Does anyone else have experience with Imperial Duo-Flex?

Brentwood Kebab!

A
Brentwood Kebab!

  • 0
  • 0
  • 21
Summer Lady

A
Summer Lady

  • 0
  • 0
  • 24
DINO Acting Up !

A
DINO Acting Up !

  • 0
  • 0
  • 17
What Have They Seen?

A
What Have They Seen?

  • 0
  • 0
  • 26
Lady With Attitude !

A
Lady With Attitude !

  • 0
  • 0
  • 30

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
198,757
Messages
2,780,503
Members
99,700
Latest member
Harryyang
Recent bookmarks
0

RLangham

Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2020
Messages
1,018
Location
USA
Format
Multi Format
This is the make of camera that Lee Harvey Oswald's wife used to photograph him with his gun some time before the crime. I don't have a picture of mine, but I've had some nice shots shooting Ektar 100 in summer daylight. One is attached. I find it pleasantly soft but with some detail in the center of the field, and with the Ektar at least, very saturated and bright.

Has anyone else had good lo-fi experiences with this one?
 

Attachments

  • 46750003e.jpg
    46750003e.jpg
    951.4 KB · Views: 174

Valerie

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 22, 2005
Messages
1,195
Location
Magnolia, Tx
Format
Multi Format
Nice photo!
I have one of these cameras, but its been years since I shot anything with it. As I recall, images were soft, but not as blurry/distorted as a Holga.
Thanks for the reminder.... I think it will be coming off the shelf again very soon! :smile:
 

blockend

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
5,049
Location
northern eng
Format
35mm
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?
 
OP
OP

RLangham

Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2020
Messages
1,018
Location
USA
Format
Multi Format
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?

Actually, my apologies, I just realized I got the name of the camera wrong. It's the "Imperial Reflex Duo Lens." I think Duo-Flex was a Kodak 127 camera or something.

I believe that it's been known that Oswald's wife owned this camera since the initial investigation. As I recall, it was seized and I suppose they developed the film and saw that there was a blurry photograph of him in his backyard with the rifle. It's in a museum with his other possessions. I've seen a picture.

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.

As for looking it up, it might be well worth it if you can acquire one cheap. I enjoy the results, and it's a fun camera to use.
 

Donald Qualls

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
12,293
Location
North Carolina
Format
Multi Format
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.
 
OP
OP

RLangham

Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2020
Messages
1,018
Location
USA
Format
Multi Format
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.

I didn't know that about the Minox. But yes, it is odd that he owned it. Personally, I think he liked to fantasize about being a Russian agent.
 

Donald Qualls

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
12,293
Location
North Carolina
Format
Multi Format
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.
 
OP
OP

RLangham

Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2020
Messages
1,018
Location
USA
Format
Multi Format
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.

I had forgotten that Kiev made such a thing. But yes, he really had it bad for the Soviet Union. He tried to emigrate and even the immigration officials said "why would you want to live here?" So he came home after a couple years. I don't think the Russians wanted anything to do with him, to be honest.
 
OP
OP

RLangham

Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2020
Messages
1,018
Location
USA
Format
Multi Format
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
No, they just had similar names and general designs.

It's funny you say that about not liking to reroll, though, because rerolling 620 is a relaxing and automatic task for me. I used to get boxes of five Ektar 100 rolls for $30 and do them all in a changing bag in one sitting so I could use them for my Medalist.... good times. I got almost LF quality from some of those shots.
 

Donald Qualls

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
12,293
Location
North Carolina
Format
Multi Format
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.
 
OP
OP

RLangham

Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2020
Messages
1,018
Location
USA
Format
Multi Format
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.

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.
 

Donald Qualls

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
12,293
Location
North Carolina
Format
Multi Format
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.
Depends if it's a shooter or a collector's item.
 
OP
OP

RLangham

Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2020
Messages
1,018
Location
USA
Format
Multi Format
Depends if it's a shooter or a collector's item.
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?

My question is, do you notice any lack of tension in the film that could cause it to wrinkle, with the caddy removed?
 

Donald Qualls

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
12,293
Location
North Carolina
Format
Multi Format
My question is, do you notice any lack of tension in the film that could cause it to wrinkle, with the caddy removed?

The pressure plate does a good job, in my experience. I've only shot a couple rolls in mine; too many cameras, not enough film budget and time. If you're concerned about it, you could glue/tape a small piece of foam into the supply chamber to supply friction, but I don't think there was much friction originally with a 620 spool in the caddy.
 

Denverdad

Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Messages
316
Location
Superior, Co
Format
Medium Format
I have one, and the name technically is "Imperial Reflex" (but it has a "duo" lens).
camera.jpg


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.

05_800.jpg
 
OP
OP

RLangham

Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2020
Messages
1,018
Location
USA
Format
Multi Format
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
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.
 

AndyH

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
451
Location
New England
Format
Medium Format
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.
 

Attachments

  • Herbert-George-Imperial-Reflex-Flash-127.jpg
    Herbert-George-Imperial-Reflex-Flash-127.jpg
    41.7 KB · Views: 90
OP
OP

RLangham

Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2020
Messages
1,018
Location
USA
Format
Multi Format
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.

I have a seafoam Imperial Satellite 127 that a guy gave me. It has the same lower moulding as your Imperial Reflex Flash (back, lens, shutter, et cie), but a small telescope viewfinder and a much lower top with flash sockets. There was also a camera called the Mark 27 based on the same chassis with a built-in flashgun behind a garage door in the upper half instead of a reflex finder.

If I were a campier sort I'd wear it as an accessory, but it's quite useless. I work in a factory, I can't afford 127 film!
 

Donald Qualls

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
12,293
Location
North Carolina
Format
Multi Format
@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).
 
OP
OP

RLangham

Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2020
Messages
1,018
Location
USA
Format
Multi Format
@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... 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....

I'll look into that. I am somewhat mystified as to what a cigar cutter is in this context, since I've been calling a cigar guillotine that my whole life... it is something to cut a cigar down in length?
 

Donald Qualls

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
12,293
Location
North Carolina
Format
Multi Format
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).
 
OP
OP

RLangham

Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2020
Messages
1,018
Location
USA
Format
Multi Format
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).
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.

That sounds almost absurdly easy for what you get out of it. I'll have to try it.

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.
 

Donald Qualls

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
12,293
Location
North Carolina
Format
Multi Format
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.
 
OP
OP

RLangham

Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2020
Messages
1,018
Location
USA
Format
Multi Format
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.

Ah, yeah, that's not the QT. It's the one with a rotary switch for 1/250th and 1/30th next to a thumbwheel for aperture, with a button alongside it to activate the meter, I presume.

I bet the depth of field on this camera is incredible... 23mm is a little narrow for such a tiny format, but it's still the shortest lens I own by five milimeters. I wonder at what aperture and zone it has hyperfocus.
 
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:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom