Never heard of the Duo-Flex but sufficiently intrigued to look it up. Interesting historical association. How did the obscure Oswald link come to light?
I think Duo-Flex was a Kodak 127 camera or something.
<snip>
Also seized was his Minox 16mm camera, which is an unusual item for a man of his economic status to possess, a fact which has never been adequately explained.
The Kodak DuoFlex was a 6x6 on 620 "pseudo-TLR" -- similar waist-level bright-finder to some models of Lubitel. Finder didn't focus, even on the one version that had a focusing lens. I've got at least one DuoFlex (two, I think, one focusing and one not). This model (the fixed-focus DuoFlex II) was also the first camera I actually used, way back around 1966.
AFAIK, Minox never made a 16mm camera -- the iconic Minox used 9.2 mm film, taking an 8x11 frame. They were expensive cameras in the early 1960s, though, and it was very reasonable to view with suspicion someone just getting by, as Oswald was, having one.
Personally, I think he liked to fantasize about being a Russian agent.
Of course, conspiracy theorists like to believe he was a Soviet sleeper. Never mind that Soviet spies were much more likely to use Kiev cameras, Soviet copies of the compact Minolta 16 II with increased film capacity, focusing lens, and (in later versions) improved shutter. The 13x18 mm frame was almost triple the area of the Minox frame, and the camera wasn't much bigger.
No, they just had similar names and general designs.I have a nice KODAK Dua-Flex IV, it is 620 film and was fun to use. But that re-rolling of 120 onto 620 reels was too much for me. Were the two cameras related?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/carte...4xg-68FhDJ-68KmAJ-68FhM1-68B4BZ-68B4D6-68FhKq
The only time I've ever rerolled 120 onto 620 was for a camera (I've forgotten which) with a supply chamber that absolutely wouldn't accommodate the millimeter or so of extra length of a 120 spool trimmed for diameter. My recollection is that even the rather tight Reflex II accepts a trimmed 120 for supply, and my Argoflex has the supply caddy removed so a 120 drops right in. Brownie Hawkeye likewise takes a 120 supply without trimming.
Depends if it's a shooter or a collector's item.Hmm... now that you mention removing the supply caddy, I see that that would be possible on my Argoflex EF... I wonder if I should.
Definitely a shooter. I just developed some shots on expired Fuji 400 from the year I was born (if that tells you anything.) It's very sharp, but it's actually missing the little nameplates from the lenses, and the hood is in bad shape. I'm not a collector as such: I don't care about cosmetic defects, but I have very little interest in cameras that aren't usable. A broken camera to me is a defaced piece of art--someone may be interested in it, but I'm not. And as for ever selling my EF, really, what's it worth, thirty bucks?Depends if it's a shooter or a collector's item.
My question is, do you notice any lack of tension in the film that could cause it to wrinkle, with the caddy removed?
Yeah, I was corrected on the name above. Does yours perhaps have the lens in backwards? It is supposed to have the curved surface forward, much the contrary to what someone experienced with simple cameras would expect-- it is not a meniscus like on a Brownie.I have one, and the name technically is "Imperial Reflex" (but it has a "duo" lens).
View attachment 243520
Mine was in pretty good condition actually, and came with the original box and the flash attachment.
My main reason for purchasing it was for the exposed roll of film which was in it since I'm into the found film thing. I have only the images from that roll from which to make any comments about the camera's performance (haven't taken any of my own with it yet), but if they are any guide, the camera seems to produce images that are very soft all over, without any particular charming characteristics like vignetting or blurring only near the edges, etc. Having said that, the one image that was more or less in focus was a closeup, so it has me wondering if maybe this one had a bit of a focus issue.
View attachment 243519
It was my very first camera, at about age five... I also got to use my dad's Kodak Duoflex too.. I was too young to remember the one shown in the post above.
Oh... I have a Minolta 16. The last model, whatever it's called. I don't have it near me and I've never used it. Very compact little camera, with zone focus and aperture selection....@RLangham Do search YouTube for videos on cutting 120 down to 127. There's an Italian company with a 3-D printed device that makes it dead simple, but there's also one guy who uses a $3 cigar cutter (which he apparently has to replaced periodically). Also, don't throw away the strip left over after you cut your 127; it's 16 mm wide and if cut in half for length will work fine in a Minolta 16 camera (a Kiev 30 cassette will accept the whole strip, but the counter won't run long enough to run through it all).
Oh, then I was calling it by the right name! Yes, I have one, though I've mainly used a knife to cut a hole in the end of the odd cigar I've smoked.A cigar cutter is a device for cutting the end of the cigar wrapper where it goes in your mouth, so you can draw the smoke through it. If you get a cigar guillotine that accepts a finger or thumb in a hole at either end, with a hole for the cigar (roll of 120) in the middle that the blade cuts through, that's what the fellow on YouTube uses. Mark the film 46 mm from one edge, chosen so you keep the 6x4.5 number track (which will become the 4x4 track with a little extra spacing on the 127 -- the 6x6 track barely lines up with the 4x6 ruby window, as I recall), bring the blade of the cutter into the film backing with gentle pressure, and start rotating the film roll as you slowly increase pressure. You'll be able to feel when you reach the core.
Once cut, you'll go into a darkroom or dark bag to respool the wide strip onto a 127 spool (and then backward to another 127, so its oriented correctly); while in the dark, you can unwind the 16 mm strip, separate it from the backing, and put it into an old black plastic or metal film can for later use loading a 110, Minolta/Kiev 16, Yashica 16, or possible one or two other varieties of 16 mm film cassette (of a sort that doesn't need perfs).
The Minolta 16 QT is arguably the best camera in that line -- it's got a larger frame (13x18) than the 16, 16 II, and MG (10x14). If the meter works, it can be operated on a 3V lithium coin battery with a conductive spacer; if not, you can set the exposure manually (with a little trickery, as I recall). It's got a good lens, and is the only one of the Minolta 16 family that can be focused (the MG had fixed focus with a slide-in close-up lens, but it was four feet, or hyperfocal). I like my Kiev 30 best -- it's the tiny form factor of the Minolta 16 II, but has a focusing lens and somewhat broader shutter speed range. No flash sync, though; you need a Kiev 303 for that (and give up some middle shutter speeds). None of these depend in any way on sprocket holes, so they work fine with unperforated film, or single-perf loaded with the perfs toward the cassette bridge (though the Kievs will run the image into the edge of the sprockets with single perf film).
I do wonder why you say it takes trickery to set exposure on the QT. That is the model I have now that I've fished it out, and it seems to change between fast and slow speed and adjust the aperture perfectly without a battery.
Maybe I'm conflating that model with the 16 MG -- which controls shutter and aperture all with one dial, connected to the (usually bad, by this late date) selenium cell light meter. Setting to "flash" locks the shutter at 1/30 to let you shoot at higher shutter without closing down the aperture. My MG and QT are both at the other end of the house. BTW, the other Minolta with the larger frame is the MGs, which I recall being less versatile than the QT.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?