Canon 50 1.2 LTM.
And Leningrad, it was over complicated for soviet factory technicality. Do not expect it works fine.
See, I feel like it'd be difficult to make a big aperture lens in LTM. I don't know why, something to do with the flange distance, maybe? Or just the narrowness of the lens throat. The widest aperture I know of on a LTM lens was a 50mm 1.5 Canon, and those go for more than the camera bodies in good shape now.
Of course, you know, the other thread-mount I care about is even smaller in diameter, but it has an SLR-like flange distance, due to the massive shutter and light box--the Argus C mount. I wonder if there's an m42 or K-mount adapter for Argus like there are for Zenit lenses... You certainly wouldn't adapt it to LTM! It wouldn't link with the rangefinder and the flange distance would mean you would have to mount it on an extension tube. I know there are adapters for it for mirrorless digital, but that's everything.
If only there were a way to adapt M39 lenses to the Kiev/Contax mount (but the flange to film distance is longer than M39 -- as is virtually every other mount ever made).
So you aren't saying that it was evidence of Canon being "weird, contrarian" but rather "innovative, forward looking and game changing"!No, no, it's a fantastic camera
No, you have me there. Miranda was... it was something. That 45-degree twist to attach or remove the lens would be just different enough to annoy me. I've never seen one that didn't have bad shutter issues.So you aren't saying that it was evidence of Canon being "weird, contrarian" but rather "innovative, forward looking and game changing"!
If you want weird and contrarian, Miranda comes to mind
Interestingly, you can sort of go the other way. The soviets made a fairly uncommon version of one of their Leica clones that replaced the M39 mount with the Kiev/Contax mount. When I was in St. Petersburg last year, I was at the PhotoLubitel shop and they had one in the display case (for a pretty hefty price.)
http://www.sovietcams.com/index.php?3662661750
http://www.sovietcams.com/index.php?3662661750
I think you really are overselling shutter priority. Even to this day, aperture priority tends to be the preferred form, because it gives the user control over the DOF (not necesarily for bokeh, in my case i use it to stay at f/8 and get a large DOF). Other manufacturers were implementing shutter priority as well at that time aside from Canon, like Minolta who did it with their existing lenses. The AE-1 sold well because it was cheap.The AE-1 was extremely advanced when it was introduced, at a price that allowed it to compete with much less capable cameras. I sold a whole bunch of them.
The FD mount was designed to make shutter speed priority automation possible. Many of the competing lens mounts didn't permit it at the time.
Shutter speed priority was a big selling point - many people were using the AE-1 with Kodachrome 64 and other moderately low speed slide films. Most amateur photographers paid a lot more attention to the shutter speed than the aperture, so that approach made total sense.
Relatively speaking, very little attention was paid to shallow depth of field, and the idea of "bokeh" was unheard of.
Aperture priority automation was both simpler and cheaper to implement into existing systems, so that was the way that the competitors moved to automatic exposure.
Things are really different now than when the AE-1 came out.Even to this day, aperture priority tends to be the preferred form, because it gives the user control over the DOF
And you know... I mean, for all it's been out of fashion for decades, shutter priority isn't that bad. For some reason, people act like it removes the aperture from your control entirely, but you can always change shutter speeds till you get the aperture you want. It's not like you would get more exposure range out of an aperture priority camera than out of a shutter priority one! My main complaint about the AE-1, in the end, is how cumbersome the aperture ring and the DOF preview slider are. I prefer aperture priority mainly for the ease of previewing. Other than that, I can do the same things in either system, and a lot of cameras that I like to work with have shutter priority and manual only, so... I am neutral towards it.Things are really different now than when the AE-1 came out.
The AE-1 sold more back then because of shutter priority.
Today, it would probably sell less because of that feature.
When the AE-1 came out, a really large percentage of my customers had never owned or considered an SLR.
In terms of the Canonet, yeah, there are technical reasons to do shutter priority. It allows a traditional leaf shutter instead of a electronically-timed one--in fact, it even avoids having microchips at all--even the last Canonets were trap-needle aperture control, meaning the position of the physical needle you see In the finder is directly responsible for controlling the aperture. When you press the button the needle is pressed back so it can't move and a pin connected to the aperture rises up to touch it. The AE-1 simulates the same operation with one of the first microchips ever put in a camera.Several of the generation of rangefinders like the Canonet that had auto exposure were shutter priority. That is, the equivalent Konica auto S2, Minolta Hi-Matic 7/9, etc. S mode was more common - the Yashica Electro 35 is the one I can think of that had aperture priority (and it didn't have a manual mode). There may be some technical reason for why the aperture was easier to electrically control. But it's also possible that shutter speeds were just easier to explain to people than apertures. In the mid-late 70s to early 80s, these RFs were a quality starter camera or a "good" camera for someone not making the hobbyist investment in an SLR (like Matt's customers). In the 80s, SLRs with an auto mode like the AE-1 took that role. At that time, its audience was probably more likely to think about how to stop motion of their kids, than how to blur the background of a portrait.
Canon of this era, to me, seems not contrarian, but more willing to push innovations - it's a very large company with a lot of electronics heritage. (Compare: Nikon of the same era was relatively conservative-and-solid, and not really consumer models until the EM/FG and point-and-shoots - there was never a Nikon version of the Canonet.)
Anyway, if we're interested in a quality rangefinder usable in a variety of situations, beyond the Canonet, the Canon 7 is still an affordable bet. It is solid and has a nice viewfinder. I would recommend that before a Leningrad (but I don't really need a motor drive).
So if someone stole my passport in New York it's because Canadian passport are better than US?If Soviet cameras were so good, why did they steal my father's Yashica 1960 in Leningrad?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?