Recommend a Kodak 35mm Camera

[darkroommike]

Kodak Signet 35, it was good enough for the government.

 

[BrianShaw]

The very fact the Chris can repair these makes the Kodak Retina line a good option in my mind.

I’m using one right now that spent a vacation at Chris’ Retina spa. I was shocked to see that the sticker says “December 2018” and this was my first opportunity to use it.

 

[Donald Qualls]

View attachment 244145

That's the ugly older brother of the Motormatic 35 I suggested back up the thread...

 

[Paul Howell]

Surprising that no one recommends a Retina Reflex, never used one, the later Reflex 4 had a nice range of lens, 28 to 200, some could couple with the rangelfinder on the S rangelfinder.

 

[Bill Burk]

Surprising that no one recommends a Retina Reflex, never used one, the later Reflex 4 had a nice range of lens, 28 to 200, some could couple with the rangelfinder on the S rangelfinder.

That’s because it’s a 126 camera.

 

[Bill Burk]

If you find a working model of one of these, it will cement your "steam punk" cred, and be available as a weapon in case of attack!
View attachment 244145
I had one of these - it was my first 35mm camera. It was given to me by my Dad, and most likely came from the camera repair department at the Kodak lab where my Dad worked. It might have been a customer camera that was abandoned by a customer - that did happen - and I believe items like that were made available for purchase by employees.
It was even more solid and heavy that it looks!

I have a spare of that too

 

[Paul Howell]

Just one model, the original reflex to the reflex 4 were 35mm. From Camerapeida

Retina Reflex IV[edit]
The Type 051 Retina Reflex IV was made from 1964 to 1967. It has a characteristic little window in the front of its pentaprism housing, which displays the aperture in use in the viewfinder. The accessory shoe now had flash contacts. The frame counter now automatically resets to 36 when the back is opened; the frame advance slider is used to set the counter for shorter rolls. The split-image rangefinder on the ground glass is now at a 45 degree angle.

The Retina Reflex IV originally sold for $277 USD[1] (app. $2,130 USD in 2014).[5] Over 524,000 were made.

 

[guangong]

My recommendation of Ektra was meant as a bit of sarcasm regarding collectors and Kodak. I have three Retinas. Plus a number of accessories, supplementary wide angle and long lens. Fine cameras as already noted by several contributors. The weak point is the film advance which also cocks shutter. Lever must be advanced very carefully. My own favorite is the B without rf. A nice compact camera.

 

[guangong]

The only Ektra I saw in real life was owned by a Kodak official and enthusiastic collector (with required big bucks).

 

[MattKing]

A couple of years ago I went down to Kent Washington to see the camera show and swap that the Puget Sound Photographic Collectors Society runs there in April each year (or have until this year).
The show was entertaining, not least because in addition to the normal selection of vendors selling their wares from tables they rented, there were lots of display cameras from the collections of the Society's members.
Included amongst those display cameras were Kodak Monitors and a Kodak Ektra in wonderful condition.
The first I have ever seen.

 

[Bud Hamblen]

Just one model, the original reflex to the reflex 4 were 35mm. From Camerapeida

The Retina Reflex IV originally sold for $277 USD[1] (app. $2,130 USD in 2014).[5] Over 524,000 were made.

The 524,00 figure comes from a couple of sources that I think copied each other, but it is off by roughly a factor of 10 according to Dr Jentz.

 

[Bud Hamblen]

If you want an inexpensive Kodak 35mm there is always the Kodak Pony I35.

 

[Donald Qualls]

If you want an inexpensive Kodak 35mm there is always the Kodak Pony I35.

Bakelite body is prone to chips and cracks, but a good one is a joy to use. I've got one around here somewhere, and a different example was my first 35mm camera. Wish I still had the negatives of the flower macros I shot with a couple stacked diopters and calculated focus distances...

 

[Paul Howell]

The 524,00 figure comes from a couple of sources that I think copied each other, but it is off by roughly a factor of 10 according to Dr Jentz.

I hadn't paid attention to the production number, maybe a half million if every every model under the Retina brand including rangefinders were included, still seems high.

 

[abruzzi]

I don't know the vast majority of Kodak cameras, but I'll second the recommendation of the Retina IIIC. Mine works perfectly now. When I bought it the shutter speeds below 1/30 didn't work as the blades didn't finish closing. Chris Sherlock repaired that, and now everything works. Even the meter is accurate (as accurate as a non-TTL selenium meter will get.) Its my favorite 35mm rangefinder. Folded up is fits in the back pocket of my jeans, or one of the pockets of my camera bag. When I travel, it always comes along as a back-up camera. The small C is generally cheaper, and equally as nice build, but I like the big bright viewfinder of the big C. It also has frame lines for the other lenses (which aren't that complicated to use--the RF just behaves like an uncoupled RF; focus with the RF, read the distance off the top of the lens mount; dial that number into the bottom of the mount.)

 

[Pentode]

I'm a huge fan of the Retina lla. It's tiny, it has a great lens, there are plenty of them around and they can be found routinely for under $100 working. I like mine enough to have gotten a spare. I like that one, too!

 

[Pioneer]

So many options, so little time. I thought that this would be a pretty simple search. Who was to know that Kodak made so many interesting 35mm cameras back in the day?

 

[MattKing]

If you want an interesting but really kind of sad option, look at the final two cameras in the Retina line - the Retina S1 and the Retina S2.
Mediocre at best lenses, scale focusing, built in sunny 16 exposure calculation (on the S1) and possibly the only cameras ever to offer both electronic flash hot shoe and Magicubes!
I had and used an S1 for a couple of years and got some decent results on Kodachrome with it.
https://retinarescue.com/retinas1.html - although I wouldn't call it a monstrosity, and it mixed metal and plastic in the body.

 

[Lee Rust]

I think the Signet 35 is a classic design that's rugged, compact, simple to use and easy to maintain. My Retinette IIB has been a favorite for 50 years with a bright, clear finder and straightforward operation.

 

[darkroommike]

That’s because it’s a 126 camera.

The Retina Reflexes were a series of 35mm SLR's with interchangeable lenses and one oddball, the Instamatic Reflex, that used the same lenses but had a drop in 126 cartridge. The lenses were Schneiders and Rodenstocks. Not too bad.

 

[Helge]

The little c Retina IIIc is IMO the one to go for. I have both:

- It’s far easier/cheaper to clean and repair the top finder part of the little c.
I’d take a smaller clean finder over a slightly murky bigger one any day.
If you wanted a huge finder get one of the other great rangefinders. That’s not what the Retina IIIc is about, though the c’s is still much, much better than cruel jokes like the Olympus XA finder.
The big Cs finder isn’t that big either.
And there are permanent distracting extra lines in it, whether you are using them or not.
Rangefinder patch size and therefore potential precision is about the same.
Most of the extra size of the bigger finder on the C is from the 35mm lines, which of course is completely useless when you are using the lens you're going to be using the vast majority of the time with the camera, the 50mm.
Space outside the frame lines is nice, but this is too much.

- The auxiliary lenses is a nice gimmick (they work for both c and C it should added). But unless you are really dedicated it is far, far easier to just have an SLR with the appropriate lenses on the side.

They are fiddly to change and store while shooting, esp. the standard front element.
You basically have to decide before hand, what lens you want to use, and stick to it.
They are slow as molasses, so forget about bokeh. And plan for the light situation.
The shades are hard to get hold of. I’ve never seen them. And I’d imagine they’d obscure the viewfinder. The aux lenses sure could use them though.
They are not impossible to focus, but it feels like taking off with a plane. You need to check all the flaps twice. Not a spontanious thing.
They are also not optically optimal compared to full lenses.​

If you insist on the auxiliary lenses I would personally prefer the separate big nice aux finders in the hot shoe that come with the sets originally, instead of the overpopulated big C finder.
The small c also has less chance of the previous owners having used the aux lenses (they weren’t constantly made aware of their existence and they were a bit harder to use) and therefore they did not compromise the first cell and the inner surfaces.

​

- The little c is far cheaper and more numerous. Making the chance of getting a good one higher.
You also definitely want the Helios lens if at all possible. It is subtly but markedly sharper AFAIKS. Again, going for the little c will make that easier.

- I don’t know this for certain. But due to the little c having a permanent shield over the light meter, there aught to be a better chance of it working to spec.
I have never held a Retina where the meter didn’t work though, which is quite surprising considering how often they croak on other cameras.

 

[Hunter_Compton]

Not wanting to hijack the thread, but since we are discussing Retinas here, I have a question.

I've been debating getting a IIc or IIIc myself, and I am aware that the serial number of the 50mm front element should match the shutter body. My question is whether the accessory lens elements should also match? Were they paired at the factory or should any 80mm or 35mm front element work on the body?

 

[Helge]

Not wanting to hijack the thread, but since we are discussing Retinas here, I have a question.

I've been debating getting a IIc or IIIc myself, and I am aware that the serial number of the 50mm front element should match the shutter body. My question is whether the accessory lens elements should also match? Were they paired at the factory or should any 80mm or 35mm front element work on the body?

No numbers but Helios on Helios and Xenon on Xenon is the only thing to be aware of, AFAIK.

 

[BrianShaw]

Not wanting to hijack the thread, but since we are discussing Retinas here, I have a question.

I've been debating getting a IIc or IIIc myself, and I am aware that the serial number of the 50mm front element should match the shutter body. My question is whether the accessory lens elements should also match? Were they paired at the factory or should any 80mm or 35mm front element work on the body?

The accessory lenses do not have a matching number criteria.

 

[AndyH]

The little c Retina IIIc is IMO the one to go for. I have both:

- It’s far easier/cheaper to clean and repair the top finder part of the little c.
I’d take a smaller clean finder over a slightly murky bigger one any day.
If you wanted a huge finder get one of the other great rangefinders. That’s not what the Retina IIIc is about, though it’s still far better than cruel jokes like the Olympus XA finder.
The big Cs finder isn’t that big either.
And there are permanent distracting extra lines in it, whether you are using them or not.
Rangefinder patch size and therefore potential precision is about the same.

- The auxiliary lenses is a nice gimmick (they work for both c and C it should added). But unless you are really dedicated it is far, far easier to just have an SLR with the appropriate lenses on the side.

They are fiddly to change and store, esp. the standard front element.
They are slow as molasses, so forget about bokeh. And plan for the light situation.
They are not impossible to focus, but it feels like taking off with a plane. You need to check all the flaps twice. Not a spontanious thing.
They are not optically optimal compared to full lenses.​

If you insist on the auxiliary lenses I would personally prefer the separate big nice finder in the hot shoe, instead of the overpopulated big C finder.
The small c also has less chance of the previous owners having use the aux lenses (they weren’t constantly made aware of their existence and they were a bit harder to use) and therefore compromised the first cell and the inner surfaces.

​

- The little c is far cheaper and more numerous. Making the chance of getting a good one higher.
You also definitely want the Helios lens if at all possible. It is subtly but markedly sharper AFAIKS. Again, going for the little c will make that easier.

- I don’t know this for certain. But due to the little c having a permanent shield over the light meter, there aught to be a better chance of it working to spec.
I have never held a Retina where the meter didn’t work though, which is quite surprising considering how often they croak on other cameras.

I find both auxiliaries easy to use with the dual finder. Transferring the focus takes a few seconds, but it's actually pretty easy when you get used to it. I mostly zone focus with the 35 anyway. Beautifully finished cameras that are a joy to use.

Andy