NathanYu
RF newbie
Hi folks,
Im new here and im new to RFs. I just got my Konica auto S2 and the first thing i noticed is that the attached lens is a Canon SE 45mm F/1.9. How is this lens compared to the original Hexanon 45mm lens? And will i be able to get the meter working again since the sensor was on the lens.
I'd appreciate any help.
Thank you.
Nathan
Im new here and im new to RFs. I just got my Konica auto S2 and the first thing i noticed is that the attached lens is a Canon SE 45mm F/1.9. How is this lens compared to the original Hexanon 45mm lens? And will i be able to get the meter working again since the sensor was on the lens.
I'd appreciate any help.
Thank you.
Nathan
Kim Coxon
Moderator
Hi,
Now that's an interesting problem/thought. I must have a look at my S2 along with the the QL19 I have in bits. Are you sure it has the Canon lens? My initial thought would be that someone might have had a damaged front plate and replaced this with a Canon one to make it look right. Without the specs, I can't be sure but I would think that it would not be an easy job to re-engineer a camera like this or cost effective because of the interaction between the meter cell, the meter operating plate and the such like. It would be odd if all the thread sizes , flanges etc were common unless the cameras were simply badged versions of each other which they aren't
Does it work? How's about uploading a photo so we can have a look
Regards
Kim
Now that's an interesting problem/thought. I must have a look at my S2 along with the the QL19 I have in bits. Are you sure it has the Canon lens? My initial thought would be that someone might have had a damaged front plate and replaced this with a Canon one to make it look right. Without the specs, I can't be sure but I would think that it would not be an easy job to re-engineer a camera like this or cost effective because of the interaction between the meter cell, the meter operating plate and the such like. It would be odd if all the thread sizes , flanges etc were common unless the cameras were simply badged versions of each other which they aren't
Does it work? How's about uploading a photo so we can have a look
Regards
Kim
NathanYu said:
NathanYu
RF newbie
Yes it is interesting indeed. 
Im positive it is a Canon lens. And from my research it is the same lens from Canonet.
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/1955-1969/data/1961_net.html
I dont know much about RFs yet since my first encounter with one is just yesterday when i bought my frankenstein Konica S2. I ran a roll of film thru it and so far so good. But i have to admit, i still have tons of things to learn. But it sure is way more fun shooting with an RF than digital.
Im trying to find a battery for the meter but according to a friend they dont produce that kind of battery anymore. Is there a work around to get the meter working with newer batteries? That is if the meter is working at all.
I'll try to post a pic of my frankenstein.
Thanks Kim for your reply.
Nathan
Im positive it is a Canon lens. And from my research it is the same lens from Canonet. http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/1955-1969/data/1961_net.html
I dont know much about RFs yet since my first encounter with one is just yesterday when i bought my frankenstein Konica S2. I ran a roll of film thru it and so far so good. But i have to admit, i still have tons of things to learn. But it sure is way more fun shooting with an RF than digital.
Im trying to find a battery for the meter but according to a friend they dont produce that kind of battery anymore. Is there a work around to get the meter working with newer batteries? That is if the meter is working at all.
I'll try to post a pic of my frankenstein.
Thanks Kim for your reply.
Nathan
JohnM
Well-known
You have got to get a picture of this camera up - I am dying to see it.
NathanYu
RF newbie
Sure thing, I'll post within 24 hours. But im still wondering is it theoretically possible? I mean will a Canonet lens work on a Konica Auto S2?? And one more thing, is the Canon lens any good?
JohnM
Well-known
I think the answers are 1) I dunno, 2) I dunno and 3) I dunno.
This is a beast the likes of which we have never seen before
This is a beast the likes of which we have never seen before
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
Neither of these cameras was designed for interchangeable lenses, so transplanting a lens from one to the other would not be simple. And since the shutter is built into the lens, providing a means to cock it would be challenging as well.
So, such a hybrid could have been made only one of two ways:
1) It was done by a highly skilled technician who was able to adapt the lens to mount at the correct depth in the body, and fabricate a linkage to join the shutter-cocking mechanisms of the body and lens -- in which case it may be a bit inconvenient but is likely to work well...
or...
2) It was cobbled together by someone who really didn't know what he was doing and had no idea that these problems even needed to be solved, let alone how to solve them -- in which case it would be amazing if it works at all!
It's been a long time since I've had either of these cameras apart, but IIRC, in both of them the lens connects to a flat, rectangular front panel that's removable and is attached to the main casting by screws hidden under the leatherette. If so, it might not be so difficult to transplant this panel with the complete assembly attached, cutting and filing the panel if necessary to make it line up with the casting. The real work would be in figuring out how to shim it to the proper depth and to hook up the shutter-cocking linkage, shutter release, exposure meter coupling, etc.
The real mystery is WHY someone would do this, since the original lens on a Konica Auto S2 is quite good and there would be no real advantage in replacing it with the Canon lens (even though the Canon might be just as good.) Even if someone had an S2 that had been dropped and smashed in at the front, for example, you'd think it would make a lot more sense to hunt down another junker S2 for parts rather than going to the huge effort of figuring how to adapt parts off a different camera. I guess some people do enjoy this type of challenge, but you'd think they'd prefer to apply it to something more impressive, such as adapting Contax lenses to Leicas or things like that...
So, such a hybrid could have been made only one of two ways:
1) It was done by a highly skilled technician who was able to adapt the lens to mount at the correct depth in the body, and fabricate a linkage to join the shutter-cocking mechanisms of the body and lens -- in which case it may be a bit inconvenient but is likely to work well...
or...
2) It was cobbled together by someone who really didn't know what he was doing and had no idea that these problems even needed to be solved, let alone how to solve them -- in which case it would be amazing if it works at all!
It's been a long time since I've had either of these cameras apart, but IIRC, in both of them the lens connects to a flat, rectangular front panel that's removable and is attached to the main casting by screws hidden under the leatherette. If so, it might not be so difficult to transplant this panel with the complete assembly attached, cutting and filing the panel if necessary to make it line up with the casting. The real work would be in figuring out how to shim it to the proper depth and to hook up the shutter-cocking linkage, shutter release, exposure meter coupling, etc.
The real mystery is WHY someone would do this, since the original lens on a Konica Auto S2 is quite good and there would be no real advantage in replacing it with the Canon lens (even though the Canon might be just as good.) Even if someone had an S2 that had been dropped and smashed in at the front, for example, you'd think it would make a lot more sense to hunt down another junker S2 for parts rather than going to the huge effort of figuring how to adapt parts off a different camera. I guess some people do enjoy this type of challenge, but you'd think they'd prefer to apply it to something more impressive, such as adapting Contax lenses to Leicas or things like that...
Kim Coxon
Moderator
Hi,
I must admit that when I first read this, I assumed they had transplanted the lens from a QL19 rather than the first Canonet which is what led me to think perhaps it was just the front plate. To transplant a Canonet lens with the olser type meter doesn't seem to make any sense. There is no huge difference in lens quality. I must admit, I prefer the metering system on the S2, it is much more user friendly in manual. The one thing I have had a problem with is that the lens mount does seem to be a bit fragile and is easily broken. This does seem to be a very extreme way to get round that problem and bearinf in mind the differnces in the meter circuits, it would not only be a difficult engineering problem but difficult electrically as well.
I am even more keen to see a piture of it.
Kim
I must admit that when I first read this, I assumed they had transplanted the lens from a QL19 rather than the first Canonet which is what led me to think perhaps it was just the front plate. To transplant a Canonet lens with the olser type meter doesn't seem to make any sense. There is no huge difference in lens quality. I must admit, I prefer the metering system on the S2, it is much more user friendly in manual. The one thing I have had a problem with is that the lens mount does seem to be a bit fragile and is easily broken. This does seem to be a very extreme way to get round that problem and bearinf in mind the differnces in the meter circuits, it would not only be a difficult engineering problem but difficult electrically as well.
I am even more keen to see a piture of it.
Kim
NathanYu
RF newbie
So what you're saying Kim is that the meter is probably not gonna work even if i ever get to find a battery replacement for it? Sorry guys i cant post any pics of my frankenstein till i get my digi cam back. But i think this is one interesting camera..
Thanks for all your replies...
Thanks for all your replies...
R
Rockford
Guest
What a find. I would love to see pics of this camera, and from this camera. I have a Konica S2 that my wife bought at a rumage sale and I am still shooting the first roll. Try a few up close shots. If focus is off that should show it. Fascinating. WNG NC USA
R
Rob
Guest
Here is what I think...Maybe the shutter was serviced at some time and they damaged the ring with the writing on it taking it out. Maybe they had the same type ring from a junk Canonet and installed it on the Konica lens...I just dont see how it would work otherwise.
phototone
Well-known
It is amazing how similar those rangefinders from the late 1960's and 1970's are in style and function. The shutter assemblies were either made by Seiko or Copal. I wouldn't be surprised if there were major sub-assembly commonality between many of these cameras. The front ring on the Canonet cameras, that has the writing on it stating the lens focal length and maximum f/stop is just that-- a plastic ring with a little fresnel lens for the meter cell to look through. It is not even attached to the optical glass lens. It sits on top and is held in by a very very thin metal retaining ring. If the outside diameter is the same, I can see how it would be quite possible to transplant this plastic ring between very similar cameras. It seems tha majority of these fixed-lens rangefinders with an exposure meter had their cell located in the same position above the lens, yet inside the barrel, so a filter screwed in would cover both the taking lens and the meter cell, thus giving correct meter readings including the filter factor.
Without a photo to view of the camera, I would have to say that the most likely scenario is that the plastic ring on the original Konica was broken, and a plastic ring from a Canonet was found to fit, and installed to make the camera whole again. It is doubtful if the optical glass was transplanted, although both front and back optical blocks DO screw into the shutter assembly, and it might be possible to transplant those also, but why?
The plastic ring (which has the brand, lens and f/stop writing on it) is my guess as the only part substituted.
Without a photo to view of the camera, I would have to say that the most likely scenario is that the plastic ring on the original Konica was broken, and a plastic ring from a Canonet was found to fit, and installed to make the camera whole again. It is doubtful if the optical glass was transplanted, although both front and back optical blocks DO screw into the shutter assembly, and it might be possible to transplant those also, but why?
The plastic ring (which has the brand, lens and f/stop writing on it) is my guess as the only part substituted.