Cameras of WWII era

Hello all,

 

I am fascinated by the portrait/field photographs of the 30s-

40s. I love how photographs look. But my question is what where

the most popular cameras back then? And can it still be replicated

with 21st century technology (remembering that I am no Photoshop

genious)

 

Thank you.

-JG

I just can speak for the german/european market. 6x9 folders were still popular back then, most 35mm cameras were pretty expensive. Probably one of the 6x9 box cameras like the Agfa Synchro box had the highest sales in Germany.

 

Many will think of the Leica as the most popular camera - although this brand was known to many people only a few could afford a Leica, not to mention extra lenses.

There were many popular cameras then, as there are today, from simple box cameras that would compare to today's disposables to top-line models costing hundreds of dollars and comparing favorably to modern optics in many respects. You may see photos from any of these, so it will be hard to pin down just what effects you're after.

 

The big sea-change trend from the mid-1930s was the "Miniature" camera, which took over in much the way that digital cameras are taking over the market today. "Miniature" originally meant anything taking 120 film or smaller, generally including all of what we today call Medium Format and 35mm.

 

As Winfried has suggested, the Leica was much more famous than it was numerous. There were many popular 35mm cameras though, mainly beginning with the Retina in Germany and the Argus A in the USA. There were many others during the late 30s and 40s. In medium format, there were the Ikonta folders and countless other similar models, and a few TLRs such as the Voigtlander Brilliant and the Argoflex (again, discounting the Rolleiflex as a famous landmark camera but too costly for the masses and so not representing a large percentage fo the market).

 

One thing that nearly all of the "Miniature" cameras had in common, though, was the lens design: the 3-element Cooke Triplet and 4-element Tessar formulas, speeded at f/3.5 (plus or minus about one stop depending on the camera), were used in the vast majority of miniature cameras of both the 35mm and medium format classes. The more expensive models used the Tessar design, the cheaper (and more numerous) used the triplet. Both of these lenses are a bit more atmospheric in modeling than modern lenses, the triplet somewhat more so than the Tessar... though the 2 types can perform very similarly when stopped down a bit.

 

One other significant difference of the period was the lack of antireflective coating on lenses. This resulted in a lower overall contrast and softer tonal rendering than later lenses. The effect of this was greatest in the less common, more complex high speed lenses such as the f/2 Schneider Xenon and Leitz Summar, but it can still be seen in the more common triplet and Tessar types.

A lot of American photographers (and others) used the Graflex Graphic cameras, which are large format sheet film cameras that were equipped with the finest lenses of their days. The large format plus the best lenses and fine-grained film resulted in tremendously sharp and obscenely detailed pictures with wonderful tonality. No digital camera will get you images with a comparable high resoltion and nice-looking bokeh.

<p>

The look can still be replicated by buying and using a fully working <b><a href="http://graflex.org/articles/roskin/crown-graphic.html" target="_new">Graflex Crown Graphic</a></b> with a rollfilm adapter and modern films. No photoshop required.

The Argus 35mm cameras were popular in the U. S. You have to remember the country didn't really come out of the Depression until the War. Most families in the '30s didn't have much in the way of "descretionary income" and even a Bakelite Argus would have stretched the budget. I have an Argus A3, all metal with an art deco look that was produced in 1941. During the war there probably wereent many new cameras produced for civilian consumption. I think a lot of people were shooting with Kodak folders from the 1920s -- if they were shooting at all. Our family shot a lot of photos but there is virtually nothing from the war years. Probably couldn't get film.

Don't forget the prewar 35mm Contax rangefinders! They landed on Juno Beach Normandy with Robert Capa :) The collapse of Germany and partition of the nation led to their demise.

sorry not Juno (my Canadianism clicks in), rather Omaha Beach.

Don't forget the fact that the characteristics of the film had something to to with "the

look".

Don't forget the Kodak Medalist. Truly 1940's and a wonderful 100mm, Ektar that was 5 elements in 3 groups.

Capa's Omaha Beach photos had a "look" because a darkroom technician dumped the film into some hot developer by mistake and they had a tough time salvaging some images.

 

The Contax, like the Leica, was an awfully pricey camera for the avwerage person in the pre- (andd post-) war years.

NO the tech melted most of his film in a film dryer.

The portraiture look was "hot" lights, large format cameras, and hand retouching of the negatives.

 

Press photographers used Speed Graphics.

 

Some WW-II war photographers used 35mm, but not many. Probably more on the German side, using Leicas! Now, in Korea, 35mm was starting to make visible inroads. But still lots of Speed Graphics.

 

In terms of the big selling cameras? Well, I think 116/616 cameras were probably still more popular then everything else, they make a nice sized contact print, which was still the norm. But no question that 120/620 size cameras were taking a larger market share. Kodak really wasn't behind 35mm very soundly, their target market was the working class consumer who couldn't afford 18 or 36 exposures of film (and processing for it) all at one whack. (Thus 828 film.) That's why they made sure that Verichrome, and especially Verichrome Pan film, had great shelf life and latent image retention.

 

Or course, almost no cameras were manufactured for consumer use during WW-II. But for Kodak, the better pre-war and post-war consumer cameras were the Vigilants and Monitors, in 616 and 620 sizes. There were also cheaper Vigilant Juniors, which probably outsold the better models.

 

127 size had it's first fad in WW-I, with soldiers smuggling Vest Pocket Kodaks (8 exposures) into the field, and taking their own pictures (which was against the rules). 127 had a second heyday in the 1950's to early 1960's, in various plastic box cameras -- 12 exposures to the roll.

Thank you all for your generosity.

 

I once was shown a picture of german officers in their officers' car (convertible...typical WWII German style)...two of them were sitting (one shotgun, and one in the back), and the other was standing (behind the driver's seat) with binocs in his hand. The photograph was more towards the sepia tone, the d.o.f. was set (or was it?) where the step-rails to the car and below were out of focus and the sky above was also out of focus (and almost all white).

 

Now my question is, how was this done? Was it the film's nature or was it the camera and lens? This is the effect I am talking about. And I know by the amount of knowledge all of you gave me, that you know what I am talking about.

 

Thank You.

-JG

Julius,

 

Timely thread - just today I received the most recent addition to my stable of old, but still working cameras, a Kodak 35 RF with a lens serial number that puts it as made in 1945!

 

The d.o.f. condition you mention can be done with any current lens. Just focus fairly close, like within a few feet, and use a larger aperture. This works best with a normal or slightly longer than normal lens and a slow film if you're shooting in daylight.

 

The sepia effect you mention is probably more from a print that's been around for 60 years. Probably most of the commercially processed prints in those days were not processed or washed to anything approaching archival quality. And then they didn't use different printing grades of paper, and certainly not anything like a multigrade paper. I have many negatives my grandmother made of my father and uncle in the 1930s with a 3x4cm box camera on 127 film. And if you look at the original prints in the old photo albums, most have this yellowish, faded look to them. But when I print these negatives on modern multigrade paper, they look pretty much like recent B/W photos, except they're grainier, which also may come from poorly processed film in those days.

Those beautiful photographs were probably not taken with 'the most popular cameras back then'. They were probably taken by professionals with 8x10 or 5x7 large format cameras. Its difficult to take a good portrait with any consumer grade camera because the normal focal length lens just does not lend itself to pleasing portraiture

Graphics, Speed or Crown. 4x5 and 2x3, with sheet film holders and those beautiful lenses.

 

These cameras sell at a fairly low price on the oboy site. The low price isn't because they aren't any good. It's because these were some of the best selling workhorses of their day. They sold like hot-cakes, and are everywhere.

 

It's that easy.

What Jeff Bishop said.