The Kodak 35 Revisited

<p>Having posted odd bits and pieces regarding the Medalist and the Signet 35 over the past few months, I decided to revisit another Kodak camera of that era, the Kodak 35.</p><div></div>

<p>As I understand it, this camera is officially still a Kodak 35, following on from the rather elegant camera of that name that lacked a rangefinder, but this version is usually referred to as the Kodak 35 Rangefinder Model or RF. Legend has it that Kodak rather hurriedly released this model circa 1940, in response to the appearance of the Argus C2, an all-American camera from Ann Arbor, Michigan that featured (gasp!) a coupled rangefinder. Kodak added the rangefinder apparatus to the Kodak 35 in an undeniably tacked-on fashion, creating a camera with an appearance that, to quote one critic, "Only a mother could love". I rather like it's quirky appearance, but history shows that the Argus, with it's interchangeable lenses, went on to become one of America's biggest selling cameras, while the sales of the Kodak 35 RF languished. Mind you, the Kodak camera was considerably more expensive, being almost twice the price of the Argus, and the only real attribute it had was the excellent lens; in other respects the two cameras were rather similar, with inadequate viewfinders and a separate window for viewing the split-image rangefinders, and a collection of knurled wheels and attachments for manipulating focus. The dull grey Kodak looks a little drab beside the chrome of the Argus, and I can understand how the public preferred the more glamorous Argus with it's shiny and very "technical" appearance.<br /><br />This copy has the 50mm Anastar f/3.5 lens, a coated version of the original 4-element Anastigmat Special, and has the 5-speed Flash Kodamatic shutter with a rather woeful top speed of 1/200th. Using the CAMEROSITY code to ascertain manufacturing date from the lens number, it would appear that this example saw the light of day in 1950, and is thus one of the later examples in a production run that ended in 1951, to be replaced by the Signet. The Anastar is a fine lens, but the camera is rather clunky to use; while the film winding knob <em>does</em> cock the shutter it's a procedure that's slow and doesn't feel very precise, and the aperture adjustment is concealed beneath the lens; somehow I can never feel "<em>at home</em>" with the Kodak 35 RF. But, with a little effort, it can produce high-quality images. While I make no such claim for the samples I'll post, I hope you'll find something of interest. The film was Arista EDU Ultra 100 developed in PMK Pyro, with scans from an Epson V700 using Silverfast SE software.</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>

<blockquote>

<p>Only a mother could love.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Would that quote come from Lahue and Bailey in 'Glass, Brass, and Chrome'?</p>

<p>It may well have originated there... I came across it on one of Matt Denton's pages and I've seen it several times since.</p>

The original Kodak 35's were neat looking cameras IMHO, and you see some military versions in olive

drab paint. Adding the range finder detracted from the appearance and anyway who needs a rangefinder

on 35mm camera with an f3.5 lens. If you can learn to estimate exposure you can learn to estimate

distance. Again IMHO.

<p>Although the particular, <em>experiential</em>-based, dislike that I have for one Kodak 35mm camera (the Signet 35) does not extend to this camera, I'd still rather shoot "mah old brick" (C3, that is).<br /> However, Kodak lenses were generally far better optically than the ergonomics (or lack thereof) of the bodies.<br /> As always and ever, you have the knack for making a silk purse out of a sow's ear. ;)</p>

<p>As I recall Ed Romney(remember him) claimed the lens on this camera was extremely good but the ergonomics of the camera made for a lot of camera movement when the shutter was released that it resulted in unsharp images. He felt tripoding the camera was the only solution. Having never used the Kodak 35 I cannot confirm this.</p>

<p>Nice set of pics again Rick, really like the tones in "number fourteen". Certainly is a camera that was beaten with an ugly stick!<br>

I just found a Nikkorex at the back of my cupboard,and I think that may be uglier. Maybe we should have an ugly off,to see who can come up with the worst looking camera?</p>

<p>I have always found it a somewhat paradoxical that the same company made these two cameras <em>at the same time</em> with such different aesthetics.<img src="http://www.pbase.com/image/164597526/large.jpg" alt="" /><br>

BTW, there was a 3rd party attachment for the Kodak 35 that effectively moved the shutter release to the body - this would help with the camera shake - at the expense of looking even more like a kludge.</p>

<p>Oh, one more thing: it looks better in what we would call today "panda" trim and w/o the spur wheel. Here it is next to the non-RF & external rangefinder (same lens).</p><div></div>

<p>I have no love for these cameras, yet still own a couple. <br /><br />Ones that have sat for a while tends to shred film without proper maintenance :(</p>

<p>Thanks for the responses. Yes, <strong>Daniel</strong>, camera shake is a real issue with the camera; I shot most everything at 1/200th, and the few I shot at longer speeds did show evidence of shake. I've not come across the attachment you mention, <strong>Erik</strong>, but it may have reduced the problem. You're quite right too, about the unlikely reality of having the Bantam Special and the Kodak 35 concurrently in production; however, the original 35 was a better looking machine, without the rangefinder add-on, as <strong>Charles</strong> has pointed out.</p>

<p>Quite right, <strong>Rick</strong>, the words "lovable" and "Kodak 35" are unlikely to occur in the same sentence...Thanks <strong>JDM</strong> and <strong>Tony</strong>; it would be a close call between the Kodak 35 RF and the Nikkorex in the ugliness stakes.</p>

Here is a good view of the shutter

attachment.

https://m.flickr.com/#/photos/steevithak/

5600883373/in/set-

72157626331809837/

<p>I thought the Anastigmat Specials were, in fact, coated versions, except that they used soft coating on the internal lens surfaces, compared to the Anastar's single hard coating on all surfaces.</p>

<p>There was also a version made for use to photograph radar screens in WW2.It had a Supermatic shutter and a Kodak F2 26mm lens behind the shutter. I have one.</p><div></div>

<p>Wonderful in its own way, but more data relating to why the Japanese came to dominate the North American camera market after the war was over.<br>

Of course, I too have a few old Kodak cameras, even including a Signet 40. :)</p>

<p>As usual, your exposures exhibit very fine tonality, independent of the equipment you test. The appearance aspect of this model of the 35 is refreshing and really attractive (my mom wasn't available to comment), a nice departure from omnipresent chrome of other less attractive Kodak or other models, or the apparent "technical" appearance of the Argus competitor. RF viewfinders of that day seem almost always to be squinty and poor, including that of the expensive Leica, with a possible exception called Contax. If the Kodak lens was that good and if it had an accurate albeit limited speed shutter, that should have stirred the amateur photographer's passions. I wonder how well it sold in the early forties?</p>