Smallest camera made before the War?

Donald Qualls

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
12,332
Location
North Carolina
Format
Multi Format
I've been looking at videos recently about the Vest Pocket Kodak series (in part because I just bought an Autographic VPK), and one of the things said about it is that when the VPK was introduced in 1912, it was the smallest camera made up to that time.

That honor didn't hold long, however. I have a Zeiss Baby Ikonta, a half-frame 127 folder that's smaller in all dimensions than most if not all 35 mm full frame cameras. Definitely smaller than my Weltini folder and Rollei 35, probably smaller than my Balda Jubilette -- can't be sure, as that one is still in a box -- but I don't have a Minox 35 or the Soviet copy to check against.

I doubt 35 mm will get smaller than this tiny 127 half frame folder, but perhaps there were others -- 828 didn't come out until after the War, but there were other roll formats around -- I think at least one was smaller than 127.

Was there a smaller camera than this tiny shirt-pocket 127 folder before the War? I'm pretty sure it's smaller than a Vollenda (even the one with f/3.5 lens). Novelty cameras, perhaps. I don't recall when the Riga Minox started...
 

Kino

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 20, 2006
Messages
7,781
Location
Orange, Virginia
Format
Multi Format
I assume you are restricting this to commonly available film format cameras, as there were many miniature and "detective" type plate cameras that extend back to the mid-late 1800's.
 
OP
OP

Donald Qualls

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
12,332
Location
North Carolina
Format
Multi Format
How many plate cameras were smaller than a modern compact digital, though? Ernemann Klapp is the only contender I know of; it used a plate about the same size as a full frame 127 negative (Sixteenth Plate or metric equivalent, IIRC).
 
OP
OP

Donald Qualls

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
12,332
Location
North Carolina
Format
Multi Format
Okay, Minox was a lot smaller -- but then that 8x11 image, comared to the 4x3 cm in my Baby Ikonta...
 

Kino

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 20, 2006
Messages
7,781
Location
Orange, Virginia
Format
Multi Format
Donald Qualls said:
How many plate cameras were smaller than a modern compact digital, though? Ernemann Klapp is the only contender I know of; it used a plate about the same size as a full frame 127 negative (Sixteenth Plate or metric equivalent, IIRC).
Click to expand...
There was a button hole camera that took a round glass plate and made 5 or 6 exposures that was about the size of a silver dollar.

This isn't it, but is indicative of the Victorian craze for hidden plate cameras:

https://mikeshouts.com/1895-hagelein-watch-camera/
 
OP
OP

Donald Qualls

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
12,332
Location
North Carolina
Format
Multi Format
That watch camera, along with ring cameras and buttonhole cameras, is firmly in the "novelty camera" category to me. The KGB had a buttonhole camera that they actually used (took either 16mm or 24 mm -- perfs trimmed off 35 mm -- but I don't recall which), but that was Cold War era.

Let's say, roll film, marketed to the general public, and prior to the Minox, shall we?
 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,417
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format
Which war? We have so many to choose from.
 
OP
OP

Donald Qualls

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
12,332
Location
North Carolina
Format
Multi Format
Craig75 said:
Jagger lecoulte must be in with a shout. Version ii used a roll film back whereas first version only used 35mm glass plates

https://www.jaeger-lecoultre.com/eu/en/chronicles/news-events/compass-camera.html
Click to expand...

If that folded, it might be competitive (if at least one tech level ahead of the very simple Baby Ikonta). As is, it's comparable to the open size of the tiny Zeiss folder.

Sirius Glass said:
Which war? We have so many to choose from.
Click to expand...

Fair point, though there are a more limited number that marked significant changes in the photography world. I'm referring to the Second World War -- lots of designs (especially German ones) discontinued near the beginning, lots of pretty different ones introduced within the ten years after...
 

Craig75

Member
Joined
May 9, 2016
Messages
1,234
Location
Uk
Format
35mm

The lens is collapsible. You can see it in these photos all closed up

https://www.catawiki.com/en/l/9828391-compass-camera-jaeger-lecoultre-30s
 
OP
OP

Donald Qualls

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
12,332
Location
North Carolina
Format
Multi Format

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,417
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format

Any yet you started out presenting a 1912 camera. Do you see why there was confusion?
 
OP
OP

Donald Qualls

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
12,332
Location
North Carolina
Format
Multi Format
Sirius Glass said:
Do you see why there was confusion?
Click to expand...

Not really. In the same paragraph, I suggested that the VPK was the smallest camera made up to that time, should have been clear I was asking for after that with my example of the Baby Ikonta.
 

maybe2day

Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2022
Messages
11
Location
Atlantis
Format
Analog

Camera's a camera, no? Camera is short for "camera obscura" a box with a lens. Is the PinToid a novelty camera?
 

Two23

Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
660
Location
South Dakota
Format
8x10 Format
I have an ICA Sonnet camera that takes 645 plates. It's tiny before it's even folded up. Smallest view camera I'm aware of. 1920s/30s.


Kent in SD
 

Attachments

  • Sonnet2.jpg
    852.1 KB · Views: 110

gone

Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2009
Messages
5,504
Location
gone
Format
Medium Format
That's either the biggest cat in S.D. or the smallest folding camera I've ever seen.
 
OP
OP

Donald Qualls

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
12,332
Location
North Carolina
Format
Multi Format
Two23 said:
I have an ICA Sonnet camera that takes 645 plates. It's tiny before it's even folded up. Smallest view camera I'm aware of. 1920s/30s.
Click to expand...

Not family photo friendly, though, hence my preference above for roll film (or even 35 mm in Kodak/Leica cassettes). FWIW, that's about the same size as the Ernemann Klapp I referenced early in the thread, but plates aren't something average family photographers would have wanted to deal with. Family photography really started with the 1890s Kodaks (the ones you sent in for processing and reloading after shooting 100 small round negatives). Anything that used a paper-backed roll could be in that category, but as far as I can tell, 127 was the smallest format of that sort of film that had any legs (i.e. lasted even as long as the end of the 1930s).

maybe2day said:
Is the PinToid a novelty camera?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Pretty much any pinhole camera is -- in that it's not something you could reasonably sell for family Christmas and Birthday photos, even if the family is rich enough to afford a semi-pro camera like a Super Ikonta or Bessa II.
 

maybe2day

Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2022
Messages
11
Location
Atlantis
Format
Analog
Ring, Watch and Buttonhole Cameras were expensive and not sold as toyish krappy kameras.
 

ciniframe

Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2014
Messages
803
Format
Sub 35mm
Since you are limiting the selection to pre ww2 and roll film then the various 127 spool cameras (and perhaps 828 size) would be the biggest bang for the negative size I would think. It’s really too bad that, except as hand rolled and very expensive samples, 127 size roll film is not generally available.
It would probably be breathtakingly expensive but a modern VP 127 camera would be sweet. The closest still available used cameras that offer large negatives for minimal size are the Zeiss folders, in 6x6 or 6x4.5 format that use still made 120 size film. Been kinda watching for a Nettar with the f4.5 lens and pop up viewfinder in 6x6. Yeah, I know, the Nettar was the down market version. That would still be good enough for me.
 
OP
OP

Donald Qualls

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
12,332
Location
North Carolina
Format
Multi Format
I don't have a problem feeding a127 camera -- I've got a tool on my desk that will accurately, cleanly, and easily cut a 120 roll and backing (in the light, in my experience) for respooling in the dark. Trim the paper leader and tail and you can fit 12 full frame exposures on the 127 spool (though there will be virtually no rebate between frames, even a millimeter or two of overlap, because the 127 frame is that much wider than the 6x6 on 120). Conversely, you get 16 4x4 frames with extra space between, if you have that kind of camera.

I'd love to get a VPK, Vollenda, or Baby Ikonta with the f/3.5 or faster Tessar/Heliar lenses, but those are more than I'm usually willing to spend.

I had thought 828 was post-War, but I just found it was introduced in 1935 -- which means the strut-folding Kodak Bantam was probably the "smallest" roll film camera that I was looking for. I can feed those, too, by recutting 120...

Edit: And spotted one with the f/4.5 lens for $20 on eBay -- grabbed it.
 

ciniframe

Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2014
Messages
803
Format
Sub 35mm
Yep, those Bantam’s with the f4.5 are tiny. And if my memory serves the negative size is 28x40mm. That’s really big for 35mm film. Now, if only we could convince Ilford and Kodak to offer a good selection of 35mm bulk without the perfs. I can see two purposes for this, 1. Easy to slit two 16mm size rolls and 2. to reload 828 spools. I think (but do not know) that punching the prefs is the last step in finishing 35mm film. So why can’t they just skip that step for a batch and spool into regular 100 ft. bulk rolls.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…