Retinette & Silette cameras

[marcusverger]

Having used box cameras (using 120 film) for a while now, I find myself rediscovering 35mm cameras with 2 vintage cameras I forgot I had :-
1) Kodak Retinette 1A, f3.5/50 lens & Vero shutter (1959),
2) Agfa Silette, f2.8/45 lens & Prontor SVS shutter (1958).

I have put a BW film through both cameras. The Retinette film has come out very well. The Agfa film is still at shop being developed and awaiting return anytime soon!

I would love to hear your thoughts on these to cameras, likes/dislikes, advice, anything good/bad etc..

 

[marcusverger]

Finally got photos back from Agfa Silette.
Here are some from both cameras -

1st 3 photo's are Agfa Silette,
2ns 3 photo's are Kodak Retinette. View attachment 240752 View attachment 240753 View attachment 240754 View attachment 240752 View attachment 240753 View attachment 240754

View attachment 240752 View attachment 240753 View attachment 240754

 

[marcusverger]

Start again !!
These 2 are Kodak Retinette photo's.

 

[marcusverger]

These 2 are Agfa Silette Photo's....

 

[Lee Rust]

Your pictures look good, but the first one is especially striking. My mother had a Retinette IIB that I inherited. The lens is excellent and it has a movable pointer mechanism that dynamically indicates the depth of field according to the f-stop setting... very handy with a guess-focus camera.

 

[guangong]

You have quite an eye for photography.

 

[Helge]

Very nice!
What are the names of the lenses?
Don’t discount triplets (lenses with only three elements) even for 135 film.
They can have very good unique rendering.
Colour is also interesting with them. But of course you don’t get colour aberrations with B&W.

 

[marcusverger]

Your pictures look good, but the first one is especially striking. My mother had a Retinette IIB that I inherited. The lens is excellent and it has a movable pointer mechanism that dynamically indicates the depth of field according to the f-stop setting... very handy with a guess-focus camera.

Thanks for your comment! I like it when you say "Guess-focus camera". This can be very true.
I know roughly what I wish to take, I am often surprised what does come out.
Having said that, I do use vintage cameras a lot and what I enjoy is the learning curve of using them in the field, working out their limitations and how they handle.
Each time I venture out with them and the results come out well, it just keeps me going.....

 

[marcusverger]

You have quite an eye for photography.

Thank you, I try my best...!!

 

[marcusverger]

Very nice!
What are the names of the lenses?
Don’t discount triplets (lenses with only three elements) even for 135 film.
They can have very good unique rendering.
Colour is also interesting with them. But of course you don’t get colour aberrations with B&W.

The AGFA Silette has a AGFA COLOR - APOTAR 1:28/45 lens in a PRONTOR - SVS shutter.
The kodak RETINETTE 1A Hhas a SCHNEIDER - KREUZNACH REOMAR 1:3.5/50 lens in a VERO shutter.

Both are fixed body / rigid cameras typical of 1950's, so can ot change lenses.
I don't know if triplets or otherwise, just know that they are 2 very good lenses in 2 very good cameras.

I haven't tried colour yet, as tend to prefer b&w. When I do, I will post here.....

 

[Ray Morgenweck]

My Dad was a “camera guy” all his life. He had a Retinette just like yours. I never realized “why” he had this simple camera along with his view cameras and Voigtlander Bergheil with Heliar. Now, I know why he had one!

 

[MattKing]

Take a close look at my avatar if you want to see what my opinion is of my Retinette 1b....

 

[marcusverger]

My Dad was a “camera guy” all his life. He had a Retinette just like yours. I never realized “why” he had this simple camera along with his view cameras and Voigtlander Bergheil with Heliar. Now, I know why he had one!

Thanks, Ray. Sometimes a good photo comes from the least expected camera.
It doesn't have to be an expensive, large 'High End' type of thing. You can obtain good results from anything old or new.
I always believe that, as long as you know your camera's limitations, you can achieve any decent photo.

 

[marcusverger]

Take a close look at my avatar if you want to see what my opinion is of my Retinette 1b....

Thanks Matt, great avatar photo!!

 

[Helge]

Take a close look at my avatar if you want to see what my opinion is of my Retinette 1b....

I have, I think about ten of those in that series that shares the same overall design. They keep falling into my lap, and I keep taking them.
They seem to be very abundant/have sold very well in Denmark.
All of them share the same Reomar lens allegedly made by Rodenstock, though I have one that clearly says Schneider Kreuznach.
Only one of those with light meter, has a meter that doesn't work. That I think speaks to their quality.
They might not be top of the line, but Kodak sure didn't scale back on the solidity and durability.
They are easy to work on too:



And always deliver excellent, yet slightly surprising results (especially when you forget that there is a warming filter in front ;-):

 

[marcusverger]

Thanks Helge, beautiful photo's!

You are correct in saying that Kodak kept up with solidity & durability of their cameras.

As I said in a previous reply/post:-

"Sometimes a good photo comes from the least expected camera.
It doesn't have to be an expensive, large 'High End' type of thing. You can obtain good results from anything old or new.
I always believe that, as long as you know your camera's limitations, you can achieve any decent photo."

I do like the one with the Parrot with the plume of Peacock feathers behind it !!

 

[Ray Morgenweck]

Kodak’s smartest move was building cameras in Germany.

 

[MattKing]

Kodak’s smartest move was building cameras in Germany.

Or more accurately, buying a German camera manufacturer

 

[Helge]

Far from all Kodaks US cameras where bad. Medalist I and II are obvious examples, making it to the top of many peoples list of greatest camera of all time to this day.

The cheaper consumer cameras also filled a very important part of the market before Japanese point and shoots I the 80s.
Without the Box Brownie and the first "Kodak" there probably would not have been a consumer sector in photography before quite a bit later.
The Instamatic is often maligned now, but it filled the void the one-use and phones does today, and was when you see the reaction of the competitors, quite a larger success than often given credit for.
Very elegantly thought out design too.
There has always been cheap cameras, but few made cheap cameras with as much flair and understanding of cutting to just where the camera was still serviceable.

 

[marcusverger]

Or more accurately, buying a German camera manufacturer

Abolutely! If only the war didn't intervene, who knows what might have been made by Kodak, or any other camera company?

 

[marcusverger]

Far from all Kodaks US cameras where bad. Medalist I and II are obvious examples, making it to the top of many peoples list of greatest camera of all time to this day.

The cheaper consumer cameras also filled a very important part of the market before Japanese point and shoots I the 80s.
Without the Box Brownie and the first "Kodak" there probably would not have been a consumer sector in photography before quite a bit later.
The Instamatic is often maligned now, but it filled the void the one-use and phones does today, and was when you see the reaction of the competitors, quite a larger success than often given credit for.
Very elegantly thought out design too.
There has always been cheap cameras, but few made cheap cameras with as much flair and understanding of cutting to just where the camera was still serviceable.

I totally agree with you on this one.
Kodak helped bring photography to the masses and although they are basic, simple cameras, still produce good results.

But with any camera, as long as you know its limitations, you can still get reasonable photo's. You can own an expensive camera and still take a crap photo!!

At the end of the day, find a camera or cameras that you like and you are happy with its results, that that's all that matters I guess.

Just for the record, I do own several Brownies, as well as other box cameras!!

 

[Ray Morgenweck]

Dads Retinette.

 

[Helge]

I have that exact one. It feels and handles wonderfully. Big bright finder too, that is placed right over the lens.

The 3.5 might seem limiting, and sure you won't get a large amount og OoF information.
But, it will stop you from trying to use 2.8 too much (at all, in this case) and miss focus.
Indoor tungsten will never be bright enough for even 2.8 at normal film speeds. Better to just bring a big indirect flash or softbox per default.
Smaller lenses are also easier to grind, so chances are that from a reputable maker such as SK, that they put a bit of extra effort into making the lowest stop better than the same 3.5/4 on the 2.8.
The trigger and shutter is so smooth that you will easily be able to go down to a 15th of a second, so really from a camera shake perspective the 3.5 is equivalent to 2.8 on many other cameras.

 

[marcusverger]

Thanks Ray & Helge !!