Rangefinder/slr History

[VinceC]

Back in the 1950s, some of the medium telephoto Nikkor lenses were also made in the Exacta mount.

 

[RJBender]

Here's something you can't do with a rangefinder... use it as a telescope. Maybe Hitchcock's movie gave everyone SLR GAS.

R.J.

 

[RJBender]

The Country Is Going 35-mm, Automatic, Single- Lens Reflex Wild!

The Country Is Going 35-mm, Automatic, Single- Lens Reflex Wild!

Here's another ad from that November 1954 issue of Modern Photography. Most of the ads were rangefinder camera ads. Nikon RF with 50mm f/1.4 $299.00, Leica M-3 with f/1.5 Summarit $468, Contax IIa with 50mm f/2.0 Sonnar $353, Voigtlander Prominent with Nokton 1.5 $270, Canon IV S2 with 50/1.8 $284, Konica II $119.75, Robot Royal with 40/1.9 Xenon $295.
An Exakta with a 50/1.9 Xenon was $341.70 or $335 with the Biotar.

Using the Consumer Price Index (CPI) Conversion Factor of .138 for 1954, $300 then is worth $2170 now!

R.J.

 

[doubs43]

RJ, thanks for posting those ads. They sure bring back some memories.

By the time I purchased my first Exakta VX-IIa in the late 1960's, the Japanese cameras had come of age and were the brands of choice. The declining E. German economy also hurt the Exakta and prices had fallen drastically. Later, in about 1972, I bought a new Exakta RTL-1000 which was closer to being a Praktica than the original Exakta. It had a very sharp Meyer-Gorlitz 50mm f/1.8 Oreston lens that was bettered only by the famed Pancolar. Pretty much all East German optical and camera companies eventually fell under the Pentacon banner.

Walker

 

[trittium]

I long for an Alpa, those are the Leicas of SLR's

 

[PaulDalex]

I would like to remark that I did notice the analogy with autofocus and digital. In this respect this thread intersect that on the huge shade of tiny CLE. In my opinion the initial post of this latter is of extreme interest. Minolta had put a foot in an very charismatic territory, first with its cooperation with Leica and then with CLE. Had they kept developing CLE (it would have sufficed to add metered manual and AE lock) they would end with a killer product, that could be used like Ferraris are used to sell the terrible FIAT. Why they betrayed their best customers? Why this outrage of an unexpected announce of discontinuation only 4 years later for a product which is competitive still today ? (I was one of the victims. Those were my bitter photography days: I panicked at the perspective of not being able to afford completing the system with the much more expensive Leica lenses. And there was also much confusion on compatibility). So why? To concentrate resources to be the first on the market with the (button happy) whizbang autofocus 7000. Someone said that history has never taught anything to anybody, and that's why it repeats itself. I am thinking of what happened with SRL's where Nikon was not the first but had the killer product that allowed it to dominate. Minolta thought that being the first in that arena would allow it to dominate in turn. It was instead a major step toward its doom. Canon entered later with a better technology. I remember in those days people and magazines not discussing any issue of image quality, but rather time to focus. Canon had the fastest autofocus (I don't know about precision, but who minded?) and started to dominate. In the turmoil that followed many brands fell either leaving 35 or leaving the photographic business, in practice only the four major you all know remained, and in this group Minolta started its decline. Next chapter digital. Only two of the four are still kicking. The newcomers (Sony, Panasonic Samsung) attack Canon. And the winner is....
Best Regards
Pistach
PS the comments on Keppler are a candy