Smallest camera made before the War?

[Donald Qualls]

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]

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.

 

[Donald Qualls]

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).

 

[AgX]

I don't recall when the Riga Minox started...

1938

 

[Donald Qualls]

Okay, Minox was a lot smaller -- but then that 8x11 image, comared to the 4x3 cm in my Baby Ikonta...

 

[Kino]

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).

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/

 

[Kino]

Here's others:

http://www.vintagephoto.tv/expowatch.shtml

https://collectiblend.com/Cameras/Magic/Photoret-(Watch-camera,-early).html

 

[Donald Qualls]

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?

 

[Kino]

I guess that rules out "Hat Cameras"...

https://newatlas.com/collectibles/early-spy-cameras-photographica-film-auction-team-breker/

 

[Craig75]

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

 

[Sirius Glass]

Which war? We have so many to choose from.

 

[Donald Qualls]

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

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.

Which war? We have so many to choose from.

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]

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.



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...

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

 

[BobUK]

Introduced in 1935 is the Coronet Midget.
Six exposures on roll film.
Coronet Midget - Camera-wiki.org - The free camera encyclopedia

A couple of years later it was sold in the USA.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Introduced in 1935 is the Coronet Midget.
Six exposures on roll film.
Coronet Midget - Camera-wiki.org - The free camera encyclopedia

A couple of years later it was sold in the USA.

Wow. The secret origin of the HIT class... And that's pretty darned small for a solid Bakelite box. Thicker than either the VPK or Baby Ikonta, but similar length and width to the latter.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.



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...

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

 

[Donald Qualls]

Do you see why there was confusion?

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]

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?

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

 

[Two23]

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

 

[gone]

That's either the biggest cat in S.D. or the smallest folding camera I've ever seen.

 

[Donald Qualls]

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.

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).

Is the PinToid a novelty camera?

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]

Ring, Watch and Buttonhole Cameras were expensive and not sold as toyish krappy kameras.

 

[ciniframe]

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.

 

[Donald Qualls]

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]

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.