Mystery Camera #4

[PGraham3]

Howdy, APUG! This one may be a tough, but I'm quite curious what this exact camera is. Any thoughts?
-Paul

 

[guangong]

Looks like a Retina.

 

[PGraham3]

Yeah, I was initially thinking it was a Retina. But not so sure.

 

[Kino]

Looks like a pre-war Retina II.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Retina II gets my vote.

 

[AgX]

I see at the helical that curved focusing knob of later models.
But such cannot be... It likely is due to a effect of reflection above that bolt-style knob.

 

[John Wiegerink]

The side by his right hand looks to squared off to be of the Retina family. Just a thought..........JohnW

 

[John Wiegerink]

Maybe that side isn't as squared off as it looks to me? if that's the case it's a Retina II (142), but I wouldn't bet on it. JohnW

 

[AgX]

In any case that photo is a evidence to the bias on german side towards 35mm photography.
A bias even prescribed for editorial photography by authorities before the war.

 

[John Wiegerink]

In any case that photo is a evidence to the bias on german side towards 35mm photography.
A bias even prescribed for editorial photography by authorities before the war.

Yes, as picky as the Germans are and were back then they had no problem adopting 35mm format for most tasks. We, on this side of the pond took a little more time to be convinced it was acceptable to adopt 35mm for professional work. JohnW

 

[John Koehrer]

There seems to be a step beneath the RW knob and the RF windows seem to be round though.

 

[AgX]

With my explanation above at #6 I'm sure it is a Retina II.
I mean, one must talk evidence good...

 

[John Wiegerink]

There seems to be a step beneath the RW knob and the RF windows seem to be round though.

John, the rangefinder window (actually the viewfinder window) is what puzzled me too. Looking at it as closely as I can I've come to the conclusion the window on the far left is not round, but actually rectangular. The lack of quality of the picture gives the illusion of a round window when in fact it's not. This picture of the soldier using the camera had to have been taken by a Japanese camera since a German camera would have done a much better job. Ha! Ha! JohnW

 

[AgX]

Of course one can talk evidence bad too...

 

[PGraham3]

Thanks for commenting! After a little more closer researching, I think it is indeed a Retina II with 90% certainty, Very cool!
Anyone ever shot one of these? Do they produce decent images?
-Paul

 

[MattKing]

There are lots of very fine Retina (and Retinette) cameras.
The Retinette 1b in my avatar is a very useful example.
And my Retina IIIc is very well behaved:

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Thanks for commenting! After a little more closer researching, I think it is indeed a Retina II with 90% certainty, Very cool!
Anyone ever shot one of these? Do they produce decent images?
-Paul

They had excellent lenses and were beautifully constructed. Image quality, presuming the lens is clean, as good as anything. Lovely little pocketable cameras, just beware of lightleaks in the bellows.

 

[PGraham3]

Nice detailed photo! Pretty cool!
I’m curious, without lens coatings, I wonder if it has good color rendering. Any thoughts?
-Paul

 

[AgX]

In any case that photo is a evidence to the bias on german side towards 35mm photography.
A bias even prescribed for editorial photography by authorities before the war.

Prescribed was not 35mm format but small-format, which even included 6x9 back then.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Nice detailed photo! Pretty cool!
I’m curious, without lens coatings, I wonder if it has good color rendering. Any thoughts?
-Paul

Coatings are not necessary to color rendering. I have many rolls of Kodachrome used with an uncoated lens, you'd never know it to look at them. There's a magical thing called a "lens hood".

 

[MattKing]

Nice detailed photo! Pretty cool!
I’m curious, without lens coatings, I wonder if it has good color rendering. Any thoughts?
-Paul

My Retina IIIc Retina Xenon f/s lens is a coated lens which performs very well with colour film.
The camera was introduced in 1954 after all.

 

[PGraham3]

Cool! Yeah, I’ve read about the Retina IIIc, and if I’m not mistaken, doesn’t this camera come with either a Xenon or Schneider lens?
If yes, just curious, is the Xenon or Schneider better than the other, and is one more rare than the other?

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Cool! Yeah, I’ve read about the Retina IIIc, and if I’m not mistaken, doesn’t this camera come with either a Xenon or Schneider lens?
If yes, just curious, is the Xenon or Schneider better than the other, and is one more rare than the other?

It came with either a Schneider Kreuznach Xenon or a Rodenstock Heligon, both 50 f:2 Gauss types. Mine with the Heligon was excellent, I doubt you'd see much difference between the two.

 

[Arklatexian]

Thanks for commenting! After a little more closer researching, I think it is indeed a Retina II with 90% certainty, Very cool!
Anyone ever shot one of these? Do they produce decent images?
-Paul

During my tenure as a camera store salesman, we sold several models of Kodak Retina cameras which I think, were all made in Stuttgart in what was then called West Germany.. All were capable of producing much better than "decent" images. All that I saw at the time had Schneider lenses. If a customer wanted something a bit better than Retinas, we showed them Leicas and Zeiss Conterexes. The Retinas were the equal of the Zeiss Contaflex cameras which we also sold.....Regards!

 

[MattKing]

The Schneider Xenon was found on cameras intended for sale in the North American market, while the Rodenstock Heligon was found on cameras intended for sale in the European (and rest of the world?) market.
Other differences probably included metric vs. non-metric markings.
I have never seen anything that would me think that one was better than the other.
EDIT: mine has the Schneider Xenon lens on it.