Mos6502
Well-known
The Orion Camera Co. jumped into the burgeoning 35mm SLR market in 1955 with the Miranda T. A straightforward unassuming SLR, which for all intents and purposes was actually somewhat behind what the Germans were doing at the time. However, it was the first Japanese SLR with a pentaprism, anticipating the launch of the first Pentax by a couple years. By 1959 SLR tech had moved on a ways, with the general adoption of lever film advance and instant return mirrors. Miranda had both in their up-to-the-minute Miranda C, a very pricey camera that was not too much less expensive than the Nikon F or Exaktas of the time. But there was obviously a gap in the lower end of the market. You could buy an Ihagee Exa for $79, or you could spend just over $100 on a Praktica or leaf shutter SLR. Miranda updated and simplified the old T, removing the slow shutter speeds and adding a crank-rewind, and put it on the market as the S, priced just under $100 in the U.S. Sure it was simple, and lacked an instant return mirror, but so did the more costly Praktica. A version of the S with the slow shutter speeds was sold as the ST (and these seem fairly rare today).
The basic S came with a waist level finder and a Soligor-Miranda 2.8/50 preset aperture lens. You could of course upgrade to a prism finder and "automatic" f/1.9 lens, but it seems few people spent the money to do so.
Miranda S by Berang Berang, on Flickr
I ran a test roll through my grubby S, and immediately knew I was going to hit it off with this camera. The shutter was surprisingly quiet, even compared to the Miranda D I used to have, which was already pretty quiet for an SLR. The S makes about as much noise as my Fed 3, which is to say it's a fraction of a whisper louder than my Leica IIIf. Compared to the snaps and thwacks of old Exaktas and Prakticas, this must've been impressive in 1959, and I can see (hear?) where Miranda's reputation for silent cameras came from. I've used the 2.8/50 lens before, as Miranda continued to offer it as a budget option on the Miranda D, and indeed I still have one in my collection. This is a wonderful lens, this is the "vintage look" lens that beats all "vintage look" lenses. It's a Tessar knock-off, but it gives a softer, smoother OOF effect than the genuine CZJ 2.8/50. It is also not as sharp as the East German article. The color rendition is softer, and the overall effect is more "gentle". But it doesn't suffer the odd "smeariness" and chromatic aberration of some other Tessar clones I've tried. The preset ring has a little knob on it which makes stopping down easier and less fiddly than on most preset lenses. Why other companies didn't copy this feature is beyond me.
overgrown by Berang Berang, on Flickr
overgrown by Berang Berang, on Flickr
Untitled by Berang Berang, on Flickr
Untitled by Berang Berang, on Flickr
The test roll was Kentmere 100, which is a nice enough film (in the absence of Plus-X). I did have a trouble with the shutter running in B mode on the 1/30th setting, and opened up the top and bottom plates after finishing the roll to do a little cleaning and oiling. It was not as dirty inside as I expected (the bottom plate on a Miranda is a tight fit!) but it was definitely in need of a little lubrication. Now it works on all speeds again and the speeds are reasonably accurate.
I think this is the camera that will be finishing off my last brick of Neopan SS when I visit Japan next.
The basic S came with a waist level finder and a Soligor-Miranda 2.8/50 preset aperture lens. You could of course upgrade to a prism finder and "automatic" f/1.9 lens, but it seems few people spent the money to do so.
Miranda S by Berang Berang, on FlickrI ran a test roll through my grubby S, and immediately knew I was going to hit it off with this camera. The shutter was surprisingly quiet, even compared to the Miranda D I used to have, which was already pretty quiet for an SLR. The S makes about as much noise as my Fed 3, which is to say it's a fraction of a whisper louder than my Leica IIIf. Compared to the snaps and thwacks of old Exaktas and Prakticas, this must've been impressive in 1959, and I can see (hear?) where Miranda's reputation for silent cameras came from. I've used the 2.8/50 lens before, as Miranda continued to offer it as a budget option on the Miranda D, and indeed I still have one in my collection. This is a wonderful lens, this is the "vintage look" lens that beats all "vintage look" lenses. It's a Tessar knock-off, but it gives a softer, smoother OOF effect than the genuine CZJ 2.8/50. It is also not as sharp as the East German article. The color rendition is softer, and the overall effect is more "gentle". But it doesn't suffer the odd "smeariness" and chromatic aberration of some other Tessar clones I've tried. The preset ring has a little knob on it which makes stopping down easier and less fiddly than on most preset lenses. Why other companies didn't copy this feature is beyond me.
overgrown by Berang Berang, on Flickrovergrown by Berang Berang, on FlickrUntitled by Berang Berang, on FlickrUntitled by Berang Berang, on FlickrThe test roll was Kentmere 100, which is a nice enough film (in the absence of Plus-X). I did have a trouble with the shutter running in B mode on the 1/30th setting, and opened up the top and bottom plates after finishing the roll to do a little cleaning and oiling. It was not as dirty inside as I expected (the bottom plate on a Miranda is a tight fit!) but it was definitely in need of a little lubrication. Now it works on all speeds again and the speeds are reasonably accurate.
I think this is the camera that will be finishing off my last brick of Neopan SS when I visit Japan next.
Pál_K
Cameras. I has it.
Miranda seems to have had solid design for its SLRs, though I don’t know why they didn’t seem as popular as others. I’ve always wanted a Sensorex of some form.
Mos6502
Well-known
Orion/Miranda was a small concern, and initially I believe, their products were distributed by Ricoh. When Ricoh began to develop their own line of SLRs they dropped Miranda and for several years Miranda cameras weren't available in Japan. Soligor/AiC partnered with Miranda and distributed their cameras in the U.S. (and later in Europe, in a small way) from about 1959 until the end of production. Soligor became more and more invested in the company, but there was never really enough money put in to develop products that were up to date for the 1970s (basically the same sad story told by so many smaller German companies in the 1970s). I've also heard that the American management of Soligor clashed with the Japanese management of Miranda and employees felt Soligor squandered a golden opportunity, letting Miranda whither on the vine. Lack of continued development and lack of 3rd party support really did the company in. Obviously the brand had some cachet, as it continued to be licensed out to other manufacturers even after Miranda's demise.
raydm6
Yay! Cameras! 🙈🙉🙊┌( ಠ_ಠ)┘ [◉"]
Thanks for posting about the Miranda S Mos6502 and for the fine photos. Looks like a very interesting camera. I wasn't aware of this model. Took a quick peek at the auction site and see there are several available and w/WLFs.
I currently have a Sensorex w/50mm Auto-Miranda f1.4 and they are well-built, tank-like (albeit heavy) cameras.
I currently have a Sensorex w/50mm Auto-Miranda f1.4 and they are well-built, tank-like (albeit heavy) cameras.
p.giannakis
Pan Giannakis
If you look through old Popular Photography issues, you will see that the Mirandas (especially the D and the F) were advertised as Nikon F alternatives. I don't know how much basis there is to that but early Mirandas are very well made and modular. In the late 50s, Mirandas were ahead of anything Pentax or Minolta was offering but were more expensive I think.
With the Autorex EE, they took the decision to implement the light meter inside the mirror (!), the mirror itself is a bit thicker and there is a set of three cables coming out of it. This proved to be the Achilles' knee for these cameras, the cables are subjected to continuous movement and eventually give up. On my sample, average light metering was not working properly, possibly a fault on the cable. There is also a series of interlocks to allow the meter to be within reading range and often people would try to override those interlocks without reading the user manual. There are plently of broken Sensorex as a result.
The Spotmatics, the SR-Ts, the Nikkormats were less modular cameras but just as well build, more functional and had more lenses available. Mirandas found it difficult keeping up with them or with Olympus in the 70s...
I think the older Mirandas are beautifully simple cameras and well worth to be rediscovered.
With the Autorex EE, they took the decision to implement the light meter inside the mirror (!), the mirror itself is a bit thicker and there is a set of three cables coming out of it. This proved to be the Achilles' knee for these cameras, the cables are subjected to continuous movement and eventually give up. On my sample, average light metering was not working properly, possibly a fault on the cable. There is also a series of interlocks to allow the meter to be within reading range and often people would try to override those interlocks without reading the user manual. There are plently of broken Sensorex as a result.
The Spotmatics, the SR-Ts, the Nikkormats were less modular cameras but just as well build, more functional and had more lenses available. Mirandas found it difficult keeping up with them or with Olympus in the 70s...
I think the older Mirandas are beautifully simple cameras and well worth to be rediscovered.
Mos6502
Well-known
IIRC the D and DR were not intended to head-to-head with the Nikon F, they were less costly than the Miranda C, and much less expensive than the Nikon F. More of a competitor for the Prakticas and West German Edixas, and to be completely honest somewhat old fashioned for 1960-61 with the lift and set shutter dial and separate slow speed selector. The Miranda F brought things up to date, but the later Miranda G was supposed to the be the "pro" camera, it had interchangeable screens and a mirror lock up, putting it on par with the Nikon F (on paper anyway). As for the meter in the mirror, surprisingly a lot of companies did this! Topcon and Mamiya also put the meter cell in the mirror!
Anyway, I looked up the Miranda S manual, and was surprised to see a cutaway of the camera and lens. If this drawing is to be believed the Soligor 2.8/50 isn't a Tessar clone at all!
Does this pattern of lens have a name? I'm very curious now.
Anyway, I looked up the Miranda S manual, and was surprised to see a cutaway of the camera and lens. If this drawing is to be believed the Soligor 2.8/50 isn't a Tessar clone at all!
Does this pattern of lens have a name? I'm very curious now.
ranger9
Well-known
Hmmm... Five elements in three groups, with a single biconcave element in the middle and a cemented convex/concave pair on either side. I'd call this a Heliar design (developed by Hans Harting for Voigtlander and patented in 1900 according to this article ) but lens design taxonomy is a topic that tends to attract quasi-religious fervor so it wouldn't surprise me if someone wants to propose a different identification.
Ranger9, I agree... it looks to me like a regular Heliar pattern lens.
Mos6502
Well-known
Now I have to wonder if the Heliar was made in-house by Miranda, or if it was sourced from a 3rd party by Soligor. A little looking turned up a Konica made Heliar from the same era, but from the published diagram it's not quite the same.
ranger9
Well-known
There seem to have been several Heliar-ish designs floating around Japan during this period. According to various posts including this one, Asahi made a well-regarded 58mm f/2.4 using the Heliar design in both 37mm (original Asahiflex) and 42mm (usual Praktica/Pentax) screw mounts. I also found references (which now I can't find again) to some Macro-Takumar lenses in the 100mm range that also used a Heliar-type design. You can't be surprised if individual lens diagrams differ somewhat, but in general if a lens has a cemented positive/negative front pair, a cemented negative/positive rear pair, and a single negative element in the middle, you can make a case for it being a member of the Heliar family (or a Dynar according to some sources) although it's almost always possible to draw lens family trees in more than one way!
Mos6502
Well-known
Some samples to show off the "boke".
bee by Berang Berang, on Flickr
Miranda Heliar Boke Example by Berang Berang, on Flickr
I know it's not everybody's cup of tea, but I've always liked the gentle rendering of this lens since I first came across one a decade ago.
bee by Berang Berang, on FlickrMiranda Heliar Boke Example by Berang Berang, on FlickrI know it's not everybody's cup of tea, but I've always liked the gentle rendering of this lens since I first came across one a decade ago.
As a symmetrical pattern, the Heliar-like lenses are said to perform well at all subject distances, to include macro closeups. Note that this pattern seems favored for macro lenses... This lens arrangement is generally not well-suited for speeds faster than about f/2.5, so Cosina has broken the trend!