Revisiting the Kodak Signet 35

[jason_withers]

So, I thought I would post a bit about a camera that I bought online sometime last year. It's a Kodak Signet 35. From reading this forum and others, the camera has received a bad reputation of having a somewhat unreliable shutter. When I first received the camera, the shutter was working, but after exercising a bit, it began hanging up when I would press the shutter release, meaning, it would not fully trip the shutter. However, after removing the back of the camera, a small sicker inside from a Kodak service center in Texas stated that it was serviced in 1961. It's quite possible that this was the last time the little Kodak saw some type of service or repair from anyone. Or, perhaps this was when it received a shutter upgrade. I read that Kodak made some type of upgrade kit for the Signet 35s that installed upgraded shutter components, as some suffered from shutter problems early on. If 1961 was indeed the last time it was serviced, it's expected that a mechanical camera might need a CLA and general going over again after 50+ years.

 

I know that the Signet 35 shutter is fairly straightforward and easy to repair yourself, compared to other shutters, but I didn't want to open it up myself, so i sent it off to have the shutter as well as the viewfinder and rangefinder cleaned up. The company I sent it off to stated they ultrasonically cleaned all the shutter components and did the usual CLA, as needed. It came back with a shutter that now works great and a much brighter viewfinder. I was impressed that it now looked so clear! I guess this is what it must have looked like back when it was new.

 

Anyways, I I took it out over the last couple of weekends and ran a couple of rolls of film through it. Shooting this particular model is very easy as it fits really well in my hands when slid into the bottom half of its leather field case. For such a diminutive camera, it is quite solid and robust feeling, but not so heavy that it wasn't easy to carry around. I fitted it with a skylight and series V lens hood when I was shooting outdoors. I really like the small and unassuming size of this camera. The controls are well laid out and were within easy reach. Since the camera was originally designed for military use, it has great oversized wind and rewind knobs on the top that are extremely easy to turn. I think my camera repair guy must have relubed the ball bearing lens mount as well as it is very easy to focus now. While it does only have 4 shutter speeds (with a top speed of 1/300), I didn't find this to be any trouble with 100 speed film. Even 200 or 400 should be no problem for a majority of picture taking situations.

 

Here are a few of the pictures, including some of the camera -

 

No.1

No.2

No.3

 

 

No.4

No.5

 

No.6

 

No.7

 

No.8

 

No.9

 

No.10

 

No.11

 

No.12

[conrad_hoffman]

IMO, the Signet35 is built like a brick you-know-what and the lens is surprisingly good. I didn't hit the focus quite right on this one, as I had yet to adjust the rangefinder, but he was such a nice dog.

 

[jason_withers]

You're right Conrad, its a sturdy little camera. And your photo looks plenty sharp to me!

[Moving On]

Wow Jason.

Any info on the film/developing? Any post processing?

It's always great to see such good results from the 60+ year old cameras.

[jason_withers]

Hey Mark. Yeah I used both Kodak Ektachrome E100 and some Fuji Velvia 50. The Ektachrome film was fresh, but the Velvia expired a couple years ago. I scanned the slides into the computer using a pacific image powerslide scanner and adjusted some in Picasa. I totally agree with you! I think these older cameras are very capable picture takers and to me, the Signet is a real gem to use.

[Moving On]

Velvia Skies......Very nice!

[John Seaman]

Thanks for your interesting write up and excellent results. It's not a camera often seen in the UK.

[Rick_van_Nooij]

Very nice work with the Signet. That Ektar lives up to its name.

Last time I went to the UK as a tourist I carried a Signet 35 as well :)

[rick_drawbridge]

Excellent discussion and great photographs, Jason. Once you get used to it's quirks I find the Signet a very satisfying camera to use, and I really like the tough, indestructible feel of it. The Ektar lens is exceptional, and always surprises me with it's quality if I haven't used the camera for a while. Thanks for a very enjoyable post.

[jason_withers]

Thanks all. Rick, you're right, it is a quirky camera of sorts; very 50s looking. I also like the black coverings they used on their cameras back then. I think it was a trademarked material called Kodadur. Whatever it is, it has been very durable and has a good grippy feel. I read on this forum in another post from several years ago that the Ektar lenses were matched to their corresponding Signet camera bodies and should not be mixed up with others (if for instance your camera malfunctioned and you wanted to use the lens on a different Signet 35 body). Does anyone know if there is any truth to this?

[conrad_hoffman]

I can't remember how, but I did set infinity focus and the rangefinder, so I'd think any lens would work if one did those things. Otherwise, the focal lengths would have to match.

[JDMvW]

Old-timers here will remember that this is the one camera, of all the cameras ever made, that I cannot stand.

 

I admit that factors besides the camera per se were involved, but I was forced to use this camera - which in my opinion is for snapshots only - to record scientific data in the field. It was not a good choice, but the Interagency Salvage Program (Smithsonian) must have got some kind of deal on them. The Combat Graphic 4x5s on the other hand were very nice, and compensated to a degree.

 

The lens of the Signet 35 is passable, but the viewfinder/rangefinder is not much better than the little mirror finders on the Kodak Jiffy.

 

I did once try to atone for my irrational response to the Signet 35 by actually acquiring and shooting its successor, the Signet 40 (Kodak Signet 40). However, that experience was no cure.

 

 

But, consider what you got in the Signet 40 (1958 price $62, 2020 ca. $550!) for the money.

Edited January 27, 2020 by JDMvW

[jason_withers]

What took you so long JDM! :) So, I am curious, did the Signet 35 you used years ago work reliably? Did it have some other type of issues that prevented it from taking a good sharp photo? I have to respectfully disagree about the Signet's Ektar lens being just passable. The Ektars fitted to these and other cameras of the time have seemed (at least to me) to be great performers. Granted the films of yesteryear were not as fast as what is available to us today, it seems like it would have been a good camera for recording scientific data in the field (depending on what you were taking pictures of), especially since it could focus down to 2 feet. I wonder though if some of the faults you had with it are due to the rangefinder and focusing the camera. I saw that photo you posted some time ago of you using the Combat Graphic in the field. Looks like you were taking pictures of items on the ground or something. For me, the Signet is easiest to focus when you have a vertical line or something close to that where you can line the two halves up. If you have difficult items to photograph at ground level that don't give you good lines, I could see where focusing would not be as quick perhaps, or if you are working in low light situations. Granted, mine was recently cleaned and the viewfinder is pretty bright now and the triangle patch is easy to see. When I first got it, it was really dim and dirty, which is to be expected after all those years.

[rick_drawbridge]

As an aside, my Signet sits on a shelf beside a Medalist, and some how I've always thought of the Signet as being the Medalist's little brother. There seems to be a similar design philosophy at work, with a slightly militaristic slant...

[JDMvW]

Mostly the issues were related to the poor viewfinder and unclear focusing with the rangefinder. I was photographing burials that were being salvaged from a soon-to-be flooded terrace site.

The site was on the level with the foreground.

 

 

Let's just say that using my personal Heiland Pentax H2 SLR and the Signet 35 side-by-side in 1962 was frustrating. It was as though the Kodak was from the 1940s (as its design essentially was). The lens comparison is to my Takumar on the Pentax.

 

I do sincerely apologize for raining on the parade here- one of the reasons I'm late to the party.

[jason_withers]

JDM - no harm in not liking a particular camera model, to each his own of course. From what I understand, Kodak initially built the Signet 35 for military use, so they wanted a camera that was very durable, but had great optics too. I guess there were some trade offs when it was designed regarding the rangefinder, but I had no problems with it whatsoever. It's an easy camera to put in your backpack or jacket pocket and take with you for a casual day of shooting. I would be very interested to see some of the military photos that were taken with these cameras when they were put into service.

[m42dave]

A very nice example, Jason, and fine results, too. I've never paid much attention to these old American rangefinders, but have taken an interest in them now (see also the recently-resurrected Kodak Chevron thread). The overbuilt, early '50s look reminds me of some appliances of the era. :)

[jason_withers]

Thanks Dave. Yeah, I agree these older rangefinders are very interesting and certainly worth trying out if you never have used one before.

[conrad_hoffman]

FWIW, I find that many old cameras have miserable viewfinders, and they haven't improved with age. Try a Mercury II.

[Rick_van_Nooij]

I read on this forum in another post from several years ago that the Ektar lenses were matched to their corresponding Signet camera bodies and should not be mixed up with others (if for instance your camera malfunctioned and you wanted to use the lens on a different Signet 35 body). Does anyone know if there is any truth to this?

 

Ektar is just the name for the most highly corrected lenses Kodak could manufacture. I suppose the lens elements are matched for each lens unit, but the complete lens units themselves should be interchangeable between signet bodies, and just requiring recalibration of the unit in the focus mount.

[jason_withers]

Conrad, you are right. The Signet’s viewfinder is rather small just like models of the time. The Chevron camera I posted about in 2018 also has a rather small viewfinder/rangefinder combo compared to the size of the camera.

 

Thanks Rick. Yeah I see no reason why the lenses couldn’t be unscrewed from their bodies and put on another if needed.