Antique Store Find - Kodak Flash Bantam

[Ariston]

I rarely see anything affordable at an antique store anymore, but I came across this little camera that I had never heard of - the Kodak Flash Bantam.

I could not believe how small it was, and just fell in love with the pop-out lens board design. I checked and all of the shutter speeds fired (maybe a little slow on the longer speeds), and the lens looked great, so I could not resist picking it up, since it was a decent amount below eBay prices.

From what I've read, it uses 828 film, which is essentially 35mm film without sprocket holes. I intend to pick up a roll of 828 off of eBay and tape some 35mm film to it to use.

If there is an easier way to make this camera use modern film, please let me know. If you have used one before, please let me know any tips or tricks, etc.

Here it is:

 

[Hunter_Compton]

Nice catch! These are nice and compact cameras in their own right. The lens may not be as nice as a Bantam Special, but they take sharp pictures.

Do check the bellows for holes, yours look good but it doesn't hurt to check. NOS ones are currently available if needed on eBay. If you want to use a cable release, you need a special long extension type, Kodak No.5 IIRC.

Taping 35mm film to backing paper is what I normally do, you get a rather pleasing 24x40mm semi-panoramic format if you crop off the image that overlaps the sprocket holes. Backing paper can also be made by cutting down 120 backing paper, the 6x4.5 numbers are close enough if you take a 35mm wide strip off that side.

Be aware that if you do use 35mm film on backing paper, you need to hold down the button on the back of the camera while winding. The 828 film format had a single perforation per frame for automatic frame indexing, using 35mm will cause the finger in the camera to drop into every sprocket hole, hence the need to hold down the button while winding.

The weakest link in the 828 film system is the spools, most are made of flimsy stamped metal and easily bent whereas early examples are milled. Treat them delicately.

Unperforated 35mm film used to be more widely available, Portra 160 unperforated used to be used in school portrait cameras and a few years back was being surplussed.

 

[MattKing]

828 was a really nice format - particularly if you shot Kodachrome slides!
Nice big (bigger than 135) frame size, nice 7:10 aspect ratio, and convenient short 8 exposure rolls.
A Kodachrome example, from 1961, that I have shared before:

 

[Ariston]

Nice catch! These are nice and compact cameras in their own right. The lens may not be as nice as a Bantam Special, but they take sharp pictures.

Do check the bellows for holes, yours look good but it doesn't hurt to check. NOS ones are currently available if needed on eBay. If you want to use a cable release, you need a special long extension type, Kodak No.5 IIRC.

Taping 35mm film to backing paper is what I normally do, you get a rather pleasing 24x40mm semi-panoramic format if you crop off the image that overlaps the sprocket holes. Backing paper can also be made by cutting down 120 backing paper, the 6x4.5 numbers are close enough if you take a 35mm wide strip off that side.

Be aware that if you do use 35mm film on backing paper, you need to hold down the button on the back of the camera while winding. The 828 film format had a single perforation per frame for automatic frame indexing, using 35mm will cause the finger in the camera to drop into every sprocket hole, hence the need to hold down the button while winding.

The weakest link in the 828 film system is the spools, most are made of flimsy stamped metal and easily bent whereas early examples are milled. Treat them delicately.

Unperforated 35mm film used to be more widely available, Portra 160 unperforated used to be used in school portrait cameras and a few years back was being surplussed.

Thank you! That is exactly the kind of advice I was hoping for.

828 was a really nice format - particularly if you shot Kodachrome slides!
Nice big (bigger than 135) frame size, nice 7:10 aspect ratio, and convenient short 8 exposure rolls.
A Kodachrome example, from 1961, that I have shared before:

View attachment 240091

Thank you Matt! I wish more people posted examples with their comments - a picture is worth a thousand words, after all. It is a bonus that I get to see another example of Kodachrome, which I am so sad I never got to use. That photo does in fact look sharper than a 35mm frame, to my eyes. Are you in the picture, by chance?

 

[BAC1967]

I recently picked up two of those along with two Bantam Specials at an estate sale. So far I have only shot one of the Specials but I do plan on shooting the Flash Bantam. I bought some 828 Tri-X From B&H but the numbers on the backing paper didn’t line up with the window. They still have some in stock. I cut down my own backing paper from 120 film, marked my own numbers and bought a bulk roll of unperforated 35mm ORWO UN54 on eBay to spool my own.

Kodak Flash Bantam by Bryan Chernick, on Flickr

 

[Ariston]

I recently picked up two of those along with two Bantam Specials at an estate sale. So far I have only shot one of the Specials but I do plan on shooting the Flash Bantam. I bought some 828 Tri-X From B&H but the numbers on the backing paper didn’t line up with the window. They still have some in stock. I cut down my own backing paper from 120 film, marked my own numbers and bought a bulk roll of unperforated 35mm ORWO UN54 on eBay to spool my own.

Kodak Flash Bantam by Bryan Chernick, on Flickr

Hi Bac,

I saw film on B&H, but it was $20... isn't it only 8 shots per roll?

I did not know you could get unperforated film on eBay. I am going to check that out, because the larger frame is appealing to me. Thanks!

 

[Hunter_Compton]

I saw some unperforated Orwo UN54 from a Japanese seller on eBay a few months back, but waited on whether to purchase any and never saw it again, perhaps Bryan was the lucky purchaser. If somebody has a current vendor of in-date material, I would also like to know. You can always cut down 120, but it is a bit of a pain if you don't have the right equipment.

I know the FFP folks offer this: https://filmphotographystore.com/pr...-100-ft-kodak-positive-microfilm-no-sprockets
But it's ISO 0.8 and produces a transparency when processed normally.

Here's a shot from my Bantam f/4.5, T-Max 100 (not my favorite film), they were making corn on the cob with the steam engine.

 

[wjlapier]

Some trial and error and you can spool some film to the 828 spools. Tape over the hole in the back. There is a locking piece--not sure what it's called--on the take up side of the camera. Put a tiny piece of rubber in there to keep it from moving so you can advance film freely. I advance one and half turns--no way to know exactly how much since you can't look at the film ( if you're not using backing paper ).

I have extra spools. I tape about a 24 exposure roll to one side and tape the other end to the take up side.





led[/url] by wjlapier, on Flickr

 

[MattKing]

Are you in the picture, by chance?

That is 5-6 year old me in the brown coat.
I don't think that you could say that a 28mm x 40mm Kodachrome slide would necessarily be sharper than a 135 (24mm x 36mm) Kodachrome slide, particularly in 1961. This is simply a good slide, taken with a very simple but good camera, in really good light.
Here is a photo of the type of camera that my Dad used to record a lot of my youth - a Kodak Bantam RF:

Sadly, the camera was replaced by my Dad with a Canon Ftb when 828 was discontinued, and the camera was discarded at some time thereafter.
Dad had the incredible advantage of being the customer service manager at a Kodak Canada processing lab. So having the film processed was simply a matter of going to the office, and adding the roll to the bag. That shot was taken in the very first year after the North Vancouver lab opened and my Dad and our family moved to British Columbia - Dad was one of six managers transferred to the west coast as part of that project. Dad worked there until his retirement in 1983.
The date of the slide makes it likely that is on the earlier 10 ASA Kodachrome, not the soon to be introduced 25 ASA Kodachrome II, but Dad did get to use trial films when the lab was setting itself up to process new products, so early Kodachrome II is possible.

 

[BAC1967]

Hi Bac,

I saw film on B&H, but it was $20... isn't it only 8 shots per roll?

I did not know you could get unperforated film on eBay. I am going to check that out, because the larger frame is appealing to me. Thanks!

Hopefully I didn’t buy the last roll of unperforated ORWO UN54, it was ezoxcorp, a Japanese seller. The seller has Other films for sale like ReraPan in 127. Maybe you could contact the seller and see if there is any left or if they can get more. I have seen it on eBay off and on for a few years. I think this is the same seller that shows it as out of stock on their web site. http://ezox.co.jp/asuca/en/product/orwo-un54-unperforated-size-135-33ft/.

It is only 8 shots for $20 but my I figured I was getting a spool, backing paper and a nice plastic can with the deal. Unfortunately the backing paper was a bit of a bust until I numbered it properly.

 

[AgX]

As a side note: what are those two marks in the film gate for? (see 3rd photo in post #8)

 

[Hunter_Compton]

The marks on the film gate are identification notches which allow you to tell which Kodak Bantam took a photo based on the notches on the negative.

These notches are only found on higher end Bantams. The Bantam f/5.6 has three notches, the f/4.5 and Flash Bantam have two notches, the Bantam RF has one notch centered and the Bantam Special has one notch in the corner of the film gate.

I do not know for sure, however I suspect the reason for this was it allowed Kodak to collect sales data about the Bantam cameras sold based on Kodachrome film returned for processing. It is worthy of note that the only cameras with notches in the film gate were also the only cameras Kodak advertised in conjunction with Kodachrome, and that until 1954 Kodak was the only processor of Kodachrome.

 

[Ray Morgenweck]

I’ve used respooled 35 mm using long expired Kodachrome rolls. After you strip off the old film, mark where it starts on the backing paper with a paper clip. In the dark strip off enough 35 to equal the length of the old 828 film. Tape it to the spot where the paper clip was. Wind it very tightly, and at the end of the film, tape it on. This keeps your 828 paper and numbers. I use mine in a Haneel TriVision, so sprocket holes don’t matter. They will in other 828 as mentioned earlier.

 

[Ariston]

I ordered some old 828 off of ebay for the spool. I read you can get about double the frames if you just use a leader, is this true?