Talk:Konica C35

Revision as of 18:11, 5 February 2012 by Steevithak (talk | contribs) (updated edit history links: camerapedia -> camera-wiki)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
This is the discussion page for Konica C35. Click here to start a new topic.

Discussion pages are for discussing improvements to the article itself, not for discussions about the subject of the article.

Part removed

I've just now removed:

The first C35 was also available in black, but I have not seen the later model - presumably because the Auto S3 was avilable solely in this colour and they were trying to differentiate between the cheaper and dearer models.

There are two problems. First, "I" is meaningless in Camerapedia. Secondly, even if "I" were rewritten as "no editor of Camerapedia" -- which I don't recommend at all, but which would make a little more sense in itself -- I regret to say that I wouldn't understand what the resulting sentence meant. -- Hoary 10:58, 2 September 2006 (EDT)

Could you please not re-edit until I have finished - I now appear to have lost half the article.

I was trying to put the whole series in KOnica perspective and I appear to have lost 50% of my work!

I suggest in future awaiting at least an hour before editing something that you think is in process.

Minor revisions are not really that important!


It is a problem when two people are working on an article at the same time. To avoid this, I sometimes add Work in Progress at the top of the page when I am heavily editing a long article. However, even when an editing conflict occurs, you don't lose your article completely: two windows appear, one with the text newly edited by the other contributor and another one (that appears only if you scroll down) with your text. You can cut and paste your text (second window) into the page (first window) and click "Apply". --Rebollo fr 13:16, 2 September 2006 (EDT)

Yes I saw that, but somehow my last two sections seemed to have gone! So I did them again.

I actually did what you suggested the second time and put "editing in progress as a heading!

He disgreed with a lot of my comments and on the whole I agree with him and have amended my text. However he was not totally right about everything and I think a reasoned discussion here is better than a public disagreement on the page!

Oh yes, thanks for that titling help - have used that code ever since.

Do you agree about discontinuing the individual Konica C35 model pages and having a collective one. As the site is so sparse, I think a bit of "concentration" would help make it a better place to browse - long lists of models are just not something that captivate an audience!


Yes, please merge all of them into a single page, see my comments in Talk:Konica C35 Series. I suggest "Konica C35" as a title.
I'm not sure that leaving a post on the talk page is very different from directly editing and leaving comments in the page itself. A comment on the talk page is visible "forever", and leaves a public record of the disagreement, while an SGML comment inserted in the page itself is invisible except to the editors of the page and disappears sooner.
--Rebollo fr 13:37, 2 September 2006 (EDT)

URGENT MESSAGE for Rebello - posted on both Konica C35 pages!

Some confusion here - in the editing conflict situation something funny happened to this page. So I started again, called it Konica C35 series and linked to it on the index page.

Konica_C35_Series This is the correct one.

Konica_C35 This one now is obsolete and I have deleted the contents. The C35v was a stub anyway and had no content, bar one line!

Can you sort the mess I have created please?

Sorry to burst in here and wreck the joint!


Comments moved from the talk page of "Konica C35 Series"

I have added this page and replaced the C35V and C35 E & L page

It seems to make sense to have an overview.

As the Automatic is only a perforation variety (a badge & Flashmatic control), it probably makes no sense to have a separate page for it.

The Auto S3/ RD was built on the same chassis as the simpler models. The only difference was a a new shutter/lens assembly. A separate page is in existance for this camera, so probably best to leave it "as is" I have added the spec & photo to show viewers that it is simply a member of the same family. A glance at the illustrations here will demonstrate how close it actually was: It obviously started life with an identical top, but bearing in mind the huge price differential over the f2.8 C35, importers obviously requested a colour & name change so they could market it as an "upmarket" version.

This page has given rise to an editing conflict with Hoary and I lost half my work as he was editing it at the same time! I suggest respectfully, that in future we do not edit each other's pages until a reasonable period has elapsed - 1 day? I take Hoary's comments as being correct about Cosina not making the C35 - on reflection it was the Auto S3/Revue 400/Minolta Hi Matic Series ll that were identical "under the bonnet"

However my comments were based on some evidence of this - an article claiming this is true here:

The problem with the Wiki system is that it can so easily degenerate into a series of conflicting edits. With so few contributors to this project, it seems best that we each "get on with it" and make helpful comments on the discussion pages for each article.


See my comment in Talk:Konica C35 about editing conflicts. --Rebollo fr 13:25, 2 September 2006 (EDT)

Title of the page

I suggest Konica C35 as a title, with redirects from Konica C35 V and others. We can have all the models listed in the Konica page, all of them linked to Konica C35. --Rebollo fr 13:25, 2 September 2006 (EDT)

I also think that this page absolutely needs to be merged with Konica C35 Automatic. --Rebollo fr 13:28, 2 September 2006 (EDT)

URGENT MESSAGE for Rebollo - posted on both Konica C35 pages!

Some confusion here - in the editing conflict situation something funny happened to this page. So I started again, called it Konica C35 series and linked to it from the main index page.

Konica_C35_Series This is the correct one.

Konica_C35 This one now is obsolete and I have deleted the contents. The C35v was a stub anyway and had no content, bar one line!

Can you sort the mess I have created please?

Sorry to burst in here and wreck the joint!


I am now in the process of adding the C35 Automatic to the contents of this page, so that will be another one to delete shortly!

You can quietly work on the Konica C35 Series page to finish your edits. I will sort out the things later, moving everything to Konica C35 and making the corresponding redirects. --Rebollo fr 13:48, 2 September 2006 (EDT)

I have now finished and await retribution for my statements from Hoary!

I have added the picture and some points from the C35 automatic page.

I leave it in your cabable hands to sort the links from the main page and to get rid of the now surplus C35v and C35 Automatic pages.

I know its created a bit of turmoil for you to sort out, but are you OK with the two pages I have had a go at? If you are, I'll come back in about a month with a couple of fresh articles.

Thanks for your help. I'll try and behave better in future!


Not retribution, just regret and puzzlement. I'm sorry if (or so far as) you didn't like my edits. Any or all of these were (are) reversible, of course. But I'm puzzled when I tentatively infer that you think that, deliberately or accidentally, I wiped out a substantial percentage of the article. Here are my changes; I don't think I destroyed anything significant. (I did move a sentence or two to the talk page, but I noted this in an edit summary.) -- Hoary 18:29, 2 September 2006 (EDT)


You didn't wipe it out - I had a "unable to update - other update in progress note" "Odd I thought" Then I pressed "save page" again and from that point I honestly don't know what happened, but when it was all over I had half a page - your modifications had vanished and so had the second half of my text. I was not best pleased! I was really sounding off about you modifying it before I finished. In the end I posted a "Do not disturb" notice! I think that's what I will do in future because I try and shape the material then do the detailed edits afterwards. Just being a bit "Grumpy" as a result of loss of my work - sorry. It happens when Man & machine are not not in "perfect harmony!" (Can't remember the make of car that advertised!)


Ah, I'm with you now. Not being able to save because somebody else has edited the page is something that has happened to me, and it certainly is irritating. If I've made minor changes, I just prepare to make them again: I go back to the original article, refresh the page, and re-edit if appropriate. If on the other hand I've put more time into it than I want to spend a second time, I go through the following rigmarole:
  1. Hit the browser's "back" button to return to my editing page.
  2. Open a second window, showing the new page (which I refresh if needed).
  3. Open a third window, duplicating the second window.
  4. In one of these two new windows, click "history" and then look at the difference between (a) the last edit before my attempted edit and (b) the most recent version.
  5. In the other new window, choose to edit the page.
  6. Select the entire content of the latest version of the page, and delete it. Select the entire content of my attempted rewrite of the page, copy it to the clipboard, and paste it to the newly opened edit page. (Don't save yet; doing so is very likely to cause offense to at least one other editor.)
  7. Examine the "diff" display. Consider the merits of the edits put in by the other editor(s), and adjust the draft accordingly. Preview, make any necessary changes, and only now save.
  8. Close the other two windows (or of course use them for quite different purposes) before one or other of them confuses me. -- Hoary 20:24, 2 September 2006 (EDT)

Merge with Konica Auto S3

There is already a standalone Konica Auto S3 page, that is largely a duplicate of Vivitar 35ES, Revue 400SE and Minolta Hi-Matic 7sII. I don't like this awful number of duplicates, and I don't like either the idea to have various Minolta Hi-Matic pages, especially when they look like Minolta Hi-Matic 9. We'll have to clear that mess. --Rebollo fr 09:22, 3 September 2006 (EDT)

Well, the Konica Auto S3 (export name) is the same as the Konica C35FD (domestic name), so some rearrangement is certainly necessary. -- Hoary 09:52, 3 September 2006 (EDT)

What was new, and what appealed?

We read:

It could be said that Konishiroku was a follower of fashion and that it merely "took up the baton" of the earlier 60's Minoltina and Olympus Trip 35. If you look at the competitors, the importance and influence of the Konica C35 is clear to see - they have coupled rangefinders, a programmed shutter, and a CdS cell mounted in the lens housing, and they measure around 115mm wide by 80mm wide.

I'm puzzled. Was Konishiroku following fashion, setting fashion, or doing a bit of both? Is it that the C35 was innovative in some ways and conformist in others, or that it accelerated trends that had already started? I don't know enough about this period to say, and right now I lack the stamina to do the reading to find out (I have a lot of things to do before crossing Asia three days from now). Still, I can see that some things are odd: for example, the implication that the Konica C35 influenced other cameras via its coupled rangefinder (for over a decade, a very large percentage of leaf-shutter 35mm cameras had had rangefinders, and all of these were coupled) or its through-any-filter CdS cell (which came in with the Minolta Hi-Matic 7 in 1963).

However, its appeal was obvious from its 1968 launch - it was compact, light and a simple to use camera that took good photographs because it could be focused accurately and had an excellent lens.

Well, yes. (As long as you don't ask the dumbed-down population of today about the "ease of use" of a camera that [gasp] requires you to focus its lens. That's de-evolution!) But many cameras of 1968 were simple to use (with respect to the higher intelligence of that era) and accurately focusable and had excellent lenses. My guess is that it was the combination of these, plus compactness, plus the wide-angle lens: of course 35mm lenses had appeared on other leaf-shutter and even rangefinder cameras, but these were unusual. -- Hoary 09:52, 3 September 2006 (EDT)


I agree, this paragraph needs a re-write! I know what I meant to say, but explained it badly! Still not clear in my mind how the Konica C35 became the most cloned of cameras!

Due in part to its fantastic sales success no doubt, they had a great importer in the UK, lots of innovative advertising, an excellent price and all that does lead to sales success. I know all these things and I lived through the period and my friends bought the C35 for its perceived "innovativeness" Now you ask me to explain it! Still a suspicion in my mind that Cosina had a large hand in its production (see later comments)

So - straws in the wind, about its design. Minoltina S - almost as small as the C35 and current in 1965 (far smaller than the average Japanese "bricks" of that time (typical example - Konica Auto S)

  • Beautifully constructed=too heavy?
  • f1.8 lens + proper shutter=too complicated?
  • Selenium meter=old fashioned?

So I got out my 1965 AP camera guide. 130 of these standard 35 mm rangefinder & basic cameras. What did they look at when setting the design brief. CDS meter certainly, undercutting the competition - the Minoltina S was £45. Ideas from Canonet Junior (Programmed shutter) Minoltina (Pos size) then I found camera I had not heard of it before - The Konica EE-matic - programmed shutter 40mm f2.8 lens, £32.18

Perhaps, after all its just down to evolution! The EE had most of the design points the C35 incorporates, so perhaps they just refined it. I also think they just struck it lucky in 1968. The German camera industry in its death throes and obsolete expensive cameras abound, half frame was in terminal decline and it an old model to develop.

Just refined a few details and "bingo" success! Sometimes it just happens. I think the only positive fact that emerges from all this is that after 1968, the others followed and all the rest I mention are "clone like" Now the odd thing is that the next design of "C35 upmarket versions" all seem to be made in the same factory! Thus the current internet wide guesswork that if Cosina made the later clones, they made the earlier C35 as well.

Theory 1 - Runaway sales success meant lack of production capacity and Cosina were employed to produce more. They developed the camera into the "super version" and then re-badged it to suit. Makes more sense in the upper price level to spread engineering costs.

Theory 2 Cosina started producing cameras in a new factory about that time and simply sold its production facilities to Konica, so this is not really a Konica at all, but simply a Cosina in party dress! (If you look at construction quality, it is far below the 60s Konica norm)

Even the much praised (by Cameraquest) Auto S3 is not particularly well made (my sample has severe "lens rock!")

I wonder if any of the Japanese web sites comment on the evolution of this camera.


One clarification: I was sleepy when I wrote what's above, and under the impression that every model is fitted with a 35mm lens. Wrong, it's 38mm. Of course the difference between the two lengths is minor, but the Konica could hardly have been marketed as a wide-angle camera (and as far as I know wasn't so marketed).
The Minoltina P (1964) is indeed compact (offhand I don't know how compact) but lacks a rangefinder. The Minoltina S (also 1964) has a rangefinder and/but also a faster lens; I'd guess that the lens adds quite a bit to its size.
Miyazaki, author of the book I cite, only became an employee of Konishiroku in 1975 but nevertheless seems well informed. He says that the C35 was the result of a shake-up and revitalization of Konishiroku that occurred with the retirement of the last in the Sugiura family to be president and his replacement by a Mr Nishimura (I'd guess Nishimura Ryūsuke; anyway 西村龍介). Miyazaki's brief account doesn't mention any particular Japanese predecessor of the C35, but it does mention the Rollei (which of course lacks a rangefinder). He gives the impression that the success resulted from the combination of compactness, full function, wider lens, and (in his estimation) sufficient build quality. Compactness was achieved by (among other factors) limiting the lens to f2.8, which now generally acceptable (much less perceived as awkwardly slow) thanks to the recent popularity of 100 ASA color negative films. He doesn't mention Cosina; the book lacks an index in which we could see if Cosina (or any other company) is mentioned as the manufacturer of any other Konica model. -- Hoary 18:54, 3 September 2006 (EDT)


Is that better? I hope I have now met all your criticisms of my rather poorly written first introduction. Putting the photo of its competitors at the bottom has enabled me to drop the long list in the first para. A bit of "cutting & pasting" has, I hope, made it a bit more concise & readable.

I don't mention Cosina! I hope the full "clone" story - particularly the Auto S3 and its identical brethren will eventually emerge.


Yes, it seems better; thank you for your good work. I don't intend to look at it closely now, because I'm in a rush and because the time of the most recent edit suggests that you might well still be editing it. In the meantime, however, I have to comment on an alarming assertion above: However [User:Hoary] was not totally right about everything and I think a reasoned discussion here is better than a public disagreement on the page! (my emphasis). I'm sure I'm wrong about quite a bit and have no argument with the first part of that. However, I have never intended to disagree publicly within this or any other article. I use SGML comments: <!-- like this -->. So if I write for example "<!-- I've no idea what this means (sez Hoary) -->" this will be visible in the source of the page when editing it but invisible to anybody who is simply reading the page. (Before I forget, a syntax rule: one can put anything within these markers except an additional "--".) If I inadvertently forgot to add these markers, thereby making my disagreement public, that was a mistake for which I apologize. -- Hoary 19:22, 4 September 2006 (EDT)


Yes, your right again! I didn't understand the significance of the use of the comment tags. I was really in a bit of a "grumpy" mood because I lost half my work and was having a bit of a rant.

I have now edited the page again, clarified a lot, spaced thingss out and put in new headings plus a couple of additional links.

Hopefully, an improvement!