Calypsophot Article

In this month's Royal Photographic Society Journal I have a piece on the Calypsophot (pages 238 to 241) which might interest those with an interest the history of underwater photography and in how Leica may have influenced other designs. It details my own conclusions on how the Calypsophot and then the Nikonos system may owe a great deal to the Leica rangefinder - facts are thin on the ground after 50 years. If anyone is interested and can't get hold of a copy, I will post the article on my website when the next issue is published.

 

 

Id likebto read it. Please post the link when it's on your website.

Is it like the one by John Neuschwander?

Is it like the one by John Neuschwander?

Doubt it. If you can give me a link I'll check. One of the oddities of the Calypsophot is the lack of information on it!

Doubt it. If you can give me a link I'll check. One of the oddities of the Calypsophot is the lack of information on it!

John was a close friend of the (Belgian) guy that developed it. He did an explosive article about it in Duiken about 14 years ago if my memory serves me right. I'd been away on a diving trip to the Outer Hebrides with John and he told me what he was writing. It seems that the inventor gave it to a well-known French diver to evaluate and he went and patented it!

Sadly, John is now dead. He was the editor of Duiken in Holland.

You might want to contact Rene Lippmann at Duiken to see if he has a back number. I reckon it was publishedin 1996.

It seems that the inventor gave it to a well-known French diver to evaluate and he went and patented it!

Well all the patents I came across were by DeWouters (the Belgian Inventor) so this sounds a bit odd. My piece is more about how it was developed and how it came to be developed in the way that it did. Primarily it starts with the one item that was available 'ready made' (developing a camera lens from scratch was almost certainly a highly specialised jobe and it was unlikely that this was ever considered IMHO) and which the rest was almost certainly built around - the lens! I'll post a link in due course.

Well all the patents I came across were by DeWouters (the Belgian Inventor) so this sounds a bit odd. My piece is more about how it was developed and how it came to be developed in the way that it did. Primarily it starts with the one item that was available 'ready made' (developing a camera lens from scratch was almost certainly a highly specialised jobe and it was unlikely that this was ever considered IMHO) and which the rest was almost certainly built around - the lens! I'll post a link in due course.

Well according to John's article, deWouters sent the prototype to the well-known French diver who eventually sold the idea to Nikon and deWouters didn't get a cent. It maybe be fiction of course. I wouldn't want to get sued by the well-known French diver's Foundation!

Odd that DeWouters apparently worked for Nikon for some time then!

Odd that DeWouters apparently worked for Nikon for some time then!

If John wasn't sadly dead, I'd ask him! I guess it was the deal with Nikon for the Nikonos that was the point at issue. Looking forward to reading your account though.

Hi Paul

Please send me a link when its up. Certainly something I'd be very interested in. Always had a interest in less less well known faces behind the development of uw photography, like De Wouters and Rebikoff.

Cheers

Colin

My Calypsophot article is now downloadable - click on the link on this page to download the pdf.

http://www.paulkayphotography.co.uk/Paul_K...aphy_Links.html

Very well written article with a definitely interesting subject, as you mentioned, there is still quite a bit of mystery to this camera and I for one like this about this camera.

I would say you pointed out the importance and legacy of this cornerstone of underwater photography impeccably, job well done!