tunalegs
Pretended Artist
Recently I received a Ricoh SLX 500, the result of aimlessly browsing cameras on ebay. Now that I have it, I've found it a rather curious camera. The first point of curiosity is that it was introduced in 1976, when M42 was well on its way out, with even Pentax having introduced the K mount the previous year. The second point of curiosity is that it doesn't resemble the durable and very popular Ricoh Singlex. The SLX has a conventionally placed shutter dial, a horizontal running fabric shutter, and completely different body casting, etc.
I have to wonder what the story behind this camera is. Why did Ricoh invest in a totally new design, which was obviously aimed at the bottom of the market, right when M42 cameras were going out of style? Why not just simplify the Singlex to make an economy model? I suspect, but have no proof, that Ricoh must've "inherited" a design that was originally meant for some other company. There are some interesting, if superficial styling similarities between the SLX and Topcon's cheaper SLRs (like the leaf-shutter Uni series). Given Ricoh's connections with other manufacturers (the Singlex itself was initially built in Mamiya's factory) I don't think it'd be too far fetched if the SLX was originally designed for somewhere else, or even just bought in from another company.
The other thing to ponder is just what was the market for such a camera in 1976? A Japanese competitor for Prakticas and Zenits? Japanese companies, for the most part, ignored the bottom of the SLR market which makes the limited features of the SLX 500 somewhat unusual. Even the cheapest Petri SLRs had slow speeds down to 1/2 of a second, the SLX's 1/30 is more what you'd expect from a Zenit.
In any event, once I have replaced the mirror and film door foam, I'll be giving the thing a good test. All seems to work (except for the lens diaphragm). Sorry for a lack of pictures at this time, I haven't cleaned the thing up yet.
I have to wonder what the story behind this camera is. Why did Ricoh invest in a totally new design, which was obviously aimed at the bottom of the market, right when M42 cameras were going out of style? Why not just simplify the Singlex to make an economy model? I suspect, but have no proof, that Ricoh must've "inherited" a design that was originally meant for some other company. There are some interesting, if superficial styling similarities between the SLX and Topcon's cheaper SLRs (like the leaf-shutter Uni series). Given Ricoh's connections with other manufacturers (the Singlex itself was initially built in Mamiya's factory) I don't think it'd be too far fetched if the SLX was originally designed for somewhere else, or even just bought in from another company.
The other thing to ponder is just what was the market for such a camera in 1976? A Japanese competitor for Prakticas and Zenits? Japanese companies, for the most part, ignored the bottom of the SLR market which makes the limited features of the SLX 500 somewhat unusual. Even the cheapest Petri SLRs had slow speeds down to 1/2 of a second, the SLX's 1/30 is more what you'd expect from a Zenit.
In any event, once I have replaced the mirror and film door foam, I'll be giving the thing a good test. All seems to work (except for the lens diaphragm). Sorry for a lack of pictures at this time, I haven't cleaned the thing up yet.
Hogarth Ferguson
Well-known
I had to google it so I could see what it looked like. It looks like the camera the Holga 120 is modeled after.
radi(c)al_cam
Well-known
B-9
Devin Bro
I see a cosmetic similarity to the much newer Bessaflex TM?
Interesting, is there a winder coupling?
Interesting, is there a winder coupling?
radi(c)al_cam
Well-known
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
The Bessaflex was loosely modeled after the styling of the Topcon SLRs, so there may be some overlap. The SLX certainly seems to have taken some cues from the Topcons. Supposedly the later Topcons (post 1960s) were not designed in house, so maybe the resemblance is entirely due to some connection through a third party. Perhaps even Cosina.
Sears did have a re-branded version of the SLX, but I'm not sure they'd have had any involvement with the actual design. Although perhaps they commissioned a bottom of the market SLR to round out their catalog, and conceivably Ricoh grabbed whatever unused design was floating around at the time. But that's all speculation on my part.
Another interesting feature of the SLX I forgot to mention is that the film door is opened by a sliding tab, rather than by pulling up on the rewind lever as on the Singlex and most other Japanese SLRs. This would have seemed an anachronistic feature by this time, particularly on a newly released design.
There's the second similarity to the pre-Spotmatic Pentaxes... sliding tab opening for the back, along with the M42 screw mount. Curious!
zuiko85
Veteran
Had one years back as a cheap M42 mount body, finally gave it away. Now my 'cheap M42 body' is a Fujica ST605n that was $20 at a photo show, it had that 55mm f2.2 attached.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
It looks more like a Chinon OEM camera, like the contemporary Alpa Si 2000. But I don't think Ricoh relabelled a Chinon or Cosina - as Ricoh themselves tried to expand into their OEM trade in the mid seventies (supplying e.g. Sears) it is rather unlikely that either would have supplied a major competitor. I suspect that they are so similar because all of them built upon the annual JCII design recommendations regarding the feature set and then popular taste for the body design (the relatively top-heavy look of period pro SLRs with their bulky meter heads).
ChrisPlatt
Thread Killer
There was a Singlex II around the same time.
http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Ricoh_Singlex_II
Chris
http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Ricoh_Singlex_II
Chris
Ade-oh
Well-known
It was a different world back then. I bought my first SLR in 1978 (I was 14 years old and saved money from my 6 hours a week evening job) and I can remember obsessively reading and re-reading Amateur Photographer and other consumer magazines, trying to decide what to buy. The advice that many such magazines were giving was that lots of lenses were still being made in M42 mount and that the buyer had a much wider choice, whereas with a proprietary bayonet mount your choices were very limited and, usually, expensive. I toughed it out and bought a secondhand OM1 with a new Zuiko 50mm but I can remember wondering if it was the right move.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
Well, they could have wanted to create a basic camera as an entry level one to create brand loyalty and so on... Also there were, and still are, lots and lots of good quality M42 lenses about.
Regards, David
Well, they could have wanted to create a basic camera as an entry level one to create brand loyalty and so on... Also there were, and still are, lots and lots of good quality M42 lenses about.
Regards, David
cklammer
Member
Hi, -- so: zombie thread resurrection time --
I have one now, too, since a month with a Rikenon f2.8/50mm: shutter works fine with a nice cosmetic condition and now that I have found my stash of 675 hearing aids batteries again ... expect pictures shortly.
Paid 40$ for .. probably too much ... oh well .. GAS, you know.
Best Regards,
Christian
I have one now, too, since a month with a Rikenon f2.8/50mm: shutter works fine with a nice cosmetic condition and now that I have found my stash of 675 hearing aids batteries again ... expect pictures shortly.
Paid 40$ for .. probably too much ... oh well .. GAS, you know.
Best Regards,
Christian
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
I still have to run a film through mine. Probably will be the next camera I load after I finish my current rolls.