The Ugliest Camera

[rick_drawbridge]

Well, the mailman dropped it off this morning, all the way from the USofA. A 1940's Kodak 35 Rangefinder, great

condition, everything working, and with just about the nicest leather camera case I've seen.The first time I saw

a pic of the brute I knew I just had to have one; it's so Retro Machine Age, the sort of thing you'd have

expected to find in a World War Two bomber. It's such an awful design that I can't help but like it; no stylish

pretensions, just a sort of rugged emphasis on getting the job done. It reminds me of the first real gun I

owned, a 1942 Springfield 30-06, the same uncompromising construction and grey finish.

 

It has the Anastar 50mm f1:3.5 lens; I know some had the Anastigmat Special, but some sources suggest the Anastar

is a later edition of the same lens, renamed. Anyone know for sure ? It also has the world's smallest

rangefinder window, and a matching viewfinder. Surprisingly, in good light they both work rather well.

 

Anyway, if anyone has any information or tips they'd like to share, I'd be interested to hear. I might even run

a film through it tomorrow...<div></div>

[rick_drawbridge]

And the case...<div></div>

[chuck_foreman1]

Sorry no help here just amazement.. like you said .. you see it and it speaks to your innate taste! Like some other models .. the original Tenax comes to mind! Gotta keep my eyes peeled for such a beast!!

[peter_naylor1]

Hi, Rick It's certainly no beauty, is it? Every time I see one of these I keep thinking of that expression about "a camel being a horse designed by a committee". Somehow you get the impression with this Kodak 35 RF that bits were just added on without anybody considering what the end result would look like. Yet that same EKC in Rochester had produced one of the loveliest cameras ever made in the Bantam Special, just a few years earlier.

 

Like you said, you'd have to assume that with WW2 having broken out (in Europe anyway) when the Kodak 35 RF was introduced in 1940, function was considered more important than form hence its B17-type looks. Art-deco was now replaced by utility. Walter Teague and his Design Team were now clearly elsewhere.

 

Lens-wise, my Coe's Kodak Bible has things as from 1940 - 48 it was fitted with th f3.5 Anastigmat Special, followed by the Anastar f3.5 from 1947 until 1951. I don't know the reason for the overlap in 1947/48, or which lens is better spec'd. However, a lot of learned folks consider that this was one very fine performing camera, if you can just ignore its looks ....... !

 

(Pete In Perth)

[Rick_van_Nooij]

"A child only a mother could love" is an often coined phrase with these cameras.

I see you have a post-WW2 shutter and lens, but it looks in fine condition.

I've a war-time one myself with a slower shutter.

 

Maintenance tips: when removing the top cover DO NOT REMOVE the winding knob

from the top plate, just remove the screw from the top of the knob but leave it in place.

The three small bearings in there are nearly impossible to replace. I know, I've tried.

 

Crank the shutter by turning the film-counter shaft with the sprockets. You hear the click when you cock it.

If you can turn the shaft a good bit further after the click. You might find your shutter blades don't close properly after firing. A small misalignment in the gears will allow the cam that cocks the shutter to begin its action to early and will prevent the 'arming cam' of the shutter from returning to its proper starting position after firing.

You can see this by removing the top plate of the shutter (the one with "Made in the USA" on it ).

You can reset the timing of the gears by removing the two screws holding the shaft and then repositioning the it so the cam catches a bit earlier. Hard to explain without pictures or the proper nomenclature but it's really easy.

 

Don't bother using the self-timer. Good way to jam your shutter.

 

I find the 50 and 51mm Anastigmat lenses in my Kodak 35s produce soft image using the current film development techniques. Not really what I look for in my images.

But overall they're very solid cameras. easy to use. Definitely a classic

 

You know it the 35 RF was produced as an answer to the Argus C-3 right?

 

Cheers,

[connealy]

I have <a href="http://mconnealy.com/vintagecameras/kodak35/index.html" target="new">a page on my

site about the Kodak 35 cameras</a>. The original one without the rf is one of the favorites in my

collection. I don't have much good to say about the rf model, though it is capable of making quality

images if you treat it with some patience. Yours appears to be in excellent shape, but if you need to

get into it there is a lot of good info out there, including the links at the bottom of my page to Matt

Denton and Dan Mitchell.

[gene m]

Ug Lee

[charles_stobbs3]

I briefly owned both models shown on Mike Connealy's page. I think the gear is meant only to transfer the lens rotation to the rangefinder an the focussing should be done by rotating the front lens element. I think the viewfinder model was the best user. But those old Kodak plastic bodies were very durable (and no peeling leatherette).

[cliffmanley]

I was in an antique store the other day and the Girl asked if is was looking for something special. I asked if they had any antique cameras. She said yes and pointed me to a Kodak 35 rangefinder. You think your's is ugly, This one was all beat up like it had been through three wars. I said that's not antique, it was about new when I was a kid. She said that I was an antique too. I said it was pretty beat up and she said they distressed it some for the shop. I said WHAT. and she explained they beat it up to look old. So I don't look for cameras at antique shops anymore.

[connealy]

<a href="http://www.prairienet.org/b-wallen/BN_Photo/KA_KASIntr.htm" target="new">Brian Wallen</a>

cites a 1948 Kodak publication which says the Anastar is the same lens as the Anastigmat Special.

The Anaston was their 3-element design, previously just called an Anastigamat.<br>

I have a the Anastigmat Special on one Kodak 35 and the Anastigmat on another. The Anastigmat is a

stop slower, but I can't really claim to see any less sharpness in the results. My feeling is that any

differences in the lenses get swamped by other variables including exposure, film type, etc.

[connealy]

By the way, Wallen also has a <a href="http://www.prairienet.org/b-wallen/BN_Photo/KodakID.htm"

target="new">page about Kodak serial numbers</a> on lenses, so you can get a definitive date on

when yours was built using the CAMEROSITY mnemonic. Mine's a '48.

[miztli]

The difference between Anastigmat Special and Anastar is that the Anastar is coated. Other than that is the same lens.

[riz]

It's a beautiful camera.

[razondetre]

Kodak obviously influenced Japanese design as can be seen with the original Ricoh 35 with its own nasal

protuberances. <img src=http://members.aol.com/auctionfan/ric.jpg>

[clay2]

Rizwan is correct ! Beautiful camera !

 

/Clay

[alex_lofquist]

While I don't feel that the Kodak RF 35 is really ugly, it was a contrast to the Leica IIIf that replaced it. I used it for several years while I was in the AF and it did yeoman service during my travels. The lens was one of the best available at the time for a user type camera. For good-looking Kodak 35mm cameras, it was difficult to beat the Ektra!

[silverscape]

Cliff...you have got to be kidding me. They beat up a CAMERA just to make it "look old"? Are they on crack?

Anyone who would be interested in an antique camera is not going to buy a beat-up one! I have never seen or heard

of that in any of the antique shops I've been in. But they do sometimes get greedy and ask absolutely insane

prices. I saw an Argus C3 in an antique shop for $75...I'd like to have some of whatever they're on.

 

But yup, that is one ugly camera. It's interesting from a mechanical standpoint and it looks like it's in perfect

condition. But yeah, that's exactly what it looks like...like they just kind of kept adding things onto it without caring

what it would look like. And it was made to compete with the Argus C3? Wow...but this thing is actually uglier than

the C3! :)

[cabbiinc]

Actually I don't think that they are that bad looking when you compare then to a box camera or a say a Graflex RB Super D http://www.graflex.org/articles/series-d/

 

It's just a matter of opinion though.

[mark_medin]

I saw a Riken 35 like the one above, but it was in such terrible shape, I couldn't even bear to part with the $5 it cost. Just about everything was wrong with it - loose lens, dents, etc.

 

If an antique shop "distressed" a good camera, I'd ask them if I could "distress" their nice old car if they had one. And charge them for the service.

 

Oh, BTW, some Anastigmat Specials were coated. The name change was done after coating started, at least for some models like the Monitor.

[patrick j dempsey]

Cliff, I've seen similar stuff in antique shoppes... cameras that had obviously been forced to corrode in ways that would never happen naturally (yes there are chemicals for that!) and scuffed up paint etc. And they almost always want about 5 times the actual going value of a WORKING camera for one that has been purposefully destroyed. People do the same thing with furniture. Sorta silly, antique shoppes are a big no, but if you can find a good junk shop or rummage shop, these typically have some fun cameras at reasonable prices.

[connealy]

I have to admit that Rick's pretty picture of the camera has renewed my interest in it. Looking over mine

now, I think the rf image isn't nearly as bad as I remembered, and the thing really works very well

considering its age. One thing I've always wondered about on the 35 RF is that recessed square on the

camera's top deck with the screw in one corner. It seems like something ought to fit in there. Anyone

got an idea?

[silverscape]

Mike, do you mean right below the advance (or rewind) knob? I don't have one of these cameras, but I'm just looking

at the picture. Yeah, I think you're right that it seems like they intended to put something there in the future, maybe

some kind of accessory? Maybe some kind of a light meter?

 

I'm assuming the large window on the left side (right below the "Kodak 35") is for the rangefinder, right? So I don't

know what that other square thing is. And it's really strange how it's attached.

 

Actually...the more I look at the picture, I'm starting to like this camera. I thought it was really freaking ugly the first

time I saw it, but it does seem like it's very solidly built and it has a neat look to it. It looks more like a heavy duty

machine than a camera, like maybe something you would use for land surveying or something.

[doug grosjean]

To Patrick Dempsey first, and others:

 

The 1919 #10 Cirkut camera I bought this past summer, the previous owner had owned it 60 years and used it well, ie, produced good work with it. Yes, there is evidence of those many years on the camera. It's in great shape, and usable; no complaints. But it's 90 y/o, and been used, so it cannot look new.

 

When I picked it up, the previous owner cautioned me to be careful not to try to do too much with it, ie, a ground-up restoration would erase that patina of use that he and previous owners had added to it, and that it probably had more value with the patina of use on it, than if I took it apart and rebuilt it like new.

 

I absolutely agree with him, and so the only steps I've taken so far have been to lubricate it and use it.

 

I guess the real lesson is that if you have a camera that (for good reasons) has a nice patina of use about it, let it be. And similarly, if you luck into a camera that was used rarely, and looks like it was used rarely, be happy.

 

I guess it boils down to letting the camera be true / honest about its past, if that makes sense.

[JDMvW]

Love it! I had to use a Kodak Signet once in the field and hated it, but I'm coming to think with all the Kodak posts lately, that I need to be looking at some of these.

 

Anyway, here's one of my ugliest. This was the cheapest box camera available in the DDR, I think, and with a wonderful Achromat 7,7 lens and "moment" and time speeds. 6x6cm picture size.<div></div>

[rick_drawbridge]

Wow, I'm pleased the camera has created so much interest! Mike, I've been puzzling over the strange recess and screw on the top plate above the viewfinder assembly, wondering if the screw is just a "filler" and if there was some accessory that fitted into the depression. An accessory shoe for the early flashes was one thought I had, and your exposure meter suggestion would certainly be feasible. It would be a nice mystery to solve...