Time Travel to 1960

[pdccameras]

If you could Time Travel back to 1960 in search of a pro-quality SLR, what would your choice be?

[kansalliskala]

Answer to this with a question: which one of these is still very widely used?

(I use one and know at least 10 people still using them)

[DConvert]

Nice selection, but for me it would be one not shown, the iconic Spotmatic.

[pdccameras]

[pdccameras]

[DConvert]

[pdccameras]

It was exhibited at Photokina in 1960 (see https://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/english/pentax/pentaxhistory/course/) as I only became available in 1964 any further distinction is to me irrelevant
However it marketed it was used by loads of Pros. & was undoubtedly Pro quality.[/quote]


In looking back at my original post, I did say "pro-quality", so you are absolutely correct, the Spotmatic was definitely pro-quality. And arguably based on the numbers still in service today, more so in terms of reliability than the Praktina, or Contarex, or the Exakta, all of which can be finicky and tricky to maintain.

[stevemark]

Not sure at all what I would have bought back then - but these days the Nikon F certainly would be "my camera".

Back in 1960 it could have been one of the Contarexes, too - certainly the corresponding Zeiss Oberkochen lenses were top notch back then. It's the only SLR shown in the OP I don't own.

There's also the Minolta SR-2, first shown in 1958. I guess it was intended for professional use, since it originally was advertised with a Motor drive and - among others - a 2.5/180mm lens. Sadly, neither the motor drive nor the fast 180mm ever were marketed ...

Nevertheless in 1960 there was a already an formidable set of dedicated Minolta Rokkor SLR lenses with SR bayonet mount:

2.8/35mm and 4/35mm
1.8/55mm and 2/55mm
3.5/100mm and 4/100mm
2.8/135mm and 4/135mm
2.5/180mm (prototype only)
3.5/200mm
4/250mm
4.5/300mm

In 1961 a few special lenses would follow:
4.5/21mm (Zeiss Biogon analogue)
3.5/50mm Macro (a true [6/4] double gauss, unlike the Nikkor (which had 5 lenses only) or the Canon and Topcon equivalents [4L Tessar types)
1.4/58mm
2/100mm

My own Minolta SR-2 actually is from the bequest of a professional Swiss photographer from the Graubünden (Grisons) area. In 1960 he had bought the camera in New York, along with the Minolta 1.8/55mm normal lens. In addition he was using a Steinheil Culmigoon 4.5/35mm and a Steinheil Tele-Quinon 4.5/200mm on his SR-2.

S

[pdccameras]

Great post, Steve! The SR-2 is getting very scarce , and valuable, these days. The lower specified and later entry SR-1's, along with the later SR-7's, and SRt's are still pretty plentiful. Indeed the SR2 a very nice camera, and a trend setter since, as you point out, it pre-dates both the Nikon F and the Canonflex . it's also obvious that the SR-2's genes are dominant in the later SRT's all the way into the 70s. Finally, the lens line up from the very beginning was certainly impressive! This is not one of the cameras I have been able to add to my collection yet!

All the best,

Paul

[RokkorDoctor]

Yes, the SR-2 (and earliest SR-1) are gorgeous cameras. I consider them to have mid-century modern styling. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder of course, but IMO in comparison, most contemporary competitor SLR's were really rather utilitarian/ugly looking...

[Alun Thomas]

To be fair (to Topcon) there was a good quality offering from Topcon available in 1960, it just wasn't their most well known model with TTL metering (which no other camera pictured has either). It was certainly well built and capable of profession duty. I'm not sure if it had the range of pro-level accesories eventually available for the Nikon F, but few cameras would.

In the same vein, although the Spotmatic was not released, Pentax did have some good cameras available at that point. I guess it depends on where you draw the line between amateur and professional grades. Is it a removable pentaprism, or the ability to use an autowinder. Perhaps alternative film backs. Or just exceptional build quality and reliability.

Anyway, loved the pic, I have 3 of the 5, but my tastes are mostly confined to lower priced alternatives or quirky oddities.

[pdccameras]

[calvin83]

I vote for the Mixxxxa twins: Minolta and Miranda

[flavio81]

[kansalliskala]

[Farside]

I'd definitely have the F, simply because I bought into the Nikon system early on, but left it when I was seduced by Olympus. I've recently being lured back to Nikon and wish to complete the circle by obtaining an F just for old times' sake and rattle some film through it. Their reputation for toughness was well earned.
I also have a Ricoh Singlex F, but while that was never touted by Nikon or anyone else as being a tough pro-grade camera, it's no lightweight, seems pretty well made, and I wonder how well it would have stood up to the rigours that many Fs got.
Another 35mm camera I have from that immediate era is the Bessamatic with Deckel-mount lenses. I've absolutely no doubt that would have given a lot of trouble and fallen apart in hard-going pro conditions, nice though it is.

Note to self: I will not buy more Nikkor glass, I will not buy more Nikkor glass.

[Doc Sharptail]