FLAT CAMERAS
I originally began this little article by talking about the Kodak Disc camera, but as I was thinking about this same subject later on I recalled the many folding roll film cameras from the first half of the 20th century. When folded many of these became flat enough to fit into a coat pocket. One example of this is the Ikonta C made by Carl Zeiss in the 1930’s.
But the more recent trend toward the production of “flat” cameras most likely originated with the Kodak Disc cameras of the early 1980’s. This was the result of an effort by Kodak to produce a very slim, pocketable, easy to use camera. Note the aluminum body covering. This becomes a predominant feature of the flat camera.
Konica responded with its AA35. A camera similar in appearance and concept to the Kodak, but made to use the more versatile and much more capable 35mm film. The “AA” signified that it used the ubiquitous AA batteries, therefore, making it very convenient not only to find film for it, but batteries as well. The AA35 was not a full frame 35mm camera however, but a half frame format. This was a somewhat popular format in the 1960s as it was meant to be more economical in that twice as many pictures could be obtained from one roll of film. It also allowed the size of the camera to be reduced to a pocketable dimension. The most important difference between the Konica AA35 and other half frame cameras is not only its flatter profile, but it is one of a very few half frame 35mm cameras to be landscape or horizontally orientated as opposed to portrait or vertically orientated.
With the arrival of the new millennium digital cameras became smaller and smaller as they seemed to emulate the slim profile of the the older “flat” film cameras. The Minolta Dimage X is a classic example. The Dimage X uses an internal focusing periscope style lens. Like all the cameras in this “flat” category the lens is made to be recessed into the camera body either permanently or when not in use.
The FlatFoto digital camera was sold under various brand names. The same size as a credit card and not much thicker it took the flat concept to its obvious extreme. But because it produced a somewhat poor quality and very small image (640x480 pixels) it was never really appreciated by a public who demanded pixels over pocketables. The lens on this camera is also made to retract when not in use and also acts as a switch to turn the camera off. Note the aluminum shell again.
As technology continues to improve it has become increasingly possible to have extremely small and thin sized cameras with excellent optics and 5 or more megapixels. The Canon Powershot SD400 is an early example of this trend. Even though this camera has a zoom lens it fully retracts when it is not in use.
I'm not sure I want to "blog". I think it might just be a big waste of time. I tried Facebook once for about 20 minutes and thought it was pointless. Then I tried Twitter this morning for about 5 minutes. That was pretty useless. Let's see how long this lasts!
Actually, I thought I might begin a posting about cameras and photographs. Since I like to collect cameras and take photographs I thought it could make a visually interesting "blog". Besides, my brother, Frank, told me I should start a blog after I emailed him a rather lame picture of a snapping turtle. I guess a weblog might be as good a place as any to throw a bunch of stuff out there for any one (that is any 1 person) who might be interested instead of emailing junk to people who may not want to be bothered with any thing from me. But, it's not all about me, at least I'll try not to make it (the blog that is) about me, but rather about things, photographs that I happen to find interesting. Like I said, I really don't know where this will go or how long it will last, my arms are already getting numb from typing, or if, in fact it will really be about cameras and photographs, although it probably better be, since I can't write or type or talk coherently for that matter. I've heard it theorized that people become artists because they can't communicate in words. That may actually be true in my case. I guess this has outlasted my Twitter and Facebook endeavors so far.
How should this continue?
I'm still experimenting. Let me just say that the very first photograph is of our dog, Dexter. He is a Border Collie mix and is about 6 years old. The picture was taken with a Rollei 35 S-Xenar, so named because it sports the somewhat less common Schneider Xenar lens as opposed to the Carl Zeiss Tessar. The color film was scanned and converted to black and white. Dexter is also black and white. I like black & white photos with film. It's probably a nostalgia thing, but in my case it is probably nostalgia for film cameras from the 1970's and developing and printing B&W photos in a darkroom. The snapping turtle on the other hand is a digital snapshot (Samsung NV3). The following is another B&W photo with the Rollei S-Xenar.
It has a grittier, look than digital, kind of like Tri-X. Oh, Moma don't take my Tri-X away!! Actually, when Paul Simon was singing "I got a Nikon camera....don't take my Kodachrome away", I would get annoyed because I had a Canon camera and I liked to use Ektachrome film.
I have also used the new Minox DSC (Digital Spy Camera), which probably because of it's relatively low 3 (or 5?) megapixels and poorer image quality often renders photographs to be more film like compared to other digital cameras. You can read my B&H review of this camera here. My review is at the bottom. Here are a couple of photos taken with the DSC:
