Why Konica AutoReflex have such a dim, unsusable viewfinder?

[ts1000]

Konica AutoReflex T, T2 and even T3 (to a degree) all have unusable dim, and even cloudy viewfinders.

Without split image focusing aids (which was offered optional on a T3) , these cameras are essentially unusable indoors.

Does anyone know history/justification of why a company with otherwise, almost impeccable reputation for quality optics, and mechanical construction -- decided to execute this part so poorly?

Did they think it did not matter, or may be the materials they used to coat the viewfinder degraded overtime, any other reasons?

Konica finders on the later generation plastic bodies all were much brighter.

 

[Paul Howell]

Pretty much the same as on most 60s and early 70s vintage SLRS, I had a T which I traded in for a Nikon, the Nikon had a brighter screen, but my Spotmatic was also dim as are my Mirandas of the time frame. Brightest viewfinder that I have is a Kowa R.

 

[Trask]

My experience is a bit different -- I have an original Auto Reflex (the one that switches full frame/half frame), and I find it very easy to focus using the central microprism device. In general I have a difficult time with microprism-only cameras, like Pentax Spotmatics, because I can never get focus with certainty, unlike using a split-image device. But the Auto Reflex works great for me. I have a T3 too, but the later model with a split-image device, so no issue there. As Paul noted, many cameras from the 60's or 70's were not as bright as many more modern cameras.

 

[wiltw]

My experience is a bit different -- I have an original Auto Reflex (the one that switches full frame/half frame), and I find it very easy to focus using the central microprism device. In general I have a difficult time with microprism-only cameras, like Pentax Spotmatics, because I can never get focus with certainty, unlike using a split-image device. But the Auto Reflex works great for me. I have a T3 too, but the later model with a split-image device, so no issue there. As Paul noted, many cameras from the 60's or 70's were not as bright as many more modern cameras.

In the era of the AF cameras, screens are made brighter by not making them as coarse surfaced, and therefore less accurate for focusing by eye!
With regard to SLRs with manual focus, back in the 1960's and 1970's most viewfinders featured views of about 0.92x, or a larger image area. Then, cameras started to cram much more information like shutter speed, f/stop, etc. so the views shrank to typically 0.72x...same amount of light photons hitting the scrren but concentrated within a smaller area and so apparently 'brighter'.

 

[ts1000]

Thx gents. But Konica's autoreflex T were their 'top of the line'. The minolta, canon, nikon at that time were much better in that regards (just based on personal observation, so not a a statistically significant study)..

Konica's lenses were very competitive, with the top of the line competition -- but viewfinders (at least in 4 copies I came across) are just painfully bad.

So it seems like it was an engineering or marketing or leadership decision miss rather than a lack of 'know how'.

 

[MattKing]

I'm not sure that they were originally less bright than the competition. I certainly don't recall that perception when they were current.
Perhaps they haven't aged as well as some.

 

[ts1000]

> "... I certainly don't recall that perception when they were current...."
One of my guesses is that as well.
But is there a specific chemical compound or a manufacturing process that could be responsible for such dimming ?

 

[MattKing]

As an example, the mirrors may be susceptible to degrading over time.
Or the focus screens may be susceptible to yellowing.
Or the pentaprism may be susceptible to de-silvering.
There are a lot of parts to the optical path of the viewing system that can change over 50 or so years.
I can't remember if the metering system uses a beam splitter. If so, those reduce brightness.

 

[dynachrome]

The T2 was my first SLR in 1971. My eyes were young and I was able to focus without difficulty. The lens which came with it was the 57/1.4. Slower lenses were not quite as easy to focus. In 1975 I traded in the T2 for a T3. The T3 had the split image focusing aid but without a microprism collar. This made it easier to focus with wide angle lenses but required me to keep my eye perfectly centered with slower longer lenses. In 1984 I got an FT-1 and I had Professional Camera Repair remove the focusing screen and custom fit a Nikon E (grid) screen from the FE. I still had a camera with a focusing screen which could not be changed by the user but which was suitable for a wide variety of applications. Macro work and using slower telephoto and zoom lenses were much easier. Years later Greg Weber installed a Nikon E screen in an Autoreflex T2 for me. This gave me a fully mechanical camera with a grid type screen.
Over time I collected and used many cameras with user interchangeable screens. My favorite is the Canon F-1 with the later L D screen, followed by the Canon New F-1 with its similar screen. Even with its original screen, the FT-1 has a brighter finder than the Autoreflex T and A series..

 

[ts1000]

> " Years later Greg Weber installed a Nikon E screen in an Autoreflex T2 for me. This gave me a fully mechanical camera with a grid type screen."
Yes, It seems that Greg Weber is the only person that can cure otherwise an excellent camera and lens system.

One other notable fact about Konica AutoReflex T series -- is its huge pressure plate. It is bigger than Nikons, I assume they wanted the film to be as flat as possible.
Konica Autoreflex, to my recollection has the shortest flange distance amongst that era SLRs.
That make is suitable for mounting a variety of other maker's lenses (and there is a beefy M42 adapter for it).

I am wondering if such a short flange distance required the mirror to be quite small, and with the combination of badly engineered viewfinder -- it is that combination that makes the overall focusing experience so bad.

 

[Paul Howell]

I think the Swiss Alpa was shorter, I have a M42 to Konica AR adaptor and there were Nikon and Miranda as well, unless you wanted an rare fast M42 or Nikon lens, Konica made some of the best lens of the time. I just compared my T3 with a 50 1.7 to a Miranda EE with 1.8 and Minolta A9000 with 1.9, mine is not that dark. Mirror size seems pretty much in line with my Minolta A9000 but seems smaller than my Minolta 9 or 800si. When I get time I'll pull out my T4 and T and see how they compare, but if memory serves me, I think we all pretty good for the time.

 

[Paul Howell]

Well, I just compared the T3 to a Petriflex I just got, the Petri is noticeable brighter with a 50mm F2.

 

[dynachrome]

If you can't focus your Konica Autoreflex properly there are two other things to consider. The first is that the angle of your mirror may be out of adjustment. This can be remedied. The second is that you may need a diopter adjustment. The Konica diopter are not so easy to find. I have had the Nikon diopter glass transplanted into the Konica eyepiece. Nikon diopters are much more easily found. My theory is that Nikon was a more expensive brand and was purchased by older people. These people had poorer eyesight and needed the diopter adjustment more.

 

[ts1000]

> "... you can't focus your Konica Autoreflex properly ".
I think I can focus, it is just very difficult indoors. And it is completely below par compare to other cameras of that vintage.
I do not think I am the only one noticing this engineering miss. But regardless, what I am interested in, what was Konica thinking at the time -- did they not appreciate that this is a significant problem, did they want to sell more of their f 1.4 lenses, or is it just combination of some specific materials/manufacturing process that turned out to be subpar compared to other manufactures at the time.

I am leaning towards the explanation that it is a combination of a smaller-then-others mirror surface area, plus something in the manufacturing process that, perhaps, at the time did not show degradation -- but overtime did.

There is little historical references/interviews written about Konica. So really hard to guess. They made exceptional lenses, and pretty good mechanics at the time...

 

[dynachrome]

I think I have to agree with an earlier post concerning finder brightness of Konica and other SLR cameras of the same period. They were not very different. How do I know this? I have a number of restored Konica FP cameras and F mount Hexanons. I also have an Auto Reflex (1965) and all of the other Konica SLR models through the final one, the TC-X. My collection includes Minolta SLRs from the SR-7 through the late AF SLRS, Canons from the Canonflex RM, FT QL, FTb, FTbN, F-1, F-1n, New F-1, EF, A-1, AE-1 Program and T70. My Nikon collection goes back to the Nikkormat FT of 1965 through F2, F3, FE, FE2, N2020, N8008S, N90S. I have Ricoh. Mamiya, Sears, Petri, Olympus, Topcon, Vivitar, Promaster and Pentax SLRs going back to the HiA and S1A models. Unless there is some kind of damage or issues of aging, the Konica cameras you mention are just not that different from other similar models where finder brightness is concerned. That's the beauty of cameta collecting and using. You have your choice of many makes and models to be happy with.

 

[davela]

Mine are just fine - I have no idea what you are talking about!

 

[Trask]

Dynachrome mentioned his camera had the split-image but no microprism collar, and I though, that can’t be right. I just pulled out my two T3 cameras, 852XXX and 924XXX, to see what’s what, and found that camera 852XXX did not, in fact, have a microprism collar, but 924XXX did! I never noticed the difference before. Looking through each camera at a fluorescent strip light, with both eyes open, clearly the image through the camera was less bright, and less contrasty, than with the naked eye. Looking carefully, I can see what looks like a bit of prism de-silvering in both cameras, so I wonder if that’s the culprit. Also, the T3 has that eyepiece blind built in, so I wonder if over time haze builds up in there. To be fair, I pulled out a Minolta SR T-101 with f/1.4 lens, and it was better, but only a bit. Actually, the older Auto Reflex original (with no TTL meter) with a 40mm f/1.8 lens was a bit brighter than either T3. I’d had Greg Weber work on that camera several years ago, so perhaps he cleaned up a bit when he had the top off. And — I pulled out a couple of multi-page Konica glossy brochures on the T3, and noted that it discussed the optical path and metering circuit, but really didn’t make any specific statements about a bright focusing screen. Maybe thought that was to be taken for granted??

 

[dynachrome]

The early T3 cameras had, as an option, the split image screen without the microprism collar. Some people preferred this one to the later screen with the collar. Greg Weber was able to put these into the later T3 and T3N cameras as well as the earlier T and A series cameras. The cameras I have the most interchangeable screens for are the Canon F-1 and F-1n. Over time, most cameras came with combination split image/microprism screens. Nikon called it the K screen. It was offered as an option on the Nikkormat. The Konica TC/T4 and all later models had the combination screen. Canon called it the E screen. Minolta phased it in over time in the SRT models. The earlier Canon EF cameras had a plain microprism screen while later one had the E screen. To brighten things up a little more, you can find a 57mm f/1.2 Hexanon. I have two of these.

 

[Les Sarile]

Konica AutoReflex T, T2 and even T3 (to a degree) all have unusable dim, and even cloudy viewfinders.

Without split image focusing aids (which was offered optional on a T3) , these cameras are essentially unusable indoors.

Does anyone know history/justification of why a company with otherwise, almost impeccable reputation for quality optics, and mechanical construction -- decided to execute this part so poorly?

Did they think it did not matter, or may be the materials they used to coat the viewfinder degraded overtime, any other reasons?

Konica finders on the later generation plastic bodies all were much brighter.

I think "cloudy viewfinder" is a dead giveaway to what you perceive as a failed execution.

Long before the 1965 Auto-Reflex or 1968 Autoreflex T and others - and long after, were a heard of fixed screen cameras without split image focusing aid that are quite usable. Some people even prefer no such focusing aids be in their view.

Consider that reviews at that time made no statements that the Autoreflexes incorporated such a failed execution when it comes to their viewfinders.

I only have two Konica cameras and neither of these can be classified as having cloudy viewfinders.

 

[ts1000]

@Les Sarile . Thank you, perhaps the cloudy finder I have is an exception.
I have another broken T (that's missing a mounting ring). May be I will try to move a viewfinder from there onto my working camera.

I have seen others complaining about the viewfinders though on AutoReflexes, and refercing Marc Webber's solution to take viewfinders from other cameras and fit into Konica.
So may be there are two issues there, one usable but relatively dim Konica T viewfinder, and my specific copy having it very cloudy.

So while I have found on message boards, the reinforcement of the 'dim' complaint, the 'cloudy' may be issue specific to the copy I have.

I have tried that camera with 40mm 1.8 and 57mm 1.4 ( just like the one you have on the picture on the right) lenses. And 40mm is impossible to focus indoors. the 57mm 1.4 is usable.

 

[Paul Howell]

My T3 have the split image, I have problems focusing indoors with the 50 1.7 or 1.4, need to pull out the T and T4, to see if there any issues.

 

[MattKing]

It occurs to me that, relatively speaking, there were fewer Autoreflex Ts around then the other cameras of similar vintage, as well as fewer lenses that fit them.
It may be simply the case that any Canons or Nikons or Pentaxes of similar vintage that developed dim viewing systems were replaced with other bodies, while people held on to the Konicas they already had.

 

[Les Sarile]

@Les Sarile . Thank you, perhaps the cloudy finder I have is an exception.
I have another broken T (that's missing a mounting ring). May be I will try to move a viewfinder from there onto my working camera.

I have seen others complaining about the viewfinders though on AutoReflexes, and refercing Marc Webber's solution to take viewfinders from other cameras and fit into Konica.
So may be there are two issues there, one usable but relatively dim Konica T viewfinder, and my specific copy having it very cloudy.

So while I have found on message boards, the reinforcement of the 'dim' complaint, the 'cloudy' may be issue specific to the copy I have.

I have tried that camera with 40mm 1.8 and 57mm 1.4 ( just like the one you have on the picture on the right) lenses. And 40mm is impossible to focus indoors. the 57mm 1.4 is usable.

I thought your initial premise was just hyperbole! Its been many years, brands and models later and the Autoreflexes are released and one can't focus indoors . . . not very likely is it? Something has to be very wrong with your specific examples. I can understand dimmer then others - relatively speaking, as brighter viewfinders and screens continue to advance but certainly not impossible.

I have many other brands and models pre and post Autoreflex and i can confirm my samples are not out of the ordinary one way or the other in comparison to its peers. Been meaning to develop a way to show the view from these viewfinders as I believe that is probably the single most important characteristic of a manual focus camera.

 

[RLangham]

Worse than a Praktica TL3? I'd be impressed. I always heard good things about Konica

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Konica AutoReflex T, T2 and even T3 (to a degree) all have unusable dim, and even cloudy viewfinders.

Without split image focusing aids (which was offered optional on a T3) , these cameras are essentially unusable indoors.

Does anyone know history/justification of why a company with otherwise, almost impeccable reputation for quality optics, and mechanical construction -- decided to execute this part so poorly?

Did they think it did not matter, or may be the materials they used to coat the viewfinder degraded overtime, any other reasons?

Konica finders on the later generation plastic bodies all were much brighter.

I have in front of me an Autoreflex T2,, a Pentax H1a, and a Nikkormat Ft from '65. The Nikkormat is of course the best and brightest. As for the Konika being "unuseable"it is a bit better then the Pentax, which my 60 year old eyes have little trouble with.
OP, has it ocurred to you that that camera is old and there is possibly haze on the mirror and ? on the prism?