tgh

<p>I've still got about 30 ft of a 100 ft roll left that I've had for several years. Mine was apparently military surplus - no expiration date, or else it's covered up, but it has a USAF last inspected sticker date of 1986. It's grainy, but after toying with several options I found it works best to my liking rated at 50 and processed in HC110B for 7 minutes. It works really well to check new camera herd members for shutter problems or light leaks without committing a good roll of film.</p><div></div>

<p>No. Standard 35mm film is only just that, 35mm wide. And that includes the sprocket hole strips on the edges. Maximum usable width between the sprocket holes would be just under 25mm.<br>

There were some 127 cameras that may have come very close to 36x36mm negatives.</p>

<p>Pinholes in the shutter? Metal shutter or cloth? Most F's have metal shutters, which are pretty resistant to pinholes. Very early F's had cloth shutters. These might have unrealistic values to collectors, regardless of the actual working condition.</p>

<p>The lever is to lock the aperture lever down when using the lens on a bellows or reverse mounted for close ups. Some early Canon made lenses also had this same lever. Later breech mount lenses would self-lock when the aperture lever was pushed all the way down.<br>

Some third party made lenses, including some sold under the Focal brand, were notorious for not being made quite to exacting specifications. I once had a 24mm Focal lens that had the signal pin (small pin at 6 o'clock in the photo which pops out when then the aperture is set to A to tell the camera it's set for auto exposure mode) in the wrong place. It wouldn't fit with the corresponding pin on the camera mount. The lens would work, but only in manual exposure mode.</p>

<p>I think I can see two distance scales, with the feet scale showing a "1" for the closest. Scalloped focusing ring, geared, but not scalloped aperture ring, long taper in front of the focus ring and the front tube appears to be black, plus the really short lens hood - I'm going to guess the lens as a 24mm f/2.8 like the one shown here:<br>

<a href="http://www.destoutz.ch/lens_24mm_f2.8_281510.html">http://www.destoutz.ch/lens_24mm_f2.8_281510.html</a></p>

<p>I'd guess it to be a black Nikon F, mounted in the lower half of an ever-ready case. Note the DOF button out the front of the camera body, just above the lens in the photo, with the mirror lock up just below that, and the chrome self timer lever visible. The large chrome wheel just under his index finger would fit with being the mounting screw for the ever-ready case.</p>

<p>Some may have SN's. Most don't.<br>

You can get a rough idea of date introduced based on lens, shutter, feature combinations here:<br>

<a href="http://www.wctatel.net/web/crye/z-i120.htm">http://www.wctatel.net/web/crye/z-i120.htm</a></p>

<p>Billy-Clack? If so, it's from the mid-late 30s.</p>

<p>Please excuse the quick shot here, but the original would have had a hinged half-moon arch like that on a Leica. The Mark 21 (at least the one on mine) is a straight-across wing shape, but looks like it should be able to be switched onto the A3.</p><div></div>

<p>I once had two of these. Eventually sold both. One of mine had a separate shutter speed dial and aperture lever as yours does. The other one had the aperture and shutter speed semi-locked together so they both changed unless you disengaged the linkage. Made it somewhat awkward to change only one setting. I far preferred the separate settings. Both of mine had the Baldanar 50/3.5 lens.</p>

<p>For comparison, I have a little brother (or maybe little sister) model for 35mm, a Gloriette. Same twelve-sided body shape, though less elegant. It does have a few interesting design features. Most notable one being that the shutter release button has a double function. Press it all the way down and hold it and it releases the film for rewinding.</p><div></div>

<p>The box is a folding brownie. Probably for postcard size #122 film. I used to have one like this. Seems like the whole back also hinged open. #3A or such.<br>

The Leica is a IIIf from 1951-1952. A family member had one with a serial number just over 100 off from this one.</p>

<p>According to deStoutz (<a href="http://www.destoutz.ch/nikon-f.html">http://www.destoutz.ch/nikon-f.html</a>) serial numbers started at 350,000 in 1962. He displays three ranging from the 55th up to the 831st, which he claims are all 1962. So yours would be the 2xxxth one made, probably in either late 1962 or 1963.<br>

I think they all had frame counters, but early ones had a film reminder dial on the back. No idea on the total numbers produced, but from Craig's comment and based on the starting serial number, obviously at least 27,000.</p>

<p>In 35mm? I'd look for a Spartus 35F (have to respect a camera whose lens is held in place by a snap-ring), Argus A, Ansco Memar/Agfa Silette, or one of those Hong Kong made 35x camera clones like the Halina or similar.</p>

<p>Never used one myself, or even seen one, other than this page on Gene M's website:<br>

<a href="http://westfordcomp.com/classics/vagabond120/index.htm">http://westfordcomp.com/classics/vagabond120/index.htm</a></p>

 

<p>What Craig said...<br>

My current herd actually stretches even a bit beyond the Argus to Yashica, running from Adox to Zorki.<br>

I'm not sure they really qualify as manual or classic, but I don't recall ever having read a posting on, nor felt even the feeblest interest in acquiring a "HIT type" camera.</p>

<p>Wes has it - almost! His comments reminded me of a small collection of Jason Schneider articles I pulled from Pop Photo magazines years ago before I tossed them. In one from May of 1997 he replies to a reader who sent in questions about one of his cameras, a Soligor 35. <br>

According to Schneider the Firstflex 35 was the domestic model and was never exported and had a marked top shutter speed of 1/150th, while the Soligor 35 was exported and had a shutter speed of only 1/100th. Included are photos of both and the Soligor 35 is a dead ringer for Rod's camera except for the changed out finder, the modification to accept the lens/shutter arrangement and the addition of the strap lugs.</p>

<p>Largely speculation, but I'm suspecting the camera body maybe Japanese-made from the 1950s. Somehow it makes me think of a Samoca II. The square front plate, the shutter speed selector, the second plunger on the left end of the camera to tension the shutter all just look very similar. I don't think Samoca made an SLR, but the overall design just looks more like a Japanese style than a German one to me. </p>

<p>That would be either 120 or 620 for 2¼x3¼ inches (6x9 cm). Whenever or where ever they were printed, they were done using the same, probably home-made, printing mask.</p>

<p>Most likely the printing mask. If these images are close to a standard negative size, like 2¼x3¼, 2½x4¼ or 3½ x 5¼ inches, then the printer probably used a mask to crop out the edges and this mask didn't have quite straight edges.</p>

<p>Nikon L35AF takes 46mm threaded filters.</p>

<p>As I was reading through and looking at the photos, even before I got to your mention of "JEMCO" I was thinking the Empire looks like a JEM Jr. Likely both were made by the JE Mergott Company of Newark, NJ.</p>

<p>Nice!<br>

A homemade version of <a href="http://www.leitax.com/conversion/leica/Macro-Elmar-100-4_Bellows/index.html">this lens</a> perhaps?</p>

<p>Nailing down original new prices can be tricky, especially for the later stuff. There was list price, then there was actual street price. I bought my first SLR, a Canon AE-1 new in 1980. Cost was $279 from a camera shop which included a breech lock 50/1.8 FD lens. Using the usinflationcalculator.com that works out to be $732 in 2009 dollars, or about half what you're showing in your chart. Though the new price of an AE-1 might have dropped a bit between 1976 and 1980.</p>

<p>Nice looking, and the Tessar should be a killer. Hope you enjoy it. But it'd be a real challenging camera to use for me. I once had the chance to shoot a roll of film through an Exakta with a waistlevel finder. Made me understand why 35mm SLRs didn't catch on for so long. Lack of instant return mirror and a whole new meaning to the concept of "awkward" for vertical shots turned me off pretty quickly.</p>