Kodak Retina Reflex III

I bought this camera last summer for 50 cents at a garage sale. Back during the early 1960's the Retina Reflex III sold for the equivalent of $2000 in today's dollars. Today that same price would get you an entry level full frame DSLR from Canon or Nikon.  I imagine that you would either have to be a fairly serious photographer or have a lot of spare change to have bought a Retina Reflex III when it was new.

The Retina Reflex III is certainly a nice camera to look at even after all these years. When the shutter is pressed it is one of the most quiet, vibration free SLRs that I have used. Part of that is because the mirror doesn't return automatically.  Like many other SLRs from this period the mirror doesn't return until the film is advanced. Overall the Retina Reflex is a fine specimen of a high quality German made camera. That being said I don't think I will ever take pictures with this camera. The main reason for that is the very limited options for exposure.

The Retina Reflex III uses one of the selenium meters that were popular in the early 1960's. You made your exposure by turning a ring on the lens until a needle in the viewfinder was centered. Probably in 1961 this was quite a feature. Unfortunately in my Reflex III the meter is dead. Still there is the option of selecting your own shutter/aperture combination.  When you move the ring you can make various selections of shutter/aperture pairings. Each shutter speed is paired with one aperture.  Like if you want to use f/8 the shutter speed is 1/30.  Now the bad part is 1/30 is the only shutter speed you can use with f/8.  There appears to be no way to decouple the shutter/aperture combinations. And that is a killer for me as far as this camera is concerned. I could probably figure out a way to make this set-up work, however it is more figuring than I want to do to get pictures from this camera.

I kinda wonder if this lack of flexibility didn't help to kill off the Retina Reflex line.  Probably there were other factors, however like today I think that a photographer laying out some serious cash for a camera would want at the least the ability to make his own shutter/aperture selections.

So for me the Retina Reflex III falls in the category of interesting and nice to look at, but not for taking pictures.  Which isn't bad for 50 cents.

If you want more details about the Kodak Retina Reflex here is the entry from Kodak Classics.

Kodacolor-X 616 film

Last week I found these two rolls of film at a garage sale for 50 cents.  I had never seen actual 616 film before. I don't remember the format although it was still for sale when I was first into photography. 616 film was introduced by Kodak in 1932.  It is the same size as 116 film, however the spool is smaller.  The idea was that the smaller spool would let cameras be smaller also. As it was most commonly used 616 film made 8 images that were 2 1/2 inches by 4 1/4 inches. Prints from 616 film were usually made by the contact method.  That is why it is fairly common to see prints of that dimension from the 1930's and 40's. By the 1950's 616 film was in decline although Kodak continued to make it until 1984.

The rolls that I bought both expired in 1972.  By that time Kodak only offered 616 film in Kodacolor-X. Kodacolor-X was introduced in 1963 and discontinued in 1974.  I believe it was the last of the Kodak films to use the C-22 method of processing. If this film could still yield some images it still would be a challenge to get it processed.  There are still a couple of places that say they can do color processing on this film if the dyes have stayed intact.  If not B&W images are still possible.  Also if you are a DIYer then I have heard of people being able to get B&W images from Kodacolor-X. 

I do have a Kodak Senior 616 camera that uses this film, however I don't think that the results I would get would be worth the trouble.  So probably I will put this out on Ebay. 

First garage sale film find of the year

The last few years I have had good luck finding slightly expired, but usable film at garage sales.  However so far this year I had found no film.  Then a couple weeks ago the bag above caught my eye beneath the table of a garage sale.

When I looked inside I saw that it was packed to the top with old film.  Most had expired in 1993.  Since most of it was B&W I figured it was likely that some of it would be fine to use.  Also since there were several boxes of sheet film I figured that the source of the film was probably sophisticated enough to have done a good job storing the film.  Anyway for $5 I didn't have much to lose.

For my $5 I got several 5 pack boxes of T-MAX 100 and Tri-X 120 film.  There also were several boxes of Vericolor and Ektachrome 400 120.  In the 4x5 size there was a hundred sheet box each of Ektapan and Plus-X.  There also were a couple of 25 sheet boxes of Ektapan and Plus-X.  And lastly there is a 100 sheet box of HP5 and LP4.  None of the boxes had been opened.

So far I have only done a couple rolls of the T-MAX.  It seems to be in good shape.

If all this film has held up as well as the T-MAX this will have to be by far and away my best film deal ever.

Kodak Cameras using 120 film

Kodak introduced 120 film in 1901.  At the time 120 was considered a small format roll-film.  That is not surprising since in those day you could get roll-film that was 5 inches wide. Up until 1932 Kodak made at least 19 cameras that used 120 film. There may be a few more, however these are the ones I found.  The 1933 No. 2 Special Brownie appears to be the last camera that Kodak made for 120.

In 1932 Kodak introduced the 620 format.  620 film is the same width as 120, however it uses a slimmer spool.  From the 1930's until the 1950's, 620 was the most popular film format.  Still 120 survives until this day and 620 was last made in 1995.  Unfortunately, with few exceptions, some Brownie Flash Hawkeyes for example, Kodak 620 cameras will not work with 120 film.

So if you want to use a non-135 Kodak camera with a film that is still easy to get, you have to go back to the days before FDR. With the exception of one of the No. 2 Brownies I have never used any of these cameras. Still the idea of using one of these vintage cameras with an easy to get film has some appeal to me.  So I made this list to help me when the time comes to seek one out, and am sharing it here.  The info about the box cameras may have some short-comings.  What I have found about identifying these cameras is confusing to me at least.  And I didn't want to spend much time sorting it out since it is the folding cameras that I am most interested in. The now value is the original price in today's dollars.

Hope the table doesn't cause any problems. Blogger seems to lack a tool to make tables.  I normally don't care to use inline styles as I have done here, however it seemed easier than figuring out how to add a style sheet to a blogger page. 

CAMERA NAME	FROM	TO	Then	Now
No. 1 AUTOGRAPHIC KODAK Junior Camera	1914	1927	$23.00	543.47
No. 1 AUTOGRAPHIC KODAK Special Camera (Bakelite side panels)	1915	1920	$56.00	$1,310.14
No. 1 AUTOGRAPHIC KODAK Special Camera (Model B) (Back overlaps sides) Focus by thumb-turned gear. (Only produced for a few months)	1921	1921	$79.00	$1,042.86
No. 1 AUTOGRAPHIC KODAK Special Camera (Model B) (knurled screw focusing)	1922	1926	$74.00	$1,040.81
No. 2 Beau BROWNIE Camera (5 colors)	1930	1933	$4.25	$60.13
Boy Scout BROWNIE Camera	1932	1932	$2.00	$34.50
No. 2 BROWNIE Camera	1901	1904	$2.00	$47.74
No. 2 BROWNIE Camera (Aluminum, Model F)	1924	1933	$2.75	$38.00
No. 2 BROWNIE Camera (5 colors)	1929	1933	$2.50	$34.55
BROWNIE Special No. 2 Camera	1933	1934	$2.25	$40.90
No. 2 Folding AUTOGRAPHIC BROWNIE Camera (Changed from square to round ends in 1917)	1915	1926	$12.00	$280.74
No. 2 Folding Pocket BROWNIE Camera (Model B)	1907	1915	$5.00	$119.34
Century of Progress World’s Fair Souvenir 1833–1933 Camera	1933	1933	$4.00	$72.71
No. 1 KODAK Junior Camera	1914	1914	$11.00	$259.92
No. 1 KODAK Series III Camera	1926	1932	$26.00	$347.10
No. 1 Pocket KODAK Camera	1926	1932	$17.00	$226.95
No. 1 Pocket KODAK Camera (In 4 colors: blue, brown, gray, green)	1929	1931	$18.00	$248.73
No. 1 Pocket KODAK Junior Camera (Black and 3 colors)	1929	1932	$9.00	$124.36
No. 1 Pocket KODAK Series II Camera	1922	1932	$22.50	$310.91

KODAK BROWNIE JUNIOR SIX-16

I saw this group of cameras in an antique shop last week.  They are the 1930's equivalent of the more recent point and shoot cameras that are a staple of many garage sales.  I believe the guy was asking $25 for the SIX-16 cameras and $15 for the plain boxes.  Considering their very rough shape I imagine they will sit there for a very long time. 

The KODAK BROWNIE JUNIOR SIX-16 was made from 1934 to 1942.  It is a typical box camera of the time with one set shutter speed and an option for a timed exposure. The ones that I have seen more often have an Art Deco metal plate on the front.  I am not sure why the ones here differ.  The KODAK BROWNIE JUNIOR SIX-16 made six 2 1/2 x 4 1/4 images using 616 film. Kodak introduced 616 film in 1932. 616 is the same as the older 116 film, however it comes on a slimmer spool.  By making the spool slimmer Kodak hoped to be able to make smaller cameras. 

The large negative produced by cameras like the KODAK BROWNIE JUNIOR SIX-16 was popular up until the 1950's because it seems that it was more economical to make contact prints than enlargements. At one time there were some amazingly large versions of roll-film out there.  For example I was surprised to find that the original 110 film, discontinued in 1929, was 5" x 4", and the original 126 film, discontinued in 1949, was 4 1/4" x 6 1/2".  Unfortunately today 120 is the largest roll-film format you can get.

616 film was discontinued in 1985. It takes some doing, however you can use 120 film with a camera like the BROWNIE JUNIOR SIX-16.  I did it a while back with the Kodak Senior Six-16. My guess is that it wouldn't be worth the trouble with a camera like the BROWNIE JUNIOR SIX-16.  Especially since there are a lot of cameras of the same vintage that use 120 film and likely would produce similar results.

The best I can tell the GE console radio above was first made in 1933.  So maybe a BROWNIE JUNIOR SIX-16 once sat upon it. More than likely it played some of the second season of the Jack Benny show. Jack Benny had one of the most popular radio shows starting in 1932 up until TV become dominate in the 1950's.  The peak of popularity for radio shows like Benny's parallels the popularity of film formats like 616 or 620.  Although that parallel seems to be a coincidence more than the result of any relationship between radio and film formats that I can figure out. In today's antique shop the radio and the cameras are in the same booth. Unlike the cameras the radio seems in good shape and it is claimed that it works.  Also unlike with the cameras it is never a good idea to try to see if an old radio works by plugging it in. I suppose the big difference is that no old camera that I know of needs to be plugged into electricity, and therefore it isn't like to be damaged, catch on fire, or shock you.

More on a vintage theme than a photography one are these Christmas lights which I think are from the late 1930's.  Who knows, they could have been on a Christmas tree in the 1930's in the same room with the GE radio and a BROWNIE JUNIOR SIX-16 camera.  I got the lights for a couple dollars at a garage sale last weekend.  Ignoring the caution that I usually have with old electrical things I plugged these in and they did light.  And from the heat they generated I would guess that given time they might have set this box on fire.  I imagine that you would be asking for trouble if you put these lights on a less than fresh Christmas tree.  I suppose the lack of fire threat may be one advantage of collecting vintage cameras.

Kodak EK6 Instant Camera

I don't imagine that anyone would be surprised to hear that this Kodak EK6 came from an estate sale in a box with a bunch of other beat up cameras. Back from the mid-seventies until the early 1980's Kodak made a run at establishing their own brand of instant film and cameras.  Polaroid didn't like this and managed to use the courts to make Kodak stop.  The result was a complete wipe-out for Kodak.  They were forced to shut down their efforts at making instant film and pay reparations.  I think that Kodak offered some kind of refund or trade-in for people who had purchased their brand of instant camera. The Kodak EK6 was part of this commercial drama.

And from the looks of it that is about the only thing that is dramatic about the Kodak EK6.  Other than it was made from 1976 to 1979 I could find little info about this camera.  The thing I notice most about the EK6 is that it is heavy - weighing over two pounds.  Basically, it looks like a simple zone focusing camera.  I think film came out like the Polariod SX-70 film.  The camera here has a film pack in it.  Unfortunately, even if the film still had some life in it, the battery pack that is included in the film pack doesn't.

Throughout its history Kodak appears to have put a lot of effort into putting out films in formats that they could make proprietary. While they had a lot of success for a time with efforts like 126 film, just as often this seems to have back-fired on them such as with their instant film.  Kodak actually made film for Polaroid before the lawsuit, however because of the conflict Polaroid took all their production in house.  So Kodak lost what must have been a pretty good revenue stream back when Polaroid was at its most popular.

So like many cameras it is doubtful that this Kodak EK6 will ever again take pictures with its intended film. Today it is just a humble reminder of a corporate battle that seemed like a big deal in its time.

Two Camera Books

 Canon EOS 650 Promaster 28-80mm F/3.5 on Fuji 400

I recently saw Camera: The History of Photography from Daguerreotype to Digital on sale at Barnes & Noble so I bought it.  It has been out since 2009 so I imagine a lot of you have it or have looked at it.  The book is not an in depth history of photography, however I thought it was an interesting quick read.  The main appeal it had for me is the many photos of descriptions of cameras in the Eastman Collection. And for me the pictures were worth the price of the book.

Camera: The History of Photography from Daguerreotype to Digital also shows the important part Kodak played in the development of digital photography. I know that a lot of people have faulted Kodak for its seeming failure to take advantage of the digital technology that they developed.  Myself I can't say what Kodak might have done differently, however I can see why many wonder why they didn't avoid sinking to the low point they are at now.

A second book Glass, Brass, & Chrome by Kalton C. Larue and Joseph A. Baily is one of my all-time favorites. Subtitled The American 35 Miniature Camera Glass, Brass, & Chrome was published in 1972. Glass, Brass, & Chrome gives some in depth information about the 35mm cameras that were made in the US from the 1930's until the 1960's. Both of the authors used many of the cameras that they are talking about.  I think that this book may be one of the best ways to get a feel for the glory days of the US camera industry.  It has been out of print for a long time, however it is not hard to find a used copy. 

Both books make some predictions about the future.  Glass, Brass, & Chrome was finished at the time that Kodak's 126 Instamatic film was dominate.The authors seem to expect this dominance to continue with Instamatic film maybe replacing 35mm.  I wonder if Larue and Baily would be surprised that over 40 years later that 35mm is one of the surviving formats while 126 has been out of production for over a decade.  The author of Camera: The History of Photography from Daguerreotype to Digital appears to have no love for film.  To him digital is much superior.  His prediction is that the next advance will be a camera and media that can capture the kind of image that our eyes can see.  How that will work out I have no idea. 

First Found Film of the Year.

I have been catching up with some film scanning.  The first roll I got to was one that was in a Minolta Maxxum 7000 when I bought it last summer.  The film was Kodak Gold 800. Looks like someone started the roll with some kind of graduation thing and then put the camera aside permanently.

I did a little correction on the color shifts.  I would guess this film had set in the camera for at least ten years.

This is from a roll of Kodak Max 400 that I bought as expired last summer.  Since the leader was out and it was still in a canister I figured it had not been shot.  So I ran it though another camera and was surprised to see this image when I got the negatives back. It looks like someone didn't finish the roll and put it back into the cannister.  There are about ten frames that were exposed.  I wonder if anyone knows where this waterfall is?

Looks like another from a visit to the falls.  The film here had an expiration date of May/2000. I have used some other rolls from this batch, however this is the first that already had images on it. 

Eastman Kodak Company

Over the past few months I have read a lot of posts about the troubles Kodak is having.  Some have long lists of the mistakes that Kodak made and how they might have kept going strong as a company.  Myself I think people are asking the wrong question.  Instead of wondering what happened to Kodak it might be good to look at why they did so well for so long.

Most companies only stay in business a short time.  Only a very small percentage of those ever come to dominate their field.  Kodak not only has lasted a long time it had dominated its field for over a hundred years.  To me that success is the extraordinary thing while Kodak's current problems are more ordinary since eventual failure is the norm for a business.

It seems fairly obvious that the initial reason for the success of Kodak was they were the first to make photography fairly easy for people.  And this helped Kodak to sell a lot of film.  Kodak then continued to innovate with film while also making a product of reliable quality.  While other companies made film Kodak was the company that the average person trusted the most.  Kodak did make other products, however these were often made with the idea of selling more film.

All this worked well as decade after decade Kodak remained the leader in photography.  It even allowed the company to absorb failures like disc cameras and their attempt at instant film.  Then of course digital came along.  Many have said they should have seen it coming.  And many have said that Kodak made major mistakes in not capitalizing on digital even though they did some pioneering work in that area. 

Still Kodak mainly was a film producing company.  That is what they knew how to do and they did it extremely well for a long time.  I am not sure how much they can be faulted for a failure to develop products in a new area with which they would experience a similar level of success.  If they had in some ways that would have been extraordinary.  Instead they faltered as most every other company in history as done when faced with a severe decline in demand for their most important product. 

Like any company that produces a successful product Kodak's strength also was its greatest vulnerability.  Generally demand for a product does not last forever. The mass demand for film did last longer than the demand for most products.  And I think Kodak should be praised for doing so well for so long at supplying that demand instead of being criticized for not developing the hypothetical products that may have kept them out of trouble.

Hopefully, Kodak will at least continue to survive to make a reduced amount of film.  Still it is doubtful that we ever will see Kodak being the presence with the masses that it once was. I imagine there already is a strong dividing line age-wise between those who still fairly quickly think of Kodak when they think of photography and those who may not be aware of Kodak at all. 

Ad from 1956.

Argus HFM II revisited

I first posted about the Argus HFM II back in January. Since my lastest batch of film included some new photos from that camera I am added these to the original gallery.

I used Kodak UltraMax 400 this time. Although the camera's manual suggests 200 ISO film I think in most cases that 400 IS0 may be the better choice.

This is some bank building in downtown Champaign IL. It was built in the early 70's and is the first building I can remember seeing around here with reflective glass.  The building is less of an offense to the eye than most modern bank buildings. 

I believe this statue is called "A Prayer for Rain".  I imagine it might be more authentic if it was called something like "A Prayer for the Europeans to leave". 









The full Argus HFM II Gallery.

                                                                                                                                 

Blue Deluxe, Kodak S 100 EF, and Vivitar Champion II

No idea who made this camera other than it was made in China.  I got it because I had not seen this design before.  A single shutter speed and aperture camera.











Despite the urgings of my higher self I have developed an affection for the cheap plastic point & shoots of the 1980's and 90's. So a camera like the Blue Deluxe is hard for me to resist.  As its color would suggest, with its 1/125 shutter speed and f/11 aperture, the Blue Deluxe is a camera for sunny days and blue skies.

Many cameras of this sort have the defect of occasionally taking a technically decent image. The Blue Deluxe seems to be free of that defect.

The viewfinder is a problem in this camera.  When originally framed only the door and a small area around it was shown in the viewfinder.  Obviously the camera is taking in a much larger area.

I felt an unexplainable affection for this Kodak S 100 EF when I first saw it at an antique shop this weekend. The only thing I can think of is that it is a reincarnation of a camera that I knew in a previous lifetime. 





The Kodak S 100 EF is a little more advanced than the Blue Deluxe.  It has three apertures and a flash.  It can work without batteries.  Two AA batteries are only needed for the flash to work.  The lens is a doublet.  The camera originally sold for 59.95 and was out from 1989 to 1993. 

The Kodak S 100 EF appears capable of taking images superior to those of the Blue Deluxe - at least from a technical viewpoint.

I don't know much about the Vivitar CHAMPION II.  It appears to have only one aperture and one shutter speed.  These will work without the battery which is needed only for the flash.







I imagine that it would be a challenge to collect all the Vivitar cameras of this type.  Just making a list of all the ones that were made would be a major feat.  The Vivitar CHAMPION II is one of the rare cameras that I was unable to find example pictures for on Flickr. 

Photography Directories, 126 Film SLR etc...

Popular Photography published a yearly special issue about currently available photo equipment.  For all I know they may still do so, however my interest is in the ones from the film era. This one is from 1955. Notice that the man is holding some kind of stereo camera.


















I like to find issues of old photography magazines that have lot of information about the cameras that were out at the time the magazine was published.  Usually such issues would come out in December.  I tend to think that I may be one of the few people who are interested in these issues since I am almost always the only person making a bid for one on Ebay. I would guess that some of the issue may be that they often seem to be over-priced.  It takes some patience to find auctions where the prices are more reasonable.  I do find it funny that some dealers on Ebay will keep listing the same item for an unrealistic price over and over again.  I would think that after a while they would get the idea that nobody wants to pay that price.  I suppose this is like the stuff you see setting in an antique store for an unrealistic price every time you go in for what seems like years.

Anyway I find a lot that is interesting to me in these old magazines.  Here is a PDF sample of a page from the 1955 Photography Directory. I particularly find it interesting to see what cameras cost at that time and what options were available for the camera.  Along with the camera listing there are listings for the leading camera accessories of the day.  Here is a PDF file showing some of the listings for flash photography in this time before electronic flash.

Recently I got four Photography Directories from the 1970's for around $12.  The first one is from 1973 and the last is from 1979.  One thing I noticed is how the listings for 126 film cameras decreased during the 1970's.  In 1973 there were two lisings for a SLR using 126 film.  The first was from Kodak.

The second is from Ricoh. 

I imagine these were the nicest 126 cameras made.  I have never used 126 film so I don't know much about it.  I have heard that there were problems with the cartridge that made it impossible to keep the film flat.  And that this problem doomed the format with serious photographers.  With photographers who weren't so serious I would guess that 110 cameras hurt 126 film.  At least at the time I can remember a lot of the people that I knew who used 126 cameras getting 110 cameras instead. That process seems to be reflected in the listings in the camera directories.  By 1979 there are only a few 126 cameras and a lot of 110 cameras.  One of these cameras was the Minolta Zoom 110.

I have one of these and will post some more about it once I get around to taking some pictures with it.  It is a cool looking camera, however it probably points to at least some of what did 110 film in.  The Minolta 110 Zoom is actually bigger than my 35mm Olympus XA.  Actually if it bigger than several of my 35mm cameras.  It seems that once features like zoom lenses were added to 110 cameras that they lost whatever advantage they might have had in size.  So why use a format with reduced image size and quality when you could use a similar sized 35mm camera? 

So that is a little of what I find in these old magazines. 

Kodak Senior Six-16

Film: 616
Shutter: Kodex with T,B,1/25,1/50,1/100
Lens: Kodak Bimat f/11, 3 element triplet.
Made: 1937 to 1939.












This is one of a few camera that came from an auction a while ago and had sat in a box for years.  When I got into film again i found myself curious about if any of those cameras would still work. When I checked out the Kodak Senior Six-16 I found that the shutter and aperture still worked fine and the lens was free of fungus and had just a little dust.  The bellows wasn't so fortunate in that it had a lot of pinholes.  Lastly the camera said that it needed 616 film.  That would be a problem since Kodak stopped making that film in 1984. 120 film is close, however the 616 film is just wide enough to be troublesome. Still when I tried a roll of 120 it easily fit, and a piece of foam made it fairly snug.  On the take-up end I would still need to use the 616 spool since a 120 spool isn't wide enough to work without more adjustment than I cared to make.  So I figured while it may not be perfect I could at least get some film to run through the Senior Six-16.

If I was serious about using this camera the bellows would need to be replaced.  Still just for fun I figured I could patch it with electric tape. The tape seemed to work pretty well for ending the pinpricks that I could see.  It didn't look pretty, however I thought it would get me through whatever shooting I planned to do with this camera.  

And now every six months or so I get the urge to take some photos with the Senior Six-16 to see what will happen.  When I put some foam at at the bottom half of the roll the numbers for 16 exposures appear in the red window in the back of the camera.  What I do to space the film is to start at the third exposure and then increase to 6,9,12 and 15.  This gives me five 2 1/4 x 4 1/4 images on the 120 roll.  I waste at least one exposure doing it this way, however the extra exposures I might get by some other method aren't worth the trouble to me.  Since the film is feeding unto a wider 616 spool I need to remove the film in the dark and either re-spool it to a 120 spool or put it into a developing tank.  For myself I would be using a changing bag and putting it right into the tank. As a digression a changing bag is a handy thing to have if you are using old cameras, because sooner or later you are likely to have to open the back up with film still in the camera because of some problem.

This is from my latest attempt.  It makes a nice wide picture.  Still the results aren't such that I am likely to ever shoot with it much.  However it is kinda fun from time to time.  




I was a little confused when I was looking up info on this camera.  All of what I found talked about this camera coming with a f/4.5 or a f/6.3 lens.  There was even a mention of an f/7.7 lens.  Nothing at all about my f/11 bimat.  I know the bimat lens and the Kodex shutter were the Kodak economy brands back in the thirties.  So I figure my model must be such an economy model that no one wants to talk about it.  I wouldn't even be sure this was a Senior Six-16 if it wasn't for that it says so on the camera's nameplate.  

It looks like these cameras sold for between $20 and $33.  That would be $300 to around $450 in today's dollars.  Consider that the average income in 1940 was $1299 and you can see that these weren't cheap.  Although since $1299 would be around $20,000 today maybe it wasn't so bad. Still even my seemingly secret extreme economy model Senior Six-16 probably was not a casual purchase for most people.  And I do think the camera deserves some respect for being able to survive and take pictures in our modern times. 


If you really want to use one of these 616 cameras in a serious way than here are what seem to me to be some excellent instructions for adjusting a 616 film camera to 120 film. 616 to 120 conversion. It might be a good thing to try since there well could be some bargains out there in good 616 cameras. 

Kodak Bullet Camera and Brownie Hawkeye Flash

Kodak Bullet Camera
Produced: From1936 to 1942.
Film: 127
Original Cost: $2.75












The Kodak Bullet Camera is one of the cameras that Walter Dorwin Teague designed for Kodak. The lens telescopes into the camera when not in use making it a fairly compact camera.  The two shutter speeds are 1/50 and bulb.  The aperture is f/11. And that is pretty much all there is to this camera.  I found this one for $2 at an antique shop this weekend.  The metal parts need some cleaning, however the shutter works so it should be able to take some pictures. And if it can't for what I paid I think I can afford to keep it for its looks. Since I haven't made a gallery yet for this camera I found a couple of people on Flickr who have pictures made with the Bullet Camera.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/formica/tags/bulletcamera/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/trauner/tags/bulletcamera/

The Brownie Hawkeye Flash was made from 1950 to 1961.  Judging from the number I see on Ebay and in antique stores it must have been one of the best selling cameras of all time. Some may notice the the 35mm canisters are out of place.  I just added them for color and because I happened to have them in my hand. 







It took me a while to finally decide to get one of these.  Most of the ones I had seen at flea markets and antique shops were always pretty dirty and often had ridiculous prices.  And I didn't want to get one off Ebay and have to pay postage when I was pretty sure that sooner or later I would find one locally.  On Sunday I found this one which included the flash unit and was amazingly clean.  The price was $12 which I thought was just fine.

When I got the camera home I was very pleased to find that it could use 120 film. Now the Brownie Hawkeye was made to use 620 film which is no longer made.  As I bet most of you know the only difference between 620 and 120 is the size of the spool.  The film itself is almost exactly the same.  I have read that at some point that Kodak modified the Brownie Hawkeye to make sure it couldn't use 120 film.  I am glad my camera escaped that modification because after putting the first roll through it I think I will want to use the Brownie Hawkeye Flash again.  It is nice to know that I can do that with having to reload 120 film to a 620 spool.

From my first experience with using the Brownie Hawkeye Flash I can see what people are talking about with the need to hold this camera steady.  In my pictures I can see there is some real potential in this camera, however there was more motion blur than I care for.

One of my first results with the Kodak Brownie Hawkeye.  Once I do another roll or so with it I will post a gallery for this camera.












One last thing I like about the Brownie Hawkeye Flash is that the viewfinder is actually useful.  With most of the box cameras that I have used I usually end up pointing the camera toward what I want to picture and hoping that things work out. The viewfinder on this camera does allow me to get a much better idea of how to compose the picture. I'm not going to repeat the great amount of information that is already out there about the details of this camera.  A search will easily satisfy any further curiosity.

March of the Toy Cameras

Toy may be the kindest categorization that these cameras get. Here I am talking about the simple amateur-oriented cameras of the age before digital. Still when looked at in the long arc of human history these cameras are a marvel. If in the middle-ages you had a Polaroid Color Pack and a supply of film you might have been seen as a great wizard or as somebody to be burned at the stake.

Throughout most of the time in which there have been people it has been very hard to make images or save descriptions of the things that mattered to us. I used to wonder why in the Bible there are few if any descriptions of what the people looked like. I thought maybe appearance didn't matter as much to the ancients as much as it seems to matter to us today.  Then I realized that in those times the materials to write on were often expensive and making copies was a pain. So it is likely that only what was essential was recorded. I have not researched this, however I would not be surprised if descriptions of people in literature did not become common until the printing press and cheap paper became available.

And while making and transmitting verbal descriptions used to be hard, making illustrations was even harder.  Even though literacy was rare in the olden days someone with the skill to make a reasonable representative of what he saw was probably even rarer. Today ancient forms of illustration like the reliefs in the Parthenon or the statutory in a Gothic Cathedral are still admired. However I think it is hard for us to appreciate that at one time such illustrations were about the only show in town.

The birth of photography in the 1830's started a progression to where almost anyone could capture an image of what mattered to him.  By the 1950's in the US almost every family had at least one of the simple box cameras that we now call toys.  Most of the time you could take a decent photo with these cameras without a lot of expense or trouble.  You could even make copies of your images to send out to family and friends.  An amazing advance that seems to have been quickly taken for granted and probably is under-appreciated.

Maybe some day in the distant future someone will come across a cache of ancient photos from the 50's and 60's and wonder why all the children were gathered around a circular object with burning candles on it. I imagine even then there will be little appreciation for the cameras that made this puzzle possible.

  


Taken with Kodak Duaflex II

Taken with Kodak Duaflex II




















More Information about the Kodak Duaflex II at Matt's Classic Cameras.