Pre WWII cameras ?

[GarageBoy]

Just found a Kodak No 1 series iii that my father probably picked up at a flea market for cheap decades ago, and I was wondering, what was the camera market like in the pre war period?

I'm guessing cheap box cameras were the "everyman's" camera, but who would be the ones buying these art deco kodak folders? What cameras were considered "top of the line"? What did pros use? Or did they just stick with 4x5 and roll film wasn't even on their radar?

 

[Donald Qualls]

Most cameras like the Kodak folders were still "consumer" cameras, just not bottom end ones. Some "better" cameras looked very similar; the differences were in the lens in most cases. A Kodak might have a fixed focus meniscus at f/11 to f/16, while a better camera, even as far back as 1927, would have (like my Voigtlander Rollfilmkamera from 1927) a unit focusing Skopar at f/4.5. In other words, some were more like the box cameras, and others more closely approached the press and professional cameras -- the distinction began to blur once the Depression started easing up and more people had more money beyond just keeping a roof and food.

 

[AgX]

Box-cameras and cameras with same features, but different design were the main consumer cameras still postwar in Europe.

 

[summicron1]

the pros back in the 20s and 30s used Graflex and speed graphic cameras, or the Zeiss/Voigtlander versions thereof.

The consumer market was, as now, all over the place. While the box camera was ubiquitous, there were also better-grade consumer cameras made by Kodak and others -- I've been shooting with my dad's 1932 Six-16 art deco and getting wonderful results -- it has a very good lens and workable-but-limited shutter and gives amazing results. You can link to my blog on it here: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/using-the-lovely-kodak-six-16.178750/

 

[summicron1]

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

wow, that's reasonably amazing. what film?

 

[Ron (Netherlands)]

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.
Since the film in those days was not so fine grained as we used to have as from the sixties, most pros that were in need of high resolution, shot with plate camera's: the many photo journalists took 4x5 inch or (in continental Europe) 9x12 cm and even bigger sized camera's (10x15 cm).

 

[Ron (Netherlands)]

Guess I’ll delete my post then.

Well, it was still a nice write up and nice to read...

 

[MattKing]

Guess the question of the OP relates to medium format camera's;

Guess I’ll delete my post then.

Well, it was still a nice write up and nice to read...

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.
So paulbarden merely increased the cameras worth knowing about.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Even so -- Kodak, Agfa/Ansco, and even Zeiss made box cameras from (well) before 1920 into the 1950s (Kodak sold models that could be called box cameras after 1960). Yet there were also very good roll film cameras pretty early -- Nagel Vollenda predated the Retina, from the same designer; 3x4 on 127, 16 frames, choice of lenses ran up to top quality level, and Compur-Rapid shutters were offered -- and it folded to go in a pocket. I've already mentioned my Voigtlander Rollfilmkamera, 6x9 on 120. My Super Ikonta B, though a post-War built unit, is a pre-War design, identical to the ones sold in 1938 (except for having a flash sync). A 6x6 folder, coupled RF, frame counter and double exposure interlock; red window used only to start the counter.

 

[Kino]

Here's an interesting overview of cameras by decade: http://licm.org.uk/livingImage/1930Room.html

Its by no mean exhaustive, but a good sampling of cameras.

 

[Ron (Netherlands)]

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.
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

 

[summicron1]

I fully agree - no need for deletion...and it was only a wild guess of mine

perhaps the OP will be interested to know that during the 30s the standard pro camera was the Speed Graphic in the US ... so standard that when some photographers started bringing their brand new Leicas to work they were told to put that damn toy away and use a REAL camera.

Several folk thought about that and concluded that the editor only saw the finished print, not the camera he was using, so snuck the Leicas along. They were especially good for jobs that involved climbing up on the San Francisco bridges being built, for example.

 

[Alex Varas]

Guess I’ll delete my post then.

With the photos I have seen you take with the Retinas I would love to read what you wrote

 

[Dan Fromm]

Go to http://www.collection-appareils.fr/carrousel/html/index.php and root around in the appareils section. This the best list of cameras I'm aware of.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Fine, wonderful, but why did you bring up 35mm cameras in the medium format section?

P.S., I've used pre-WWII Retinas as bicycling cameras, the 50/2 Xenon (licensed TTH design, I believe) is a fine lens.

 

[GarageBoy]

So I'm guessing kodak was more "mainstream" vs the Zeiss/voigtlander folders? Or is this more a US/europe thing?

I know leicas were around, but my family photos of the era were all on 6x9 film and contact printed

 

[MattKing]

So I'm guessing kodak was more "mainstream" vs the Zeiss/voigtlander folders? Or is this more a US/europe thing?

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.
Kodak Pathe was the first - it was started in France in 1897!

 

[jimjm]

This isn't in the U.S., but gives a good idea of what was displayed in shop windows in pre-WWII Germany.

 

[AgX]

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.

 

[Mr Flibble]

P.S., I've used pre-WWII Retinas as bicycling cameras, the 50/2 Xenon (licensed TTH design, I believe) is a fine lens.

Yes, Schneider-Krueznach licensed the design from TTH. It is said Schneider produced the 50/1.5 Xenons for Leitz as well.

Kodak cameras were typically aimed at a wide consumership, everywhere in the world.

Agfa certainly was the same but of course had their roots in Europe.

 

[AgX]

Basically all film manufacturers that made or branded cameras put their emphasis on the mass market.

 

[AgX]

This isn't in the U.S., but gives a good idea of what was displayed in shop windows in pre-WWII Germany.

I am not sure whether this shop window is representative.
It is dedicated to Zeiss-Ikon cameras but lacks their box cameras. Being obviously a "sophisticated" camera store with a non-average clientele. The box cameras likely would be found in the shop window of a photo-drugstore, a type of retailer that made the majority of photo retailers.

 

[grat]

I see 2 box cameras, a TLR, a handful of what appear to be 35mm, and a metric ton of folders. Seems to be representative of the Zeiss range for the late 30's (there's a Contax III, I believe, which apparently came out late 1936), although I'm nowhere near an expert on the Zeiss lineup.

 

[AgX]

The two big ones are no classic box cameras.

 

[pbromaghin]

The two big ones are no classic box cameras.

Ok, that's what they aren't. What are they?