Kodak Retina IIIc

[rod_larson]

<p>Usually Retina IIIc's are more expensive than the IIc but this one was found at an estate sale at a<br>

reasonable price. It is basically the same camera as the IIc except it has a light meter added. Everything<br>

on this camera was operational including the lightmeter. There were not any problems with the cocking<br>

rack or the low shutter speeds so the only thing to do was put some film in it and take it for a run.</p>

<p>All of the Kodak Retina folding cameras are a pleasure to use although I prefer either the IIc or the IIIc.<br>

The IIc and IIIc are just a little bit bigger than the II or IIa thus they fit in the hand a little better and they<br>

still fold into a pocketable size. The only complaint I have about any of the Retinas is the engraved<br>

numbers for shutter speed and aperture are small enough so I have to put my glasses on to change any-<br>

thing and then take them off again to look through the viewfinder.</p>

<p>Here is a photo of the Retina IIIc.</p><div></div>

[rod_larson]

<p>For anyone who is unfamiliar with the Kodak Retina cameras they were made in a Kodak<br>

owned German plant and are the only very high quality camera Kodak sold. The standard<br>

f1:20/50mm front lens element could be replaced with a 35mm or 85mm element. For the<br>

standard 50mm lens the little numbered tag to the immediate left of lens should match the<br>

serial number on the face of the lens.</p>

<p>I have always loved the quality of the ever ready case for the Retina's. That chrome trim<br>

on the bottom really sets it off.</p><div></div>

[rod_larson]

<p>Now for the obligatory photos. Like all Retina's it does and excellent job. I took it fishing one<br>

day. No fish were caught.</p>

<div></div>

[rod_larson]

<p>Canadian Pacific eastbound 9765 at MP3.3 on the Paynesville sub.</p><div></div>

[rod_larson]

<p>And at last a scenery shot.</p>

[rod_larson]

<p>Pilot error with uploading.</p><div></div>

[gene m]

<p>Wicked handsome camera, Rod.<br>

Here are some other Retinas.<br>

<a href="http://westfordcomp.com/classics/retinareflex4/rr4.html">CLICK</a><br>

<a href="http://westfordcomp.com/classics/retina2c/index.htm">CLICK</a></p>

[steve_mareno1]

<p>My favorite Retina is the Ia, but I have fond memories of the IIc I once owned. It took a little time to get used to the bottom film advance lever, and it was way bigger than my Ia, but what a well made camera! I got some very, very good shots from it's Xenon lens too. The viewfinder sorta put me off as mine was a little cloudy w/ a vague focus patch, and I think that I sold it for that reason. If you get one w/ a bright viewfinder and a good focus patch it would be a lot more fun to shoot. They're definitely quirky cameras, but well designed.</p>

[Rob_the_waste]

<p>That's a good looking camera Rod. You didn't catch any fish because you were too busy taking pictures. :-)</p>

[rod_larson]

<p>James - Not steelhead, smallmouth bass in the Mississippi River. The northerns kept cutting<br>

my line that day.</p>

<p>Gene - I have a Retina Reflex III that I fixed up and ran a roll of film through it and it was<br>

great. Picked it up the other day and it had quit working, all by itself.</p>

<p>Steve - this one has a nice, bright focus patch and it is nice to shoot.</p>

[tony_lockerbie]

<p>They are a lovely thing and the SK lenses have always been excellent for colour as you have shown. I'll bet there are plenty of Kodachrome slides in peoples drawers that were exposed with a Retina of some sort.<br>

The only thing is that the accessory lenses for the C series cameras were pretty ordinary and really a waste of time. If you want good extra lenses then the 111S is the way to go.<br>

Just finished a roll with my original Reina Reflex which takes the same lenses, put that up soon.</p>

[Mike Gammill]

<p>No fish, but the Retina IIIC was a "good catch". Great photos and thanks for posting.</p>

[Andy Collins]

<p>The IIIc is a wonderful camera with a superb lens and a very high-quality feel to every aspect of its operation. It ranks pretty high on my list of favorites.</p>

[rick_drawbridge]

<p>The Retina in all it's shapes and forms has to be an all-time favourite with many photographers, and that's a very fine example, <strong>Rod</strong>. Nice post; thanks.</p>

[paul_wheatland]

<p>I have owned and tested many leaf shutter SLR cameras both European and Far Eastern origin. The complex series of events for the shutter to respond causes as they age to end in malfunction. One of the issues seems to be the deterioration of the foam encircling the "darkslide" which is usually a swinging trapdoor behind the mirror assembly. Removing the "goo" is difficult and then what does one use to replace this seal without resorting to a complete and exhausting take down of the entire body?</p>

[marc_bergman1]

<p>Rod,</p>

<p>You may not have caught any fish but you sure did well in catching a camera.</p>

<p>Kodak did a nice job in advertising this camera. This is an ad from Apr. 1958 that was in U.S. Camera magazine.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[e._peter_paar]

<p>What you have is a Retina IIIC not the IIIc. There are two differences between the cameras. <br>

1) The IIIc has a two level meter. There is a cover over the cell with a small hole for bright light. This cover can be flipped up out of the way for dim light situations. The IIIC's meter covers the entire range on one level.<br>

2) The other difference is that the IIIC's viewfinder has markings for the 35mm and 80mm lenses as well as the standard 50mm lens. The IIIc requires an auxilary viewfinder to use the extra lenses.<br>

I was given my IIIc as Christmas gift in 1954 when I was 16. I still use it on occasion and I only wish that I worked as well as it does.</p>

 

[gordon_yee]

<p>No, Rod's Retina is a late production model IIIc. During its production run, Kodak updated the small c's dual range meter to the single range meter. When the big C was introduced, it used essentially the same meter. One obvious external difference is the top cover on the two models. On the small c, the rewind knob sits on a step that's slightly lower than the rest of the cover. On the big C, there is no step. The top cover is flat and level for its entire width. Check out Chris Sherlock's write-up on the late model IIIc:</p>

<p><a href="http://retinarescue.com/retina3ctype021a.html">http://retinarescue.com/retina3ctype021a.html</a></p>

[e._peter_paar]

<p>I was not aware that Kodak had modified the IIIc before it introduces the IIIC. Thanks for the information. </p>

[sky_ryder]

<p>For anyone who is unfamiliar with the Kodak Retina cameras they were made in a Kodak<br>

owned German plant and are the only very high quality camera Kodak sold. The standard<br>

f1:20/50mm front lens element could be replaced with a 35mm or 85mm element. For the<br>

standard 50mm lens the little numbered tag to the immediate left of lens should match the<br>

serial number on the face of the lens.</p>

<p>I have always loved the quality of the ever ready case for the Retina's. That chrome trim<br>

on the bottom really sets it off.</p><div>[ATTACH=full]692464[/ATTACH]</div>

 

About those matching serial numbers - are you perhaps just repeating what you read some place? Without thinking it through?

Think now: if the 35mm and 85mm front elements do NOT (obviously) have matching numbers, then why should the 50mm?

To me it seems that there is enough of a tight tolerance spec -German style - that the lens performance is not dependent on matching numbers. Only the parasitic collectors would disgree - not users.

Cheers

sky

[donald_miller5]

The only high quality Kodak camera made? I have read a lot of pros and cons on many cameras by many manufacturers and on a whole with a few exceptions there are are many props opposed to cons on all of them. But I have never seen a general consensus that this wa schedule only quality camera Kodak made (personally I love the camera). Can you give me the autorative source on this so I can cite it in discussions?

[glen_h]

The only high quality Kodak camera made? I have read a lot of pros and cons on many cameras by many manufacturers and on a whole with a few exceptions there are are many props opposed to cons on all of them. But I have never seen a general consensus that this wa schedule only quality camera Kodak made (personally I love the camera). Can you give me the autorative source on this so I can cite it in discussions?

 

Looking back, it says "very high quality" camera.

 

That still leaves room for many "high quality" cameras.

 

As there are many factors that go into quality, it isn't so easy to make an objective comparison.

 

Kodak is well known for making many not so high quality cameras, so I won't argue that this

isn't one of the higher quality models.

[PapaTango]

I think from several perspectives it was one of the finest cameras Kodak made in the post-WWII era. Much could be said about the elegance of the early folders. Top contenders in the Kodak constellation certainly are the Medallist series, the Retina Reflex series, the Signet 35, and lets not forget the early Bantam Special! Even in the 30s, there was always the Recomar...

[donald_miller5]

Terms very high quality vs High quality much too subjective term to make a definitive statement

[john_shriver]

I suspect the 35mm and 80mm lenses were less critical because they were only f/4.0 lenses. The high f/2.0 speed of the 50mm requires more precision.