jason_withers

Kodak Chevron, 78mm f/3.5 Ektar, T-Max 100, taken last summer

Hi Rick. I picked up a GE PR-1 meter the other week and am anxious to use it on my next picture taking excursion. Seems like a very well made meter. Sample picture below:

Another interesting tidbit I found about the VR line of films that were released jointly with cameras: "To show off the quality of the new Kodacolor VR-G 100 and the new lens design of the K12, Kodak made a 30-by-50-foot transparency from a single frame of the film and put it on display in front of the Marriott Marquis Hotel in Times Square. It is the first time an enlargement of this size has been made from a 35-millimeter color negative original and the result in quality was the equivalent of blow-ups made with Kodachrome or sheet film." This reminds me of the coloramas they used to manufacture. Would be interesting to see a picture of this.

Thanks for the note regarding the optional lenses. I've seen a couple around but they usually cost much more than the camera!

Yeah, I was surprised too! I wasn't expecting very much from this one.

I recently acquired a couple of these Kodak VR35 K12 automatic 35mm cameras. I read about them online a while back and thought they sounded interesting. From what I researched, the VR line of cameras was Kodak's re-entry into the 35mm market after taking a break for about 17 years. They partnered with Chinon in Japan where most of the cameras were manufactured, but some were made in the US. My particular one says made in USA on the bottom. While they probably won't win any contests in the looks department, they had some pretty advanced features at the time for a compact 35mm camera. The K12 model that I have was released in 1986 and had a list price of $199. It had automatic film loading, motorized film advance, auto rewind, as well as auto focus, automatically setting the film speed and auto flash. The K12 model came with an f/2.8 Ektar lens that is pretty sharp for this type of camera. One very interesting feature I thought was the power source that came supplied with the camera, which was a 9 volt lithium power pack that Kodak manufactured themselves and was reported to be good for 100 (24 exposure) rolls of film. A regular 9 volt alkaline battery could also be used, but didn't last as long. The camera and the battery both had a 3 year warranty. While it's considered a compact camera, its on the larger size, but it does have a neat cover that flips down over the lens. This cover, when flipped up serves as the flash and also turns on the power. Flipping it closed turns the camera off. Raising the flash up above the lens was reported to almost eliminate red eye that a lot of other cameras still suffered from at that point in time. The K12 has reasonably quick auto focus, especially with outdoor shots and even displays distance symbols in the viewfinder, based on focus performed by its infrared sensor. It even has a nifty self timer and tripod socket on the bottom. I think its a pretty neat camera and I have provided a few pictures below that were shot on Kodak Gold 200.

Kodak Signet 35, using Kodak p3200

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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

Looks like they are now both available on B&H's site: Kodak Professional Ektachrome E100 Color Transparency Film (120 Roll Film, 5-Pack) Kodak Professional Ektachrome E100 Color Transparency Film (4 x 5", 10 Sheets)

Pretty clean example you have there Rick! Mine isn't quite as nice looking, but it's such a nice camera to use.

Kodak Retina Reflex III

I have trimmed down 120 film to fit a Kodak Bull's Eye camera and used it recently to snap pictures at a friend's 50th birthday party. It really was a hoot to use with T-max 100 film with the clear M2 flashbulbs. For such a simple camera, all the pictures came out properly exposed.

The Medalist (I & II) if I recall, can't accept a trimmed down 120 spool in the supply chamber, so it may very well require a re-spooled roll of film, but I haven't personally tried it. The Chevron, on the other hand, can certainly accept the trimmed 120 spools, but it is a 6x6 camera and not 6x9. It too has a very nice Ektar lens. If you can use a pair of cuticle scissors, and a simple file to smooth the edges (sometimes the file isn't even needed), you can trim a spool. No real "knack" needed to trim plastic

I would't necessarily avoid American made cameras because they use 620 size film. Some of these 620 cameras can easily accept a trimmed down 120 film. It's only a minor inconvenience in my eyes that enables one to use some pretty fantastic cameras and lenses.

So I see that the Super 8 version is now on the B&H site now, but sadly out of stock. So glad to see they have it listed. The earlier version was such a lovely film when projected, I hope this new formula is just as nice. I was shocked at the price though! I hope this will drop if it sells well. KodakEktachrome 100D Color Transparency Film #7294 (Super 8, 50' Roll)

Aside from the 620 film, my favorite medium format TLR camera is the Kodak Reflex II. Pin-sharp 80mm f/3.5, 4-element dual Anastar lenses and the first TLR to employ the Fresnel lens. Was brighter than any other at the time.

I think I had a Kodak Instamatic 100 or some variant in the 80s when you could still readily buy 126 film in drug stores. I then later had a 110 camera. In high school I had a Canon Ftb that was bought used at a camera store in town with the 50mm and wide angle lenses. It served me well for a while until I bought myself a used Kodak Retina Reflex III that I used in college for a couple photo classes I took. I've had in repaired/cleaned once and it has performed well ever since. I still use it regularly. Hard to beat those Schneider lenses!

Here's a PDF of the new Technical Publication: http://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/prod/files/files/products/e4000_ektachrome_100.pdf