jason_withers

The Chevron was another interesting Kodak camera of the 1950s, and one of the most beautiful I think. I've never used one or seen one in person.

And it looks an awful lot like a miniature Kodak Chevron to me....

In 1951 this was a pretty advanced camera and as you can see, its still capable of great images in the right hands. Kodak cameras seem to get a bad rap from folks in the forum, but I love their quirky nature and very different looks from most other cameras of the time. Those Luminized lenses were superb. I haven't seen a 1950's review of this camera, but it would be interesting to see what reviewers had to say back then. Mike Eckman has a good review of the camera here: http://www.mikeeckman.com/2016/02/kodak-signet-35-1953/

I wouldn't overthink this too much. Kodak's Storage and Care of KODAK Photographic Materials guidelines are a good rule: http://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/uat/files/wysiwyg/pro/cis_e30.pdf They state this regarding storage of negatives: "Protect negatives from light. Light affects photographic dyes; for short-term storage, put negatives in a dark place—metal drawers or file boxes, for example. Metal is better than wood or plastic because wood and plastic may contain preservatives or volatile substances that can affect the negatives." They aren't accounting for floods occurring, but if you are that worried about storing negatives in your lab, perhaps you should rent an offsite location for storage with little to no risk of water damage.

The colors of Velvia seemed a bit exaggerated/punchy to me. Elite chrome and the previous Elite II films for instance appeared more true to life to my eyes.

This is a good idea....somewhere that air can circulate.

Sometimes trimming the 120 spools works well. But in some cameras, you may need to file down the thickness of the spool itself in order for it to turn freely in the camera.

I hope Kodak doesn't keep us waiting too much longer! Was exciting news when I first heard about this early last year. But it should be worth the wait. I always felt Kodak had superior film offerings to Fuji, especially with reversal films.

If someone in the family had a bit more money to spend, they may have opted for something like the Kodak Reflex II. This too was designed for 620 film and had one of the sharpest lenses available for a TLR camera.

Will be interesting to see how something this size compares to say a full-frame digital camera. Most cell phones have such tiny lenses, the results are likely only able to be so good.... hard to tell from those examples they showed on the website.

Kodak Ektra phone, Yorktown Virginia

HAHA!

@davecaz - Yes, I double checked that they are indeed flash cubes and not the magic cubes. I tried other ones and could not get any to fire. However, I was able to get my electronic flash to fire. Using the f/1.9 lens, I had to set the f-stop to f/11 or 22 before it would do so, so the electronic eye on the camera is controlling that aspect it seems.

Pictures in Washington DC, shot last summer on Elite Chrome Extra Color, taken with my Minolta 300si camera No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 The following were also taken last summer in Richmond Va, near the James River; shot on Elite Chrome Extra color, using my Kodak Retina Reflex III. No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 No. 4 No. 5

I really wish that the Lomo group would bring back 126 cartridges due to the plethora of cameras around. It seems to make much more sense than the 110 film, which they have. The 110 size was so small that most attempts at enlargements were useless. Of course, not all 126 cameras were of quality and the issue of the film not laying perfectly flat was a real problem in some.

Thanks chuck! Yeah, I thought too that the camera exposure system was thinking it had sufficient light so it didn't fire the flash, but I altered the f-stop and it still didn't fire indoors at night with 100 speed film (which is strange). The instruction manual does say the batteries are needed for exposure and to fire the flashcubes, but when I tested per the manual they checkout out ok ( the needle moves down between 1/250 and 1/500). Perhaps I'll try replacement batteries anyways to see if this solves the problem as well as try a slower lens. Of course the PX825 batteries are no longer available, but I can probably find a suitable replacement. On the plus side, the camera does have a cold shoe so I can attach an electronic flash to use instead.

Last week, I purchased some long-expired Kodacolor II film for my Kodak Instamatic Reflex camera. I've had the camera for many years but never taken any actual pictures with it. I'm not through the first role yet, but I have a question about using flashcubes with this camera (I have a bunch of the cubes I would like to eventually use). I figured that the flashcube would fire regardless of the speed of the film in the camera, but that does not appear to be the case. The manual I have says that the flash is used for films with ASA speeds of 64, 80, or 125. The Kodacolor II film is a speed of 100 according to the box. Then I thought well when the Instamatic Reflex camera came out in the late 60s, Kodacolor II film may not have been around and there were no 100 speed 126 size films perhaps. Can anyone confirm that the camera only fires the flash with specific speed films? I realize that the results of the pictures from these expired rolls might be really bad, but I thought it would still be fun to try out and sometimes you can get some funky results with expired film. Was pretty cheap so I thought I would give it a try. The old mercury batteries that came in the camera when I got it are still working believe it or not and the meter on the Kodak camera is still very accurate when compared to other cameras. When I get this camera out, I'm always amazed at the build quality. I am thinking it was probably the top of the line 126 camera in its day. I read somewhere that it was about $200 in 1968 or so, which sure wasn't cheap! Even if the pictures don't turn out, I still think it's an awesome looking camera and a great conversation piece! Thanks!

Well, instead of using Delta 3200, you can in the future switch Kodak T-Max 3200.

I have been wondering the same thing. Last time I checked, there were no further updates from Kodak.

That's not really a true statement. They have provided me product support on items that were at least that old if not older, in the past. They are very good about notifying the public about the discontinuance of items via their website and/or press releases. Why should they be obligated to provide support after they discontinue a product? When my Kodak camera malfunctioned (about 40 years later), I didn't try to get support from them..I had to seek alternate resources for the repairs. Granted that was a film camera. Digital cameras are entirely different as they are so outdated/irrelevant within a few years. I love anything Kodak and we are all fortunate they are still around producing film in this day and age.

I received one of these as gift once but sold it shortly thereafter. While the lenses were nice, I just could not get excited about he look of this camera or any of the Canon lines from that time period. To me, it looked like just about every other camera made around then.

If the weather is nice, I may take out my Kodak Reflex II TLR camera. Though I have a few shots left on a roll of Elite Chrome in the Reflex III SLR.

<p>Hopefully the Super 8 stock version of Ektachrome will also come back.</p>

<p>Great news! I've missed Ektachrome and have been saving my last 5-pack of the 35mm Extra Color version in the freezer for a few years now.</p>

<p>I honestly prefer the look and ease of finding things with the current (older) version. It's simple and easy to use and best of all, current users know where to find information. I also think that new users can easily find content. I personally am more interested in the content that people type here and the discussions that ensue versus flashy pictures/new forum headings. The 2.0 release, like most any other website with enhancements, has bugs to work out; that's usually understood, but it was a bit of a shock to say the least. <br> Change is not always for the better. </p> <p> </p>