Did the vest pocket camera really fit inside a vest pocket?

[starvy]

<p>What kind of pocket would the vest pocket camera of old fitted into? None of my shirts would accommodate a Kodak Vest pocket camera I saw this afternoon in a charity shop. Could they have been called figuratively vest pocket rather than fitting into a pocket as such?</p>

[adolphius_st._clair]

<p>The inside pocket of a coat used to be large enough to hold a folding camera. My old 3/4 length coat has one pocket large enough that I could likely carry a post-card size folding camera. </p>

[starvy]

<p>Aha yes, that would make sense! My old fashioned sandalwood coat that I have barely worn over the years since purchasing (I am 36 and a few days old) would take my Zeiss Ikon Nettar.</p>

[dan_fromm2]

<p>Um, the VPK is a tiny, tiny camera. Contemplate the size of pocket needed to hold a #4A Folding Pocket Kodak, format 4.25" x 6.5".</p>

[seth_.]

<p>I got a camera that actually DOES fit in my vest pocket - the Ensignette (smaller than your average cellphone) :</p><div></div>

[randrew1]

<p>My "Vest Pocket Monroe" could fit into a vest pocket, but it would produce a distinct bulge.</p>

<p>http://www.antiquewoodcameras.com/monroevp.html</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Vest Pocket was also a film size.<br /> Yes, the pockets used to be bigger, but many cameras were called Vest Pocket only because they used the film (later known as 127 film). The original Vest Pocket cameras are shown at http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Vest_Pocket_Kodak .</p>

<p>These are from the days when a 4x5" camera was for all practical purposes a "miniature" format.</p>

[riz]

<p>I guess Rollei 35 would fit in.</p>

[steve m smith]

<p>I think vest has a different meaning in the US to what we use it for in the UK. To us, a vest is a thin garment worn under a shirt on cold days. A bit like a T shirt but without any sleeve area at all.</p>

<p>I think an American vest is what we call a waistcoat. The pockets in those are usually very small. Just enough room for a pocket watch so not many cameras would fit.</p>

[colin carron]

<p>The original VPK from 1912 - 1926 with the trellis struts will fit nicely into a vest / shirt pocket though might not be too comfortable. It is about the same size as the Ensignette shown above and slightly thicker and shorter. The later VPK Model B with the folding bed layout was slightly larger than the original VPK though still might feasibly fit into a shirt pocket. The final VPK Series III was defintiely chunkier and the realms of pocketibility are being stretched. I would post photos of all these except that I am in the middle of a crashed computer crisis and still need to extract those photos off an old HDD.</p>

<p>I like Kodak's only concession to the limits of pocket size. The Folding Pocket Kodak series (FPK) came in models 1 to 4 with 1 being a 120 size camera and 4 being a folding rollfilm 4x5 film camera. Kodak used the name FPK for models 1 to 3 but the 4 was just called the Folding Kodak 4. - No Pockets mentioned. A poacher's coat pocket might have been possible if he had ditched the rabbits and pheasants first.</p>

<p>The camera that really does seem a candidate for the 'Shirt / Vest Pocket' title is the baby brother of the Ensinette pictured above. It was the Ensign Midget 1934 - 40 which is quite a bit smaller than all the cameras above but still mamanges to produce a negative slightly bigger than a 35mm frame.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.ensign.demon.co.uk/jpg/midget01.JPG">http://www.ensign.demon.co.uk/jpg/midget01.JPG</a></p>

[colin carron]

<p>Here is a photo showing the relative sizes of the small 'Vest Pocket' size cameas and some others. Left to Right :<br />Kodak VPK 1912 - 26<br />Ensignette 1909 - 30<br />Kodak VPK Series III 1926 - 33<br />Ensign Midget 1934 - 40<br />Kodak Retina I 1934 -<br />There is also a mobile phone in there.<br />All of them will go in a shirt / waistcoat pocket though they produce bulges. The main difference rather than size is weight. The Ensignette and Midget are noticeable lighter than the Kodaks and are more practical for carrying around in a pocket. The Midget particularly is very light - rather like the small mobile phone shown in the picture.</p>

<p>Notice also that the Ensignette which gave a decent-sized 2x3 inch negative preceded the VPK by a few years while the Midget competed directly with the early Retina 35mm camera.</p><div></div>

[starvy]

<p>Corin, thanks for the pictures. I have to say that I am rather amazed by these. Would these cameras have been used by regular gentlemen who might fancy a snap around the park and then drop the film off to the local chemist's shop?</p>

[seth_.]

<p>That's the Ensignette 2 in your pic. The Ensignette 1 is a lot smaller (close to same size as your Nokia 6303(?)) and makes 1 1/2 x 2 1/4in negs.<br>

My Ensignette 2 fits my waistcoat pocket as well but it's heavy and threatens to fall out.</p>

[colin carron]

<p>Starvy, you can tell how well used an old camera is just by the wear on the paint or the leather. Most of these small cameras from this era are well used. I remember seeing a competition in an old photro mag from, I think, the 1940's or 1950's specifically for photos taken with an Ensign Midget. The published photos were all pretty good too.</p>

<p>There has laways been a market for cameras small enough to carry in a pocket. As well as these 'real' cameras there were novelty cameras which were smaller such as the Ensign Ticka but the ones in the photo were probably the smallest you couyld have and still get a usable photo from them. They could also be quite reasonably priced. The Ensign Midget could be bought in the 1930's in 3 versions - the 22, costing 22shillings ot 1.10 GBP, the 33 which cost 33 shillings and the 55 which cost 55 shillings or nearly 3 GBP. If you wanted to splash out you could also in 1921 get the original VPK in its special version with focusing Anastigmat lens cost 21 USD so it was not a toy.</p>

<p>Seth, yes, the Ensignette came in three sizes - 1,2 and Junior 2, of which the '1' had a 1.5 x 2.25 inch neg, while the '2' (in my pic) had 2 x 3 inch neg. They also were mostly in aluminium making them quite lightweight.</p>

[alan_zinn]

<p>I'm cursed by pockets. For one thing, now I only want vest pocket digi-cams. Too lazy to carry gear. The other is I can't remember which pocket contains what. Every multi-pocket garment I own has a different scheme. I look like a dervish doing an auto- TSA pat-down every time I need something. My wife gave me a way cool Orvis jacket with stitched-on graphic symbols at each pocket for various items. Spare batteries go in the glasses pocket, the passport pocket is for the camera. Cell phone goes in the airline ticket pocket, I think, because it's closest to my ear.<br>

BTW I'm lusting for a Sony NEX5. Need to sell my Rolli35 first.</p>

[m_stephens]

<p>Colin--<br>

Thank you for those great photographs!</p>

[alan_zinn]

<p>Colin. I love those tiny bakelite folders! Thanks.</p><div></div>

[dan_south]

<p>I carry an iPhone in my pocket. Does that count? (I don't think I've ever actually taken a picture with it, though.)</p>

[alan_zinn]

<p>Dan, Never shoot phone pics either. I'm waiting for a good camera with a phone. As I prowl about shooting people in their everyday activities I'm seeing an exponential (ex phone ential) jumps in cell cam shooters visually texting OMG pics.</p>