teamsc10190
Established
I’ve always felt that my Konica Auto S2 was just such a perfect camera for its intended purpose, that I thought it would be cool to seek out its rare brother fitted with a more powerful and complex ƒ1.6 lens. The Auto S1.6 was Konica’s entry into the large aperture rangefinder wars of the mid to late 60’s but was only sold for two years so they’re difficult to find in good condition (if at all).
I did locate one a couple of years ago from an ebay seller who “didn’t know anything about cameras”. I have come to understand this roughly translates to; ‘it’s a pile of garbage, but I’m immune from responsibility if I claim ignorance upfront’. Yes I could have started a ‘not as described’ case but I had been looking for several years and once I had the Auto S1.6 in my hands, I figured I could fix it with readily available Auto S2 parts. I was wrong.
I quickly came to understand that although basically the same camera as the Auto S2, the entire lens assembly of the Auto S1.6 is unique as the lens thread to film distance is different, as is the meter and the top cap. Additional lens complexity in the Auto S1.6 also adds 20 grams to the camera’s not insignificant weight. Long story short; I ended up needing to find an organ donor to make one camera from two.
OK; so it’s finally done and the question arises whether the better corrected lens of the Auto S1.6 with 7 elements in 5 groups provides improved image resolution compared with the 6 elements in 4 groups of the Auto S2? Difficult to speculate which lens would be superior without objective testing, but suffice it to say that Hexanon lenses in either camera are exceptional by design and it’s hard not to love the sharp lenses fitted to this pair of Konica rangefinders.
The Auto S1.6 is fitted with a standard hot shoe versus the ‘cold shoe’ of the Auto S2. The collapsible standard lens shade of the Auto S2 was available as an accessory on the Auto S1.6 along with an exceedingly rare AS3 AUTO-UP close-up lens. (Both accessories could not be mounted simultaneously).
It is clear that Konica expended significant efforts to yield a marginally faster lens on the Auto S1.6 (1/6th of a stop faster), that in turn added significant cost. It could be credibly argued that the addition of a hot shoe was the most tangible benefit the Auto S1.6 provided.
OK, I stand corrected: per Konica's ad from 1969, the Auto S1.6 was fitted with an "ultra-fast" ƒ1.6 lens for a $10. premium over the Auto S2. (In 2012 dollars, an Auto S2 would have sold for $625 versus $688 for the Auto S1.6)
The Konica Auto S1.6 has a fantastic contrasty sharp lens with deep color saturation and great bokeh as the last Konica fixed-lens rangefinder to allow fully manual exposure settings that can be used without battery power.
The lens is the unique soul of this camera that makes the Auto S1.6 worth seeking, however it should be noted that survivors in excellent operational condition are difficult to find. While Auto S2’s in tatty condition are typically consigned to the dust bin; Auto S1.6’s in the same condition invariably find their way to the resale market. Deciding between the two cameras should ultimately be guided by camera condition rather than an incremental difference in lens resolution.
With stellar Auto S2’s selling for a song, it would be hard to justify paying upwards of $75 for an Auto S1.6 unless it had been fully serviced.
I did locate one a couple of years ago from an ebay seller who “didn’t know anything about cameras”. I have come to understand this roughly translates to; ‘it’s a pile of garbage, but I’m immune from responsibility if I claim ignorance upfront’. Yes I could have started a ‘not as described’ case but I had been looking for several years and once I had the Auto S1.6 in my hands, I figured I could fix it with readily available Auto S2 parts. I was wrong.
I quickly came to understand that although basically the same camera as the Auto S2, the entire lens assembly of the Auto S1.6 is unique as the lens thread to film distance is different, as is the meter and the top cap. Additional lens complexity in the Auto S1.6 also adds 20 grams to the camera’s not insignificant weight. Long story short; I ended up needing to find an organ donor to make one camera from two.
OK; so it’s finally done and the question arises whether the better corrected lens of the Auto S1.6 with 7 elements in 5 groups provides improved image resolution compared with the 6 elements in 4 groups of the Auto S2? Difficult to speculate which lens would be superior without objective testing, but suffice it to say that Hexanon lenses in either camera are exceptional by design and it’s hard not to love the sharp lenses fitted to this pair of Konica rangefinders.
The Auto S1.6 is fitted with a standard hot shoe versus the ‘cold shoe’ of the Auto S2. The collapsible standard lens shade of the Auto S2 was available as an accessory on the Auto S1.6 along with an exceedingly rare AS3 AUTO-UP close-up lens. (Both accessories could not be mounted simultaneously).
It is clear that Konica expended significant efforts to yield a marginally faster lens on the Auto S1.6 (1/6th of a stop faster), that in turn added significant cost. It could be credibly argued that the addition of a hot shoe was the most tangible benefit the Auto S1.6 provided.
OK, I stand corrected: per Konica's ad from 1969, the Auto S1.6 was fitted with an "ultra-fast" ƒ1.6 lens for a $10. premium over the Auto S2. (In 2012 dollars, an Auto S2 would have sold for $625 versus $688 for the Auto S1.6)
The Konica Auto S1.6 has a fantastic contrasty sharp lens with deep color saturation and great bokeh as the last Konica fixed-lens rangefinder to allow fully manual exposure settings that can be used without battery power.
The lens is the unique soul of this camera that makes the Auto S1.6 worth seeking, however it should be noted that survivors in excellent operational condition are difficult to find. While Auto S2’s in tatty condition are typically consigned to the dust bin; Auto S1.6’s in the same condition invariably find their way to the resale market. Deciding between the two cameras should ultimately be guided by camera condition rather than an incremental difference in lens resolution.
With stellar Auto S2’s selling for a song, it would be hard to justify paying upwards of $75 for an Auto S1.6 unless it had been fully serviced.
