Konica Auto S2 3D 'pop'

[Stuart Lloyd]

I recently purchased a 1965 Konica Auto S2 and have been blown away by the quality of the pictures. Many people online mention the sharpness of the lens, some comparing it with the Summicron of the same vintage. But, as the attached file demonstrates, there is also lovely 3D quality to some of the pictures. I posted this particular picture, taken at a friend's wedding, on facebook and people remarked on it and asked how I got that unique effect!

 

[Robin P]

I posted this particular picture, taken at a friend's wedding, on facebook and people remarked on it and asked how I got that unique effect!

Surely most Facebook users aren't used to "real" photographs? 🙂
I had fun with my Auto S2 at a wedding too....

 

[Stuart Lloyd]

Hi Robin, lovely pic, and no, facebook is not really the domain of real photography, that's probably why people were so impressed with my results!

 

[Major Tom]

I think it has to do with managing your depth of field on a fast lens more than anything. You get a contrast of very sharp subject and out of focus background, which people are not really used to seeing at all from modern cameras, not even with a lot of "professional" DSLRs with kit lenses.

 

[Stuart Lloyd]

By the way Robin, is your file really only 195k? It says that's the size limit on here but your's looks far bigger? What's the secret?

 

[Stuart Lloyd]

Hi Major Tom, good points, I can honestly say I've never noticed that effect with digital gear, even pro Nikon equipment. Digital camera manufacturers go on about file sizes, pixels quantities etc but maybe they should admit they produce really 'flat' looking images compared with what's possible with 50 year old cameras you can pick up for £20!

 

[Peter_Jones]

I've used a Konica Auto S2 and noticed the quality - it really is a great lens. If this lens was "M" fit, it'd be costing a lot more than £20 that's for sure.

Wonder if this and similar fixed lens rangefinders worked as well with the films of the day as they do with modern stock ?

 

[shadowfox]

Stuart, a full frame digital camera will be able to produce the "pop," in fact, the larger the sensor (or film) area, the easier to get it, given similar lens quality, of course.

Here's an example on a 6x4.5 film out of a Mamiya 645 + 45mm lens:

Most people on facebook are not used to seeing full-frame images. 😀

 

[mbisc]

Not to start any flame wars, but Facebook people probably miss the massive flare and the overall fuzziness of their favorite smartphone in your pictures 😀

 

[Stuart Lloyd]

Good point, people have had five years or so of seeing nothing but low quality smartphone pics so images of the quality produced by a wonderful bit of kit like the Auto S2 are amazing in comparison.
Shadowfox, good to know as and when I get a full frame digital SLR I will see that magic depth thing going on.

 

[Major Tom]

Hi Major Tom, good points, I can honestly say I've never noticed that effect with digital gear, even pro Nikon equipment. Digital camera manufacturers go on about file sizes, pixels quantities etc but maybe they should admit they produce really 'flat' looking images compared with what's possible with 50 year old cameras you can pick up for £20!

With the right lens (usually prime) you can get sufficient depth of field on a DSLR kit. But most people don't know to do this, unless they are (surprise!) photographers. Full frame sensors also grant you more dynamic range (wider representation of darkest and lightest in a scene) and usually have a wider color gamut than their smaller counterparts. Bear in mind that film also has it's limitations in these parameters (dynamic range, gamut, accuracy etc). Film is rarely, if ever, color accurate but the right black and white film can have impressive dynamic range, for instance. It all depends on what you're trying to do.

In the 35mm realm, digital can generally do whatever film can. Medium format digital is nice, but it's so expensive I imagine most of the photographers who use them don't even own them. Large format still has no equal (that you can just buy).

 

[redisburning]

let's not slight the little Konica by talking about something way off-topic tho =/

I made my first print off this negative:


Untitled by redisburning, on Flickr

 

[Robin P]

By the way Robin, is your file really only 195k? It says that's the size limit on here but your's looks far bigger? What's the secret?

Windows tells me it's 168KB, presumably B&W and the lack of detail in the lower part of the dress allowed the jpg compression to be very efficient?
Before posting here I resize to betwen 800 & 900 pixels height, apply a little "sharpen edges" and save as a 90% quality jpg (all done in Photofiltre, a free program from http://photofiltre.free.fr/download_en.htm )

 

[Major Tom]

let's not slight the little Konica by talking about something way off-topic tho =/

The Konica costs several times less than my own Canon IV + 1.8 Canon lens setup and probably takes pictures every bit as good, and more conveniently so.

 

[Stuart Lloyd]

Cheers for that Robin, will try your tips next time I post a picture.

 

[redisburning]

The Konica costs several times less than my own Canon IV + 1.8 Canon lens setup and probably takes pictures every bit as good, and more conveniently so.

the Konica costs what it costs because of its size and primitive/unrefined nature.

I myself shot with a Leica M2 and ZM50P for two years and I had no problem paying the extra money for the Leica. but the Konica got me into RF and I liked it until it broke.

 

[Stdon]

Hi Major Tom, good points, I can honestly say I've never noticed that effect with digital gear, even pro Nikon equipment. Digital camera manufacturers go on about file sizes, pixels quantities etc but maybe they should admit they produce really 'flat' looking images compared with what's possible with 50 year old cameras you can pick up for £20!

It depends on like has been said distance/focal length and aperture.
On any of my Nikon bodies, D1X, D3s, D7000 and D800 my Samyang built Bell&Howell 85mm f1:1.4 is absolutely otherworldly in it's rendition and the Sam 14mm f2.8 is stunning. I'd have to say that none of my lenses are flat. 70/200, 28/70, 20 2.8D they all are great and have paid for themselves many times over. These are just a few.
So I have to respectfully disagree that the new digital cameras are flat.

Saying that, with a LF background all the little and medium formats are flat for me. Life starts at 4X5.🙂)) and nothing beats a well done 8X10 contact print.