1960s Japanese cameras, are they good?

[kl122002]

I remember when I just started learning photography, I have been told old Japanese cameras are junks, probably made from recycled materials, including the lenses. I know German made cameras are great in1950s. But from histoty I can see the core shifted from Europe to Japan.

Now it is 2022(moving to 2023) I have seen many reviews of different vintage japanese cameras. And it's quite clear that those vintage JP cameras are actually not that bad, and some even have stylish look that other Europe brands never given. Some models, like Minolta V2 /V3, are having 1/2000 and 1/3000 (both compensated with smaller aperture size) as shutter speed, so as Minolta AL and Yashica Lynx 1000 having speed of 1/1000s top speed that never happened in Europe brands . Minolta Hi matic (original) is also the first RF camera brought to space?
And when Cds getting dominant in metering mechanics, Japanese RF has Programed AE function, like Konica Auto S series and Minolta Hi-matic 7 series.

So my question is, what made people believe 1960s japanese cameras are "bad"? Are they actually good products but just rejected by the market of that time?

 

[btaylor]

Here in the US the Japanese made cameras captured the advanced amateur and made major inroads into the professional markets, they became the dominant brands because of quality and value. Having grown up here during that period (‘50’s- ‘60’s), I don’t recall “made in Japan” as being derogatory when applied to Nikon, Minolta, Pentax, Bronica, etc. at all. Throughout the ‘60’s and into the ‘70’s they basically pushed the European brands out of the market.

 

[Ian Grant]

By the late 1950s Japanese cameras were making inroads here in the UK, and they had a good reputation. Remember that one of the competitors in the amateur market was Halina, made in Hong Kong. The first Japanese camera I came across was a Yashica probably a Lynx around 1965 at school.

Ian

 

[guangong]

There was a wide spectrum, from well made Nikons, which go on and on, to lesser brands, such as Petri. But overall quality was quite high relative to costs. Moreover, prices were much lower in Hong Kong than in the US, due to import duties, etc. Bought Nikon F with lens for $150 in Japan in 1964, about a third less than selling price in US.
Zeiss Ikon was created by the Zeiss Foundation during pre WWII economic depression to rescue the German camera industry, but by late 1960s it realized manufacturing and design innovation had shifted to Japan and therefore pulled out of the camera market in early 1970s. Only Rollei, Leitz, and a few other German makers survived. In the late 1970s even Leitz could not compete. That company passed from hand to hand until present, with marketing now concentrating on high end prestige boutique cameras, watches, (will we see a rebadged Chinese auto with red dot?).

 

[gone]

Don't believe everything you read, and don't worry about what opinions other people have. Buy one and see for yourself. That story about recycled lenses??? The internet needs to be taken w/ a grain of salt. Any old fool can get on it. Shoot, they even allow me on it!

 

[xkaes]

I bet the majority of the members of this forum have at least one Japanese camera from the 1960's. The fact that so many of these 1950's & 60's Japanese cameras and lenses are still in use should tell you all you need to know.

How many of the electronic wonders being made today will still be in use 75 years from now?

 

[faberryman]

If you were going to buy a 35mm SLR made in the 1960s, what would you choose, other than a Leicaflex, that was not made in Japan? Alpa might be one. Any others?

 

[Paul Howell]

I have a number of 60s vintage Japanese Cameras, Konica T, Topcon U, Petri, Miranda, and Yashica, Minolta, and Kowa. Petri made good glass but their camera were so well made, Kowa made decent consumer grade fixed lens SLRs, with leaf shutters which were complicated and hard to have serviced. The others are fine, have held up, lens are good, Konica made some of the best glass.

 

[DGS]

I grew up in the 60s and 70s, and I never heard or thought of Japanese cameras as "junk". In fact, the first camera I listed after and bought with my own money was a Canon FTbn, which I still own. I own dozens of Japanese cameras, including many Canon rangefinders, Minolta rangefinders and TLRs (the superb Autocord), Yashicas, Nikons, Pentaxes, etc. And nothing, but nothing, outclassed my two Topcon RE Super cameras. The Japanese were the great innovators during this period, with metering systems in particular, and lens design.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

I bet the majority of the members of this forum have at least one Japanese camera from the 1960's. The fact that so many of these 1950's & 60's Japanese cameras and lenses are still in use should tell you all you need to know.

How many of the electronic wonders being made today will still be in use 75 years from now?

Indeed. One could say that cameras back then were made to last and that cameras today are made to be replaced.

The reason is quite simple. Pre-electronics, the mechanics of a camera were pretty much set, and R&D, for decades, was essentially devoted to making film "better"—faster, less grain, development of T-grain, etc.—and new chemistry adapted to these new emulsions and with the same intents. So you'd keep getting new types of film that could be used with the same cameras.

With electronic and digital cameras, R&D is entirely devoted to making the camera better. So now you keep getting new cameras that make the last one obsolete.

 

[Tel]

With electronic and digital cameras, R&D is entirely devoted to making the camera better. So now you keep getting new cameras that make the last one obsolete.

And it's debatable whether quality or obsolescence (ie, profit) is the principal motivation for the changes...

 

[Alex Benjamin]

And it's debatable whether quality or obsolescence (ie, profit) is the principal motivation for the changes...

It has more to do with relationship between the two than with either/or. Every technology, except the wheel, is eventually replace either by something else or by a better version of itself. Difference is in the lifespan. The advances in electronic technology—making it smaller, faster, containing more data—are made at an incredible speed, making the lifespan of each new development shorter and shorter. So what's built in the very nature of technological advance also becomes a great source of profit. So both are motivated by each other.

 

[Ian Grant]

If you were going to buy a 35mm SLR made in the 1960s, what would you choose, other than a Leicaflex, that was not made in Japan? Alpa might be one. Any others?

Zenit, Praktica, Exaxta & Exaa, Edixa, Agfa Reflex,Voigtlander Reflex/Bessamatic, Paxette Reflex, Contaflex & Contarex, Focaflex, Periflex, Retina Reflex, Wrayflex, and Alpa. There were one or two other very sort lived companies as well.

I do have the advantage of owning a couple of copies of Focal Press, Cameras - The Facts, How they work, What they will do, How do they compare. Essentially 2-4 pages on each model from the Focal Press Camera Guides. These Guides were initially produced during WWII as instruction books for cameras donated to the British Military.

Ian

 

[xkaes]

With electronic and digital cameras, R&D is entirely devoted to making the camera better. So now you keep getting new cameras that make the last one obsolete.

I agree, but the same thing is happening with lenses. A camera with new features often needs new lenses that can work with that new feature -- and vise-versa. To a lesser extent that happened in the "old days" too.

 

[faberryman]

Zenit, Praktica, Exaxta & Exaa, Edixa, Agfa Reflex, Voigtlander Reflex/Bessamatic, Paxette Reflex, Contaflex & Contarex, Focaflex, Periflex, Retina Reflex, Wrayflex, and Alpa. There were one or two other very sort lived companies as well.

Ian

And you would buy one of those over say a Nikon, Canon, Pentax, or Minolta on quality and reliability grounds? Certainly Alpa qualifies.

Of course, I have a US perspective. Perhaps the cameras you listed were more popular in the UK and Europe than the Japanese brands in the 1960s.

 

[Ian Grant]

And you would buy one of those over say a Nikon, Canon, Pentax, or Minolta on quality and reliability grounds? Certainly Alpa qualifies.

Of course, I have a US perspective. Perhaps the cameras you listed were more popular in the UK and Europe than the Japanese brands in the 1960s.

I did, I bought a Zenit E, however I was still at school and I didn't have a lot of options as I had no help from my parents, it was under £40 with the 58mm f2 Helios lens, I guess that was late 1969, I really wanted a Spotmatic and 50mm f1.8 lens but they were £130 and I could not save that much. By 1969 there were only Zenit, Exacta, and Praktica left, aside from Leicaflex and Alpa. By then JAl+panese cameras dominated.

Ian

 

[Paul Howell]

I think Leica and some Zeiss models were built to very high quality, well all of the Zeiss modles were built to what I think of as high German standards as were the Kodak Retina, many like Kowa use leaf shutters with the light baffle was more complicated and the Retinas were fussy to use. The Pentax Spotmatic which I forgot to include in the list of Japanese 60s cameras I have was easy to use, although stop down metering the meter was accurate, although not Leica or Alpa build, good enough to do the job.

 

[Jim Jones]

I bought my first Japanese cameras while in Japan beginning in 1951, and my first Leica in 1953. Despite heavy use, the Leica bodies and lenses have proved to be more durable. Just now I noticed that the low shutter speeds on two Japanese Zenobias (1950-1952?) are maybe twice as fast as marked. Otherwise they seem functional. The Canon P and Canon 7 that served well for many years have quit. So has a WWII Japanese military medium format camera. My Leica M4, bought new in 1970 (?) shows signs of hard use, but has never failed me, nor has ever had professional servicing.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I remember when I just started learning photography, I have been told old Japanese cameras are junks, probably made from recycled materials, including the lenses. I know German made cameras are great in1950s. But from histoty I can see the core shifted from Europe to Japan.

Now it is 2022(moving to 2023) I have seen many reviews of different vintage japanese cameras. And it's quite clear that those vintage JP cameras are actually not that bad, and some even have stylish look that other Europe brands never given. Some models, like Minolta V2 /V3, are having 1/2000 and 1/3000 (both compensated with smaller aperture size) as shutter speed, so as Minolta AL and Yashica Lynx 1000 having speed of 1/1000s top speed that never happened in Europe brands . Minolta Hi matic (original) is also the first RF camera brought to space?
And when Cds getting dominant in metering mechanics, Japanese RF has Programed AE function, like Konica Auto S series and Minolta Hi-matic 7 series.

So my question is, what made people believe 1960s japanese cameras are "bad"? Are they actually good products but just rejected by the market of that time?

Post WWII much of the items from Japan into the US were junk, but by the middle 1950's the Japanese cameras dispelled that image. The Japanese camera industry benefited from the war because they were able to freely copy the German cameras without fear of being penalized for copyright or patent infringement.

 

[BrianShaw]

I remember automobile brand xenophobia but not camera.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I remember automobile brand xenophobia but not camera.

Honda motorcycles were good, but the first Honda car brought to the US, as Consumer Reports stated had a front bumper that could not stand up to a collision with anything more formidable than an overripe watermelon.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I've only ever known Japanese cameras. The first camera I touched was an old K1000, when I was in high school around '79 (screw mount lens). Loved it! Because of that experience, the first 35mm camera I bought (when I thought I'd see what photography was all about) was a K1000 (with K bayonet mount). I did own a Linholf IV, and V later on, but Nikkor lenses were used with them. The oldest Japanese camera I own is the Mamiya 6 folder, from the 50's. Works like a charm. Never equated Japanese cameras with junk. Only with quality. If you understand Japanese mindset, you would understand... their motto is (to quote the Rust Brothers) "no shit leaves the shop".

 

[GregY]

KL, by the mid 60s Japanese SLRs were the ne plus ultra of the camera world. Many a pro photographer used a Leica RF and Nikon SLR combo. Nikon, Pentax, Minolta, Canon....really were the long lasting big players. A '60s Nikon is still capable of heavy hitting today.....& the Pentax SLR is an elegant thing with great lenses (if fewer than Nikon).

 

[4season]

I remember when I just started learning photography, I have been told old Japanese cameras are junks, probably made from recycled materials, including the lenses.

Maybe not glass (optical glass tends to have specific requirements), but brass, aluminum and steel recycle just fine.

Even now, Sony boasts of recycled content in their products:
https://www.sony.com/en-cd/electronics/sorplas-recycled-plastic

The crappier Japanese cameras seem to have been sold in the USA more as cheap novelties or toys. I recall seeing "Hit" type cameras being sold in a hotel vending machine well into the 1970s. But these were not the norm.

 

[mrosenlof]

There's a line from the movie "Dr. Strangelove" (1963), one of the characters had been a prisoner of the Japanese during the war, and had been tortured. He says, "and now they make such bloody fine cameras". (One of the Peter Sellers characters talking to Sterling Hayden's Gen. Jack Ripper) So quality of Japanese cameras had made it into popular culture by '63.