Hi there.

Just joined this group owning and having owned a number of folders in my time. These include, currently, an Ensign 12/20 and 820 plus an Ansco Vest Pocket No. 2. I picked up the Ansco and the 820 recently at the local auction house here in Dunedin, NZ as a job lot including an Instamatic 104. Others have included an Ensign 16/20 and an 11-on Super Ikonta. I deeply regret letting the Zeiss go.

When comparing the new acquisition with an 820 I sold a few years back and with the illustrations in a copy of the manual I have seen on line, there are variations between them. Going by the lens numbers visible, the 1949 manual shows four digits, as does my earlier camera, while the later camera shows six digits. From this I deduce that my first one was made early in the production run and the second one much later in the 1950s.

The frame counter windows also vary. The manual illustration and the recent camera having them together in a frame while the earlier one has them separate and staggered, matching the film backing paper. This is the opposite to what I would have expected.

Probably of no interest whatsoever, but I thought I might see if there is any comment. The main thing is that I will be using the 820 now that I have re-attached the back door, the rivets securing the hinge having failed. The post war Ensigns were great cameras and struggled to survive once UK import restrictions were removed in the 1950s.

I have uploaded some images to the gallery showing the differences and an example taken with my earlier camera.

I have had 2 Ensign 820's and yes, the earlier ones had the 2 ruby windows one above the other, which was a pain , but they altered the spacing , I also have a Ensign selfix 820 special which has a buolt in but uncoupled rangefinder, I also have anEnsign Commando, which was a development of the wartime forces camera, but did not sell well after the war and was discontinued in around 1950/51, and a 12.20, autorange 16/20 and selfix 16/20, I use them all, they were great cameras and very solidly built, and the Ross xpress lens is subern, much better than the Tessar, from what I have managed to find out another thing that led to the closure of Ensign in the early sixties was that they refused to believe that 35mm could be any good and refused to make one, the ''minture'' camera they made was the 16/20's 645 cameras, I also have a lot of German folders from Zeiss, franka baldas Ect and use them alongside my newer cameras,
Richard

Hi Richard - You clearly appreciate these cameras too. I have just restored (and sadly sold on) another 820 with the red windows grouped together and rather Deco styled but I didn't find it a problem. Both of the lenses on the ones I have had were very sharp and you are probably right about the comparison with the Tessar. I have had a Super Ikonta and a Rolleiflex with Tessars and they seem to me to be a bit more contrasty than the Xpres which can give the impression of more sharpness, but the Xpres gives better modelling I think. The 16/20 was a great carry around camera, but could be painful if you forgot to wind on!
Ensign made a 127 model in the 30s, which used narrower film than 120 but that was as close as they came to 35mm. It was an interesting design though. They certainly were head in the sand when it came to miiature cameras. Typical British pre-war attitude I guess.
The pre- and post-war cameras have a quality completely lacking in more modern offerings and are much more satisfying to use. The Albada finders fitted to most of the Selfixes I particularly like, wearing glasses all the time these days. The next best thing was the Voigtländer suspended frame type I have on my Vitomatic, which is life size and allows botheyes to be kept open.
Tony.