[titrisol]

True, Asahi Optical made lenses and polished glass for others. They sold projection lenses (AOCO brand) and made lenses for the military. I think they supplied Minolta (Molta) with Lenses before the war

After the war and reconstruction, Asahi began making binoculars and lens components (glass)
Then in 1950-51 they began making cameras and the Asahiflex IIb was an espectacular success with the instant return mirror.
The rest is history

All topics do get recycled when new folks find the forum or equipment or forget then re-remember . . .

Myself, I was really more interested in the development history of how they even came to decide that a titanium foil had to be used in the first place. As far as I can tell, Nikon was the first to do this and apparently as part of the Nikon F development - SLR with mirror lockup. Which seems odd to me as the window of opportunity to burn the shutter curtain seems narrow compared to their rangefinder where there is no mirror to protect it. Anyway, Nikon developed it for their F first and then rolled it into their rangefinder after since those two models share the exact same shutter system.

For those who didn't know, Nikon and Canon - and all other camera companies except Pentax, were making rangefinders first before they made an SLR. As far as I can tell Pentax was the only camera company that never made a rangefinder. Anyway, Nikon and Canon saw the writing on the wall when Leica released the M series that they no longer had a market in rangefinders and saw that Pentax solved the blank viewfinder problem and tried to release an SLR ASAP. Nikon took the quickest route by retrofitting a mirror box into their rangefinder to produce the F. In complete contrast to Nikon's success was Canon's spectacular failure with their first SLR - the Canonflex.

[reh321]

All topics do get recycled when new folks find the forum or equipment or forget then re-remember . . .

Myself, I was really more interested in the development history of how they even came to decide that a titanium foil had to be used in the first place. As far as I can tell, Nikon was the first to do this and apparently as part of the Nikon F development - SLR with mirror lockup. Which seems odd to me as the window of opportunity to burn the shutter curtain seems narrow compared to their rangefinder where there is no mirror to protect it. Anyway, Nikon developed it for their F first and then rolled it into their rangefinder after since those two models share the exact same shutter system.

For those who didn't know, Nikon and Canon - and all other camera companies except Pentax, were making rangefinders first before they made an SLR. As far as I can tell Pentax was the only camera company that never made a rangefinder. Anyway, Nikon and Canon saw the writing on the wall when Leica released the M series that they no longer had a market in rangefinders and saw that Pentax solved the blank viewfinder problem and tried to release an SLR ASAP. Nikon took the quickest route by retrofitting a mirror box into their rangefinder to produce the F. In complete contrast to Nikon's success was Canon's spectacular failure with their first SLR - the Canonflex.

My second rangefinder camera was made by Canon - but it had a fixed lens and a leaf shutter in that lens. I rejected a Praktica camera that was ‘klunky’ in my view. Most likely it was no noisier than a Pentax Spotmatic or K1000, and most likely the noise was the result of its being a totally mechanical camera. My next camera was a partially electronic Pentax ME/SE; it was noisier than the whisper quiet rangefinder camera, but by then I valued the flexibility of being able to chose focal length of lenses, and I’m guessing most of the noise came from moving the mirror around.

[TwoUptons]

I recall with many of the lenses that they were simply taking West German lenses and copying them via reverse engineering, so no surprise there are some pretty good lenses from the old Soviet era.
They were stealing the best technology of the day.

There's a long history of theft in photography... ask Daguerre and Talbot

Even the Japanese rangefinders are often accused of copying the Germans, as are the Japanese folders from nearly 100 years ago.

And if I remember right, there was a Japanese company accused of copying a German idea to couple an instant return mirror with a pentaprism... I'm not sure whatever became of that

-Eric

[titrisol]

I recall with many of the lenses that they were simply taking West German lenses and copying them via reverse engineering, so no surprise there are some pretty good lenses from the old Soviet era.
They were stealing the best technology of the day.

After the war Soviets moved machines and engineers to the USSR, making the Kiev and FED cameras identical copies to the German counterparts.
The first batches even used German parts, and German glass was used in the soviet lenses almost until 1950

---

Last edited by titrisol; 06-15-2022 at 11:44 AM.

[lotech]

I recall with many of the lenses that they were simply taking West German lenses and copying them via reverse engineering, so no surprise there are some pretty good lenses from the old Soviet era.
They were stealing the best technology of the day.

I read from somewhere that, some of the lenses in the early days were actually original German made that captured during the war, but in very small amount.

[Wheatfield]

There's a long history of theft in photography... ask Daguerre and Talbot

Even the Japanese rangefinders are often accused of copying the Germans, as are the Japanese folders from nearly 100 years ago.

And if I remember right, there was a Japanese company accused of copying a German idea to couple an instant return mirror with a pentaprism... I'm not sure whatever became of that

-Eric

Whataboutism at it's finest, I suppose.

[cpk]

Even the Japanese rangefinders are often accused of copying the Germans, as are the Japanese folders from nearly 100 years ago.

I heard that after the war the Germans lost all their patents; so, although the Japanese companies copied the German rangefinders, they were not breaking any laws. They copied and then improved on the German originals. Nikon copied the Contax and Canon, the Leica. I had a Nikon M3 and an SP. Both had the little focus wheel which was a part of the Contax body, although it was limited as to what lenses on which it could be used, probably the same as the original.

[nickthetasmaniac]

Even the Japanese rangefinders are often accused of copying the Germans, as are the Japanese folders from nearly 100 years ago.

The Japanese rangefinder weren't accused of copying the Germans, they *did* copy the Germans. As cpk points out, many German patents were ‘confiscated’ during the World War II reparations. During the post-war period cameras like the Leica III were basically open source for others to copy (and in some cases improve). This is also why there were never any Leica M copies (which was a post-war development).

Note that it wasn’t just the Japanese doing this, there were some excellent Leica copies from the US (Kardon) and UK (Reid), as well as the Soviets (Zorki/FED) and Chinese (Shanghai).

[reh321]

The Japanese rangefinder weren't accused of copying the Germans, they *did* copy the Germans. As cpk points out, many German patents were ‘confiscated’ during the World War II reparations. During the post-war period cameras like the Leica III were basically open source for others to copy (and in some cases improve). This is also why there were never any Leica M copies (which was a post-war development).

Note that it wasn’t just the Japanese doing this, there were some excellent Leica copies from the US (Kardon) and UK (Reid), as well as the Soviets (Zorki/FED) and Chinese (Shanghai).

and other Japanese companies used methods to accomplish different ends that worked well.
I had two Japanese rangefinder cameras - one from Yashica and one from Canon - that used leaf shutters in the lens.
The lens was not removable in either case, but the camera met the goal of ‘taking pictures’ just fine.

[ChrisPlatt]

Copying? That's nothing!:

http://www.zeisscamera.com/articles_blackhole.shtml

Chris

[LesDMess]

Copying? That's nothing!:

http://www.zeisscamera.com/articles_blackhole.shtml

Chris

I really enjoy reading those types of camera stories.
I'm really amazed how Germany is today considering two wars!

[ChrisPlatt]

I really enjoy reading those types of camera stories.
I'm really amazed how Germany is today considering two wars!

Not to mention occupation, partition and reunification...

Chris

[titrisol]

I really enjoy reading those types of camera stories.
I'm really amazed how Germany is today considering two wars!

2 in the 20th century, plus many more before that.

[grimnicholas]

Regarding cloth shutters, I have found that the ribbons let go when they get old. I had an "SV" and a "K", both recently serviced and in good condition, have a shutter ribbon let go. I suppose the glues used could be the weak spot with these. As a non related side note, my MX, never serviced since I bought it in 1977, finally had mirror problems. I sent it in to a local service fellow in Queensland. The quote for a "restoration" AUD 425.60 (US $300). Since I have an emotional history with the camera, I gave the OK. However, it can be seen that repairs far exceed the value of most cameras.

How was the repair job in the end?
I too am in QLD and wonder if you sent it to F16 for repairs?

Good to know there's a local guy and more so people that can and will work on the MX bodies, unlike the LX from what I've read. Helps in decision making between cameras and future proofing.

Pretty wild that repairs are more expensive than buying a new camera, fair enough though for time, labour and skills that are somewhat rare.

[TwoUptons]

How was the repair job in the end?
I too am in QLD and wonder if you sent it to F16 for repairs?

Good to know there's a local guy and more so people that can and will work on the MX bodies, unlike the LX from what I've read. Helps in decision making between cameras and future proofing.

Pretty wild that repairs are more expensive than buying a new camera, fair enough though for time, labour and skills that are somewhat rare.

That's the trick, though, isn't it...
Repairs aren't more expensive than buying a new camera...
they are more expensive than buying an old camera...
Nobody makes new ones...

But as long as most of the old ones still work, it does make the equation different...

I just paid $200 to get my Grandfather's old camera fixed. As a side note, that one had a metal shutter that needed work...
If it hadn't been his, I would have just bought another one... but sentiment is a powerful force.

-Eric