Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Konica Hexanon
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Feb 10, 2013 9:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Does the baffle affect exposure though?


PostPosted: Sun Feb 10, 2013 11:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
fermy wrote:
Does the baffle affect exposure though?


It shouldn't. If it does, the opening is too small. The entire point of the light falloff exercise is to determine the point when this happens. This is easiest to do at full aperture. When the camera's metering system begins to detect a drop in light intensity, this is an indication that the shadow of the baffle is beginning to encroach on the sensor's image circle. The baffle used before this happens is usually the right one for that given lens.


PostPosted: Sun Feb 10, 2013 11:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Don't forget guys:- the fairest tests are when magazines buy a lens at random from any shop, Konica might have supplied the lens to the magazines..... that was tested and set up perfectly.


PostPosted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 12:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
konicamera wrote:
fermy wrote:
Does the baffle affect exposure though?


It shouldn't. If it does, the opening is too small. The entire point of the light falloff exercise is to determine the point when this happens. This is easiest to do at full aperture. When the camera's metering system begins to detect a drop in light intensity, this is an indication that the shadow of the baffle is beginning to encroach on the sensor's image circle. The baffle used before this happens is usually the right one for that given lens.


Ok, in that case it's indeed a baffle and not a Waterhouse stop. However, my understanding (or misunderstanding) is that when increasing the size of the baffle, before you get vignetting (i.e. encroaching on the image circle) you will start cutting light that goes from the edges of the rear element onto the sensor. In this regime the whole sensor will be still illuminated through the central opening, so no vignetting, but the result is equivalent to stopping the lens down because less light reaches the sensor.

I am somewhat puzzled how this might work. When light hits the sensor at any given angle, a portion of it is reflected and a portion of it passes through the filter stack. So I doubt that one can cut completely only the light that gets reflected, some light that registers on the sensor should also be cut off by such procedure.


PostPosted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 11:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
fermy wrote:
Ok, in that case it's indeed a baffle and not a Waterhouse stop. However, my understanding (or misunderstanding) is that when increasing the size of the baffle, before you get vignetting (i.e. encroaching on the image circle) you will start cutting light that goes from the edges of the rear element onto the sensor. In this regime the whole sensor will be still illuminated through the central opening, so no vignetting, but the result is equivalent to stopping the lens down because less light reaches the sensor.

I am somewhat puzzled how this might work. When light hits the sensor at any given angle, a portion of it is reflected and a portion of it passes through the filter stack. So I doubt that one can cut completely only the light that gets reflected, some light that registers on the sensor should also be cut off by such procedure.



Well, as far as I know, a Waterhouse stop is a barrier located within a lens with a fixed opening at its center and a baffle is a matte surface placed behind a lens for the purpose of absorbing reflections. The device we are interested in here can theoretically be categorized as either but that won’t affect its application.

The light rays that it aims to intercept come into the mirror chamber at all sorts of angles. Some will be reflected by the sensor and scattered in the mirror chamber and some may be picked up by the sensor. In contrast to film, which is a light sensitive surface, the light sensitive elements of a sensor are usually located beneath its surface and are unreachable for light rays with an inclination exceeding x (whatever value x might have here). I suspect that the percentage of light from beyond the APS-C's image circle that would be picked up by the sensor is minuscule.

The aim of installing such a baffle is to stop as much of the superfluous light as possible, without affecting in any noticeable way the light that might potentially be picked up by the sensor. As one progressively diminishes the diameter of the baffle’s opening, one reaches a point where that aim is achieved to a reasonable degree. I say “reasonable degree” because I don’t believe there is a point where the two types of light rays can be neatly separated.

The role of the camera’s light metering system in identifying this point is crucial. If any noticeable quantity of light were to be intercepted, the meter would be first to know. My gut instinct tells me that if the metering system doesn’t register any light falloff, you’re not missing anything of significance. In saying this, I assume the metering system is not set to spot metering.


PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2013 8:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hi!

konicamera wrote:
The role of the camera’s light metering system in identifying this point is crucial. If any noticeable quantity of light were to be intercepted, the meter would be first to know. My gut instinct tells me that if the metering system doesn’t register any light falloff, you’re not missing anything of significance. In saying this, I assume the metering system is not set to spot metering.


Very good point. In fact, I'd think you would want to set the camera's metering to "full frame, unweighted" for the most accurate results. Spot metering would be the worst choice.

Cheers!


PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2013 12:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
konicamera wrote:
Bille wrote:


What´s the difference between the "baffle" mentioned and stopping down regularly?



... In addition, the baffle is usually placed immediately behind a lens' rear element. .

Would it not be better to place the baffle at the rear of the adapter (since we are using mirrorless cams, etc)?


PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2013 12:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
That is an interesting idea, although I have never tried it. Off the top of my head, it seems to me that as the baffle is placed further away from the lens and closer to the sensor, the exact diameter of its opening can be determined with greater precision.


PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2013 11:24 am    Post subject: Baffle placement for mirrorless cameras Reply with quote
Hi!

konicamera wrote:
That is an interesting idea, although I have never tried it. Off the top of my head, it seems to me that as the baffle is placed further away from the lens and closer to the sensor, the exact diameter of its opening can be determined with greater precision.


I think putting the baffle nearer the sensor, such as at the rear of the adapter, may be an optical improvement. Certainly doing it this way on a mirrorless camera is likely to allow creation of a smaller set of baffles, for the same effect. I'll try it sometime soon....

Cheers!


PostPosted: Fri Jun 14, 2013 12:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Sorry for resurrecting this old thread, but it's too difficult to resist this "told you so" moment.

I just bought a big Konica lot and together with lenses came two Konica sales brochures with lens line-up. Probably the former owner bought his lenses in two installments because the first brochure shows a normal lineup with 1.8/52mm, 1.4/57, and 1.2/57, while the second one has a 1.7/50, 1.4/50, 1.2/57 set.

Some of the members above protested when I called 1.7/50 a "budget lens". Guess what Konica brochure says?
Konica wrote:
50mm f1.7 - Budget priced standard lens.


Btw, Konica marketing was not very inventive. The text for 1.7/50 copies word for word the one for 1.8/52, while the text for 1.4/50 is identical to the one for 1.4/57. On the other hand they use a portrait of a scantily clad young lady to market 2.8/15 UC Hexanon fishey Laughing


PostPosted: Fri Jun 14, 2013 2:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Misunderstandings are easy to have with words because meanings change; not only through language translations of different countries, but also through changes of context, and culture.
There is no doubting what Konica wrote; that it is their budget standard lens. But many today regard the word, "budget" to connote "inferiority", Konica (probably) meant "the less expensive, and mass produced" lens of their offerings. But since then, the 50mm f1.7 gained a reputation, and well deserved, for being the best of the standard , or what we now call "kit" lenses.
In other words, it was "standard" but it is NOT an inferior lens.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 14, 2013 8:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
fermy wrote:
Sorry for resurrecting this old thread, but it's too difficult to resist this "told you so" moment.

Like the old saying goes: "I can resist anything, except temptation". I sympathize. Smile

My principal gripe with what you were saying was that you clearly saw the fact that the 50/1.7 cost less than the 50/1.4 as an indication that it was a lower quality lens.

My point in turn was that this lens is technically different from the 50/1.4, a fact that explains why it cost less to make; that its quality, both optically and mechanically, is comparable to anything anyone else produced at the time; and that it was not made by Konica to provide a "budget" option for cash-strapped customers.

I think Aspen's comment about misunderstandings due to language, countries and context is right on the mark. But I think this also applies to the issue of "standard lens" vs "kit lens". I am over 50 and I remember that in the 1970s, the term "standard" had nothing to do with an OEM's "standard offerings". It was a term used to refer to a focal range between wide angle and telephoto. That range went from 50mm to 58mm in the early 1970s, and was extended downwards to 40mm towards the end of the decade to include the various compact "pancakes" that appeared on the market at approximately that time.

I have far less experience with today's nomenclature than that of the 1970s and 80s, but as I understand it, the word "kit" or the expression "kit lens" is used today to describe an entry level lens, usually a short zoom, bundled by default with the camera. More often than not, it is an item of lower quality (especially mechanically and as regards its electronic components) that even minimally ambitious users quickly discard in exchange for something technically more upscale. This is my impression. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

fermy wrote:
Btw, Konica marketing was not very inventive.

You are absolutely right here. Konica's marketing was often dismal. The company, family owned for a long time, obviously failed to appreciate the importance of promotional campaigns and had little understanding of marketing techniques. Just how little importance these aspects held for the company management can be seen in the sloppy translation of most Konica instruction manuals, arguably one of the most important pieces of literature aimed at customers. This is incomprehensible, as the cost of a proper translation and proof-reading of a relatively short text would have been minuscule. I can tell both the English and French are bad, and I suspect the case is similar with German, Swedish and Spanish. The company did much better in the USA than elsewhere, thanks to Berkey Photo, the official distributor, which had its own marketing campaigns. All US photomags of the day were full of bright and colorful Konica ads written by knowledgeable people using proper English . But even there, Konica advertising concentrated on various innovative aspects of Konica's successive bodies, and hardly ever mentioned Hexanon lenses, the best feature of the system.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 14, 2013 8:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
aspen wrote:
Would it not be better to place the baffle at the rear of the adapter (since we are using mirrorless cams, etc)?

I was just re-reading this exchange when it hit me that what I was suggesting ("as the baffle is placed further away from the lens and closer to the sensor, the exact diameter of its opening can be determined with greater precision") makes absolutely no sense.

If you consider that the point of the baffle is to eliminate superfluous light rays from the mirror chamber (let's call it that even if mirrorless cameras are involved), clearly it performs this best the closest it is to the lens. If one had a perfectly cut baffle, say, 1mm above the sensor, the mirror chamber would still be full of superfluous light rays, hitting the sensor at all angles and being reflected by it, making the entire exercise pointless. From a strictly optical (and theoretical) point of view, the best thing would be to paint a black circle directly on the lens' rear optical element. Of course, I wouldn't encourage anyone to do this.

I don't remember what I had been smoking before I answered your question Aspen, but it was clearly darn good merchandise. Smile


PostPosted: Fri Jun 14, 2013 8:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
***You are absolutely right here. Konica's marketing was often dismal. The company, family owned for a long time, obviously failed to appreciate the importance of promotional campaigns and had little understanding of marketing techniques.***

Indeed Konicamera, as in the 1960's, h'mm when I was young, was persuaded by Pentax to buy their camera.......probably due to the amount of money spent on advertising and now I know the Konica camera and lenses in those days were just as good and maybe better.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 14, 2013 10:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
And Konica bodies quite so so vs Nikon for example.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 14, 2013 10:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
And Konica bodies quite so so vs Nikon for example.

What specific issues did you have?


PostPosted: Fri Jun 14, 2013 11:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
konicamera wrote:

My point in turn was that this lens is technically different from the 50/1.4, a fact that explains why it cost less to make; that its quality, both optically and mechanically, is comparable to anything anyone else produced at the time; and that it was not made by Konica to provide a "budget" option for cash-strapped customers.


Well, this is exactly how Konica presents its lens line-up
Konica wrote:

1.7/50 - Budget priced standard lens. Lightweight and compact. Focuses down to 21.7 inches
1.4/50 - Our most popular standard lens. Excellent resolution for beautiful slides or enlargements. Retains life-like image perspective
1.2/50 - Extremely fast standard lens. High contrast and wide aperture. Excellent for low light levels.

To me the message seems clear: by default get 1.4; if you shoot a lot in low light get 1.2; if you are on the budget get 1.7. You are right btw, "standard" here refers to the focal length.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 14, 2013 5:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Konica electronics is usually failed, hard to find working one, most notorius dead ones are best models like Konica FT-1 , FS-1 , TC-X a toy laughable camera, etc I have all Konica SLR. Even FS-1 reverse arm did brake in my hands, dur crap plastic part. I like probably only FT-1 due I paid for CLA'D and works, FC-1, nothing else from SLR production line. Compacts, RF, folders are great I love them.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 14, 2013 11:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I realize that this has been a tough thread for some people, but I have found much of what has been discussed extremely interesting. I'd like to say thanks to all the participants, thus far.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 14, 2013 11:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I had use the t3n, in black version. I remeber the smooth controls, nice weight, equilibrate body.

Good enamel paint. Beauty to the eyes.

IMHO, you never go wrong with one (or two) of these cams.


PostPosted: Sat Jun 15, 2013 6:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
Konica electronics is usually failed, hard to find working one, most notorius dead ones are best models like Konica FT-1 , FS-1 , TC-X a toy laughable camera, etc I have all Konica SLR. Even FS-1 reverse arm did brake in my hands, dur crap plastic part. I like probably only FT-1 due I paid for CLA'D and works, FC-1, nothing else from SLR production line. Compacts, RF, folders are great I love them.


True what you say about the latest Konica cameras, Although I quite like the TC (not tcx)...but many later cameras from other makes were annoying as well e.g battery door breaking on the Canon "A" models


PostPosted: Sat Jun 15, 2013 6:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
TC-X a toy laughable camera


It is not build like a tank (By that I mean heavy like the other Konicas, I don't imply they are as reliable.) but it is a strong camera, it can take some abuse. You also profit of it's younger age; brighter viewfinder, 1.5 V battery, tinyer, lighter, coat pocketable.
It may look like a toy but it is a capable tool.

Btw, it was produced by Cosina based on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosina_CT-1


PostPosted: Sat Jun 15, 2013 8:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nice to hear you love it, I am glad to see any buzz about Konicas, they are shameless forgotten cameras, lenses.


PostPosted: Sat Jun 15, 2013 10:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
Nice to hear you love it, I am glad to see any buzz about Konicas, they are shameless forgotten cameras, lenses.

Just the invitation I needed Smile

“I stood under your bedroom window, throwing up a brick…”
Deep Purple, "Anyone's Daughter" Smile


As some of you may have begun to suspect, I have something of a soft spot for Konica gear. It is my favorite equipment, largely because of the lenses, most of whose rendition I really, really like. But I also like the cameras. Like all cameras, they have their flaws and quirks, but on the whole they are intelligently designed, finished with attention to detail, quite sturdy and very dependable. I am aware that just as I like Konica gear, other people may like something else better, while others may dislike Konicas altogether. I have no issue with this – de gustibus non disputandum est or, if you prefer uncluttered English, “some folks like cup-cakes better…”, as an admirable fellow who is sadly no longer with us put it.

Still, some people express the view that Konica cameras were (in alphabetical order) either “crap”, “so-so”, “unreliable”, “worse than”, etc. It would be nice to know what specific issues have produced such claims, because they run counter to all my experience with Konica SLRs going back over 35 years. During that time, I have also used cameras from other makers, albeit far less extensively. Those I can remember include the Canon FTb, EF, and A-1, the Chinon Memotron CEII, the Minolta SRT-101, XE-5, and XD-7, the Olympus OM-1, the Pentax Spotmatic, ESII, and KX, and the Yashica Electro-X. At one time or another, various Cosinas, Mirandas, Petris, Prakticas, Topcons and Soviet Zenits also graced my hands. I still own and use many of them. I am going through a Minolta SRT-101 + MC Rokkor relapse again (great camera, great lenses!). The only major OEM whose cameras I have never used is Nikon, but for many years a friend used a couple of Nikkormats and I remember how tough they were. My experience is far from exhaustive, but probably sufficient to produce a reasonably objective picture.

With a couple of exceptions, the cameras mentioned above were typical SLRs made before the new compactness trend took over the entire industry in the mid-1970s. Between them they offer, in various combinations, all the most important technical options available at the time – mechanical vs electronic operation; match-needle vs automatic exposure; shutter vs aperture priority; vertical metal shutter vs horizontal cloth shutter; etc. Many were good enough to be used by professionals. In my experience, those that turned out to be most dependable over the long run usually shared two traits: They didn’t rely on electronics, and they had metal shutters. Such cameras are still the ones most likely to be found in fully operational order. If to those two factors one adds automatic exposure and the Hexanon range of optics, Konica was one of the market’s most interesting offerings, unless one preferred aperture priority (another Ford vs Chevy issue IMO).

Until the late 1970s, Konica had a very good reputation as an SLR maker in general, and as a pioneer of automatic exposure in particular. It had its critics (like detractors claiming that automatic exposure was just a sale gimmick and that “true professionals” would never consider using it), but I remember the recognition Konica got for the dependability of its cameras, for their intelligent design, and for their modular construction – a trait making servicing easy when needed and shared by most metal-shutter cameras. Much praise could be found not only in the consumer-oriented photo press like “Amateur Photography” and “SLR” in the UK and “Modern Photography”, “Popular Photography” and “Petersen’s Photographic” in the US, but also in the “SPT Journal” and “Camera Craftsman”, both titles being specialized servicing publications put out by camera technician associations.

This picture changed with the introduction of the FS-1 in 1979. This camera, like several others made by Konica, was a milestone in SLR history. It was indeed “the world’s first SLR with auto-loading, auto-advance, auto-exposure…” (incidentally, the world’s first SLR with motorized film advance was the Soviet Zenit 5, introduced in 1964). It was also a camera that relied on electronic circuitry like few had before. Like most pioneering efforts, it had its unexpected glitches. Its circuitry was extremely fragile to voltage variations, hence the warning inside the battery housing not to use rechargeable batteries, which are notorious for voltage swings. The circuits of countless FS-1s were fried by people using rechargeable batteries nonetheless. Some may even have been fried by ordinary batteries. This is the only instance that I am aware of when a major technical flaw harmed Konica’s reputation as a SLR maker. The flaw in itself was perhaps not very threatening, given that Konica could replace the circuitry under warranty, and did. What damaged Konica’s image was the company’s failure to formulate an appropriate PR strategy in response.

Back at the factory, however, Konica did act. Within a few months, a second production run of the FS-1 with improved electronics was ready (serial nos. from 345,000 to 420,000). Toward the end of 1980 a third production run with even better circuitry came out (serial nos. from 420,000 to 600,000). Konica should have advertised this fact, or perhaps should have scrapped the FS-1 altogether and issued an FS-2 (isn’t this what Nikon would have done?). Instead, the new improved models continued to be sold as the FS-1, a name thoroughly tainted by then.

Another aspect of Konica’s clumsy reaction has to do with the introduction of the FT-1 in 1983. This camera is very similar to the FS-1. Electronic circuitry aside, the differences between the two models are limited to features – exposure compensation, AE lock, C/S shooting mode, and a SPD meter – that had been available in the industry at large for years. My question: What took Konica so long? Had this camera been introduced in, say, 1981 when it was still fresh and innovative, instead of the FC-1 and FP-1 which were not, and had the crisis been answered with a vigorous PR campaign, the fortunes of Konishiroku as an SLR maker might have been turned around.

In the event, as the company's market share continued to fall, its innovative design department continued to function. Projects included new Hexanon UC lenses that never saw the light of day and, so the rumor goes, a new AF mount that was sold to Sigma in the end. Konica withdrew from the SLR market in 1988.

I have been playing with Konica equipment for a long time and in my opinion, the above events are the principal source of Konica’s sorry reputation in some quarters. If you’re of the “laissez-faire and laissez laissez-faire” confession Smile, you may argue that the company deserved it. But its cameras, including the FS-1, didn’t, and don’t.

Most makers, at one time or another, produced models with quirky problems and design flaws, some merely irritating, others infuriating: Canon’s A-1 with its flimsy battery cover was already mentioned; the “shutter squeal” of the A-1 and AE-1 wasn’t; the legendary and anvil-like Nikkormats are (as I understand) just as legendary for their light meter failures; the Spotmatics often jammed up in heavy usage, something I believe British press reporters of the 60s and 70s are well placed to comment on; the ruptured AV string on the SRTs and the @*$#*&!!!!! to get them back into place; and of course cloth shutter problems – stuck curtains, slow curtains, soiled curtains, torn straps... Delicate electronic components in turn are vulnerable to humidity, heat and, yes, voltage variations, so electronic problems of one sort or another are not infrequent. This goes for cameras of all makers, going back to the Canon EF, the Nikkormat EL, the Pentax ESII, and the Yashica Electro-X.

If by now you are thinking “Ha! I knew it!”, rest assured, I am not listing all this to suggest that Konicas are necessarily better than those cameras, but to place things in perspective. When buying a camera made 30-40 years earlier, mechanical and electronic issues should not come as a surprise and the cost of a CLA should be factored in, no matter who the maker is. Yet perfectly functional SLRs, including Konicas, can be found without much trouble. I have been buying Konica bodies of all types on Ebay and elsewhere for the past 6-7 years. I have acquired several dozen Konica bodies in this fashion and some show signs of heavy use. Of those, 8 or 9 have issues precluding their use. Only 1 of those is an FS-1, BTW. As it is, I have 4 FS-1s, one of which is of the first production run (serial no. 157,XXX). I bought it used in 1986, and it works today as on the day when I bought it. In short, it is not at all difficult to find a working Konica. Of course, “your mileage may vary” as the saying goes. Smile

I will now list, based on my experience and nothing else, the specific issues that individual Konica SLR models are prone to as far as I remember. Only some of those issues are proper to the given Konica model. The others are of a universal nature and could and do affect cameras of all brands:

Auto-Reflex (introduced in 1965):
The world’s first focal-plane-shutter SLR with automatic exposure (no TTL metering though). It is also the only 35mm SLR in existence that can be operated in half-frame mode, at the turn of a switch, back and forth, as often as desired, in the middle of the same roll of film. I own 2 of these. Both are fully functional. I have held several others in my hands over the years and seem to remember broken meters on at least 2 of them. I have never used this model regularly, so I can’t say from experience what its specific issues may be. On the whole, it is a beautifully made and solid camera that is almost 50 year old.

Autoreflex T (1967) and Autoreflex T2 (1970):
The world’s first focal-plane-shutter SLR with automatic exposure AND TTL metering. This camera and its improved version, often called Autoreflex T2, although the name on the top plate of both versions is the same, were a milestone for Konica. It was extremely popular and sold in very great numbers. I own 3 of the first version and 6 of the second. Of the first 3, one is defective (jammed film advance). Of the latter 6, 5 are fully functional, the 6th has a light meter problem. The second version is perhaps the most dependable of all Konica SLRs. It is extremely solid, like the Canon FTb and the Nikkormats. As the cliché goes, you can first knock out a burglar with it and take a mugshot of the ruffian afterwards.
In terms of aggravation, the most important issue affecting the first version of the Autoreflex T is located in the battery compartment: The + contact protrudes through a hole into the bottom of the housing and is fastened to a spring whose other end is lodged within the body of the battery housing. That housing is made of plastic and on some cameras, the spring breaks free of the plastic into which it is embedded, due to prolonged tension on the spring. This is a benign problem at first glance, but repairing or replacing the battery housing requires the removal of the entire mirror cage. This is an obvious design flaw, both in terms of materials and access.
The second version had many improvements with regard to the first. One of these was a shutter button lock collar, also serving as an on/off switch for the light meter. It is not uncommon after several decades to find second-version Autoreflex Ts with wires whose ends corroded and came loose at this collar or, at times, at the battery compartment.

Autoreflex T3 (1973) and Autoreflex T3N (1975):
The T3 was introduced as an improved version of the T2. It had a wider ASA/ISO range, and extremely well calibrated mechanical parts which made its operation unbelievably light and smooth (Attila, if your new T3 is in working order, you will fall in love with it). The most important technical difference was a complete redesign of the mechanical trap-needle automatic exposure system in such a way as to eliminate the excessive travel of the shutter release button on the previous models. On the T3 this travel was shortened from over 6 to under 2mm, allowing for greater body stability when shooting. Incidentally, this redesign also caused the only technical problem particular to this camera. In a mechanical trap-needle automatic exposure system, the shutter release button controls the operation of the aperture control mechanism, in addition to the mirror and shutter. In all Konica’s cameras, this requires a very delicate balancing of the various components. The new design entailed much closer tolerances and when the aperture control ring within the camera throat didn’t have sufficient lubrication, it led to a situation known as “shutter pre-fire”. The main symptom of this problem is the shutter firing during the operation of the film advance lever. As it is caused by the state of the aperture control ring, the condition is affected by the aperture setting of lenses, the tension of the aperture actuating cam on the lens, etc. In effect, the shutter may fire with some lenses, but not with other ones. A CLA is usually the answer. I have 3 T3s and 5 T3Ns. One of my T3Ns suffers from this nasty predicament.

Autoreflex TC (1976):
This is Konica’s first compact SLR, it is roughly comparable in dimensions and weight to the Olympus OM-1, the Minolta XD-7, or the Pentax ME. This camera also came in two versions, which can be recognized by the spelling of the name Konica on the prism housing. On the first version it is written entirely in capital letters. Contrary to popular lore holding that Konica went all plastic on its customers with the TC, it has very few plastic parts. Only the camera top is made of plastic. On the second version, the bottom plate is also made of plastic. The res of the camera, notably its frame, is metal as usual.
I have 6 or 7 of these (they are dirt cheap), and this is a basic entry level, no frills, dependable beater with shutter speeds going from 8s to 1000s and with no significant issues known to me. The camera’s film advance mechanism on some exemplars seems harder to operate than on others, leading me to believe that it is lubricated with the lesser quality grease which dries up faster than on Konica’s more upscale. It was relatively cheap (no slow speed mechanism), it was made until well into the 1980s and there are scores of them around. IMO, issues, if any, are not worth bothering with as a TC can be purchased for $30.

Autoreflex T4 (1978):
At first glance, this camera looks identical to the TC and small cosmetic details aside, the housing is identical. But this is a serious camera. It has a full range of shutter and film speeds, DOF and a multiple exposure function. It is also Konica’s first SLR that takes an auxiliary winder. It also can develop the hard film advance syndrome due to (as I assume) lesser quality grease. I have 4 of those and all work properly. The only issue I am aware of with this camera is its light meter. It is a different meter than the one found in the TC and it is more fragile. One can find T4’s with working TC meters in them. They fit, but don’t have the same range. Beware!

FS-1 (1979):
I’ve probably written all there is to say about this model above, except that it is an absolutely fantastic camera to use. Its “grip”, the battery housing, launched a trend in camera design that has been with us ever since. Very few cameras lie so well in my hand and are so intuitive and simple to operate. If you want, with the index finger on the shutter release button, the thumb against the shutter speed dial, and the others around the grip, you can operate the camera with one hand. To be on the safe side, get one of the second or, even better, third series. Just don’t put rechargeable batteries in it – IT NO LIKE! Smile The FS-1 has been one of my main users for years. This camera has one more issue, quite benign really, and common to many other electronic cameras. Microscopic dirt tends to find its way into the shutter release button. This button can be cleaned but it’s a delicate job.

FC-1 (1980):
This is the same camera as the FS-1, minus the motor winder. It also has none of the electronic problems of the FS-1. I use this one a lot, because it combines the precise metering system and shutter operation of Konica's later electronic cameras with the more traditional operation of the old mechanical SLRs. It runs on 4 little pill batteries which are placed into a small plastic tray which then slides into the camera. This brings me to the only issue with the FC-1s and it is due solely to their owners’ negligence: Batteries left in the tray for long periods of time oxidize and swell. When they have swollen, the tray becomes jammed within the camera body and getting it out is a major operation. I have 4 of these cameras, all in fully operational order, and I love them.

FP-1 Program (1981):
This is the only Konica with program mode – only program mode. It’s made for snapping pictures without thinking too much, or for worry free fast shooting in average conditions. It’s a fairly dependable machine that does what it’s been programmed to do using, and this is its only redeeming feature, Hexanon lenses. I have 3 of them, all fully functional, and I don’t know what they’re doing here. I am not aware of any issues proper to this camera (maybe haven’t used it enough).

FT-1 Motor (1983):
This is the most advanced of Konica’s electronic cameras and, as a kind Konica aficionado called it, “the end of evolution” Smile I already mentioned the most important features that set this camera apart from the FS-1. This is an excellent tool by any definition. The FT-1 has unfortunately inherited some of the FS-1’s reputation, for two main reasons. It is terribly similar in looks and operation and many (very many in my experience) of today’s Konica critics can’t even tell the two apart. The other reason is that 20-some years after the last models were produced, these cameras have also been known to stop functioning for no apparent reason (“must be Konica’s notorious electronics”, as I was told innumerable times). Several years ago, I learned what the cause was, and it had little to do with electronic circuitry. The various electronic flexi-boards in the FT-1 are connected at 3 clamping points. In each of them, two flexi-board ends are brought together and clamped down by a little metal plate held in place by two screws. Between this metal plate and the flexi-boards is a soft foam strip, much like that used for light seals and mirror damping in most cameras. We know this foam disintegrates after a couple of decades and turns to mush. In the case of the FT-1, as the foam disintegrates, it ceases to clamp, and contact between the various elements of the circuitry is broken. In the last 6-5 years, I acquired over a dozen FT-1s, and 5 of them had some issues having to do with broken down foam (either no LEDs in the viewfinder, or no shutter action, or no aperture control depending on the clamping point affected). In the last 2 years I have repaired all of them by replacing the little foam strips. All my FT-1s (I still have 8, having sold several), are fully functional.

TC-X (1985):
This camera looks like a toy indeed. In a way, it illustrates Konica’s demise as a SLR maker. For starters, it was commissioned from Cosina. I have no idea whether Konica even designed it or not. In terms of functions, it is identical to the Autoreflex TC – no slow speeds, no frills, just a basic beater. But even here, Konica scored many firsts: First entirely plastic camera (the only metal parts, save for screws, springs, and such like, are the lens mount, the tripod mount, and the strap lugs); first camera with DX automatic film speed setting; and probably the world’s lightest 35mm SLR at the time. It weighs 375g, which is quite light even by today’s standards (only 20g more than my Samsung NX10, body only). This camera’s light weight and very compact dimensions are its principal advantage. It uses one AAA battery and with the Hexanon 40/1.8 pancake lens, it slides into any vest pocket. It’s an ideal camera for trekking expeditions for example, and takes hardly more space than a little rangefinder. I have 4 of these cameras, 3 of which work perfectly. The 4th has a defective meter. Defective meters are the only issue I know of that these cameras are prone to. I don't know what the exact cause of it is.

I had lots of time on my hands today, obviously. I decided to write all this to provide information to forum members. I feel I know Konica SLRs (and lenses) quite well and wanted to share my experience, for whatever it’s worth. I hope the information proves useful.

Last edited by konicamera on Fri Aug 07, 2015 7:05 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat Jun 15, 2013 11:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Wow very interesting but one point you missed is the TC doesn't have the brightest viewfinder compared to other cameras...there must be a reason for this Question
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 4 of 5