wow, that's reasonably amazing. what film?I have several pre-war Kodak Retinas, including the No. 117, the very first one made by Kodak A. G. in Stuttgart. These cameras were made to give photographers a Kodak camera that was more in the league of Leica and others of quality and excellent craftsmanship, not just another "Brownie". If I remember correctly, the No. 117 Retina sold in 1934 for $57 USD, which translates into about $1100. in current dollar value. This was not a cheap camera! The Schneider Xenar f3.5 lens is very capable, even by today's standards - I still use my early Retinas and find them fun to use, and they deliver good results, as long as you are aware of their limitations and the lens characteristics (choose an appropriate film and process it accordingly). Here's a decent example of what the Schneider Xenar lens on a Retina No. 118 can do:
View attachment 258208
Guess the question of the OP relates to medium format camera's; the Retinas were not built for that format and all for 135mm film.I have several pre-war Kodak Retinas, including the No. 117, the very first one made by Kodak A. G. in Stuttgart. These cameras were made to give photographers a Kodak camera that was more in the league of Leica and others of quality and excellent craftsmanship, not just another "Brownie". If I remember correctly, the No. 117 Retina sold in 1934 for $57 USD, which translates into about $1100. in current dollar value. This was not a cheap camera! The Schneider Xenar f3.5 lens is very capable, even by today's standards - I still use my early Retinas and find them fun to use, and they deliver good results, as long as you are aware of their limitations and the lens characteristics (choose an appropriate film and process it accordingly). Here's a decent example of what the Schneider Xenar lens on a Retina No. 118 can do:
View attachment 258208
Well, it was still a nice write up and nice to read...Guess I’ll delete my post then.
Guess the question of the OP relates to medium format camera's;
Guess I’ll delete my post then.
It would be a reasonable guess that the OP might not have expected to find any pre WWII 135 cameras that would have been widely used.Well, it was still a nice write up and nice to read...
I fully agree - no need for deletion...and it was only a wild guess of mineIt would be a reasonable guess that the OP might not have expected to find any pre WWII 135 cameras that would have been widely used.
So paulbarden merely increased the cameras worth knowing about.
I fully agree - no need for deletion...and it was only a wild guess of mine
With the photos I have seen you take with the Retinas I would love to read what you wroteGuess I’ll delete my post then.
The answer depends on geography. Don't forget that the second largest division of Kodak was in England, and that over the years there were many international Kodak subsidiaries.So I'm guessing kodak was more "mainstream" vs the Zeiss/voigtlander folders? Or is this more a US/europe thing?
Kodak cameras were typically aimed at a wide consumership, everywhere in the world.So I'm guessing kodak was more "mainstream" vs the Zeiss/voigtlander folders? Or is this more a US/europe thing?
P.S., I've used pre-WWII Retinas as bicycling cameras, the 50/2 Xenon (licensed TTH design, I believe) is a fine lens.
Kodak cameras were typically aimed at a wide consumership, everywhere in the world.
I am not sure whether this shop window is representative.This isn't in the U.S., but gives a good idea of what was displayed in shop windows in pre-WWII Germany.
The two big ones are no classic box cameras.
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?