on 05 Jul, "Hilary Stone" <Hilary.Stone@xxxxxxxxx> asks::
"... others with Aces had problems ...loose fitting bayonets
or is my problem one off? Is the bayonet problem the
reason why the Ace had short production ? Hilary"
Hilary et al,
On my Ace, the bayonet mount is firm; seems of reasonably robust
construction. The lens flanges on the rear are not flimsy; lens release
lever, whilst looking and feeling flimsy, is quite thick and strong by
appearance, mind you I haven't tried to bend / break it, nor will I! Nor
have I had the pleasure of trying other lens to see ease of use in the
field. I would suggest that yours may have seen a lot of use?
Should be 3 lugs about 1cm long long in the camera body and 3 lugs on the
rear of the lens. May be worth it to take your Ace to a reputable classic
repairer to consider repairs? Normal camera shop / repairer probably will
not be helpful or charge ridiculous amounts just to look. My camera
collectors club includes a dedicated repairer (main work) with incredible
knowledge and an immense range of spare parts, that is the sort of repairer
of use?
I would presume the short production run is due to Olympus's perception of
economics at that time. The Ace was made 1958 - 1961. A lot of other makers
came up with leaf shutter SLR's (Zeiss Contaflex, AGFA Agfaflex) both fixed
and interchangeable lens. But less came up with interchangeable lens
rangefinder cameras.
This may be due to threats from Leitz, more likely the complexity of
designing a good system without impinging on the Leica patents. The small
mounting hole size plus the leaf shutter blades and their size needs may
have limited the ability to offer many more lens sizes to accomodate the
leaf shutter.
Also in the late 50s the camera market was ruled by the Germans especially
Zeiss Ikon? The Japanese were there but lesser known. In the 60's the
Japanese started to rise from the mires of mistiness and usurp most other
brands through better marketing, model placement, increasing reliability
and shear responsiveness to the mass market, which the Germans could not
fully accomplish.
Also at that time Olympus was releasing the Pen half frame compacts (1959),
followed shortly (1963) after with the Pen F half frame SLRs. The Pen
compacts would have been cheaper than the Ace and as the half frame market
was starting to take off, would have sold well. Presumably also cheaper to
make, could have caused Olympus to focus on the Pens rather the slower
selling more complicated Ace series with problems at providing more lens
options?
However I am puzzled why Olympus took so long to enter the full frame SLR
market; 1971 screw mount FTL; 1972 bayonet mount M / OM. Other makers
started full frame 35mm SLRs a lot earlier :- Leicaflex 1964, Nikon F1959,
Minolta SR2 1958, Canonflex 1959, Asahiflex 1952 followed by the Pentax in
1959, Ricoh 35 Flex 1963 and Ricoh Singlex 1964 (with Nikon Bayonet mount,
Tokyo Kogaku Topcon B 1959, Kowa E 1962.
Maybe funds for research were too limited for Olympus?
Ron Ligtermoet
dlanor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|