The Wonderful Failure: Clarus MS-35

<p>I recently got a Clarus MS-35, and it's an interesting camera. Heavy, solid, nicely finished with brushed chrome and very grippy leather covering. Typical squinty 1940s viewfinder - heavy duty, simple, but rough feeling mechanism. It reminds me very much of the Russian Leica clones. Shutter speeds from 1/25 to 1/1000, although the higher speeds are a bit iffy even after cleaning and adjustment.</p><div></div>

<p>The Clarus is not a Leica clone though. It makes no effort to imitate Leica on any front, unlike the Zorkis, Feds, the Perfex, or numerous Japanese cameras. The shutter is a "four drum" affair which has more in common with the Praktiflex or Exakta shutter than anything used in other rangefinders of the era. This design has the advantage that if one accidentally changes the shutter speed before winding there is no damage to the shutter.<br>

The shutter spindles all run through brass bushings and bearings, and everything looks sound - in theory. In practice though there's a bit of trouble keeping things in adjustment because of the crude design and coarse tolerances used. </p><div></div>

<p>It does work though, and reliably too. The shutter is rather loud (it sounds like a Praktica). The lens on mine is the Wollensak Anastigmat, which seems to be of the lowest order available. It's just an over apertured triplet that delivers so-so performance. The Clarus was also available with a Wollensak Velostigmat, and a Wollensak Raptar 2/50.</p>

<div></div>

<p>The rangefinder is still dead on after 60+ years. But because you have to shift your eye from the RF to the viewfinder, there's always the danger of moving the camera slightly and ruining focus when using large apertures at close distances...</p><div></div>

<p>A few of the photos exhibited a very faint light leak that looks sort of like a reflection on glass. I have no been able to figure out what causes this.</p><div></div>

<p>For the most part the shutter did not act up, and only a couple photos showed any indication of uneven shutter travel, and then only when used at 1/1000 if my memory of the settings serves me right.</p><div></div>

<p>I think the Clarus is sometimes unfairly picked on and has earned a poor reputation it doesn't deserve. The simple truth is that he Clarus MS-35 is actually a solid camera but like any camera made in the 1950s and 1940s it will need some attention if somebody wants to take pictures with it today. Even a Leica IIIf will need the same sort of attention if one wants it to work properly.</p>

<p>That being said, it's still a rather crude camera with only just satisfactory optical performance, so it is definitely not some sort of American Leica (despite being compared to one in period ads) and I doubt it will ever be worth much more than the current $30-$50 going rate. </p>

<p>Dave, if you will be sure that the images are no more than 700 pixels in any dimension AND put in a title, then your images will display in-line. Makes it much easier to follow.</p>

<p>I too have shot with a Clarus ( http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00YyjR ), but I'm afraid I can't be as sanguine as you are about its quality. Lots and lots of German cameras, for just one example, are of the same age and even in the same price range at the time and are still shooting well. That's simply not true of the Clarus, unfortunately.</p>

<p>JDM, I'm not so sure that I would agree. Sure many are <em>sort of</em> functional - but few function <em>well </em>without a good cleaning. I've been through about a dozen Edixas and Exaktas at this point as well as some Paxettes. While all were in "working" condition when they arrived they all needed some sort of attention to work consistently and correctly. Judging by all of the people who have half functional screw mount leicas - I don't think the Clarus is really any worse off in this respect than any other cameras from the era, excepting box cameras and the like. </p>

<p>The real difference is, if you fix an Exakta or a Leica you have a nice precision camera and access to the best lenses of the era - if you fix a Clarus, you have a Clarus. Which though distinctive and esoteric - doesn't do anything an Argus C-3 won't do.</p>

<p>Rick Oleson has a discussion of the Clarus <a href="http://rick_oleson.tripod.com/index-172.html">here</a> (scroll down a little)...I don't think Rick would put it on par with a C3.<br>

And they did compare it to a Leica in <a href="http://rick_oleson.tripod.com/ads/adset1/page2.html">advertisements</a>.</p>

<p>Interesting hands-on reportage, <strong>Dave</strong>. While I know the history of the Clarus, I've never seen one in the flesh. I doubt than many made it down to our southern latitudes. Nice clean lines and lots of milled knobs always lend an air of quality to a camera, and I always assumed that it was well-made and worth the hefty price, though I'd wondered about the lenses... Thanks for the revelations, and an interesting post.</p>

<p>Thanks for sharing your insights into it Dave. Looks like an interesting bit to add to the collection one day.</p>

<p>@Donnie - the Clarus is more modern, since the shutter and film advance are interlocked it is a lot more convenient in operation than the Argus. The rangefinder in C3s is almost always inaccurate by now too. Niether the C3 nor the Clarus handle particularly well, although I do prefer the large button of the C3 Standard, and the focus wheel is oddly more ergonomic than the Clarus's very thin focus ring.</p>

<p>But in terms of results, the Cintar probably performs better than the Wollensak Anastigmat, although it's slower. The Clarus does have a 1/1000 shutter setting but this is basically nominal - but then again the C3's 1/300 is also practically nominal. </p>

<p>One more curious thing to note which I almost forgot - the frame spacing in the Clarus is the most generous I have encountered. There's a full sprocket hole between each frame. </p>

<p>A Wollensak Velostigmat and Raptar are basically the same lens, I think. The difference is the Raptar is coated. If I remember right, they are a Tessar design, where the anastigmat is a simple triplett.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>Another interesting camera that I have yet to clap eyes on. Looks a treat with all that brushed chrome..thanks for showing it here.</p>