The Ilford Sportsman

<p>Since I always massively enjoy the "exposé" of more or lesser known cameras here with some photos, I figured I'd try to contribute the little bit I can. Fact is that I hardly have cameras that apply, and the one camera I am about to show isn't mine either - it's my dad's; I've ran two rolls through, for fun. Now it will probably go back to its owner.<br>

I've got nowhere near the knowledge on the inner workings and company histories as the frequent posters do here, so I cannot tell too much background story on this camera. The info I dug up on the various internet sites that have shreds of info, then.<br>

The Ilford Sportsman series cameras are rebranded Dacor Dignette cameras, mainly sold in the UK and the Netherlands. Introduced in 1957, there are 4 "redesigns", this one being from the third series (1959) which introduced a choice of 3 shutters and a model with a real rangefinder. This specific one is the second most luxurious, with a Prontor SVS shutter with a wide® choice of shutterspeeds, a 45mm f/2.8 lens but not the rangefinder. So, it's a really simple straightforward camera, quite sturdy, small. I haven't been able to find out when this one was bought, but probably 1960-1961 somewhere. It's in its original leather jacket, and generally well taken care off. It didn't need any repairs (though the frame counter doesn't appear to work), and probably it could be better with a disassmebly to clean it properly, but I'm not (yet?) too skilled at that, so I shot it as-is.</p><div></div>

<p>And without clothes...</p><div></div>

<p>Frankly, using the camera has not given me much fun. Probably I am a bit uptight about handling, but this camera just got on my nerves more than once. The main offenders are the viewfinder and the aperture/shutterspeed rings.<br /> The viewfinder is fuzzy, rather dim and being clueless about whether I have focussed more or less right just doesn't suit me. I fear I am too much a SLR man in that respect.<br /> However, the two rings are worse: they're coupled, so they move together - a "P" mode avant la lettre, somehow. One has to push a little metal thingy sticking out, which pierced my finger and once nearly cut me, and then you can move either ring independent. The 'texture' on the shutter speed ring is very pointy and sharp, so rotating that is again an attack on the skin. Robbed the fun quite a bit.</p>

<p>This is that pin, on the right.</p><div></div>

<p>So, the results.<br /> Well, it was a cheap(ish) camera in its day, so expectations should be accordingly. Let's say it mostly has some sort of "Lomo" charm, which in some cases works for me. All in all, I kind of like the results that I could get with this camera, but it is rather unpredictable, mainly because of lots of flare and glare unless the sun is really outside the frame, nor coming from the sides... which is a bit limiting :-)<br /> The two roles were Kodak BW400CN and Fuji C200 (the low-end cheap current one), developed in a normal lab, scanned on my Reflecta scanner.</p><div></div>

<p>2nd example</p><div></div>

<p>last B&W</p><div></div>

<p>Don't see many of these in the USA. This camera and others with similar specs were an economical way to have a 35mm camera with a good lens. With slightly fewer shutter speeds than the top of the line models and scale focusing rather than a rangefinder they were more affordable. I wonder what its original selling price was. Thanks for posting.</p>

<p>The colour film really revealed how little contrast this camera was producing; the images have been livened up a bit, the 'straight' scans were pretty horrible.</p><div></div>

<p>2nd</p><div></div>

<p>3rd</p><div></div>

<p>Another one; this didn't need a lot of extra contrast, and I like the rendering for shots as these. Problem is, I never was quite sure when the effect would show up, and when not.</p><div></div>

<p>Last one, which came out surprisingly decent looking...</p><div></div>

<p>So, there it is. Typical examples on eBay seem to go for about 10 UK Pounds, which seems fair, even a bit on the high side. I had some fun seeing the unpredictable results back, and to me that is the main attraction of this camera. But that renders it to limited use - at least for me.<br>

Hopefully this didn't bore you to death, luckily my other gear is well-known often discussed stuff, so I'll only bore you once!</p>

<p>Mike, prices I found from 1959 for the UK market were 18 UK Pound for this model, 19 for the model with rangefinder, and the cheapest (with a f/3.5 lens and Vario shutter with 3 speeds) 16 UK Pounds. I cannot find good devaluation figures for the 1960s, but it would be around 250-300 Pound today in comparison for the model shown here. So, indeed, relatively cheap.</p>

<p>I don't remember seeing ads in my dad's old late 50's to early 60's photo magazines, but likely the Sportsman wasn't officially imported to the USA. In the USA the bargain cameras were usually viewfinder 35's with modest shutters and f4.5 to f3.5 lenses (a few 2.8's). Again, informative post. </p>

<p>Wow, people would pay extra for that softness and dreamy quality these days, although I suspect it wasn't what Ilford had in mind.<br>

That linked shutter speed and aperture was supposed to make things easier. but in my humble opinion (we've had disagreements on this before, as you might expect), it's just a pain in the ass.</p>

<p>The B&W images are quite nice, and there's a very attractive 'impressionist'/pictorialist look to some of the color ones.<br>

Thanks for joining in.</p>

<p>You may have noticed that not all of the cameras presented here are "classics"in some people's minds.</p>

<p>Ah, yes, I know "classic" is a bit a variable terminology; if it wouldn't have been, I would have kept my mouth shut on this camera for sure!<br>

It's not the fact that shutter and aperture are linked that is a pain, for me. It's the stupid little knife of a switch that makes it cumbersome and painful. But yes - it's also a solution to a problem I don't really have.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>my other gear is well-known often discussed stuff, so I'll only bore you once!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Oh, and by the way, repeats are also a way of life here, as I think you know. So don't be bashful about chiming in on anything that you're <em>actually using</em> -- sort of the point here, if there is one.</p>

<p>;)</p>

<p>Flare is real strong. Did you check if the lens has any internal haze?</p>

<p>Interesting results, thanks for posting. The Wallace Heaton Blue Book for 1960-61 lists the Prontor SVS version at £18-17-6, the best part of a weeks wages in those days. The de luxe ever ready case was £3-5-1. A Leica 111g with Elmar lens was £88.</p>

<p>Not in the Blue Book was the same company's upmarket Ilford Sportsmaster which had four shutter buttons. Each one was for a different focusing distance. Really handy when covering sports events no doubt.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Always good to try an old camera, but your lens has major haze issues. Low build quality means nearly all these cameras are landfill now - a Kodak Retinette does the same thing better, a Vito B or C has a much better lens.</p>

<p>Great post,<strong> Wouter</strong>. I have the Dignette version and I have to admit that I ran a short length of film through it after it arrived, inspected it and promptly put the camera back on a shelf where it's lived ever since. I think your results are very good considering the limitations of the beast... Even at an early age, I felt Ilford was letting the side down by re-badging these low-grade European creations, market forces or not. Even the Sportsmaster was just an undercover version of the ludicrous Dacora-Matic 4D,aka the Hanimex Electra II... I really like the fishing boat image. Thanks for all your work.</p>

<p>Thanks Wouter, always nice to see one that is a bit unusual,and I have yet to see a Sportsman in the flesh. Those coupled aperture and shutter speed rings are the bain of my life, and the inventor of those needs to have a harsh talking to:)<br>

Love the glow, and I suspect that the lens has a lot of internal haze or fungus, but that look can work well at times.As JDM has stated, some pay high prices to get that "look". Works well in the colour shot of the tree, and I love the polish on that case!</p>

<p>With regard to the lens hazing, as said I did only simple elemental cleaning, nothing that would require a screwdriver. Since I have no intention to use this camera seriously, I'll leave it as it is - at least it's working. Once me and my screwdriver would be done with it, it would be dirtier than ever, non-working and looking worse ;). But yeah, the camera was unused for some 15 to 20 years at least before I tried it again, so it wouldn't be a big surprise if it degraded over time.<br>

That said, I have some slides that appear to be made with this camera, from approx. 1966, and while contrast is certainly better, sharpness/detail rendition isn't vastly better. So as Rick said, limitations of the beast, probably.</p>

<p>Thanks all :-)</p>