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

[AnselMortensen]

I put my 50mm Leitz lens on a Canon P, preferring the Canon's big bright viewfinder. It loads like a normal SLR, also.
My IIIf stays in the drawer, with its squinty viewfinder and PITA loading requirements.
The Canon P body cost me $125.
Good ergonomics = fun.
Bad ergonomics = stay in the drawer.

 

[AnselMortensen]

More on topic...
One LIFE & Sports Illustrated photographer, Mark Kauffman, used a Bell & Howell Foton adapted by Marty Forscher to use a 300mm telephoto for early small-format sports photos. He donated it to Brooks Institute, where it was on display...I wonder where it is now?

 

[AgX]

Perhaps SLRs still were in their early form in those days, but by the late 1950's we had quite a few models,...

Early 50's 35mm SLR in large series production:

Exakta (start 1936)
Praktiflex (start 1939)
Praktica (start 1949)
Contax S (start 1950)
Praktina (start 1953) first system camera
Asahiflex (1953)


Then there also were low-production models as Sport (1936), Duflex (1947), Wrayflex (1951), Mecaflex (1953)

 

[wiltw]

Early 50's 35mm SLR in large series production:

Exakta (start 1936)
Praktiflex (start 1939)
Praktica (start 1949)
Contax S (start 1950)
Praktina (start 1953) first system camera
Asahiflex (1953)


Then there also were low-production models as Sport (1936), Duflex (1947), Wrayflex (1951), Mecaflex (1953)

Which makes more mysterious why my Google of 'photojournalist 1950' failed to yield any SLRs in photos back in those days

(except for anachronistic photos of photjournaixts with 1970s and 1990s SLRs (a Canon with a white telephoto) in the search results

 

[AgX]

Because in the USA the SLRs were not used, for the number of causes listed above,

Over here the photojournalists had already got used to small cameras long before, but the same time that meant concerning bulk and weight the benefit to use a 35mm SLR was even lesser compared to the USA.
I still am not sure when the 35mm SLR become standard over here.

 

[AgX]

Concerning the (technical) causes to stick to larger formats I would like to hint at an aspect I think we did not mention yet: the fax

I assume the fax was much more spread in the USA than over here. Concerning the resolution/error of the fax system larger prints were benefitial, and as long one resorted to contact-prints, the LF camera was a necessity.

 

[David Lyga]

Because in the USA the SLRs were not used, for the number of causes listed above,

Over here the photojournalists had already got used to small cameras long before, but the same time that meant concerning bulk and weight the benefit to use a 35mm SLR was even lesser compared to the USA.

With due hindsight, we, of the USA, can now appreciate the prescience of the German camera industry. Back then, we did not understand how 'cutting edge' was this early formulation of SLR technology. And pictures of journalists back then, and even my own 'somewhat' recollections, point to the fact that this 'new' technology was being passed over with a vehemence born of, yes, ignorance.

It is hard now to understand that these cameras were not considered to be 'serious enough' for the important work of photojournalism. How laughable that seems to us now, but that was the mindset back then. The USA always loved the concept of 'big is better' and this was no exception. - David Lyga

 

[wiltw]

With due hindsight, we, of the USA, can now appreciate the prescience of the German camera industry. Back then, we did not understand how 'cutting edge' was this early formulation of SLR technology. And pictures of journalists back then, and even my own 'somewhat' recollections, point to the fact that this 'new' technology was being passed over with a vehemence born of, yes, ignorance.

It is hard now to understand that these cameras were not considered to be 'serious enough' for the important work of photojournalism. How laughable that seems to us now, but that was the mindset back then. The USA always loved the concept of 'big is better' and this was no exception. - David Lyga

With regard to the general population, it is understandable that the non-photographic public in the US was caught up for a long time with rollfilm cameras, especially those with the Kodak name emblazoned on the outside (even when the underlying camera was German in manufacture). My own middle class family evolved from Kodak Brownie, to Fujica rangefinder about 1960, to Beseler SLR in 1965. And as I related in an earlier post, photographic magazines were still educating the public about the 'miniature format' during the early 1960s. I can recall thinking 'how old fashioned!' seeing the early SLRs compared to contemporary rangefinders and then came the TTL boom of the late 1960s.

But relative to the working photojournalists already using rangefinder 135 bodies and lenses since the early 1950s, what accounted for their failure to adopt the SLR?!...Those only got pupular in the 1960s (after the launch of the Nikon F in 1959 followed by a large number of me-too brands of SLR.

 

[MattKing]

Has anyone considered the possibility that all of these differences may be due to how the cameras and all the associated industry support were marketed at the time?
In different markets, entirely different support systems would have been likely.
When I worked in a newspaper darkroom in the 1970s, one of the staff photographers - Ken Oakes - used Konica equipment. Management were not happy with that, because they supplied Nikon equipment and were supported by Nikon.

 

[David Lyga]

What caused the delay, wiltw? Steadfast ignorance and an inability to exit the big box of mental inertia. - David Lyga

 

[David Lyga]

Has anyone considered the possibility that all of these differences may be due to how the cameras and all the associated industry support were marketed at the time?
In different markets, entirely different support systems would have been likely.
When I worked in a newspaper darkroom in the 1970s, one of the staff photographers - Ken Oakes - used Konica equipment. Management were not happy with that, because they supplied Nikon equipment and were supported by Nikon.

That advertising was borne of mental inertia. Objectivity played but a small part with this acculturation. - David Lyga

 

[reddesert]

Early 35mm SLRs were considered clunky in operation and sort of specialized instruments. Old photography books/magazines, if you can find one, tend to talk about them this way. For ex, the instant return mirror did not appear until the Asahiflex in ~1954. Automatic aperture lenses were also not present on the first SLRs. These likely deterred photojournalists.

To return to the original subject of the thread, I'm not sure if the Nikon F actually has a "first" in any one major feature, other than maybe the 100% viewfinder. But it was considered to be the first to integrate all those features into one package and have a full professional system, so professional users ate it up.

 

[David Lyga]

Early 35mm SLRs were considered clunky in operation and sort of specialized instruments. Old photography books/magazines, if you can find one, tend to talk about them this way. For ex, the instant return mirror did not appear until the Asahiflex in ~1954. Automatic aperture lenses were also not present on the first SLRs. These likely deterred photojournalists.

To return to the original subject of the thread, I'm not sure if the Nikon F actually has a "first" in any one major feature, other than maybe the 100% viewfinder. But it was considered to be the first to integrate all those features into one package and have a full professional system, so professional users ate it up.

This is a bit of ironic humor: traits of clunkiness and lack of automatic apertures seems to have been an intimate partner of the press camera, as well. - David Lyga

 

[wiltw]

What caused the delay, wiltw? Steadfast ignorance and an inability to exit the big box of mental inertia. - David Lyga

I agree that steadfast ignorance applied to the general public. Yet I fail to see how that applied to working photojournalists...the format was the same, the lenses might need to be different ones (but only to allow for the mirror box) The advantages of seeing thru any FL lens ,rather than being constrained to the handful of FL that the manufacturer designed into the rangefinder mechanism would have seemed inherently attractive.

I can only think that the non-instant return reflex mirror was a key roadblock to adoption in the fast pace environment of photojournalism. 'Leave the non-instant return mirror to the studio photographers and the wedding guys' might have been the key roadblock.

 

[David Lyga]

I can begin to see what you mean by that instant return mirror being so important to a photojournalist.

 

[wiltw]

I can begin to see what you mean by that instant return mirror being so important to a photojournalist.

reddesert already brought up the issue of the automatic diaphram lens, another obstacle to use of an SLR Even if you wound the film quickly to bring down the mirror, you still could not see well or refocus on a new target thru a stopped down aperture!

Considering both, it is no wonder it was not well adopted by working pros in photojournalism.

 

[AgX]

Three photographs taken in Germany. Of course they give no proof at all, but I find them interesting:

1932
https://bundesbildarchiv.init-ag.de/device_barch/dev1/2019/10-16/0e/09/file77k5bmuebzd1gfjw1jme.jpg

1935
https://bundesbildarchiv.init-ag.de/device_barch/dev1/2019/10-18/c9/68/file77kwtxt62kn1e1zoubsq.jpg

1949
https://bundesbildarchiv.init-ag.de/device_barch/dev1/2019/10-17/fa/d2/file77ko9tyyy363pw6ejct.jpg

 

[wiltw]

Three photographs taken in Germany. Of course they give no proof at all, but I find them interesting:

1949, one press camera and all the rest 135 format rangefinders in that photo. Evident is the faster rate of adoption in Germany vs. USA for 135 format in photojournalism

 

[brainmonster]

Well, you can see that mirrorless is being slow to be adopted and people are still using DSLRs - despite the fact that mirrorless are much smaller and lighter. From what I understand the Canon 5D series was still the best selling camera in 2019, according to an article I can no longer find. Canon and Nikon were very slow to adopt mirrorless and the technology wasn't as good as other brands, I'm not sure but they have probably improved them since then, though.

Mirrorless has been gaining steady grown but slowly, and press photographers still use DSLRs for the most part, it seems, if you look at photos and videos of press conferences, you will rarely see a Sony A7 series camera. Most if not all are Canons and Nikons.

When I went to best buy last year they were pushing Canon DSLRs to me - touting them as being more durable and tankier than the more fragile mirrorless cameras, and DSLR lenses being more plentiful and cheaper on the used market.

I think people are often "wowed" by the sight of a large camera, and size of gear still gives the appearance of professionalism - walking around with a small micro 4/3 camera doing press photography might be seen as amateurish even though it's probably perfectly fine.

 

[wiltw]

Well, you can see that mirrorless is being slow to be adopted and people are still using DSLRs - despite the fact that mirrorless are much smaller and lighter. From what I understand the Canon 5D series was still the best selling camera in 2019, according to an article I can no longer find. Canon and Nikon were very slow to adopt mirrorless and the technology wasn't as good as other brands, I'm not sure but they have probably improved them since then, though. Mirrorless has been gaining steady grown but slowly, and press photographers still use DSLRs for the most part, it seems, if you look at photos and videos of press conferences, you will rarely see a Sony A7 series camera. Most if not all are Canons and Nikons.

The reality is that 'steady growth' of mirrorless is not a reality. Mirrorless grew to peak in 2012...then Sony had to engage in a big marketing effort to turn 'mirrorless' into product differentiation feature, in spite of the fact that EVF cameras had existed since Olympus and Panasonic launched the 4/3 format. I have no seen 2018 and 2019 volumesmade public by CIPA (without charge), but the quantity of mirrorless did not grow to any signicant degree from 2012 to 2017...ergo the market differentiation effort by Sony to make 'mirrorless' design to be a perceived value to try to grow sales volume. True growth in mirrorless units might have happened in 2019, but i have not seen the CIPA graphs.

IMHO, what motivated Nikon and Canon to finally have a mirrorless was simply the perception that they could afford NO erosion (in an ever declining market) to the market perception of smaller size & weight advantage of mirrorless, even if that market was not growing in volume year over year. Only the body was smaller and lighter, but the Sony lenses at the time were not yet significantly smaller and lighter than dSLR lenses.
Size and weight is what made Olympus OM series and Canon AE-1 take off like a rocket in the SLR days. Clearly there was demand for lighter and more compact i(n spite of the existence of users who wanted/needed bigger cameras for their bigger hands to hold with comfort). Sony really did not move up until offering FF sensors in mirrorless. Making that size and weight in FF (rather than the tiny 4/3 or even in APS-C) had inherent value to the buying public, and really was the key for Sony. But IMHO Canon has hobbled mirrorless for themselves by offering only 'more expensive to buy' RF versions of lenses already in the EF lineup...costing $500-1500 per lens more to buy. As a retired hobbyist (who used to shoot professionally) a new R5 and RF lenses is prohibitive to make the upgrade. I know others with same sentiment.

I think people are often "wowed" by the sight of a large camera, and size of gear still gives the appearance of professionalism - walking around with a small micro 4/3 camera doing press photography might be seen as amateurish even though it's probably perfectly fine.

Yeah, bigger = 'more professional user' indeed existed among the lay public. Medium format rigs by themselves caused wedding guests to make way for the pro to have a better position to shoot from...they started to move even without hearing 'Excuse me.'

 

[MattKing]

That advertising was borne of mental inertia. Objectivity played but a small part with this acculturation. - David Lyga

I'm not talking about advertising David.
I'm talking about in-person sales calls, 24 hour telephone and technician availability, equipment loans, expedited repairs, expedited deliveries and a whole host of other perquisites a big city newspaper photo department might expect and enjoy.

 

[wiltw]

The reality is that 'steady growth' of mirrorless is not a reality. Mirrorless grew to peak in 2012...then Sony had to engage in a big marketing effort to turn 'mirrorless' into product differentiation feature, in spite of the fact that EVF cameras had existed since Olympus and Panasonic launched the 4/3 format. I have no seen 2018 and 2019 volumesmade public by CIPA (without charge), but the quantity of mirrorless did not grow to any signicant degree from 2012 to 2017...ergo the market differentiation effort by Sony to make 'mirrorless' design to be a perceived value to try to grow sales volume. True growth in mirrorless units might have happened in 2019, but i have not seen the CIPA graphs.

I just found CIPA numbers thru 2019...the volume of units of mirrorless sold in 2019 is exactly the same as in 2012!
2018 was a bit stronger for mirrorless, but overall there is ZERO growth of mirrorless units shipped from 2012-2019.
Meanwhile dSLRs units have fallen -93% in the same 7 year period...why Canon had to release mirrorless, to stay alive in a very shrunken camera market.

 

[AgX]

Early 35mm SLRs were considered clunky in operation and sort of specialized instruments. Old photography books/magazines, if you can find one, tend to talk about them this way. For ex, the instant return mirror did not appear until the Asahiflex in ~1954. Automatic aperture lenses were also not present on the first SLRs. These likely deterred photojournalists.

Seemingly to avoid some of those issues the Praktina got that weird direct-finder too.

 

[btaylor]

One of my first cameras was a Contax S slr. It was a PIA to operate. Dim viewfinder makes it hard to focus, “pre set” aperture so you had to manually open the lens to focus and then stop it down to take the pic, then knob wind the fricken thing to get the mirror back down so you can see something! A rangefinder or TLR is much faster to use. A press camera? I could operate my Baby Speed faster than that Contax S. My Contax IIa beat them both, that’s why you see all those rangefinders in AgX’s 1949 photo.

 

[Bikerider]

1959 - I remember it well - sort of! I had just left school

The demise for the press photographers from using 5x4 or even TLR's and using 35mm was also the demise of the late and great press photographers. They went out with a whacking great lump of camera with 1, or if they were lucky 2 lenses and a bag full of dark-slides and a flashgun with bulbs that if used with a modern DSLR would let them expose using F8 at a mile distant. They had to make every shot count because they had limited resources to make to many mistakes and reloading the dark-slides out on a job was a no-no!

They were craftsmen. Men and some women who knew their job inside and out which has gradually diminished to virtually machine gunning a subject and almost guaranteed to get something usable. Not so much a skill but a dependence on modern technology. A bit like a metal craftsman or blacksmith making something out of an iron bar or piece of sheet metal as a would be customer building something from a prefabricated kit using a few screws to hold everything together. Probably just as elegant functional but exactly like thousands of others.

This is one reason I like film and darkrooms and chemicals. Using them is a skill and I don't want to loose it.