For Sale Univex half frame 35mm camera

Trader history for nanthor (18)

nanthor

Member
Joined
May 30, 2008
Messages
892
Location
Michigan/Illinois
Format
Multi Format
This is a very odd camera, pretty rare. Not sure if it can be made to work but the rotating shutter charges and then fires, although it does not fully complete its rotation until it wants to. The glass looks fairly good but can use an internal cleaning. There is a take-up spool inside, probably most of thee are missing. The case is in fair condition and I'm sure that is quite rare also. I will take an offer on this but for now will start with a price of $100 shipped in the USA. I have no idea what it is worth.
 

Attachments

  • R1106453.JPG
    351.4 KB · Views: 113
  • R1106454.JPG
    349 KB · Views: 113
  • R1106455.JPG
    342.8 KB · Views: 115
  • R1106456.JPG
    347.4 KB · Views: 107
  • R1106457.JPG
    349.4 KB · Views: 119

Fixcinater

Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2008
Messages
2,500
Location
San Diego, CA
Format
Medium Format
Is that an extinction meter in the shoe? Have not seen a Univex branded one before...

I believe yours is the earlier model that takes special cartridges for the film. The later Mercury II can use normal 35mm cartridges.
 
OP
OP

nanthor

Member
Joined
May 30, 2008
Messages
892
Location
Michigan/Illinois
Format
Multi Format
Wish I knew about the meter or the cartridges, I will post a picture of the inside tomorrow along with a close up of the meter (if that's what it is). Bob.
 

summicron1

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 28, 2010
Messages
2,920
Location
Ogden, Utah
Format
Multi Format
Wish I knew about the meter or the cartridges, I will post a picture of the inside tomorrow along with a close up of the meter (if that's what it is). Bob.

This is the first, Model CC, version, top speed of 1/1000 if I am seeing it right. (The second version with a top speed of 1/1500 is worth a lot more) and yes, it does use a 35mm size film but it was Univex's own brand and packaging so the camera can't take a standard 35mm film cassette. The Model II does. The extinction meter is a plus.

Nice shooters, if you like that sort of thing. The rotary shutter is a hangover from movie cameras and makes a very fun "clunk!" every shot. The wind knob on the front is funky. I consider the camera so ugly it is cute.
 

Karl K

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 13, 2006
Messages
1,118
Location
NJ
Format
35mm
It is unusual to find this Mercury camera with the meter in such excellent condition. These cameras were the favorites of wedding and event photographers in the 1950's. They shot re-spooled Anscochrome and Ektachrome slide films, sometimes processed the film within an hour or so, and then cut out the transparencies, and mounted them in tiny keychain viewers. We called them "peepers". The peepers were sometimes delivered within a couple of hours after shooting. The vertical format made them perfect for portraits.
I once assisted an old German-born photographer in Brooklyn who did this full-time.
Most Mercury cameras were heavily used and abused.
How this Mercury camera escaped punishment, I do not know.
GLWTS.
 

Jim Jones

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 16, 2006
Messages
3,740
Location
Chillicothe MO
Format
Multi Format
Mercury shutters were simple, and usually reliable and accurate. The rear pivot for the shutter is visible just above the film gate. The front pivot is less accessible. Perhaps cleaning these pivots will improve shutter function. The extinction meters relied on a photographic step wedge which has sometimes deteriorated. The OP's extinction meter appears to be the prewar version, not the somewhat similar postwar model. These 40,00 prewar cameras are less practical than the more plentiful postwar Mercury II because of the early proprietary film cassettes. They do retain their appearance better due to the aluminum body and leather trim. After the war Mercury changed to synthetic leather and a magnesium and aluminum alloy that tends to corrode. At least the OP has the often missing take-up spool. I bought a used Mercury II for $20 in 1950 on a $75/month Navy salary, lost it, and bought another for $20. The half-frame image was inconvenient, so a more conventional camera was the next upgrade.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…