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

[StepheKoontz]

Thus american films were worse than european films? Or Americans more demanding than Europeans?

Americans were likely less open to change/conservative and as someone else stated, the physical size of the camera made one appear "professional". In some ways it's still true today: When I go to an event with my D4 and f2.8 zoom, people just assume I'm the "hired Pro" and usually I have access anywhere I want to shoot from.

 

[AgX]

As said I was lacking convincing arguments. That of "being stubborn" came to my mind, but I found it far fetched. But as you say it...

When I was child I learned that each and everything was bigger in the USA. However, big cars for example to me seemed no problem with towns and streets and houses built to take them, other than in Europe. Bulky cameras in the USA though mostly were used and schlepped in similar situations as photographers with their smaller cameras in Europe.

David's last argument was new to me...

 

[David Lyga]

As said I was lacking convincing arguments. That of "being stubborn" came to my mind, but I found it far fetched. But as you say it...

When I was child I learned that each and everything was bigger in the USA. However, big cars for example to me seemed no problem with towns and streets and houses built to take them, other than in Europe. Bulky cameras in the USA though mostly were used and schlepped in similar situations as photographers with their smaller cameras in Europe.
David's last argument was new to me...

Yes, everything is bigger in the US, including the egos and self-righteousness. After all, God Blessed America (and no one else!!!) - David Lyga

 

[Les Sarile]

There's a theory going around that the face mask rule is making folks inhale their own breath and causing more indignation then usual - aside from the various lockdowns . . .

 

[Ian Grant]

I really cannot argue here; perhaps I should have said the 'final death blow', instead. - David Lyga

It was the start of Nikon's dominance in the professional field. If we think of the iconic US Press Cameras the Speed Graphics they were made for another 11 years after the introduction of the Nikon F, and 14 in the case of the Crown Graphics. But Graflex had been late introducing the Super Graphic and lost potential sales to Linhof with their Technikas and in the UK & colonies the MPP MicroTechnicals better featured compared to the Super Graphics.

IAn

 

[AgX]

As a side-note (I do not want to derail the thread, but it fits to Ian's post):

Let's say the OP is right with the upcomst of the japanese SLR's triggering the change in the US press camera market. With the Praktina having then already been on the market for years and with much better marketing by KW from Dresden and more importantly immediate and apt response when the japanese cameras came out, the press cameras world wide may have been german for many years...
But as I stated already elsewhere: the Pentacon combine was established much too late in this respect and likely would have been too inflexible.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Franklin Roosevelt did not want press photographers bringing in 35mm cameras and taking photos of him on crutches or in a wheelchair, so he directed that the press corps use press cameras only. After his death there were no longer requirements for press cameras and Leicas, Canons, Nikons, Rolleis and later [1957] Hasselblads started showing up.

 

[cjbecker]

Franklin Roosevelt did not want press photographers bringing in 35mm cameras and taking photos of him on crutches or in a wheelchair, so he directed that the press corps use press cameras only. After his death there were no longer requirements for press cameras and Leicas, Canons, Nikons, Rolleis and later [1957] Hasselblads started showing up.

From what I've seen, and I would gladly amuse any examples, the hasselblad was not much used as a press camera. Besides the slower focusing compared to a TLR, what where the reasons for this? How big was the price difference in a rollei 2.8 and a 500c basic kit?

 

[BrianShaw]

I will go even further (if the mods allow) and state that a tiny camera was equated with a tiny penis. The obsession, conflated with the 'bigger is better' fallacy is what guided US thought throughout my childhood, - David Lyga

I thought it was the opposite. Big camera, truck, or whatever compensating for small penis, small mind...

“Bigger is better”, when bigger is just for the sake of being bigger, is generally a show of affluent consumption mentality

 

[David Lyga]

Franklin Roosevelt did not want press photographers bringing in 35mm cameras and taking photos of him on crutches or in a wheelchair, so he directed that the press corps use press cameras only. After his death there were no longer requirements for press cameras and Leicas, Canons, Nikons, Rolleis and later [1957] Hasselblads started showing up.

Few, today, realize just how much one was 'not wanted' when one was disabled back then. There was no para-olympics celebrating one's determination or capacities. One who was on crutches was shunned, not necessarily despised, but not wanted in ANY gathering. Roosevelt's decision was not borne of paranoia. That was life and there was no such thing as present-day accommodations. These people were not supposed to be seen. Today, this is truly laughable as much as it is tragic. - David Lyga

 

[David Lyga]

I thought it was the opposite. Big camera, truck, or whatever compensating for small penis, small mind...

“Bigger is better”, when bigger is just for the sake of being bigger, is generally a show of affluent consumption mentality

Well, I did not get to see the male genitals of these people, but, even if you say that that big camera was compensation, still the bearer of the big camera wanted people TO THINK that the cameras size matched his size. That was subliminal thinking which tried to be portrayed as such.

Yes, affluent consumption could have played a part, also. - David Lyga

 

[Sirius Glass]

I thought it was the opposite. Big camera, truck, or whatever compensating for small penis, small mind...

“Bigger is better”, when bigger is just for the sake of being bigger, is generally a show of affluent consumption mentality

I wonder what Ansel Adams, as a young man, would respond to your statement.

 

[Alan Gales]

Yes, everything is bigger in the US, including the egos and self-righteousness. After all, God Blessed America (and no one else!!!) - David Lyga

A lot of that arrogance has to do with ignorance. People in Europe tend to travel much more to other countries than people in the United States so they are more aware. It's easy to think that everything is better here, but when you actually go other places you find out that you are wrong. Some things are better done here and some things are better done somewhere else. Some, it's just a matter of opinion.

 

[David Lyga]

A lot of that arrogance has to do with ignorance. People in Europe tend to travel much more to other countries than people in the United States so they are more aware. It's easy to think that everything is better here, but when you actually go other places you find out that you are wrong. Some things are better done here and some things are better done somewhere else. Some, it's just a matter of opinion.

Accurately and succinctly said. Thankfully there is a world in addition to the USA. - David Lyga

 

[BrianShaw]

I wonder what Ansel Adams, as a young man, would respond to your statement.

Ask him!

 

[grat]

A lot of that arrogance has to do with ignorance. People in Europe tend to travel much more to other countries than people in the United States so they are more aware.

You say that-- but in 2001, a friend of mine was hosting a foreign exchange student from Europe. When the 9/11 attacks happened, her parents called, and one of the things they asked was whether we could see the smoke from the twin towers.

They were somewhat disconcerted when they were told we were nearly a thousand miles away.

Similarly, 400 miles is a lengthy journey in Europe. From Miami, that will barely get you out of Florida, which may explain some of the larger cars-- driving halfway across the country for a family vacation wasn't unusual. When I had an MGB-GT (fun little car, I miss it), it was great on the country highways, but murder to drive on the interstate-- even with overdrive, the engine was running at 3.5k RPM just to keep up with traffic, and every time an 18 wheeler went past, you tensed up for the blast of wind. Then when you did get where you were going, you just about needed a chiropractor to get you out of the car.

 

[Cholentpot]

USA camera companies made some 35mm cameras, Argus comes to mind, but 35mm was considered a small format. Who wants to shoot small format? That's what they do in Japan with those weird spy cameras that go click clack. We want postcard sized negatives. Professional standard for photography remained medium format until the end. Even 6x4.5 was ridiculed as Super 35.

I don't think it was a matter of Americans BIGGER BETTER. I think it was a matter of the USA was far more affluent then the rest of the world in the decades after WWII and saw no reason to downgrade to a low-fi format.

 

[AgX]

People over here wanted (mini-)postcard size too. But just because they were not effluent. A 6x9 or 6x6 negative, not to be enlarged, could be made with a fairly simple camera, even of the box type. And ordering contact prints was cheaper than having 35mm negatives enlarged.

But now we are talking of amateurs, even snapshooters. Press photographers had other prerequisites, so that such amateur stand not necessarily can be transferred to them.

 

[flavio81]

-) 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.)

Yes. The Exakta is really a system camera.

 

[flavio81]

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?

Something else.

In the late 50s Canon was doing really well with its rangefinder sales. Nikon had the vision to gable on SLRs as the future, while Canon had all the reasons to keep their focus into their rangefinder lenses and cameras.

The Canonflex was, IMO, a half-hearted effort by Canon. You take a look at some of the Canon R lenses and you even see lack of some fit and finish that IS present on the rangefinder lenses, like for example matte-black diaphragm leaves.

The Canonflex was launched with no wideangle lenses (!), while Canon used to have the fastest 35mm lens for rangefinders in the 50s. This gives you an idea of how much important was the SLR for Canon.

When you take a look at the Canonflex leaflet, you see there were many lenses, like the 85/1.8, that existed in rangefinder form (using a reflex attachment) but not in native R mount. You would mount it on the Canonflex by using an adapter.

Thus, Canon perhaps thought the professional would use the rangefinders for wide angle shooting and the SLR as an accesory for the tele lenses.

Nikon, instead, launched the Nikon F and in 1960 it already had the 28/3.5 H, which for its day was an excellent lens.

Only later, circa 1964-5, Canon started to take SLRs seriously, releasing significant lenses like the 58/1.2 (first f1.2 for slr cameras), the 19/3.5R (fastest and widest retrofocus SLR lens at the time), and truly pro lenses like the 85-300/5. 1968 it released the legenday fluorite telephotos, 1969 the prototype FL 55/1.2 with aspheric lenses was released , and 1971 the FD line is released together with the F-1. You could say that from 1965 or 1966 they realized they had to put their money on the SLR system.

EDIT: I had the chance to buy a Canonflex long ago. It has very nice build quality and heft. The viewfinder is just ok, not better than the one in the Nikon F. The mechanical operation is very smooth. The bottom-located wind lever is comfortable to use. The viewfinder is far easier to remove than in the Nikon F.

However, it was going to be doomed to failure, because, in 1959, compared to the Nikon F, the canonflex had:

- No motor drive
- No interchangeable screens
- More limited lens selection, and even more limited amount of automatic diaphragm lenses

Furthermore their choice of automatic diaphragm was mistaken; they chose to have lenses that require to be cocked so the diaphragm is released by the camera body. This opens up the possibility of inserting a lens that isn't on the 'cocked' state and thus missing a shot by wrong exposure.

Canon had to revise the mount and create the FL line of lenses, in 1964, with a totally new diaphragm system.

 

[flavio81]

My grandfather would be appalled by my German cameras.

Kodak did not push 35mm film as far as I know, they pushed 120, 127, 110, 126 etc and etc. They didn't make a 35mm camera from the early 60's until the 80's. Kodak being the largest of the large pushed other formats in the USA.

Are you sure? I thought the first 35mm camera, besides the Leica, was a kodak:

1934 Kodak Retina (Germany)
1938 Kodak 35 (USA)
1941 Kodak Ektra (USA), one of the most luxurious 35mm rangefinders ever (taking reliability aside)
1949 Kodak 35RF (USA)
1951 Kodak Signet 35 (USA)

 

[flavio81]

A medium format with Tri-X performs NO BETTER than a 35mm with TMAX 100,

I have done exactly this comparison and the medium format (6x6 in this case) won.

 

[MattKing]

Kodak did not push 35mm film as far as I know, they pushed 120, 127, 110, 126 etc and etc. They didn't make a 35mm camera from the early 60's until the 80's. Kodak being the largest of the large pushed other formats in the USA.

The Retina S1 and S2 - 1966-69

http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Kodak_Retina_S1,_S2

But more importantly, Kodak greatly expanded the use of 35mm, 126 and smaller format films - including movie films - by supporting and expanding the availability of consumer film processing.
In Canada, between the 1960s and 1980s, if you were a Kodak dealer, you were able to sign on to a pickup and delivery system that allowed your customers to drop off their exposed Kodachrome and Ektachrome movies and slides, have them picked up for courier delivery to the nearest Kodak lab, have them developed (and slides mounted), and have them returned by courier too the dealer.
That entire process was often as quick as next business day.
As Canadian Kodachrome was sold with processing included, the entire process was free to the customer, and free to the dealer. For Ektachrome, Kodak's standard processing charge would be due - I'm unsure if the dealer received a portion.
At the same time, Kodak and its competitors supported a massive expansion of colour negative processing labs.
Some of the professional world did limit itself to medium format and larger, but the improvements in film technology that started about this time meant that more and more 35mm film was being used by professionals (like journalists) as well as amateurs.

 

[Cholentpot]

Are you sure? I thought the first 35mm camera, besides the Leica, was a kodak:

1934 Kodak Retina (Germany)
1938 Kodak 35 (USA)
1941 Kodak Ektra (USA), one of the most luxurious 35mm rangefinders ever (taking reliability aside)
1949 Kodak 35RF (USA)
1951 Kodak Signet 35 (USA)

The Retina S1 and S2 - 1966-69

http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Kodak_Retina_S1,_S2

But more importantly, Kodak greatly expanded the use of 35mm, 126 and smaller format films - including movie films - by supporting and expanding the availability of consumer film processing.
In Canada, between the 1960s and 1980s, if you were a Kodak dealer, you were able to sign on to a pickup and delivery system that allowed your customers to drop off their exposed Kodachrome and Ektachrome movies and slides, have them picked up for courier delivery to the nearest Kodak lab, have them developed (and slides mounted), and have them returned by courier too the dealer.
That entire process was often as quick as next business day.
As Canadian Kodachrome was sold with processing included, the entire process was free to the customer, and free to the dealer. For Ektachrome, Kodak's standard processing charge would be due - I'm unsure if the dealer received a portion.
At the same time, Kodak and its competitors supported a massive expansion of colour negative processing labs.
Some of the professional world did limit itself to medium format and larger, but the improvements in film technology that started about this time meant that more and more 35mm film was being used by professionals (like journalists) as well as amateurs.

You're both right. Got my dates wrong. Kodak didn't make any 35mm cameras through the 70's. They were pushing their 110 and 126 cameras, they gave up in the early 80's and started putting out cheap 35mm point and shoots. Once the single use cameras hit the market they went all in on those.

I should have said outside of journalism and sports medium format remained king. Weddings, events, portraits, advertising and product were mainly medium format and higher. JC Penny or Kmart family photos were all shot on medium format. School photography same thing. 35mm was news and family and the weirdos who developed at home.

 

[Mackinaw]

.......Furthermore their choice of automatic diaphragm was mistaken; they chose to have lenses that require to be cocked so the diaphragm is released by the camera body. This opens up the possibility of inserting a lens that isn't on the 'cocked' state and thus missing a shot by wrong exposure. Canon had to revise the mount and create the FL line of lenses, in 1964, with a totally new diaphragm system.

Absolutely. The bungled auto diaphragm mechanism used by the R-series lenses was a dead end with no future. You have to wonder why Canon management approved such a poorly engineered mechanism. The Canonflex cameras (with the exception of the Bell & Howell influenced Canonflex RM) were beautifully made. I have a few Canonflex's, love the bottom wind and admire the build quality. But it's easy to see why the consumer back in the early 60's bought Pentax's and Nikon's. They had much more upside than the Canonflex and its R lenses.