1959: the year that the press cameras became dethroned, defunct, defunded

[David Lyga]

The Nikon F was certainly not the first SLR, but its accessories, panoply of great lenses, and quality of build caused a sensation back in 1959. Although I have heard that the last holdout for press cameras was with the Anchorage Press in the early 70s, most newspapers got rid of their large cameras far sooner.

Does anyone have comments about this change of events? The quality of the image wrought from 24mm x 36mm stunned many within this journalistic genre. I was only nine, so I cannot really relate this to you with any accuracy. And, I do not suppose that there are many Photrio members who really can with a candor married to a repository of factual knowledge. But some might have information which could pique our collective interest in this regard.

And, it was not only the superb image quality which made the day for Nikon. Parts fungibility, along with quick turnaround for repairs, sealed the bank deposit for Nikon. Others tried to follow suit, like Canon. Pentax's approach was to create cheaper bodies which still were of high quality and had lens systems which were at least somewhat comparable with Nikon's and Canon's. Still others were content with catering solely to the advanced amateur. But Nikon's initiative with becoming a milestone with professionals was an endearing and enduring testament to photographic achievement and modification of the heretofore. Photography was never the same, again.

How did this change the whole approach to journalism and timely access to news information? There are many facets to this event which deserve to be told. Were there any drawbacks, any loss in quality of any kind, tangible or subjective? I do know that there were holdouts. Were these renegades' stubbornness "with good reason" or were they desperately holding onto whatever they had known the best and did not wish to venture into the 'high tech' of the day? - David Lyga

 

[Paul Howell]

The move to 35mm would have happened with or without Nikon. I was in college from 1966 to 1970, I shot for the school paper, a couple of small community papers, the 4X5 Speed and Crown could still be seen, by the mid 60s Rollifex, maybe a baby speed, but the tend towards 35mm was well underway. It was not just the introduction of the Nikon F and Topcon D, film had improved to the point that a 35mm negative was sharp with enough detail for newspapers and the wire. Another factor was the speed of a 35mm lens, F2, 1.4 and even 1.2 heralded the concept of available light photography, no need to lug a 4X5 with a big flash unit. In the 60s Nikon was gaining ground, but many used other 35mm, one of the papers I worked the Pomona Daily Bulletin had a Rollicord and a couple of Spotmatics. The full time PJ shot with a Minolta, I had a Spot and later a Konica T. It was during the Vietnam war that Nikon made a reputation that lead it to become the standard. In terms of features, I traded in my T3 for used Nikon F, motor drive, had a metered finder, a waist level finder, as a working PJ I never need the waist level finder, did use the motor drive, used a standard lens set, 28, 50, 100 and 200, the fastest Nikon lens I had was the non AI 50 1.4. It was the commercial, scientific, industrial photographer used the additional features more than a PJ. If I shot more sports the bulk back, maybe the very fast teles for night games.

 

[Pentode]

Paul, you bring up an interesting point;
Wasn’t the Rollieflex the standard in pj for a while in between press cameras and the move to 35mm? All way before my time so I’m genuinely curious.

 

[Les Sarile]

The Nikon F was certainly not the first SLR, but its accessories, panoply of great lenses, and quality of build caused a sensation back in 1959.

Since we're about the same age, this was also before my time. As I understand it, marketing is what made the Nikon F - as well as complete fumble by Canon with their Canonflex.
Their marketing was so good, they even have you fooled even today in 2020 that Nikon released a full system which they in fact did not. In Nikon's own website @ https://imaging.nikon.com/history/chronicle/history-f/index.htm you can see that they did not release a full system at that time as they - and Canon, simply wanted to get something out there since they were already late. In fact, Nikon used their rangefinder body/shutter and fitted a mirror box and prism to get out as quickly as possible. Not to take anything away from them as obviously they hit a home run product and followed it with great marketing . . .

 

[Les Sarile]

Keep in mind there were "system" cameras available long before the Nikon F such as this Praktina ad in Modern Photography magazine dated Feb 1958 . . .

I believe this system was available earlier but this is just a magazine I had . . .

As you can see, not the most elegant solution to the viewfinder blackout problem that plagued SLRs before Pentax came upi with their instant retur mirror that became the standard in all SLRs thereafter . . .

 

[Paul Howell]

Paul, you bring up an interesting point;
Wasn’t the Rollieflex the standard in pj for a while in between press cameras and the move to 35mm? All way before my time so I’m genuinely curious.

If you see any of the news shots of the Beatles with a cluster F*&%$ , you will see a lot of TLR, Rollie, Minolta, Zeiss, Yashica. My college paper had a Minolta Autocord that could be memoed out. I used it for proturaetes of the facility and admin staff, they also had a Bushman 4X5 that no one used, and a Ricoh 35mm M42 bodie and a set of lens including a 300 that was dontated to the school. One of the reason I bought a Spotmatic was I could the schools long lens which I could not afford.

The F1 did not appear until 1971, in the 60s the Topcon D and SuperD was the competition, a much better system which is why the Navy bought Topcons. Motor drive, motor winder, meter built in the body, no loss of metering when using speed or waist level finder. Lens were topnotch, and Exacta (sp?) lens could be used in stop down metering mode (I think). RE was a good starter body. Nikon had a better lens line up. Not sure why Topcon never got the tracation that the F did.

 

[Les Sarile]

The F1 did not appear until 1971,

What's an F1?

 

[BrianShaw]

What's an F1?

https://www.google.com/search?clien...BJIBATeYAQCgAQGwAQk&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-hp

 

[Mick Fagan]

What's an F1?

This is an F1, I drove these 50 years ago.

Mick.

 

[Les Sarile]

https://www.google.com/search?clien...BJIBATeYAQCgAQGwAQk&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-hp

Did he mean the Canon F-1? Wasn't sure because of the typo and no context . . .

 

[Les Sarile]

This is an F1, I drove these 50 years ago.

Mick.

Nice! I bet that would give the Unimog a run for it's money!

 

[cjbecker]

I really enjoy reading threads like this, about the old times. Keep the stories coming!!

 

[Paul Howell]

Did he mean the Canon F-1? Wasn't sure because of the typo and no context . . .

Guess I wrongly assumed everyone should have know, any of my editors still alive would kick my ass.

 

[Paul Howell]

 

[Les Sarile]

Guess I wrongly assumed everyone should have know, any of my editors still alive would kick my ass.

Myself, I didn't understand what a camera in the year of 1971 had to do with initial post of 1959.

My collection of first SLR releases of that era include the following: 1957 Asahi Pentax, 1959 Nikon F, 1959 Canonflex and 1959 Topcon Beseler B. Noticeably absent is a 1958 Minolta SR2 to fill-in lineup.

 

[Les Sarile]

Perusing magazine publications of the era, I believe rangefinders may have been the downfall of larger formats especially for newspapers . . .

 

[MultiFormat Shooter]

...as well as complete fumble by Canon with their Canonflex.

Why was the Canonflex a "fumble?" I ask legitimately, as I am not familiar with it. Was it a poor design, a bad execution of a good design, lack of marketing, or something else?

 

[Les Sarile]

Why was the Canonflex a "fumble?" I ask legitimately, as I am not familiar with it. Was it a poor design, a bad execution of a good design, lack of marketing, or something else?

Given the production numbers, it could very well be all of the above!
According to https://www.cameraquest.com/canonflx.htm, there were 17,000 Canonflex produced compared to 862,000 Nikon Fs.

 

[David Lyga]

Myself, I didn't understand what a camera in the year of 1971 had to do with initial post of 1959.

Yes, correct. I had forgotten just when the Canon F1 had come out. - David Lyga

 

[AgX]

Keep in mind there were "system" cameras available long before the Nikon F such as this Praktina ad in Modern Photography magazine dated Feb 1958 . . .

I believe this system was available earlier but this is just a magazine I had . . .

-) the Praktina is widely concidered 1st System Camera
-) the Praktina was presented in April 1952, but to my understanding manufactured in numbers only since 1953.

Before that there was the Exakta Varex. It already was a comercially and scientifically versatile camera. (Think of endoscopic attachments etc.)

 

[Ian Grant]

Keep in mind there were "system" cameras available long before the Nikon F such as this Praktina ad in Modern Photography magazine dated Feb 1958 . . .

I believe this system was available earlier but this is just a magazine I had . . .

As you can see, not the most elegant solution to the viewfinder blackout problem that plagued SLRs before Pentax came upi with their instant retur mirror that became the standard in all SLRs thereafter . . .

I have two Praktinas and the build quality is excellent one had quite a few years of professional use. Greater range of lenses than the Nikon F from numerous manufactures.

However I disagree with the OP it was the Korean war so 1950 that was the beginning of the end of the Press camera and the Nikon Rangefinder cameras and more particularly their lenses. Also to a lesser extent the Canon rangefinders.

Ian

 

[AgX]

Although I have heard that the last holdout for press cameras was with the Anchorage Press in the early 70s, most newspapers got rid of their large cameras far sooner.

David, you are looking at this topic from a US perspective. The US however with their Graflexes look ancient from a european perspective.

With the Leica as 35mm camera and modern MF cameras not only becoming a commercial success but also a change took place already in the 30s over here. Already in the mid-30s in Germany the majority of german press photographers used 35mm or MF cameras. The end to any dispute on this came, likely unknown to most here, by a regulation by the Ministry of Propaganda in Germany in 1937 that prescribed the use of a 35mm or MF camera as prerequisite to get accredited as german press photographer. To my understanding the idea was to create "vivid" photographs for a vivid movement/country.

Concerning official regulations you get the same picture if you compare US and german official camera outfits for military photographers.

To what extent this change went beyond Germany and spread over Europe there may be discussion, especially with the division between Britain and continental Europe. But I must think hard to remember seeing a Graflex in historic press events on this side of the Atlantic.

 

[Besk]

I have the impression that the Nikon cameras and lenses had overall less maintenance issues plus the good/ well constructed lenses compared to the competition. of the day.

 

[AgX]

Another aspect became availability of modern colour film:

Whereas Kodachrome was available already from 1938 as still film in the format range from 35mm to sheet film, Agfacolor New remained as 35mm film beyond the war.

 

[Helge]

David, you are looking at this topic from a US perspective. The US however with their Graflexes look ancient from a european perspective.

With the Leica as 35mm camera and modern MF cameras not only becoming a commercial success but also a change took place already in the 30s over here. Already in the mid-30s in Germany the majority of german press photographers used 35mm or MF cameras. The end to any dispute on this came, likely unknown to most here, by a regulation by the Ministry of Propaganda in Germany in 1937 that prescribed the use of a 35mm or MF camera as prerequisite to get accredited as german press photographer. To my understanding the idea was to create "vivid" photographs for a vivid movement/country.

Concerning official regulations you get the same picture if you compare US and german official camera outfits for military photographers.

To what extent this change went beyond Germany and spread over Europe there may be discussion, especially with the division between Britain and continental Europe. But I must think hard to remember seeing a Graflex in historic press events on this side of the Atlantic.

Germany, due to it’s size, tech industry, economic level, reputation for rationality and rigorousness, central placement etc. has had “luck” in being able to be the technological and human factors/ergonomics standard setter, where other big countries that might be said to have the same technological level like England and France has not to the same degree.

Remember when all desktop computers in the world was beige?
An doubtful German study had found that to be the best colour for screens and paraphernalia around them in office scapes.

Therefore anyone who wanted to export to Germany, and be taken any kind of serious for offices and studios, had to make a beige model.

It was just easier to just to go full Ford Model T, and make it only in one colour.