King of the Kodachrome

<p>Another American icon, born in the USA and the most desirable of Kodak's 35mm cameras through the 1950's. It's the Kodak Signet 35.</p><div></div>

<p>I just hope <strong>JDM von Weinberg</strong> doesn't spot this post, as I'm sure it will make him irascible. On several occasions he has expressed a great dislike for the Signet 35, with good reason; it's an odd camera, unlike almost any other of it's era, with an unfathomable design philosophy behind it and a rather unfriendly approach to the user. Yet, it's undeniably built from quality materials and finished to a very high standard and it's capable of fine work. Released upon an unsuspecting world in 1951, it was designed by Kodak's Arthur. H. Crapsey, and to me it has the same "military" look and feel as the earlier Medalist. Constructed of cast aluminium, it's a very strong camera, and the oversize controls suggest it was designed for use in situations where gloved hands might be employed, while details such as the use of ball-bearings in the rear focusing helicoid hint that the camera was designed for rugged environments. Here's a view from the top, showing the oversize wind and rewind wheels and the large shutter release.</p><div></div>

<p>The camera lagged well behind the products of Europe and Japan. It has a somewhat primitive shutter with speeds of B, 1/25, 1/50, 1/100, and 1/300, not terribly exciting for an expensive camera, and the shutter has to be cocked manually before each exposure. The film wind is still a knob, rather than a lever, and it's slow and cumbersome. There's no synchronization available for electronic flash, and no flash shoe. It does have a very fine 44mm f/3.5-22 Ektar lens, a Tessar design as opposed to the great Heliar design in the Medalist, and it's a lens that's hard to fault in terms of sharpness and contrast. It focuses down to a handy 2 feet, unusual in a rangefinder camera, aided by a very bright viewfinder and a contrasty coincident rangefinder. Tripping a little lever on the base allows multiple exposures, and it has a clever exposure calculator attached to the rear, view-able through a cutout in the beautiful leather case.</p><div></div>

<p>The back falls off onto one's foot for film loading, though practice prevents this occurrence; it's definitely safer and easier to load the camera on a table. The interior finish is impeccable, and the film pressure plate has a chromed finish rather than the more usual matt black.</p><div></div>

<p>Overall, I like using the Signet. It has such a solid heft to it, and the large levers for adjusting focus and tripping the shutter are really agreeable to use. I like it's appearance, with a hint of Art Deco combined with the sort of steam-punk machined finish of the panels. As with the Medalist, one just has to take the time to set the camera up before each shot, but the results can be rewarding. I'll post probably too many samples; the colour ones are from a roll of Fuji Superia 200 scanned on a Fuji Frontier, while the B&W's are on Arista EDU Ultra 100 developed in PMK Pyro and scanned on an Epson V700. I hope you find a few to like.</p><div></div>

<p>#2</p><div></div>

<p>#3</p><div></div>

<p>#4</p><div></div>

<p>#5</p><div></div>

<p>#6</p><div></div>

<p>#7</p><div></div>

<p>#8</p><div></div>

<p>#9</p><div></div>

<p>#10</p><div></div>

<p>Nice colors! Crisp pictures. Loved them all.</p>

<p>Nice results, Rick. Of interest: Kodak ran an ad for some its cameras in a 1954 issue of Popular (or maybe Modern) photography on the outside back cover. The copy ready: Magic Carpets Three Sizes. It featured the Chevron, the Signet, and an 828 model (don't remember the name). The ad copy further said that the Signet would give you the sharpest Kodachrome transparencies you've ever seen. Your results, Rick, are all the proof I need. <br>

I had a great aunt who had a Signet 35. She and my great Uncle lived in Cuba for a few years during the pre-Castro times where he managed a sugar cane plantation for Hershey's. My parents actually visited them in 1951. My aunt took hundreds of photos while they lived in Cuba. Almost all sharp, and exposed by the guide on the back of the camera.</p>

<p>It's a looker, <strong>Rick</strong>, and the quality of the Ektar lens needs no elaboration though your images, as ever, tender proof, if it was needed. That's good enough for me. I'd own one! If I can use an Exakta I'm sure I can use a Signet. :)</p>

<p>I also like the overbuilt, Eisenhower-era look of these early 50s cameras, right down the heavy-stitched leather case. Looks to be in great shape and with a good lens to boot.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>make him irascible</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You don't know the half of it! I was forced to use one of these in the field for a whole season, and it crippled me for life (at least so far as the Signet 35 was concerned).<br /> On the other hand, I actually own and have reported on the Signet 40 (<a href="/classic-cameras-forum/00Sx2C">http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00Sx2C</a>). It was perhaps worth the $5.50 I paid for it.</p>

<p>I never said, however, that the Signet 35 had to take bad pictures, and if I had, you've disproved that.<br /> No,. my complaints are with the overall design philosophy and ergonomics of the beast. Some cameras are user-friendly, this one is actually antagonistic, IMHO. ;)</p>

<p>I have had one sitting on my shelf for 5 years. Never used it because every time I pick it up I decide to use either the Signet 40 or Signet 50 instead. I will have to make it my next to p[lay with</p>

<p>I've got one of those. Take it out about once a year and just have fun with it. Everything you<br>

say about the Ektar lens being sharp and contrasty is true. From what information I can<br>

gather it came to life because of a contract let by the US Air Force. It had to be small, light,<br>

able to work in harsh enviroments, easy to operate, and field reparable. Great little camera.</p>

<p>That looks like and functions likes a keeper. I particularly like the colour film in this post. Great work as usual. </p>

<p>Nice one Rick, kind of like most of the US cars in the fifties, solid, well engineered, but beaten with an ugly stick! Kodak did make some pretty cameras, but the Signet wasn't one. Still, it was designed to take pictures and that's what it does well.<br>

The various Ektars are always good, and you have a great selection to prove it. Shame you didn't have a roll of Kodachrome to put through it. Still miss Kodachrome....great colours and the edge effects on the 25, that was a sharp film!</p>

<p>I'm pleased the Signet 35 created some interest. Yes, the story that the camera was designed for the military seems to be a likely hypothesis, <strong>Rod</strong>, but I've not come across a definitive statement confirming this. Thanks, <strong>Tony</strong>, the camera is sort of ugly to the point of being beautiful, and certainly distinctive. Thanks for the Signet advertisement, <strong>JDM</strong>, that certainly is creative advertising at it's most extreme! I hope the post didn't bring back too many unhappy memories.</p>

<p>Yes, <strong>Brett</strong>, easier than the Exakta; at least the controls are on the right side... Thanks for the recollections on the Cuban connection, <strong>Mike</strong>, and thank you <strong>Dave</strong>, <strong>Raghu</strong>, <strong>Donald</strong> and <strong>Greg</strong> for your input.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>i own a signet 35 as well as a pony with an adjustable shutter, abd a pony iv with few adjustmentsi was advised that my argus a-f (with focusing) is not really a f4,5 lens but smaller stops are ok.</p>

<p>poor vision has prevented me from taking photos<br>

but the lack og chest pains means all i need is a cateract operation.</p>

<p>i agree that the german and -do not know- japanese cameras of that era- early 1950,s were more advanced.<br>

voightlander made some tanks- heave not masny features but well made at that time.<br>

ogten sold in jewlers.<br>

i realize that elkectronic flash is not practial with many older cameras<br>

two reasons- they had M synch<br>

and possibly 1/30 wasthe shutter speed to use.<br>

also that had an asa post noy s pc connerction.<br>

OP have an adapter somewhere.<br>

but c aznnot find one on the big auction site.<br>

the third reason is the lack of slower film.</p>

<p>i can develop iso 100 film as iso 50 in rodinal. possibly other developers.<br>

OK I look forwars to seeing better</p>