jason_withers

- No, that's just old.

The word vintage implies something old that has some inherent merit or superiority due to its age, such as a particular year of wine or model of car. Not all old wine is vintage, and the same applies to old cameras.

 

Garbage is still garbage, no matter how old it gets.

The Instamatic cameras definitely weren't garbage. Some were better than others of course but Kodak sold them for years and they were very successful for them. It was even successful enough for them to produce the Kodak Instamatic Reflex camera, which put almost every other model instamatic camera to shame. With the thousands of instamatics still around, you think that someone would think it was worthwhile enough to manufacture 126 film.

Nice! I'll have to check that out. So, I got to thinking, what cameras do climbers nowadays take with them up in those high mountainous regions?

I came across an interesting read on the Luminous Landscape website. It's a pretty comprehensive guide with good suggestions; however, it is several years old being from 2011. The pictures in the article are both beautiful and terrifying!

Mountain Climbing Photography - Luminous Landscape

Rick Drawbridge said:

 

Where on earth did "Vincent" come from! Sorry, Jason, it must be too many coffees catching up with me...

Haha. No worries :)

I very much like the Ektar lens on the camera. But you are right; I don’t think it ever had the same kind of reputation as the ones on the Medalists. Though I’m not sure how the two compare side by side. They both seem very capable of nice images.

So I finally had time to scan some negatives from some recent pictures I took with the Chevron. I picked up an Epson V550 scanner on sale last week and wanted to post the results. I've never used a flat bed scanner before and have a lot to learn about the various settings. I scanned the negatives at 600dpi.

Hope you enjoy. I think the Ektar lens gives the photos an interesting look!

No. 1 - These were taken with Illford Pan F Plus

No. 2

No. 3

No. 4

No. 5

No. 6

Devils Tower

[ATTACH=full]1261194[/ATTACH]

Did you happen to see this while there? :)

Jason, could you tell us more about your experiences with Dynax cameras? I think the sleek Minolta design you see in the 9Xi and family is very impressive but the Dynax 9 is a bit of a brute but a good looking one, perhaps more Mr. Schwarzenegger than pretty. The manual X700 and lens in Olympic guise is the prettiest camera I own. They were a good company. All the best, Charles.

Well, I never actually used one of the Dynax cameras, just thought they were impressive looking when they used to sell them in Ritz Camera. When Kodak released their P-series digital cameras, I tried the P880 out versus the Konica-Minolta DiMage A2. I picked the P880 ultimately over the A2, but always thought the DiMage series were nice. A couple years ago, I picked up an A2 in great shape for cheap.

Like many others here, I suspect, I didn't know there was such a division, that Kodak owned it, or much of anything else.

Flexography - Wikipedia

 

I guess the last person to leave will shut the door.

Flexography is an interesting process, I had to look it up as well....

Kodak Announces Plans to Sell Its Flexographic Packaging Division

“Following this transaction, Kodak’s improved capital structure will allow us to increase our focus on demonstrated growth engines, while continuing to invest in and provide solutions across the commercial printing, film, and advanced materials industries,” said Clarke.

"Kodak also announced it had entered into a non-binding letter of intent for a $400 million, 18-month loan with an existing term loan lender which would refinance its existing term debt, which would permit the company to pursue the sale process of FPD in a thoughtful manner in order to achieve maximum value for shareholders. Net proceeds from the sale of FPD will first be used to repay this loan."

Glad to see they are still focusing on film as well.

And there was a time when cameras that cocked the shutter when the film was advanced were labeled as "automatic cameras."

And some that would advance the film for you!

Good luck with it. My own, one only, 620 camera is a Kodak Jiffy 620, for which the trimming the spool idea didn't work out.

 

Its similarity to the Kodak Signet 35 is not a positive in my book.

 

I wouldn't say that the styling of Kodak and Zeiss cameras of the time was a factor in the eventual 'triumph' of Japanese cameras, but the look and the need to cock shutters separately and such surely didn't help either.

Yeah, it was too bad really, though the price point of the Chevron may have been a factor too as $215 was a lot of money in 1953. I much prefer the Kodak and Zeiss styles. Are manually cocked shutters less prone to failure as a whole versus those that cock as you wind the camera? Are there more or fewer moving parts with each type?

Actually it is a very Steampunk looking camera - almost a holdover from Art Deco. It has a strange appeal!

Yes! I think its a very odd and beautiful looking camera!

Very nice looking Chevron. Did you spool the Ektar onto a 620 spool, buy the film already spooled, or was your camera converted (if that's possible) to take 120? Regardless, the Chevron is a very capable camera and well worth the effort to keep it supplied with film. I look forward to seeing your results.

Actually, all I did was trim the 120 plastic spool ends of the ektar film with some cuticle scissors and it fit perfectly on the supply side. I did of course have to use a 620 take up spool, but I had several of those already. I has seen a while back somewhere the mention that the Chevron would not accept 120 films since the supply chamber was too snug, but it has ample space and it turned very smoothly once trimmed down. This seems much easier to do than having to respool film.

You did it! Really beautiful, Jason, a great-looking specimen , and now you have me really lusting after one. Please post some images when you receive your films back.

Yes, hopefully they turn out well!

Hi David. It was on eBay actually a few weeks back. And I don’t think anyone else bid on it. The original case it came with was in bad shape and completely unusable, except for the bottom half, so I found the newer case as a replacement. I usually have seen them with very high unrealistic prices on eBay and other sites and have always passed them up, but glad I found one for a decent price this time.

Yeah, I’ll let y’all know how the pictures turn out!

So I finally managed to buy a camera that I have been wanting for a while and found one a few weeks ago that appeared to be in decent shape. A Kodak Chevron! It is number 001018, so I am guessing it may be from the first batch in 1953? Not sure how many of these were produced through 1956. I also managed to score a case for the camera which is in nice condition.

I went into this search knowing that the Synchro-Rapid 800 shutter on these models has been reported to be problematic and old cameras can have other issues after 60 some years.

Upon arrival, the camera was a bit dirty but I managed to shine it up so it’s pretty presentable now. I love the styling of this camera and it feels solid in the hands. The viewfinder is a bit small, but I like that the rangefinder is in the same view (just sits slightly below) so it’s convenient to see both.

To my surprise, the shutter works through all the speeds and they seem accurate to the ear, but hard to say for sure. The viewfinder is slightly cloudy but still very usable. I did notice very very slight fog in the Ektar lens but overall is very nice. I ran a couple rolls of Ektra 100 through it but haven’t receive the prints back yet. I am hopeful they turned out!

Anyways, I wanted to share some pics of the camera with everyone!

<p>He also looks at the Kodak Retina Reflex III.</p>

<p>Retina-Test-1-sm<br /><br />Retina-Test-1-sm<br /><br /></p>

I know this is an older post, but I just came across it and was glad to see a nice/positive review of the Kodak Retina Reflex III back in 1962, when the camera was only a year or so old. I was happy to see that the reviewer liked some of the ergonomic features of this camera (I always thought they were great)!

A look inside the factory

 

Look inside the factory where Kodak Ektachrome is (re)born

How cool to see what the facility looks like!

Wow! Their control room still have a lot of CRT monitors in use. I've been to many industrial control room (being in the industrial automation business) over the years the CRT monitors have gone. Even some factory have old DOS based machines the monitors are LCD now.

I guess no need to change what works!

Here are all three beauties together! (Chevron, Signet 35, Medalist) (adapted from mike eckman's page)

http://www.mikeeckman.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/KodakFamily-1.jpg

Whereas I think my Miranda G, with the T viewfinder, is one of the prettiest cameras I own. :)

See.....to each his/her own I guess :)

 

"Hmm. I went and searched it out, and didn't see anything I'd call beautiful. But, it's all in the eye... Maybe you saw different photos than I saw."

 

I think around that time, Kodak had the best looking cameras of anyone else. The Chevron has very nice lines, especially when you compare it to say an Exakta reflex. That was such a plain Jane looking camera.