It’s almost silly how undervalued this channel/video series is! No other channel on TH-cam covers the history of cameras in a way that’s concise, easy to digest, and packed full of useful information!
Dear Subscribers, viewers and friends. This video is far longer than I first intended. The more content I included, the more I feared I was missing critical points. (More is less?). I thought about splitting it up into bits. But I’ve decided to post the whole video...with these links to specific sections: 00:00 Introduction 02:24 Film formats 04:36 Folding/bellows cameras 09:04 Reflex cameras (Single and Twin) 12:53 Rangefinders/35mm cameras 16:44 Modern SLR cameras (I) 21:00 Development of lenses 25:46 Modern SLR cameras (II) 27:10 Point and shoot cameras 31:41 Conclusions And here's a like to PART 1: The Earliest Plate and Film Cameras to 1930: studio.th-cam.com/users/videolT5W...
Love this series, thank you for making these videos. Growing up in the 70's & 80's, I am very familiar with the point and shoot / disposable cameras. Brings back a lot of family memories.
Before I watch the video through , had to say what pleasure it is to view your efforts and also give credit earlier design and manufacturing of film equipment. We are so spoilt for ease of use today and instant gratification that the level of competency , and sheer engineering genius of yesteryear is completely ignored. Thanks for bringing to light the pioneering designs and changes prior to the 1960's and 1970's.
The history of cameras from camera obscura to the latest full frame mirror less and cellphones. Remarkable. You have managed to pack all the significant developments into a concise three part package better than any I've seen before. What a great way to spend a Sunday morning. Thank you for your hard work. I learned a lot and enjoyed the journey immensely.
Glad to see you have a Zenit :o) But please change the prism foam, if it has not already damaged the prism, it will very shortly. The foam degrades then destroys the prism silvering. It starts by looking like a crack in the prism, then rapidly turns it all a horrible smudgy orange. Olympus also have a similar issue. Removing the top of the camera is easy, but there is a little trick to hold the winding spring in place before removing the top, else it unwinds and is a pain to re-tension.
Hi Simon, Excellent presentation as always. Really enjoyed Part 2 - as I owned some of the cameras from this timeframe. My father had a Zeiss Contaflex. I also seem to recall using a box Brownie at some stage, as can remember the ruby window on the back. The 126 Instamatic made me smile. I'd forgotten that I had this camera as a child. As well as a Polaroid. That was the coolest thing back in the day. My Pentax ME Super and MX were a big part of my life. I've just recently repurchased them as well as an early Auto-Takumar 55mm f2. So it was interesting to see the original Pentax 'AP' camera.
My Dad had a folding Agfa camera, taken off a German soldier prisoner in WW2. The Pentax ME Super was my first 'serious' camera with its cracking 50mm f1.7 SMC lens. In fact, I got my photography Degree using it. I now use the lens on my DSLR and Sony A7 full frame bodies. Far superior lenses to today's ultra sharp monsters.
I didn't think it was too long. Especially as you did give Pentax a shout out for their early innovations. Pentax are much under rated today. Now in my 80's and having been introduced to photography at 6or7 by helping an uncle glace contact prints on the kitchen table I grew up in a family of photographers and have seen and sometimes used/owned many of these machines, i twas a trip down memory lane. As well as several Pentax models I still have, and sometimes use my praktica FX2 I am also fortunate To have a working Premier No1 ( circa 1860) with a Thornton Pickard Blind shutter. I have made some adapters so I can take 4x5 and 6x13 vertical (long live large format film) One point if I may; most of the Russian cameras you mention were not Russian but Ukrainian, hence Soviet. I know its a minor point,but credit where its due. Keep up he good work
There is no way I'm gonna watch a "long" history video...... yet I watched Part 1 and immediately started Part 2. 32 minutes? No way I'm watching this "longer" one! But 33 minutes later I am asking, Is part 3 uploaded yet? As a camera lover, tinkerer and historian, I am really enjoying this. Currently testing a 1954 Asahiflex that I just restored.
What a great comment. Thank you! Part 3 hasn't been posted yet - I just can't find the time to finish it off! Using that Asahiflex must be fun. I nearly bought a broken 1A, including lens, last week....but given everything that is going on, decided to hold off for now.
Excellent job on the history of cameras. I am a big Pentax fan as well. I own many of the Tak.K, M, A and FA lenses. I do own a few of the pre Spotmatics but never managed to buy the first generation Pentax SLR(s). Your copies look nice. Thanks!
I’m of similar mind, being a student of Photographies History I also want to learn by doing it all. So I collect cameras to use them and learn their quirks and individual contributions to history.
One camera to note that still used a leaf shutter in an SLR was Zeiss' own Contaflex. One benefit to a leaf shutter back then, these days especially, is the fact that they can sync with flash at any speed. For flash bulbs you do lose some light from using faster shutter speeds, just under half brighteness by 1/500th for fast M-5 bulbs. With a focal plane shutter you'd only get part of your frame exposed properly as it scans from top to bottom. For electronic flashes you get all the light within 1/10,000th of a second, so you can take fill-flash photos in broad daylight without overexposing it by using faster leaf shutter speeds.
@@Simonsutak It's a quirky little camera, and it's worth peanuts these days despite the Zeiss branding. It's a semi-fixed lens tessar with replacable front elements for wide and telephoto extras, just like Kodak Retinas.
@Simon , thank you so much. I have a question to you: I understand that, cameras gets popular/ purchased for its features like lens collection, camera controls, inbuilt light meters, usability etc. When it comes to digital, there is a parameter called 'colour science' .. but with film camera, what matters the most is only the film. Bcoz, quality of exposure is not dependent on the camera, but on the film! Right? Then why were some (film) cameras more popular than others? Can you please share your thoughts?
This is a big and interesting question! Personally, I think if you look at the early successful SLRs, such as the Nikon and Pentax cameras, amateur and professional photographers were most interested in how well the camera handled, the features (such as through the lens metering) and the quality of lenses, how well made/rugged they were, and so on. Plus value for money and reputation of course. That's what made them more popular.
As a young kid my grandfather supplied me with lots of fantastic cameras. The Rolleflex 2.8 TLR was a favorite. I got to the point that I found no problem dealing with a hand light meter with all my cameras. I still use a meter to this day though the current version is an upgrade. Another favorite was the original Voigtländer Bessa. Regrettably I no longer have the original old equipment.
I have a duaflex camera as well! It is incredibly simple, but it seems to work well. I still haven’t taken many pictures with it (I have only taken 1 picture), but I hope to be able to enjoy it.
Do you think you could go over best M42 camera bodies? I recently picked up a AE-1 and a new 50mm 1.2 lens, but it would be cool to get some interesting 42 lenses. Also my 50mm 1.2 has what look like scratches where the aperture blades interact. It still works but I have not seen that before and wondering if this means that things are coming into contact when they shouldn't.
Not sure about those scratches; it does sound like the blades might be rubbing. Generally, as long as the way the blades open and shut feels smooth, I'd leave them alone!
Thank you. Somehow I found this presentation more confusing that I should have. I think I shall come back and watch again after I go give the George Eastman House's book Camera a good read. For some reason, I find the history of cameras to be more confusing that almost every other aspect of the history of photography. I wonder ... just a thought here ... Would it not be useful and more clear to break down the history of cameras into innovations that impact the array of choices and control (or ease of use) which developed over time? - For example, lenses have a history of their own (the three dominant 19C lenses, the 20th century improvements in lens quality, interchangeable lenses, and the invention of a wide variety of lenses with different focal lengths) - The history of camera formats - with negative type (metal plate, glass plate, film) and size options - seems to be another separate conversation. - The history of flash and light meters (including auto-exposure and sync flash) seems to be another separate line. I suppose a bonus would be the history of other kinds of artificial light (lamps, etc.) - F-stop, aperture and shutters seems to be another. - And finally everything to do with framing and positioning the camera - viewfinders, rangefinders, bellows SLR, SLR, TFL, and DSLR.
I love these videos, my family was always camera shy even though my mom was beautiful, she hated having her picture taken, as if they were prying her privacy, it's funny how photo taking has changed, anyway this is very interesting, I've always been a photographer wanna be but never followed up on my desire. Thank you for great content.
I took apart my Dad's old folding bellows 120 format camera for my first enlarger. Decades later I bought the same camera from Europe via ebay - A Belfoca.
I have a Polaroid Land camera still in the original box with the manual, also a couple of 65 years old Zeiss 35 mm one a SLR all I have owned from new.
Interesting, and those Zeiss's must be beautiful. I was playing with a Polaroid Land 800 camera at a car boot sale this morning. It's a big and fascinating beast!
@@Simonsutak They have a unique set up where the front part of the lens is changeable but not at the camera body. If I remember right they both have 2.8 lenses.
Btw, the red dot was originally used and patented by Zeiss Ikon. You will not see any red dot on a prewar Leica. Contax II is from 1936, shutter is quite reliable, first model had issues in the first three years, then the shutter was redesigned. I think what also should be mentioned is, how much two WW had impact on camera and lens design, only to mention the change from handcraft to mass production in the 1930’s in Germany, rangefinder and faster shutter designs, low light lenses, portable bodies etc. Early normal Takumars for the Pentax are I believe, double Gaussian, i.e. Planar-type lenses. Sonnars were for rangefinders, as the mirror did not allow the lens to sit as close to the focal plane shutter in an slr. But anyway, thanks for putting up so much valuable information!
Many thanks for this information. I should have mentioned Pentax/Takumar’s changing optical designs. The first M42 Takumar I demonstrated, the 58mm f2, was indeed a Sonnar design, and an unusual choice for a 58mm focal length at the time. Other early Takumar lenses had Gaussian or other designs. My favourite source for info. on the lenses is this: klassik-cameras.de/Pentax_Takumar
When the Russian Copied the Leica 39mm x 26 TPI (Threads Per Inch) Len Mount, they made it 39mm by 1.0mm Lead. The Problem is, 26 TPI equals a Thread Lead of 0.9769mm, that’s a discrepancy of 0.0231mm per turn.
Have you seen the new family of disposable but reloadable 35mm cameras. All have to be made by same company but use different camera company names. I purchased an Agfa mode because it came in a coffee color. $35 US. And I have an Agfa Isolette II. I the Isolette.
One point I would have liked to have a little info included was the fact (I have read) that Kodak was one of the heaviest users of radioactive glass in their line of point and shoot cameras. In SLR lenses, this info seems more readily available, but seems obscured from the discussion. I’ve always been curious just how prevalent radioactive glass was used in something so causally used in our lives.
Yes - Kodak did make some radioactive lenses. There's a partial list of radioactive lenses here, including Kodak. But it would indeed be interesting to see how many Kodak p&s lenses are radioactive. I'll do some tests on the Kodak cameras I have. www.cameramanuals.org/booklets/ensign_handbook_03.pdf I've also posted three videos on radioactive lenses, including this one where I test my own lenses, but they are SLRs. Many thanks for the tip! th-cam.com/video/ZaAOMPvlTaU/w-d-xo.html
@@Simonsutak I’ve watched all your videos.. several times in fact. Great research. I’m always fascinated by and yearn to learn more about photography history and technology.
Yes, it had a FP shutter, too. You then had the choice of putting virtually any lens you liked on the front, minus front shutter. You're referring to the Crown Graphic.
I purchased the Nikon Fm2n ..as it had the fastest flash syn at that time at 250 th ..I was a photog ...in the Med and Carribean..and needed flash in bright light
@19:30 „Ikophot ist mausetot…“ Because of the by now degrading selenium cell, you'd better use a proper light meter today with your brand-new (no joke!) _Ica Icarette 488_ from 1926 - as I do ;-)
You're right! If you want to see a copy of the original page - where the focal lengths are missing, it's here - scroll down to page 25. www.cameramanuals.org/booklets/ensign_handbook_03.pdf
I believe these were for large format cameras (were there any medium format folders at that time from Ensign?), so, you could probably order your lens in a focal lenght between 13,5 - 16,5 cm (or actually similar in inches). For medium format it probably was 6x9 = 10,5 cm.
Sorry, you're right, it was badly worded. I was really trying to refer to new camera production based on 127 film format not the film itself. There are also other cases where cameras have been discontinued but the film/media has continued to be produced...for example the Kodak Disc cameras.
That reminds me of what happened in the Summer of 1970. I was in Tokyo with a student historical/cultural tour. Members of one family had brought their 127 roll film camera, which worked until they ran out of film. With no 127 film available, they came to me, the Nikkormat FTN user. I thought it over for a bit, then went in search of a 126/Instamatic-type camera. The search was successful, and they didn't have any problem taking pictures for the rest of the tour. So, in 1970 Tokyo, 127 film was no longer available.
It’s almost silly how undervalued this channel/video series is! No other channel on TH-cam covers the history of cameras in a way that’s concise, easy to digest, and packed full of useful information!
I've been involved in photography for more than 40 years but your history video tought me things I never knew. Thank you!
Dear Subscribers, viewers and friends. This video is far longer than I first intended. The more content I included, the more I feared I was missing critical points. (More is less?). I thought about splitting it up into bits. But I’ve decided to post the whole video...with these links to specific sections:
00:00 Introduction
02:24 Film formats
04:36 Folding/bellows cameras
09:04 Reflex cameras (Single and Twin)
12:53 Rangefinders/35mm cameras
16:44 Modern SLR cameras (I)
21:00 Development of lenses
25:46 Modern SLR cameras (II)
27:10 Point and shoot cameras
31:41 Conclusions
And here's a like to PART 1: The Earliest Plate and Film Cameras to 1930: studio.th-cam.com/users/videolT5W...
No... more is more! More please.
The bbc level of youtube content. I love this channel and your clear professional approach.
Love this series, thank you for making these videos. Growing up in the 70's & 80's, I am very familiar with the point and shoot / disposable cameras. Brings back a lot of family memories.
Thank you, genuinely wish it had been longer 😊👍😊
I'd love to view the director's cut version of this! Two or three hours, I'll still be paying close attention. Well done, sir!
Before I watch the video through , had to say what pleasure it is to view your efforts and also give credit earlier design and manufacturing of film equipment. We are so spoilt for ease of use today and instant gratification that the level of competency , and sheer engineering genius of yesteryear is completely ignored.
Thanks for bringing to light the pioneering designs and changes prior to the 1960's and 1970's.
The history of cameras from camera obscura to the latest full frame mirror less and cellphones. Remarkable. You have managed to pack all the significant developments into a concise three part package better than any I've seen before. What a great way to spend a Sunday morning. Thank you for your hard work. I learned a lot and enjoyed the journey immensely.
Thank you so much for your comment - much appreciated.
Glad to see you have a Zenit :o) But please change the prism foam, if it has not already damaged the prism, it will very shortly. The foam degrades then destroys the prism silvering. It starts by looking like a crack in the prism, then rapidly turns it all a horrible smudgy orange. Olympus also have a similar issue. Removing the top of the camera is easy, but there is a little trick to hold the winding spring in place before removing the top, else it unwinds and is a pain to re-tension.
I love your videos on photography. You present so well and the videos are very professional. Well done!
Hi Simon, Excellent presentation as always. Really enjoyed Part 2 - as I owned some of the cameras from this timeframe. My father had a Zeiss Contaflex. I also seem to recall using a box Brownie at some stage, as can remember the ruby window on the back. The 126 Instamatic made me smile. I'd forgotten that I had this camera as a child. As well as a Polaroid. That was the coolest thing back in the day. My Pentax ME Super and MX were a big part of my life. I've just recently repurchased them as well as an early Auto-Takumar 55mm f2. So it was interesting to see the original Pentax 'AP' camera.
My Dad had a folding Agfa camera, taken off a German soldier prisoner in WW2. The Pentax ME Super was my first 'serious' camera with its cracking 50mm f1.7 SMC lens. In fact, I got my photography Degree using it. I now use the lens on my DSLR and Sony A7 full frame bodies. Far superior lenses to today's ultra sharp monsters.
Thanks for great recapitulation how cameras evolved. I still have my first 35mm Exacta Varex IIa, model with pentaprism viewfinder and light meter.
this is turning into a binge watch. onto No 3!
Nice video. At 30+ mins I thought that it would be too long, but the time flew by...
Very interesting serie here. Congratulations for your researches and this fantastic summary. Good job indeed.
I didn't think it was too long. Especially as you did give Pentax a shout out for their early innovations. Pentax are much under rated today. Now in my 80's and having been introduced to photography at 6or7 by helping an uncle glace contact prints on the kitchen table I grew up in a family of photographers and have seen and sometimes used/owned many of these machines, i twas a trip down memory lane. As well as several Pentax models I still have, and sometimes use my praktica FX2 I am also fortunate To have a working Premier No1 ( circa 1860) with a Thornton Pickard Blind shutter. I have made some adapters so I can take 4x5 and 6x13 vertical (long live large format film) One point if I may; most of the Russian cameras you mention were not Russian but Ukrainian, hence Soviet. I know its a minor point,but credit where its due. Keep up he good work
There is no way I'm gonna watch a "long" history video...... yet I watched Part 1 and immediately started Part 2. 32 minutes? No way I'm watching this "longer" one! But 33 minutes later I am asking, Is part 3 uploaded yet? As a camera lover, tinkerer and historian, I am really enjoying this. Currently testing a 1954 Asahiflex that I just restored.
What a great comment. Thank you! Part 3 hasn't been posted yet - I just can't find the time to finish it off! Using that Asahiflex must be fun. I nearly bought a broken 1A, including lens, last week....but given everything that is going on, decided to hold off for now.
Excellent job on the history of cameras. I am a big Pentax fan as well. I own many of the Tak.K, M, A and FA lenses. I do own a few of the pre Spotmatics but never managed to buy the first generation Pentax SLR(s). Your copies look nice. Thanks!
yeahhhhhhhhhh, my fav series :D
I’m of similar mind, being a student of Photographies History I also want to learn by doing it all. So I collect cameras to use them and learn their quirks and individual contributions to history.
I'm glad you made this video. I found it very interesting. Long videos are not a problem! Keep them coming👍
Love my Pentax SV, and M42 lens collection.
Yes: ver good lenses indeed.
One camera to note that still used a leaf shutter in an SLR was Zeiss' own Contaflex. One benefit to a leaf shutter back then, these days especially, is the fact that they can sync with flash at any speed. For flash bulbs you do lose some light from using faster shutter speeds, just under half brighteness by 1/500th for fast M-5 bulbs. With a focal plane shutter you'd only get part of your frame exposed properly as it scans from top to bottom. For electronic flashes you get all the light within 1/10,000th of a second, so you can take fill-flash photos in broad daylight without overexposing it by using faster leaf shutter speeds.
Many thanks, I don't know the Contaflex and I'll add it my research.
@@Simonsutak
It's a quirky little camera, and it's worth peanuts these days despite the Zeiss branding. It's a semi-fixed lens tessar with replacable front elements for wide and telephoto extras, just like Kodak Retinas.
And don't forget the Bessamatic, which used the Deckel mount, with complete (not just front element) lens changes in front of a leaf shutter.
@Simon , thank you so much. I have a question to you: I understand that, cameras gets popular/ purchased for its features like lens collection, camera controls, inbuilt light meters, usability etc. When it comes to digital, there is a parameter called 'colour science' .. but with film camera, what matters the most is only the film. Bcoz, quality of exposure is not dependent on the camera, but on the film! Right? Then why were some (film) cameras more popular than others? Can you please share your thoughts?
This is a big and interesting question! Personally, I think if you look at the early successful SLRs, such as the Nikon and Pentax cameras, amateur and professional photographers were most interested in how well the camera handled, the features (such as through the lens metering) and the quality of lenses, how well made/rugged they were, and so on. Plus value for money and reputation of course. That's what made them more popular.
I really enjoyed that. Thank you.
As a young kid my grandfather supplied me with lots of fantastic cameras. The Rolleflex 2.8 TLR was a favorite. I got to the point that I found no problem dealing with a hand light meter with all my cameras. I still use a meter to this day though the current version is an upgrade. Another favorite was the original Voigtländer Bessa. Regrettably I no longer have the original old equipment.
I have a duaflex camera as well! It is incredibly simple, but it seems to work well. I still haven’t taken many pictures with it (I have only taken 1 picture), but I hope to be able to enjoy it.
I liked the video! I was long, but it was well done. Always nice to learn about a camera I've never heard of.
Thank you for sharing. I love well made machinery.
Thank you for sharing
Love the longer format. The time flew by. Just one question Simon - what's a utak???
I wondered that also because in Filipino it means brain.....but apparently it can also mean flatulance....🤔
@@breathestrongcycling3672 Brainfart! =)
Ha, with respect to above, I meant and prefer ‘brain’!
What an amazing documentary ; thank you !!
Thank you, glad you enjoyed it.
Do you think you could go over best M42 camera bodies? I recently picked up a AE-1 and a new 50mm 1.2 lens, but it would be cool to get some interesting 42 lenses. Also my 50mm 1.2 has what look like scratches where the aperture blades interact. It still works but I have not seen that before and wondering if this means that things are coming into contact when they shouldn't.
Not sure about those scratches; it does sound like the blades might be rubbing. Generally, as long as the way the blades open and shut feels smooth, I'd leave them alone!
Thank you. Somehow I found this presentation more confusing that I should have. I think I shall come back and watch again after I go give the George Eastman House's book Camera a good read.
For some reason, I find the history of cameras to be more confusing that almost every other aspect of the history of photography.
I wonder ... just a thought here ... Would it not be useful and more clear to break down the history of cameras into innovations that impact the array of choices and control (or ease of use) which developed over time?
- For example, lenses have a history of their own (the three dominant 19C lenses, the 20th century improvements in lens quality, interchangeable lenses, and the invention of a wide variety of lenses with different focal lengths)
- The history of camera formats - with negative type (metal plate, glass plate, film) and size options - seems to be another separate conversation.
- The history of flash and light meters (including auto-exposure and sync flash) seems to be another separate line. I suppose a bonus would be the history of other kinds of artificial light (lamps, etc.)
- F-stop, aperture and shutters seems to be another.
- And finally everything to do with framing and positioning the camera - viewfinders, rangefinders, bellows SLR, SLR, TFL, and DSLR.
I love these videos, my family was always camera shy even though my mom was beautiful, she hated having her picture taken, as if they were prying her privacy, it's funny how photo taking has changed, anyway this is very interesting, I've always been a photographer wanna be but never followed up on my desire. Thank you for great content.
We still have an Olympus 35 SP rangefinder camera - a beautiful and precision camera.
I took apart my Dad's old folding bellows 120 format camera for my first enlarger. Decades later I bought the same camera from Europe via ebay - A Belfoca.
Where do I can find part 3? Verry nice stories part 1 and 2.
Many thanks. Part 3 will be ready in a week or so!
Very interesting and informative video, thank you. You asked for any corrections; Rollei rather than Rollie.
I have a Polaroid Land camera still in the original box with the manual, also a couple of 65 years old Zeiss 35 mm one a SLR all I have owned from new.
Interesting, and those Zeiss's must be beautiful. I was playing with a Polaroid Land 800 camera at a car boot sale this morning. It's a big and fascinating beast!
@@Simonsutak They have a unique set up where the front part of the lens is changeable but not at the camera body. If I remember right they both have 2.8 lenses.
Btw, the red dot was originally used and patented by Zeiss Ikon. You will not see any red dot on a prewar Leica. Contax II is from 1936, shutter is quite reliable, first model had issues in the first three years, then the shutter was redesigned. I think what also should be mentioned is, how much two WW had impact on camera and lens design, only to mention the change from handcraft to mass production in the 1930’s in Germany, rangefinder and faster shutter designs, low light lenses, portable bodies etc. Early normal Takumars for the Pentax are I believe, double Gaussian, i.e. Planar-type lenses. Sonnars were for rangefinders, as the mirror did not allow the lens to sit as close to the focal plane shutter in an slr. But anyway, thanks for putting up so much valuable information!
Many thanks for this information. I should have mentioned Pentax/Takumar’s changing optical designs. The first M42 Takumar I demonstrated, the 58mm f2, was indeed a Sonnar design, and an unusual choice for a 58mm focal length at the time. Other early Takumar lenses had Gaussian or other designs. My favourite source for info. on the lenses is this: klassik-cameras.de/Pentax_Takumar
When the Russian Copied the Leica 39mm x 26 TPI (Threads Per Inch) Len Mount, they made it 39mm by 1.0mm Lead. The Problem is, 26 TPI equals a Thread Lead of 0.9769mm, that’s a discrepancy of 0.0231mm per turn.
Have you seen the new family of disposable but reloadable 35mm cameras. All have to be made by same company but use different camera company names. I purchased an Agfa mode because it came in a coffee color. $35 US. And I have an Agfa Isolette II. I the Isolette.
I miss my Minox 35 and my Minolta Hi-Matic but I still use a Rollei 35 and a Mamiya C-330
Thank you!
Hello Simon , can we spect a video on angular lens on m42 mount ?
Hi, do you mean wide-angle lenses? I’m planning one on the Takumar FISHEYE M42, 17mm f4 in the next few weeks.
One point I would have liked to have a little info included was the fact (I have read) that Kodak was one of the heaviest users of radioactive glass in their line of point and shoot cameras. In SLR lenses, this info seems more readily available, but seems obscured from the discussion. I’ve always been curious just how prevalent radioactive glass was used in something so causally used in our lives.
Yes - Kodak did make some radioactive lenses. There's a partial list of radioactive lenses here, including Kodak. But it would indeed be interesting to see how many Kodak p&s lenses are radioactive. I'll do some tests on the Kodak cameras I have.
www.cameramanuals.org/booklets/ensign_handbook_03.pdf
I've also posted three videos on radioactive lenses, including this one where I test my own lenses, but they are SLRs. Many thanks for the tip!
th-cam.com/video/ZaAOMPvlTaU/w-d-xo.html
@@Simonsutak I’ve watched all your videos.. several times in fact. Great research. I’m always fascinated by and yearn to learn more about photography history and technology.
The speed graphic camera had a shutter in the lens not a focal plane.
You had to cock the shutter for each shot. It also had manual f stop adjustment.
Many thanks for this information. I've never used one of these cameras and was relying on an internet source :(
Yes, it had a FP shutter, too. You then had the choice of putting virtually any lens you liked on the front, minus front shutter.
You're referring to the Crown Graphic.
The Konica P&S was great for mothers capturing images of their children - since children often don't stay sill.
I purchased the Nikon Fm2n ..as it had the fastest flash syn at that time at 250 th ..I was a photog ...in the Med and Carribean..and needed flash in bright light
When are you going to upload part 3?
Apologies for the long delay, a lot is going on around me! I'm working on Part 3 this week and hopefully it will be posted next week.
@@Simonsutak Thank You!
You've got brilliant diction.
Is there a part 3 already? :)
I've finally finished and posted it - th-cam.com/video/bbhTyNq5DCc/w-d-xo.html
I know this might sound silly but could the leica 1 take kodachrome pictures at the time?
I thought the TLR was a thing that started in the late 20's, not 50 years earlier. Shows how much I know lol
@19:30 „Ikophot ist mausetot…“
Because of the by now degrading selenium cell, you'd better use a proper light meter today with your brand-new (no joke!) _Ica Icarette 488_ from 1926 - as I do ;-)
I think the fashionista of cameras worth a mention ...the Studebaker design of cars and coca cola ...the Anscoflex II ..not expensive ..
Strange thing at 21:31
Many different lenses but the focal lengths are missing...
You're right! If you want to see a copy of the original page - where the focal lengths are missing, it's here - scroll down to page 25.
www.cameramanuals.org/booklets/ensign_handbook_03.pdf
@@Simonsutak Thanks for the very quick reply. Looks like this most important info is indeed missing.
I believe these were for large format cameras (were there any medium format folders at that time from Ensign?), so, you could probably order your lens in a focal lenght between 13,5 - 16,5 cm (or actually similar in inches). For medium format it probably was 6x9 = 10,5 cm.
Pentax LX : )
127 only lasted into the 60s? I was still using it well into the 90s!!!!!!
Sorry, you're right, it was badly worded. I was really trying to refer to new camera production based on 127 film format not the film itself. There are also other cases where cameras have been discontinued but the film/media has continued to be produced...for example the Kodak Disc cameras.
That reminds me of what happened in the Summer of 1970. I was in Tokyo with a student historical/cultural tour. Members of one family had brought their 127 roll film camera, which worked until they ran out of film. With no 127 film available, they came to me, the Nikkormat FTN user. I thought it over for a bit, then went in search of a 126/Instamatic-type camera. The search was successful, and they didn't have any problem taking pictures for the rest of the tour. So, in 1970 Tokyo, 127 film was no longer available.
Wait... POLAROID named a camera SWINGER?!?? 'Guess they knew their market...