The second miniature revolution

[Roland Zwiers]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Note that in 1956 the combined market share of 24x36mm and 6x6cm was more than 88%
I would call this a dominant market share!

Now in 1940 the miniature revolution (24x36 and 6x6) could celebrate: mission accomplished.
See my eralier slides.
But I would not expect these miniature sizes to have had a dominant market share by 1940 already.
So when was the turning point?
Obviously some time before 1956.

A second question has to do with the position of 24x36mm as compared to 6x6cm.
In 1956 it seems that 24x36mm already had more than half of the market (55%), with a second biggest market share (33%) for 6x6.
It may well be the case that before 1956 the market shares of 24x36mm and 6x6cm were more in balance.

But with these statistics there are many pitfalls!

E.g. how to count new low-quality 6x9 cameras that were aimed at amateurs who would only make contact prints?
How to correct for the fact that new 35mm cameras were generally much more expensive than many new cameras for 6x6 or 6x9?

As soon as one uses a price cap (so as to exclude the cheapest cameras), one automatically increases the market share of 35mm cameras.
To what extent is this justified?

If there is interest I can share an overview of the cameras that were available on the British market in 1953.
It will raise many such questions, but at least we will be dealing with a 1953 point of view.

Roland
 

 

, 
 

 

 

 

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Roland Zwiers]

I do believe that you need to throw your net wider than the Leica, the Rolleiflex and the Exakta (…)

There are probably a number of lasting contributions which Barnack made

- The frame size, but others were hovering around the same 'pedal point' at around the same time
- The system camera - something which is often overlooked
- The small negative, large print concept, which required a lot of processing and other equipment issues to be resolved, although this issue was not unique to Leitz/Leica
- The wind on/shutter cock concept
- The integrated rangefinder - although others had also tried out this concept, but Barnack's version was very compact and worked very well.

 William,

 You are absolutely right that the second miniature revolution has many contributors.
One has to cast the net much wider than the contributions of the Leica or Oskar Barnack.
Or indeed the Leica, the Rolleiflex and the Kine Exakta.

At the same time, you are piling too much praise on the shoulders of Oskar Barnack.
Much in line with post-1950 Leica literature.
With so much praise the poor man has to collapse under the weight.
So, I have to rescue him by doing a reality check.

[Roland Zwiers]

A first reality check still refers to the first miniature revolution

In your list of praise, you credit Oskar Barnack with the concept ‘small negative, big print’. 
You are not alone.
In post-1950 Leica literature this claim has been repeated so often that it has become common wisdom.
 

Now in an earlier post you agreed with me that miniaturisation already started in the 19^th century.
Does it not follow that ‘small negative, big print’ is a 19^th century concept as well?
In a separate article I show that there is ample proof for this.

In the next slide I show a review from 1895 where this concept is clearly demonstrated and expressed.
The crucial sentence can be translated as:

‘The small camera with the almost exaggerated sharpness of its images serves the principle of taking pictures in the smallest formats in combination with subsequent enlargement’.

[Roland Zwiers]

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Roland Zwiers]

The relative contributions of Oskar Barnack and the Leica camera

If one widens the net, it follows that the responsibility for the second miniature revolution has to be divided over many more shoulders.
This again removes a lot of weight from the shoulders of Oskar Barnack.

Oskar Barnack is indeed a founding father of the second miniature revolution in terms of camera design.
But when we speak of hardware/camera design the second miniature revolution is also indebted to Reinhold Heidecke (Rolleiflex), Heinrich Küppenbender (Contax) and Karl Nüchterlein (Kine Exakta).
In terms of hardware/lens design, we have to add the contributions of Dr Paul Rudolf (Tessar), Max Berek (Elmar) and Ludwig Bertele (Sonnar).

In terms of software/films/developers, we have to add the role of Agfa, Perutz and Kodak for suitable 35mm films.
And the likes of Dr Paul Wolff and Curt Emmermann for suitable developers and development techniques.

After March 1925 there is a long list of innovators and innovations that complement the work of Oskar Barnack.
Without these complementary innovations the Leica could not have been successful, however ingenious its original construction.
And in 1925 many complementary innovations were outside Oskar Barnack’s control.

[Roland Zwiers]

Relative contribution of Oskar Barnack at Leitz in the period 1911-1925

Even at Leitz, Wetzlar Oskar Barnack depended on the contributions of other colleagues.
In June 1924 the fate of the Leica I depended on decisions by Ernst Leitz II and Henri Dumur.
The go/no-go decision was much outside Oskar Barnack’s control. 
It follows that the (ultimately successful) introduction of the Leica I in March 1925 depended on teamwork.

And even in Wetzlar a perfect camera-and-lens design was a necessary, but not a sufficient condition.
One crucial condition for the go-ahead decision must have been a postcard-sized enlargement without a noticeable loss of quality as compared to a contact print from a postcard-sized negative.
This requirement must have been met by the new Toxo cine negative film that became available on the German market in the course of 1924.
This Toxo film was used in March 1925 for the Leica review by Willy Frerk.

[Roland Zwiers]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The wind on/shutter cock concept

Oskar Barnack is credited with this feature.
This feature was already present in 1900 in a 6x9 roll film camera, the Film Palmos that was produced by Zeiss Palmos.
Note that Oskar Barnack produced this camera himself during his work for Zeiss Palmos.
In 1915 the Leitz patent application for an early Leica prototype was even rejected, partly because it still violated the Zeiss Palmos patent, which had a validity of 15 years. 

In the next slide I will show an advertisement for the 6x9 Film Palmos.
Note how similar this 1900 camera looks to an oversized Null-Serie Leica!

[Roland Zwiers]

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Roland Zwiers]

The system camera - something which is often overlooked

Oskar Barnack is also credited with inventing the system camera.
Now one can regard the Goerz Anschütz camera of the 1890s as a system camera as well.
The camera was produced with all kinds of interchangeable accessories so as to make the best possible use of its ‘universal’ Dagor lens.
With these accessories the Dagor could be used as a standard lens, a tele lens and as a wide-angle lens.
 

During his work for Zeiss Palmos, Oskar Barnack produced similar system cameras.
The Minimum Palmos range could use interchangeable roll film adapters and optional tele-lenses.
The Universal Palmos had many options, like perspective control, panorama and stereo.

Around 1914, Zeiss introduced the Distar lens so as to lengthen the focal length of Tessar lenses.
The Distar was followed by the Proxar close-up lens, which, in combination with the Tessar standard lens gave a wide-angle result.
One can say that these Distar and Proxar lenses changed regular 9x12cm cameras with double bellows extension into system cameras.

From a 1925 point of view, one could even observe that Oskar Barnack first created a problem (getting rid of the ground glass) and then had to provide many compensatory accessories like rangefinders, reflex houses and close-up equipment.

I do not say that the Leica (or the Contax or the Kine Exakta) did not develop into a system camera.
My point is that the concept of system camera was already in use long before the arrival of the Leica in 1925.

[Roland Zwiers]

The frame size
The integrated rangefinder

I have to finish.

As you say, Oskar Barnack was not the first one to think of the merits of the 24x36 mm frame.
But I would agree that the Leica is the first camera that successfully adopted this format.
Note, however, that the 1914 Minigraph had already been a relatively successful photo camera for 35mm film for the more regular 18x24mm format.
A former colleague of Oskar Barnack at Zeiss Palmos even observed that this Minigraph camera convinced Oskar Barnack to double the negative frame.

As to the rangefinder, in 1932 three cameras were introduced with a coupled rangefinder.
The Leica II, the Contax and (as far as I remember) a 6x9 Voigtländer.

All in all, I fully agree on the crucial contribution of Oskar Barnack to the second miniature revolution.
In March 1925 his Leica even took the lead!
But the crucial contribution of Oskar Barnack is much more in line with the Austrian economist Schumpeter.
Barnack’s crucial innovation amounted to a new combination of already existing ideas.

To be continued.

Roland

[LocalHero1953]

12 hours ago, Roland Zwiers said:

Barnack’s crucial innovation amounted to a new combination of already existing ideas.

Although a complete lay person with regards to Leica history, I sense that, to the creative innovation of combining these ideas, I would add the craft and the engineering to make them into a usable, reliable device. Too often the engineering element (the ability to actually manufacture something using real-world materials) is overlooked in favour of the conceptual and creative elements.

[willeica]

16 hours ago, Roland Zwiers said:

The go/no-go decision was much outside Oskar Barnack’s control. 

Barnack was at the decisive meeting in June 1924. Some of the senior people at the meeting such as August Bauer the shop foreman opposed the proposal. Bauer was a friend of Barnack, so he must have had reasons for that. After the decision was made he was totally supportive. Barnack had won the admiration of Ernst Leitz and I believe that did him no harm at that meeting. History is made up from such personal interactions and supports, which cannot just be measured in technical terms. This is probably the most difficult aspect to determine over 100 years later.

 

16 hours ago, Roland Zwiers said:

As you say, Oskar Barnack was not the first one to think of the merits of the 24x36 mm frame

There were many others that were there or thereabouts. It was partly because the Leica was successful that 24x36 became the standard. 

16 hours ago, Roland Zwiers said:

I do believe that you need to throw your net wider than the Leica, the Rolleiflex and the Exakta (…)

There are probably a number of lasting contributions which Barnack made

- The frame size, but others were hovering around the same 'pedal point' at around the same time
- The system camera - something which is often overlooked
- The small negative, large print concept, which required a lot of processing and other equipment issues to be resolved, although this issue was not unique to Leitz/Leica
- The wind on/shutter cock concept
- The integrated rangefinder - although others had also tried out this concept, but Barnack's version was very compact and worked very well.

 William,

 You are absolutely right that the second miniature revolution has many contributors.
One has to cast the net much wider than the contributions of the Leica or Oskar Barnack.
Or indeed the Leica, the Rolleiflex and the Kine Exakta.

At the same time, you are piling too much praise on the shoulders of Oskar Barnack.
Much in line with post-1950 Leica literature.
With so much praise the poor man has to collapse under the weight.
So, I have to rescue him by doing a reality check.

I am glad you like my reference framework. I highly regard Barnack, but I don't idolise him as a deity. There were many others who contributed to the 'miniaturisation' of stills cameras and both of us are well aware of who they are. For example, you cannot leave out George Eastman and August Nagel. I'll leave it at that.

William 

[pgk]

21 hours ago, Roland Zwiers said:

E.g. how to count new low-quality 6x9 cameras that were aimed at amateurs who would only make contact prints?

Indeed. Were these actually the equivalent of moblie phones today in that they were used by many to record things rather than take photographs😉.

[Roland Zwiers]

Pgk,

Yes, I agree to the recording device function of early 35mm photography.

This is already implied in the 'stills' function of 35mm cine camera's. An enlargement on paper of a single 18x24mm frame for recording/ presentation purposes.

This 'stills' function must have inspired the many 35mm camera's for 18x24mm frames as well. The Minigraph of before August 1914 was a relatively successful Camara and may have been in production for some eight years. In this period there was a war-related problem with the quality of 35mm cine negative film on the German market. How could a 18x24mm camera then still be successful? The only logical explanation is that users were content with the recording function on 6x9cm pictures.

Note that in 1923 Prof Klute used his Null-Serie Leica for recording purposes as well. With the available 35mm cine negative film he could not yet aim at sharp enough postcard sized prints. But for the recording function the results were presentable enough.

The aim for the Leica was to go beyond the postcard sized. For the go/no-go decision of June 1924 postcard sized must have been the minimum acceptable size for going ahead. Otherwise people could get a better 10x15 print with a cheap box camera than with an expensive Leica!

Note that in post-war Leica literature there are several accounts of the June 1924 meeting. Oskar Barnack is even quoted while speaking. So I asked Ulf Richter if he had based himself on an official Leitz report that was made during the meeting. This was not the case! He had recreated the meeting himself giving the assumed people around the table plausible things to say based on his knowledge of 2009.

So in this way Oskar Barnack is commenting on the quality of the Perutz Fliegerfilm, whereas this film was still not available in June 1924! Ulf Richter had based himself on a faulty Perutz-Leica legend.

I observed to Ulf that he had not made clear that he had recreated this June 1924 meeting himself. That in this way in Leica literature fact and fiction become a confusing mix. He agreed with me that it would have been better to have made this distinction more clearly.

Roland 

[willeica]

4 hours ago, Roland Zwiers said:

I observed to Ulf that he had not made clear that he had recreated this June 1924 meeting himself. That in this way in Leica literature fact and fiction become a confusing mix. He agreed with me that it would have been better to have made this distinction more clearly.

 

I am not sure how you can ever overcome that fact v fiction aspect, Roland. There are no minutes of that meeting available, if, indeed, any ever existed. What we do know is that Ernst Leitz had a high opinion of Barnack and that they even went on holiday together. What you need to do is to look at the broader contemporary picture. We have an old saying in my country about people 'who know the price of everything and the value of nothing'. Not everything in history can be measured or be subject to contemporary written evidence. At that point you have to go to the broader picture based upon the best available contemporary evidence. I know that 'working hypothesis' is one of your favourite expressions and there is nothing wrong with that. However, in this field I suspect that definitively proving all possible hypotheses is unlikely to occur, but I believe that qualifying 'conclusions' with 'based upon the best available contemporary evidence' is just fine . Whether these 'conclusions' are fact or fiction could be open to debate, but the word 'faction' (a conglomeration of fact and fiction) could apply, even it has several other meanings. 

William

[LocalHero1953]

33 minutes ago, willeica said:

I am not sure how you can ever overcome that fact v fiction aspect, Roland. There are no minutes of that meeting available, if, indeed, any ever existed. What we do know is that Ernst Leitz had a high opinion of Barnack and that they even went on holiday together. What you need to do is to look at the broader contemporary picture. We have an old saying in my country about people 'who know the price of everything and the value of nothing'. Not everything in history can be measured or be subject to contemporary written evidence. At that point you have to go to the broader picture based upon the best available contemporary evidence. I know that 'working hypothesis' is one of your favourite expressions and there is nothing wrong with that. However, in this field I suspect that definitively proving all possible hypotheses is unlikely to occur, but I believe that qualifying 'conclusions' with 'based upon the best available contemporary evidence' is just fine . Whether these 'conclusions' are fact or fiction could be open to debate, but the word 'faction' (a conglomeration of fact and fiction) could apply, even it has several other meanings. 

William

I don't understand what point you are trying to make. It is clear to me that Roland has overcome fact vs fiction with regard to the meeting: the received dialogue is acknowledged fiction. That is a step forward. It is also clear that Roland is looking at a wide picture than just Leica, with his discussions of film technology and other cameras. The 'working hypothesis' concept is exactly the right way to approach areas of uncertainty. It is simply a logical process that identifies where more information is needed. Talking about 'all possible hypotheses' is simply setting up a straw man argument. Without attempting to distinguish fact from fiction, or seeking evidence to support working hypotheses, we are in the field of pure speculation. 

[willeica]

4 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

I don't understand what point you are trying to make. It is clear to me that Roland has overcome fact vs fiction with regard to the meeting: the received dialogue is acknowledged fiction. That is a step forward. It is also clear that Roland is looking at a wide picture than just Leica, with his discussions of film technology and other cameras. The 'working hypothesis' concept is exactly the right way to approach areas of uncertainty. It is simply a logical process that identifies where more information is needed. Talking about 'all possible hypotheses' is simply setting up a straw man argument. Without attempting to distinguish fact from fiction, or seeking evidence to support working hypotheses, we are in the field of pure speculation. 

It was Roland's comment about Ulf Richter 'recreating' the June 1924 meeting himself that prompted my comments. We were both with Ulf together in the Leica Archive in 2023. I had invited Ulf along because he had written the best book available on Barnack and the creation of the Leica. The point about fact v fiction is always there when describing events that are over 100 years old with no specific record available, in this case minutes of the meeting. I was further making the point that any 'working hypothesis' is technically a work of fiction until it is proven. 

William 

[LocalHero1953]

43 minutes ago, willeica said:

It was Roland's comment about Ulf Richter 'recreating' the June 1924 meeting himself that prompted my comments. We were both with Ulf together in the Leica Archive in 2023. I had invited Ulf along because he had written the best book available on Barnack and the creation of the Leica. The point about fact v fiction is always there when describing events that are over 100 years old with no specific record available, in this case minutes of the meeting. I was further making the point that any 'working hypothesis' is technically a work of fiction until it is proven. 

William 

You are right that recollections over that period must be treated with caution. According to Roland though, there is no uncertainty with regards to the dialogue: it is confirmed fiction. But obviously we don't know what the actual dialogue was.

I wonder if you misunderstand what a working hypothesis is? It is a proposal put forward not as fact or fiction, nor as a firm conclusion, but demanding evidence to support it or disprove it. What Roland has brought to these threads to support/disprove such hypotheses is a focus on primary contemporary sources of evidence, mainly German, rather than secondary English language sources, authoritative though they are. I'm afraid that in this part of the forum some of us are limited in our language skills and I am grateful that so many German documents have been presented (and translated) here.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[pedaes]

16 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

What Roland has brought to these threads

I agree that Roland's research is forensic and probably more so than any previous researcher. All the popular texts repeat the perceived wisdoms previously recorded, but Rolands efforts may uncover some facts not previously reported. Or may not. 

[willeica]

1 hour ago, LocalHero1953 said:

You are right that recollections over that period must be treated with caution. According to Roland though, there is no uncertainty with regards to the dialogue: it is confirmed fiction. But obviously we don't know what the actual dialogue was.

I wonder if you misunderstand what a working hypothesis is? It is a proposal put forward not as fact or fiction, nor as a firm conclusion, but demanding evidence to support it or disprove it. What Roland has brought to these threads to support/disprove such hypotheses is a focus on primary contemporary sources of evidence, mainly German, rather than secondary English language sources, authoritative though they are. I'm afraid that in this part of the forum some of us are limited in our language skills and I am grateful that so many German documents have been presented (and translated) here.

There are many myths around which are now treated as facts. The 'We shall take the risk' statement may not have been made, but that is what Leitz was actually doing. I cannot see the harm in that being used by everyone including Leica AG. By the way I have been published in German writing about that meeting https://www.messsucherwelt.com/ich-entscheide-hiermit-es-wird-riskiert-vor-100-jahren-sagte-ernst-leitz-ii-einen-satz-der-die-fotografie-veraendern-sollte/

I do know what working hypothesis means. I also know Roland's methodology well having regularly spent many Sunday mornings on Research Zooms with him. I agree that a working hypothesis is neither fact nor fiction, but it cannot be regarded as fact until actually proven. Likewise previously long held and strong views can only be regarded as fiction if that is proven to be the case. As you might guess, I am very strong willed about such matters and I don't really care if somebody disagrees with me. However, we need to be careful with people who may have long held views about certain things and show them what we believe the situation to be in a way that is supported by evidence. Up to that point I am happy to leave them with their views, even if I believe them to be myths.

William