960 by the Macro-Switar, both 7-element lens, and in 1968 the improved 8-element Macro-Switar. These lenses were only made for ALPA, with production continuing until 1970, however the supply was so good that some ALPA cameras produced in the 1980s still came equipped with the lens.

  • 50mm f/1.8 Photo-Switar Apochromat
  • 50mm f/1.8 Kern Macro-Switar Apochromat (7-element)
  • 50mm f/1.9 Kern Macro-Switar Apochromat (8-element)

On Monday 21 July 1969, Neil Armstrong became the first human to set foot on the moon during the Apollo 11 mission. This was the first time Kern had supplied lenses to NASA. It was lenses made by Kern that captured the descent of the Eagle module which took Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin to the surface of the moon. There were four data acquisition cameras (Maurer 16mm data acquisition camera) used to collect data. Mounted both on the command module and on the lunar module, the 16mm cameras recorded the events for later evaluation. The lenses for these cameras were supplied by Kern: 180mm f/4.5 (2 pieces), 75mm f/2.2 (21 pieces), 18mm f/0.9 (21 pieces), 10mm f/1.6 (33 pieces).

In 1988 it became part of the Wild Leitz Group and the Aarau factory closed in 1991.

Notable lenses: Switar 50mm f/1.8

Further reading:

A photograph is made to be looked at

/ spqr / Leave a comment

That’s pretty obvious right? But the eye sees things a little differently. The process of looking at a photograph is by no means trivial.

The thing is that the human eye does not stand still. Try focusing your eye on an object for a minute or two. After just a few seconds your eyes will begin to tire, and you long to move them onto something new. By the time you reach a minute, if you have even made it that long, you will struggle to continue staring at the object – your eyes are well past being bored. How many times during the day do you suppose you look at anything for more than a few seconds? (the TV doesn’t count because the picture changes) The answer is likely not many. The same can be said of people that look at the photographs we take. After an initial view, their eyes become restless, longing to move on.

In reality, most people will spend less than a minute looking at a photograph, especially if they have seen the subject/object of the picture before. The only person who really spends a great deal of time looking at a photograph is the person who took it. So with such a short viewing time-span it is important for an image to contain an interesting subject, and provide enough distraction to spend longer considering its message. To do this you have to somehow control movement of the viewers eyes through the picture.

The simplest “scene” can be construed in different ways with respect to eye control.

The first step involves grabbing a viewers attention. Therefore there should be something in the image that is outstanding or unusual. In the second phase, the viewer should be made to understand the story of the image. This is all about the flow of the image, with the viewer being lead through the composition. The third step involves maintaining the viewers gaze by getting them interested in the details of the image. Examples are shown in the figure above.

Travel photography − Shoot now, discard later?

/ spqr / Leave a comment

The 1950s heralded the golden age of travel photography. There was an abundance of camera options due initially to the emergence of East Germany as a powerhouse of inexpensive 35mm cameras, followed shortly afterwards by Japan, but also non-SLR cameras – and the travel revolution had begun. That’s not to say film was necessarily cheap – in 1955 you could buy three rolls of 20 exp. 35mm Kodachrome for about US$5.50 (usually this cheaper price was without processing). To put this into context, a loaf of bread was about US$0.12. Yet when people travelled, for example to Europe, the average length of a trip was about 50 days, at a cost of $1300 (1950), so in all likelihood for those who could afford it, film was a minor expense.

Anyone who knows someone who was an amateur photographer during the heyday of 35mm knows that they often took a lot of photos when travelling. Photos of people, photos of places, and things they saw along the way. Some turned out, others not so much. Why? Because you may never be able to retake a given situation, and because the situation of the travel photographer usually finds themselves in – a very limited time to shoot. You may never come back to the same place (and regardless it will have changed). However travel photography was still limited for the amateur photographer due to inexperience – this often resulted in photos that were out-of-focus, or had parts cut off (maybe sometimes made worse by camera manufacturers who made automatic cameras seem flawless). You never knew exactly what you were going to get until the film had been processed.

A collage of pictures from a trip to Norway
On a trip to Norway I took some 2000 pictures with iPhone and Olympus camera combined (and sometimes I still can’t find that elusive photo I never took).

With digital photography we have another dilemma – you can take hundreds (or even thousands) of photographs, because it is possible. There is no material limit beyond the capacity of a memory card, and that can easily be augmented with other cards. With the proliferation of intelligent cameras, the amateur photographer can focus more on content, and perhaps a little less on the technicalities of taking a photo. Travel photography has become a “shoot now, discard later” venture. But is quantity bad? This may be less about producing a safety net of good photographs, and more about shooting all you want to.

Well known Japanese street photographer Daido Moriyama is the type of photographer that has always believed that quality only comes with quantity. He is known to take 36 exposures in less than 100m of street photography.

“As I’ve said countless times before, my photography is all about quantity. I take lots of shots. Digital cameras are just so amazingly convenient. There’s no film to keep changing, and you just point the camera where you like… Of course, the batteries are a bit of a bother, but relatively speaking…”

Moriyama, How I Take Photographs (2019, p.78)

In the glory days of film, professional photographers would take roll after roll of film, from which only five or ten shots may be used to complete a story. This wasn’t really possible for the amateur film photographer, due to inexperience, cost, and equipment limitations. With digital many of these limitations have disappeared. For some people it is sometimes hard to take a large number of photographs. Sometimes it just doesn’t feel right, but things change over time when you realize that the photo you are looking for was one you never shot. Shooting copious frames in digital costs nothing from a storage perspective. Sometimes it is just finding the balance between quantity and art.

Vintage cameras – The porro prism

/ 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°.

Fig.1: Single and double Porro prisms

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.