Cameras of the '50's

Telecolor 3007

I love old stuff
What where the U.S.A. home made 35 mm film cameras in the '50's, and which of them where quite good cameras afordable to the usual American people?
 
And I'm just curios, how much was costing an 35 mm color film, with 36 pictures and 200 ASA negative sensibilty in 1956-57?
 
When I sayd "usual" I ment "avarage".
And wern't afordable for avarage American flashy cameras that looked like this Soviet "Zorki" 4.
At that "Kodak" Retina you could change the lesn, in oreder to put some telephoto lens?
 
I have no idea how much film cost in the 1950s. I was born in 1955, and didn't get into photography until 1982.
 
Check out Argus

The C3 "The Brick" was quite a popular camera and takes very nice pictures. I have 15 or so different Argus models, and they were all picked up from ebay at very reasonable prices. Most were in the $10 range.......Colin
 
There weren't all that many high quality 35mm cameras made in the US. American large format cameras were fully competitive, but most american 35s were either mediocre or unreliable, or both. The best -- the magnificent Kodak Ektra and the high quality Kardon (a Leica copy produced by the same Kardon company that became Harmon Kardon) didn't last long -- I think they were off the market by the early fifties.
The Retinas were excellent cameras, but they were german, not american. The Signets were the best of the Kodak offerings, and the little Signet 35 was probably the best of them, though it incorporated a disappointing quality shutter into a fine body.
The Cee Ay/Ciro, the Clarus and so on were neither ambitious nor exactly high quality.
The Argus C series is probably the closest to what is being decribed. They were clumsy, not very precise, but did have interchangeable lenses. But quality varied wildly (apparently lenses were not even tested for quality control) so results were dramatically different. Whether that constitutes a classic, I don't know.
 
@Nat: that's the kind of camera that I was asking about. How much that camera cost? Could those cameras be fit with telephoto lens?
 
My two cents>>>>>Kodak Medalist>>>>It was a 620 roll film camera that can be easily modified to accept 120>>>>>Forget the 35mm for that era go with medium format. This is a very under rated camera and optics. And can be found at very good prices.
 
Not sure what Kodrakon is -- might it be a Kodak trade name in central Europe?
If you are asking about prices for the Ektra, they are very high. Kodak made very few of them, and because they were a very ambitious and high quality camera, they are highly sought after. Even the bits and pieces fetch large sums of money.
On the other hand, the various Arguses, the C 3, C44 etc are quite cheap. The C 3 was the best selling camera in history at least up til the 80's, and since there isn't much to distinguish a working one from a non working one -- more wheezing from the functional one -- there are plenty to meet demand. The telephotos and semiwide angles are less common, but still not expensive. Those for the the later ones were made in Germany.
It occurs to me I forgot one other high quality american 35mm, which was the Bell and Howell Photon, a complex and potentially world class camera which didn't sell because it cost more than some cars, and used T stops rather than F stops (more accurate, and used in the movie industry -- remember Bell and Howell was largely a movie camera/projector company), but unfamiliar to the public. Lenses for the Photon were not made in America, though. They were produced by Cooke or Taylor Hobson in England. Some ended up being modified for Leica mounts by an outfit in Italy, I think, after the Photon tanked. (The Photon is also an expensive and sought after collectible. The only one I've ever seen was on display at Caruso's Cameras in Greenwich CT, and was stolen. A nice way of showing appreciation for letting the public view the manager's collection.
 
@Nat: but what where the 35 mm cameras that where imported in the U.S.A. in the '50's, cost less than 100-150 $, took good pictures, and could be equyped with telephoto lens?
Anyway, I own an 1961-63 "Canon" Canonet Japonesee camera, which I still use (since I use this type of old cameras I started to like the proffesional cameras I don't have 900 $ to buy me a proffesional digital camera and unless 500 $ to buy telephoto lens) and the pictures are good for such an old camera.
 
Just looking at fifties 35mm cameras that could be used with telephotos, you had the Leica and Leica copies and the Contax and Nikon rangefinders, all of which could be used with short telephotos and a separate viewfinder, or used with a mirror box and longer lenses. And you had the early 35mm SLRs -- Exactas, Prakticas and Praktinas, early Japanese Pentaxes, Mirandas, Topcons, Minoltas and so on -- Canon and Nikon were late to the focal plane SLR market. And you had a variety of leaf shutter SLRs, some of which had interchangeable lenses, though limited in focal length because of the leaf shutter, and sometimes also a fixed rear element. But the Contaflex could be used with a monocular, so you did have a long lens possibility. Then there were the leaf shutter rangefinders, with similar limitations -- Futuras, Lordomats, Arguses etc.
Note that almost all of these cameras were not made in America. Functionally you were probably limited to the various Arguses, the horrid Kodak Signet 80, and a couple of other low grade cameras if you wanted american.
Most professionals at this time would probably have been using larger format if they wanted to use long lenses.
 
Single Lens Reflex. This is a bit of a simplification, but it means that when you are focusing the camera you are looking through the lens, not a viewfinder seperate from the lens.
 
Slight detour, sorry to hijack

Hey Colinhester,

One of the lenses for my C-44 is filthy inside. I assume it's fungus. Can any ol' camera tech fix this? Or is there such a thing as an Argus specialist?

I love this camera. It takes great pics. Only thing I don't like is what a BIxxx is it to change the lenses.
 
Cleaning lenses is not usually difficult, but generally you need a spanner wrench to get off the retaining rings (though sometimes the barrell comes apart. You also need to check for locking screws on the retaining rings. But be aware that even if the fungus is cleaned off (windex works fine, but make sure it is the ammonia kind, not the vinegar kind, or you'll ruin the lens surface), it may have eaten into the glass, and almost certainly will have damaged the coating. Usually this is more of a problem with resale value than with actual taking of photos (and with Argus lenses, resale value isn't a major consideration), but what do you have to loose -- visible fungus is much worse to both user and sale value than a little damage to the coating.
All of these comments should not be applied to Leica lenses, some of which have much softer glass and more delicate coatings than other lenses -- they should be cleaned by someone who really knows what they are doing. And please -- if you are learning how to work on lenses, don't start with Leica or Zeiss or anything rare.
 
Lens fungus

Hey Filmboydoug, Sorry to hear about the lens. This is a fairly common problem with older lenses. The lens must be taken apart to clean. You might check out photo.net and see if there are any tips; I have none. Your best bet is just to pick up another lens off ebay. Argus lenses are not that expensive and would certainly be cheaper than a fix.

Glad to hear you like your C44. I've taken rolls of film with my C3 and it has never let me down. I've also shot several rolls of BW through my A. The focus is pretty soft, but what can you expect from a 70 year old camera......Colin
 
Back
Top Bottom