Kodak Chevron

So I finally managed to buy a camera that I have been wanting for a while and found one a few weeks ago that appeared to be in decent shape. A Kodak Chevron! It is number 001018, so I am guessing it may be from the first batch in 1953? Not sure how many of these were produced through 1956. I also managed to score a case for the camera which is in nice condition.

 

I went into this search knowing that the Synchro-Rapid 800 shutter on these models has been reported to be problematic and old cameras can have other issues after 60 some years.

 

Upon arrival, the camera was a bit dirty but I managed to shine it up so it’s pretty presentable now. I love the styling of this camera and it feels solid in the hands. The viewfinder is a bit small, but I like that the rangefinder is in the same view (just sits slightly below) so it’s convenient to see both.

 

To my surprise, the shutter works through all the speeds and they seem accurate to the ear, but hard to say for sure. The viewfinder is slightly cloudy but still very usable. I did notice very very slight fog in the Ektar lens but overall is very nice. I ran a couple rolls of Ektra 100 through it but haven’t receive the prints back yet. I am hopeful they turned out!

 

Anyways, I wanted to share some pics of the camera with everyone!

 

I always wanted one too but fairly rare. How did you come by it? Very reminscent of the Medalist and Signet 35 styling which I have. Your leather fitted case looks nearly new. I would think it would be worth getting clean if the fogging is a problem. Please let us see some sample photos when you get a chance.

Hi David. It was on eBay actually a few weeks back. And I don’t think anyone else bid on it. The original case it came with was in bad shape and completely unusable, except for the bottom half, so I found the newer case as a replacement. I usually have seen them with very high unrealistic prices on eBay and other sites and have always passed them up, but glad I found one for a decent price this time.

 

Yeah, I’ll let y’all know how the pictures turn out!

Very nice. Case looks unused.

Very nice looking Chevron. Did you spool the Ektar onto a 620 spool, buy the film already spooled, or was your camera converted (if that's possible) to take 120? Regardless, the Chevron is a very capable camera and well worth the effort to keep it supplied with film. I look forward to seeing your results.

You did it! Really beautiful, Jason, a great-looking specimen , and now you have me really lusting after one. Please post some images when you receive your films back.

Very nice looking Chevron. Did you spool the Ektar onto a 620 spool, buy the film already spooled, or was your camera converted (if that's possible) to take 120? Regardless, the Chevron is a very capable camera and well worth the effort to keep it supplied with film. I look forward to seeing your results.

Actually, all I did was trim the 120 plastic spool ends of the ektar film with some cuticle scissors and it fit perfectly on the supply side. I did of course have to use a 620 take up spool, but I had several of those already. I has seen a while back somewhere the mention that the Chevron would not accept 120 films since the supply chamber was too snug, but it has ample space and it turned very smoothly once trimmed down. This seems much easier to do than having to respool film.

 

You did it! Really beautiful, Jason, a great-looking specimen , and now you have me really lusting after one. Please post some images when you receive your films back.

Yes, hopefully they turn out well!

Good luck with it. My own, one only, 620 camera is a Kodak Jiffy 620, for which the trimming the spool idea didn't work out.

 

Its similarity to the Kodak Signet 35 is not a positive in my book.

 

I wouldn't say that the styling of Kodak and Zeiss cameras of the time was a factor in the eventual 'triumph' of Japanese cameras, but the look and the need to cock shutters separately and such surely didn't help either.

Actually it is a very Steampunk looking camera - almost a holdover from Art Deco. It has a strange appeal!

Good luck with it. My own, one only, 620 camera is a Kodak Jiffy 620, for which the trimming the spool idea didn't work out.

 

Its similarity to the Kodak Signet 35 is not a positive in my book.

 

I wouldn't say that the styling of Kodak and Zeiss cameras of the time was a factor in the eventual 'triumph' of Japanese cameras, but the look and the need to cock shutters separately and such surely didn't help either.

Yeah, it was too bad really, though the price point of the Chevron may have been a factor too as $215 was a lot of money in 1953. I much prefer the Kodak and Zeiss styles. Are manually cocked shutters less prone to failure as a whole versus those that cock as you wind the camera? Are there more or fewer moving parts with each type?

 

Actually it is a very Steampunk looking camera - almost a holdover from Art Deco. It has a strange appeal!

Yes! I think its a very odd and beautiful looking camera!

Are manually cocked shutters less prone to failure

Given the fact that there were very few manually cocked shutters still being made at the dawn of the digital era, I think 'natural selection' gives an answer of sorts.

 

Remember that these steam punk cameras are contemporary with the Leica M3, the Nikon S2, and so on.. It was a different world in the postwar era, but one which many companies (now gone) had not entered with their bellows, manually cocked shutters, and such like.

 

Speed and ease of use were on the minds of some designers:

Popular Photography 1956-10

Well, I guess speed wins out. No one had time to manually cock a shutter any longer! :)

“No one had time to manually cock a shutter any longer!”

 

And it’s a good thing too with Candy Crunch and The Bachelor just on the horizon.......

Edited August 19, 2018 by Moving On

Well, I guess speed wins out. No one had time to manually cock a shutter any longer! :)

Yes, I guess that made sense at the time when the cameras were the mainstream tool for photography. (Whereas now, for my 'hobby' photography, I value technical simplicity as there is less to go wrong.)

And there was a time when cameras that cocked the shutter when the film was advanced were labeled as "automatic cameras."

And there was a time when cameras that cocked the shutter when the film was advanced were labeled as "automatic cameras."

And some that would advance the film for you!

Jason- a later version of Motormatic 35 (the R4) had a built-in flashcube holder making it only one of two 35mm cameras that took the new flashcube (rest were Instamatics).

Nothing sold as much film as the power winder.....;)

If I wanted a power winder, I'd use my Minolta X-700 with its winder, or even my Maxxum 7000i, since I have a nice array of lenses for it. But, one of the reasons I stopped using the 7000i is the very lack of a manual film advance. Cars should have stick shifts, film cameras should have wind levers. That's my credo.

My Dad taught me to be conservative.

I learned how to drive on a stick shift.

Single shot Marlin bolt action .22.

I learned to make the shots count.

He felt the same way about the power winder.

“Just wastin’ a lot of film”, he’d say.

I expect a lot of that came with growing up during the Depression.

But the principle of waste not want not has served me well.

Taking just one shot when using an autowinder is like eating "only one" Lays Potato Chip after the ad says "bet you can't eat just one."

...

He felt the same way about the power winder.

“Just wastin’ a lot of film”, he’d say....

 

I have motor drives on half of my F3HPs. I NEVER shoot in "continuous" mode, just "single" mode. The motor drives advance the film instantly and I don't have to jiggle the camera by manually advancing the film for the next shot. I do a lot of architectural photography in New Orleans' French Quarter but without a tripod, so the less camera movement between shots of the same object is important to me.

My Dad taught me to be conservative.

I learned how to drive on a stick shift.

Single shot Marlin bolt action .22.

I learned to make the shots count.

He felt the same way about the power winder.

“Just wastin’ a lot of film”, he’d say.

I expect a lot of that came with growing up during the Depression.

But the principle of waste not want not has served me well.

Especially with classic cameras that probably are not capable of auto-bracketing of any kind. Which leaves sports and fast-moving critters or cars as about the only reasons to use a power winder, and I don't do that kind of photography.

 

And, at roughly $20 per roll, with developing (but no prints), it can get expensive quick!

I have motor drives on half of my F3HPs. I NEVER shoot in "continuous" mode, just "single" mode. The motor drives advance the film instantly and I don't have to jiggle the camera by manually advancing the film for the next shot. I do a lot of architectural photography in New Orleans' French Quarter but without a tripod, so the less camera movement between shots of the same object is important to me.

Well, I guess that's also a reason, though I don't really understand it. If you're going to take more than one photo, and you don't want to change anything, why NOT use continuous?

I use motor drive on many of my cameras, for two reasons; I much prefer a heavy camera with good grip, and when shooting I almost invariably take at least two frames of the subject, with slight variation of angle or composition, and I find it's easier to achieve this without the distraction of having to manually wind film. I can't recall every having used a MD in continuous mode, though, but I can recall numerous instances when I've lined up the perfect shot, only to find that I've forgotten to wind on...