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

Japanese Camera Mfr Lenses of the 60s and 70s
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 12:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
luisalegria wrote:
The Minolta SRT 101/102 were very well made indeed, fit and finish and materials superior to the Spotmatic. I have been into a bunch of both lately, had their guts out, and the Minoltas are impressive. The Spotmatics are simpler and there is less to go wrong but they arent quite as pretty inside.


Absolutely not. There is no comparison in smoothness of operation and reliability. Minolta ST was no match for Pentax Spotmatic. fit and finish was all on the Pentax side.

Note: I do not like Pentax and never owned one, but I know others who did and I did use them occasionally.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 6:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
luisalegria wrote:
The Minolta SRT 101/102 were very well made indeed, fit and finish and materials superior to the Spotmatic. I have been into a bunch of both lately, had their guts out, and the Minoltas are impressive. The Spotmatics are simpler and there is less to go wrong but they arent quite as pretty inside.

the spotmatic was one of the all time classics. compact, precision, and reliable. I owned many of them ( collected ) and had very few problems with them.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 9:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Agree with Luisalegria-

I can speak with reasons, I had both. From the SR to the SRT 303 all were very well made.

In the smooth area, the konicas series "T" were good, and the Alpa was the better, I guess.

The Alpa is really a forgotten great machine. Luxury mechanism, very (velvet) smooth. Easy to use. And had some lenses of very good to excelent IQ.
From Alpa 6 to Alpa 10 D, a dream.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 10:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
sonyrokkor wrote:
Agree with Luisalegria-

I can speak with reasons, I had both. From the SR to the SRT 303 all were very well made.

In the smooth area, the konicas series "T" were good, and the Alpa was the better, I guess.

The Alpa is really a forgotten great machine. Luxury mechanism, very (velvet) smooth. Easy to use. And had some lenses of very good to excelent IQ.
From Alpa 6 to Alpa 10 D, a dream.

The minolta srts always felt clunky compared to the spotmatic to me. too bulky too.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 10:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
hifisapi wrote:
sonyrokkor wrote:
Agree with Luisalegria-

I can speak with reasons, I had both. From the SR to the SRT 303 all were very well made.

In the smooth area, the konicas series "T" were good, and the Alpa was the better, I guess.

The Alpa is really a forgotten great machine. Luxury mechanism, very (velvet) smooth. Easy to use. And had some lenses of very good to excelent IQ.
From Alpa 6 to Alpa 10 D, a dream.

The minolta srts always felt clunky compared to the spotmatic to me. too bulky too.


Without hesitation, the Alpa better than both Wink


PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 10:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The title of the thread suggests we should be talking about lenses made by Japanese Camera Manufacturers in the 60s and 70s, so, of the ones I have used, I would rate them this way:

Build quality

1. Minolta Rokkor (mine is 1959, but that is almost 60s, isn't it?) - All metal and glass, still working perfectly after 53 years.

2. Zuiko - The important bits are metal and glass. Small and light.

3 Minolta MD - Similar quality to the Zuikos

Optical quality, hard to separate them but....

1. Zuiko - consistently good results

2. Minolta MD - Sharp and good colours

3. Minolta Rokkor - Sharp


Lenses sampled are Minolta Rokkor 1.8/55, Zuiko 1.8/50, Zuiko 4/75-150, Minolta MD 1.7/50. I know that isn't a massive selection, but it covers most of what I need.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 10:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
sonyrokkor wrote:
hifisapi wrote:
sonyrokkor wrote:
Agree with Luisalegria-

I can speak with reasons, I had both. From the SR to the SRT 303 all were very well made.

In the smooth area, the konicas series "T" were good, and the Alpa was the better, I guess.

The Alpa is really a forgotten great machine. Luxury mechanism, very (velvet) smooth. Easy to use. And had some lenses of very good to excelent IQ.
From Alpa 6 to Alpa 10 D, a dream.

The minolta srts always felt clunky compared to the spotmatic to me. too bulky too.


Without hesitation, the Alpa better than both Wink

No doubt on the Alpa, built like a swiss watch. Cost like one too, not a fair comparison.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 1:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
sonyrokkor wrote:
Agree with Luisalegria-

I can speak with reasons, I had both. From the SR to the SRT 303 all were very well made.

In the smooth area, the konicas series "T" were good, and the Alpa was the better, I guess.

The Alpa is really a forgotten great machine. Luxury mechanism, very (velvet) smooth. Easy to use. And had some lenses of very good to excelent IQ.
From Alpa 6 to Alpa 10 D, a dream.


Absolutely. Alpas are all but forgotten these days.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 1:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
skida wrote:
The title of the thread suggests we should be talking about lenses made by Japanese Camera Manufacturers in the 60s and 70s, so, of the ones I have used, I would rate them this way:

Build quality

1. Minolta Rokkor (mine is 1959, but that is almost 60s, isn't it?) - All metal and glass, still working perfectly after 53 years.

2. Zuiko - The important bits are metal and glass. Small and light.

3 Minolta MD - Similar quality to the Zuikos

Optical quality, hard to separate them but....

1. Zuiko - consistently good results

2. Minolta MD - Sharp and good colours

3. Minolta Rokkor - Sharp


Lenses sampled are Minolta Rokkor 1.8/55, Zuiko 1.8/50, Zuiko 4/75-150, Minolta MD 1.7/50. I know that isn't a massive selection, but it covers most of what I need.


But I think the Takumars overall were sturdier and smoother. Zuikos were flimsy in my opinion.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 1:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Oreste wrote:
skida wrote:
The title of the thread suggests we should be talking about lenses made by Japanese Camera Manufacturers in the 60s and 70s, so, of the ones I have used, I would rate them this way:

Build quality

1. Minolta Rokkor (mine is 1959, but that is almost 60s, isn't it?) - All metal and glass, still working perfectly after 53 years.

2. Zuiko - The important bits are metal and glass. Small and light.

3 Minolta MD - Similar quality to the Zuikos

Optical quality, hard to separate them but....

1. Zuiko - consistently good results

2. Minolta MD - Sharp and good colours

3. Minolta Rokkor - Sharp


Lenses sampled are Minolta Rokkor 1.8/55, Zuiko 1.8/50, Zuiko 4/75-150, Minolta MD 1.7/50. I know that isn't a massive selection, but it covers most of what I need.


But I think the Takumars overall were sturdier and smoother. Zuikos were flimsy in my opinion.

like I said earlier, mint takumars are the top of the heap in terms of precision "feel".


PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 1:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
hifisapi wrote:
Oreste wrote:
skida wrote:
The title of the thread suggests we should be talking about lenses made by Japanese Camera Manufacturers in the 60s and 70s, so, of the ones I have used, I would rate them this way:

Build quality

1. Minolta Rokkor (mine is 1959, but that is almost 60s, isn't it?) - All metal and glass, still working perfectly after 53 years.

2. Zuiko - The important bits are metal and glass. Small and light.

3 Minolta MD - Similar quality to the Zuikos

Optical quality, hard to separate them but....

1. Zuiko - consistently good results

2. Minolta MD - Sharp and good colours

3. Minolta Rokkor - Sharp


Lenses sampled are Minolta Rokkor 1.8/55, Zuiko 1.8/50, Zuiko 4/75-150, Minolta MD 1.7/50. I know that isn't a massive selection, but it covers most of what I need.


But I think the Takumars overall were sturdier and smoother. Zuikos were flimsy in my opinion.

like I said earlier, mint takumars are the top of the heap in terms of precision "feel".


Yes, and I don't know why other Japanese companies could not bring themselves to match the Pentax 'feel'. Leica of course excelled way beyond even Pentax, but you would expect that. With early Nikkors, the helical moved forward and backward as you focussed, and so far as I know they were the only brand that did that. Very awkward and rough feeling. With all other lenses, the helical stayed in place and the lens barrel alone moved in and out. Same with the bodies. The Pentax film advance and overall feel was simply superior, even if a bit staid-looking. Of course, it's not easy to match the Leicaflex for styling. Most Japanese cameras in the 1960s and early 1970s had sharp edges (see photo below). Even Pentax. The squared-off shape of the Leicaflex was quite distinctive; it was also thicker, which made it easier to grasp, especially for those with big hands. The Minolta SRT series was one of the few that had squared-off instead of tapered ends, but the edges are still rather sharp compared to the Leicaflexes. The Nikkormat was thicker than either the Spotmatic or SRT Minolta, but it had the tapered ends like the Pentax Spotmatic and Canons.



[/url]















Last edited by Oreste on Fri Oct 26, 2012 8:55 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 2:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
that leicaflex is an ugly dog compared to that beautiful spottie! Very Happy


PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 3:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
hifisapi wrote:
that leicaflex is an ugly dog compared to that beautiful spottie! Very Happy


The Leicaflex SL2 is the most beautiful and functional SLR I ever saw. Compare it to the ugly Nikon F3 in the photo below:





Here's an interesting design: a half-frame Leicaflex prototype:



PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 3:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
And it looks like that Pentax (MX?) is smaller than a canon rf body!


PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 3:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The SL2 is sharp, but the first Leicaflex, forgetaboutit.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 3:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Re : the half frame leicaflex prototype - It looks like the film advance lever is on backwards!


PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 3:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
hifisapi wrote:
Re : the half frame leicaflex prototype - It looks like the film advance lever is on backwards!


Yeah, I know! Weird, isn't it!


PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 3:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
hifisapi wrote:
And it looks like that Pentax (MX?) is smaller than a canon rf body!


Well, a rangefinder gains in accuracy the longer the rangefinder base.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 5:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
If we are comparing manufacturers of camera, Contax is not one of them. Contax was and I believe still is a trademark owned by Zeiss Stiftung. The Contax camera in question was made by Yashica and later Kyocera, the first RTS body was designed by Porsche (Design ). The earlier RF Contax were made by Zeiss Ikon , a company within Zeiss group which folded in ( I think ) 1972.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 5:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Oreste wrote:

I don't think they were around in the 1960s.


Neither was Contax RTS.
And actually, it wasn't around even in the early 70s. The first Contax/Yashica camera (Contax RTS) was released in 1975.
So, it doesn't belong to your list.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 5:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
Oreste wrote:

I don't think they were around in the 1960s.


Neither was Contax RTS.
And actually, it wasn't around even in the early 70s. The first Contax/Yashica camera (Contax RTS) was released in 1975.
So, it doesn't belong to your list.


I thought it was 1974. Let me check.

It was intended to replace the Contarex in a way, which was discontinued in 1974 or so.

Yes, 1974 was when the RTS appeared.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contax

But it is in the period we are discussing, 1960s and 1970s. The Olympus OM-1 was introduced in 1972.

The Contax was really just a Japanese camera with a German name, though a few of the exotic lenses were made by Zeiss in Germany.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 6:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
That Leicaflex SL2 is ugly.

I knew where this thread was going when it started - criticising all the Japanese SLRs and praising the Leicaflex.

Predictable and pointless.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 6:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
That Leicaflex SL2 is ugly.

I knew where this thread was going when it started - criticising all the Japanese SLRs and praising the Leicaflex.

Predictable and pointless.


No, I have nothing but praise for Pentax, as has been demonstrated several times in this thread. I don't think much of the others except maybe Canon (and the Nikons win the 'ugly baby' contest).

The only sad thing is that damned screw-thread mount was so slow to work with, and the stop-down metering was slow too. By the time Pentax went to bayonet mount, other companies had gained ground on them. I did like the uncluttered design of Pentax (very Leica-like in that regard).


PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 9:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
This shop has a lot of high-quality vintage cameras and lenses (not just Leica):

https://www.leicashop.com/

Look at all these Pentax lenses!

https://www.leicashop.com/vintage/asahi-pentax-35mm-slr-lenses-c-1025_102502.html


PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 10:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'm interested to know why you rate Minolta MD two steps lower than MC. Granted, the all-metal MC Rokkors are beautifully designed and built, equal to Takumars in that respect in my view, but the optical quality of the MD lenses I have outstrips the older MC versions.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Page 3 of 9