Looks to be in beautiful condition. I love the way focus falls away in simple lenses.
Box Cameras
-
A
- Thread starter blockend
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Want to Buy For parts/broken nikon bodies and lenses
- Started by Gram Nylén
-
For Sale FS: Beseler Printmaker 35 condenser head, Beseler 50mm lens and other parts
- Started by dirkfletcher
-
Sold FS: (broken) Horseman 6x12 Back
- Started by dirkfletcher
-
For Sale FS: Tamron 150mm f/6.3 Lens
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
Sold SOLD!
- Started by B.S.Kumar
Forum statistics
I sometimes forget that the first camera I was given (as opposed to the first I used) was a box camera. I would have been four years old...1977....so the camera would have been 20-30 years old. I think it was an Agfa, one with a vaguely art deco styling on the front rather like the Synchro Box I own now. My dad gave me one roll of Ilford FP4 to put through it before deciding that occasionally lending me his folding Zeiss-Ikon was safe.
Today I have two box cameras, inherited from a great aunt. A Kodak Brownie model 2a which I have dated to circa 1917 given the materials used and features. It's surprisingly good and capable of quite detailed photos. I also have an Agfa Synchro Box likely from the mid 50s which produces rather soft photos with the edges out of focus....but both work well. They do what they were supposed to do....provide near fool proof simply photography, reliably for many years. A century in the case of the Kodak.
Today I have two box cameras, inherited from a great aunt. A Kodak Brownie model 2a which I have dated to circa 1917 given the materials used and features. It's surprisingly good and capable of quite detailed photos. I also have an Agfa Synchro Box likely from the mid 50s which produces rather soft photos with the edges out of focus....but both work well. They do what they were supposed to do....provide near fool proof simply photography, reliably for many years. A century in the case of the Kodak.
Last edited:
These were taken with my Agfa Syncrho Box.....the City of London (November 2018), a long exposure at Monument tube station (Novermber 2018) and the view over London's Docklands (September 2017)
And these with the Kodak Brownie 2A in Sittingbourne and the Isle of Sheppey April 2018
By request, the Agfa Synchro Box was one of the cameras I took to my school reunion on a couple of days ago. Friends who had seen me posting about it on facebook wanted to see it in real life....far from a great camera but fool proof and it does look very cute. So I put a roll of Fomapan 400 through it as the weather was cloudy. I had Foma 100 and Ektar ready but the conditions were never really that bright. Camera performed flawlessly, and within it's limits gave some lovely photos. Lo-fi for the win.
As noted in #101, there's something about the way focus falls away in simple box cameras that doesn't occur in any other type. In your croquet match shot the roof and tree line evoke a certain period like nothing else. Because nothing is very sharp, but the subject is sharp enough within enlargement limits, relative sharpness draws the viewer in. Or maybe it's just me?
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
- Messages
- 29,832
- Format
- Hybrid
The Argus 35mm cameras ( A series ) were very similar to a box camera and produced the same types of photographs.
The effect may be due to the non-central image areas being soft.
Definitely the meniscus lens in the Synchro Box is very soft and not focused at the edges. I took a photo of the Monument in London last year with this camera and the top of the Momument was woefully fuzzy. But if one shoots with the subject in the centre, and let's face it these cameras were probably intended to take holiday snapshots of people, some deliberately artistic effects can be obtained.
I have a Kodak Brownie 2a which is decades older than the Agfa, but it achieves more sharpness and focus towards the edges.
I have a Kodak Brownie 2a which is decades older than the Agfa, but it achieves more sharpness and focus towards the edges.
Well, reading this thread, and the lack of air-conditioning in my place (that must be it?) made me buy an 1848 Ansco-Shur you-know-where, this morning!
It started, innocently enough, with looking for a source of 116 spools, cascading searches, and a website saying: "Oh, the Ansco-Shur is much better-looking!"
It started, innocently enough, with looking for a source of 116 spools, cascading searches, and a website saying: "Oh, the Ansco-Shur is much better-looking!"
Your first mistake was ever joining this website. I started of with one 35mm camera and was very happy. Then I joined APUG. I bought another 35mm camera so I could shoot black & white too. I inherited a Mamiya C330 with the 65mm, 80mm and 250mm lenses and every accessory for it known to mankind. I listened to what I saw on APUG and traded in the Mamiya for a Hasselblad, PME and a lens. Then I bought another lens. Another lens. Another lens. Development tanks. 4"x5" enlarger with a color head. A 32" wide print dryer. A Graflex Model D. More lenses. A Pacemaker Speed Graphic. More lenses. A Hasselblad SWC. A 500mm lens. A fisheye eye lens.
You poor soul you are so screwed and you still do not know it!
Hilarious!
We denizens of APUG are like the Greek sirens:
"... dangerous creatures who lure unsuspecting photographers with our enchanting tales of cameras and lenses... "
I KNOW that I own some box cameras that have not seen the light of day for years. I am not sure HOW I know because I haven't seen them in years...but I KNOW they are here somewhere...
Something I've noticed about box camera prints is how good they look within size limits. I had an album from the 1920s, 6 x 9 negatives contacted printed and the images had a large format quality. Photo finishers often enlarged 6 x 6 negatives to 3 x 3 inches, which is only a slight increase in size and they looked very good. Just how big they can be printed depends on personal taste and the quality of the lens. About 5 x 5" gives a good compromise between viewing and sharpness. Has anyone tried making large prints from a box camera? The Diana shots in Nancy Rexroth's iconic "Iowa" photo book are 4 x 4 inches. I've never seen Rexroth's work printed for exhibition, so I don't know how big they are framed.
My first camera passed to me by my Grandfather is a Brownie Model C, I can see it in the display cabinet as I type, probably made in the 1950s. I find the last bright viewfinders to be easy to use and clear. I know earlier ones were awful. Tried it out a few years back. Bit of a faff as it is 620.
Well it arrived, and is in pretty good shape.
I was able to reach the back of the lens to clean it.
The lens front is behind a light metal guard that swings away, and, of course, the shutter plane.
Any way I could I get to to the front of lens? Tear-down?
One of the things I like about box cameras is that they generally are very simple devices and just keep on doing their thing for many decades. My two box cameras are hardly the latest word in sophistication....and sure only the centre of the photo is truly in focus....but they were designed to take family photos and they still do that well. Once the limits of a camera are understood they can even be used for some artistic work like longer exposures and light painting. There's almost nothing to go wrong with a box camera....and thus most still function.
I think my friends at the school reunion were amazed that anything came out on film at all. As usual I had lots of questions as to where one can buy film these days.
I think my friends at the school reunion were amazed that anything came out on film at all. As usual I had lots of questions as to where one can buy film these days.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2010
- Messages
- 114
- Format
- Multi Format
I have and use an assortment of various box cameras over the years. I was given some old family photos that must have been made with some kind of box camera. The people that made these photos were farmers and ranchers in Kansas and Colorado in the 1930's and 40's and most likely would not own a very expensive camera. Some of the negatives measure 3&1/4 inch X 5&1/2 inch and are post card size. Does anyone have a guess as to what type of camera would have been used to make these photos ? I would like to scan these, but they are too large for the old Epson 3170 I still use.
Thanks for any help
Thanks for any help
I have and use an assortment of various box cameras over the years. I was given some old family photos that must have been made with some kind of box camera. The people that made these photos were farmers and ranchers in Kansas and Colorado in the 1930's and 40's and most likely would not own a very expensive camera. Some of the negatives measure 3&1/4 inch X 5&1/2 inch and are post card size. Does anyone have a guess as to what type of camera would have been used to make these photos ? I would like to scan these, but they are too large for the old Epson 3170 I still use.
Thanks for any help
Kodak 122 film, and possibly the Kodak #3A Autographic? The 3A was way before your time period, so maybe not.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2010
- Messages
- 114
- Format
- Multi Format
I think you are correct sir! According to the Kodak Brownie webpage there really was only one camera that would have a negative that size. The 3A folding Brownie. It was used to make contact prints for postcards. As for the time line,
I could be off some what. Also when the images were made, the camera could have been 10 or 20 years old already. Thanks very much !
I could be off some what. Also when the images were made, the camera could have been 10 or 20 years old already. Thanks very much !
There were also Kodak Premo pack film folding cameras that shot the 3.5 x 5.25 negative size as well as the Conley Kewpie 3A, one of the few, if not the only, box cameras to shoot this size, on an ever so slightly wider 125 film stock.
I was recently given a 50th Anniversay Kodak in beautiful condition and put some old Tmax 100 through it. Framing is a bit interesting. I used the impossibly tiny portrait viewfinder to get some idea of what might be in the frame and then rotated the camera to shoot, hoped for the best. Not bad for a 90-year old camera I'd say!
TMX 100 (expired 1997 if I remember correctly), developed in ID-11. These are just scans but I think the big negatives would print nicely.
TMX 100 (expired 1997 if I remember correctly), developed in ID-11. These are just scans but I think the big negatives would print nicely.
I think this Cameras focus is optimized at portrait distance, 6-9 feet. Doesn’t look like it likes infinity!
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |