artphotodude
Adam V. Albrec
I'm coming to you from a background in Medium Format (Minolta Autocord, Hasselblad, Pentax 67, Holga) and Large Format (Graflex Graphic View, 8-Banners Pinhole) and most recently digital (Canon and Nikon).
Now am putting all of that behind me to embrace Fuji's world class XPro digital series. BUT, there are still times that 'the film is the thing', more to the point, a classic lens can see things better than modern computerized perfection. Of all the lenses I used over the years, two groups leap to the forground as top performers. Zeiss (specifically the Planar), and Kodak Ektars.
Well, quite by accident, recently stumbled across a gorgeous little American-made rangefinder at an antique store for a mere $20. I've read that the Ektars in them have a very good reputation and the cameras themselves are considered real finds. The viewfinder was pretty dark and gummed-up, but because of the robustness of the parts (despite the small size), it turned out to be easy to disassemble and clean/adjust (thanks to a walkthrough on iFixit), and I just got my first rolel of test shots back (just ordinary 200 speed Fuji print film). PLEASED doesn't quite do it. This little thing is amazing! Almost no parallax despite focusing down to 2 Ft., and gorgeous performance across the entire aperture range.
Truly-shocked by the wide-open performance. Silky-smooth bokeh and tack sharp at the point of focus (see the lamp pic below). Honestly, only the Blad with a Planar ever did that for me before. Also, while there seems to be a very slight fringing on highlights of out of focus areas, it is once again comparable to Gaussian lenses costing dozens of times more and even at its size, it has a 6-blade aperture, so no obnoxious pentagons throughout the image.
Have always liked Tessar formula lenses because of their flare-resistance (I shoot into light sources a lot), but generally, they are just too soft wide open to be useful, but this little guy really shows what American optical could do back in the day. Can't wait to take this on a real project with some Provia 100F, Illford Delta and Kodak Portra 160!
BTW - a lot of these appear on eBay to come with a Series-V holder and the perk of this is that it is just about perfect as a lens-shade too.
A couple of outside links to check out for those interested in these,
Great shot from Japan showing some GORGEOUS Bokeh!!!!
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cqyid2fUsAEMm3Q.jpg
Also, another Site from Japan showing one of these lenses mounted on a Sony Alpha at 6000x4000. Ridiculous detail across all but the very corners (the fact that this old lens is being compared beside a Biogon and Summicron, should tell you something!).
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/img/dcw/docs/629/561/070.jpg
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/img/dcw/docs/629/561/069.jpg
Now am putting all of that behind me to embrace Fuji's world class XPro digital series. BUT, there are still times that 'the film is the thing', more to the point, a classic lens can see things better than modern computerized perfection. Of all the lenses I used over the years, two groups leap to the forground as top performers. Zeiss (specifically the Planar), and Kodak Ektars.
Well, quite by accident, recently stumbled across a gorgeous little American-made rangefinder at an antique store for a mere $20. I've read that the Ektars in them have a very good reputation and the cameras themselves are considered real finds. The viewfinder was pretty dark and gummed-up, but because of the robustness of the parts (despite the small size), it turned out to be easy to disassemble and clean/adjust (thanks to a walkthrough on iFixit), and I just got my first rolel of test shots back (just ordinary 200 speed Fuji print film). PLEASED doesn't quite do it. This little thing is amazing! Almost no parallax despite focusing down to 2 Ft., and gorgeous performance across the entire aperture range.
Truly-shocked by the wide-open performance. Silky-smooth bokeh and tack sharp at the point of focus (see the lamp pic below). Honestly, only the Blad with a Planar ever did that for me before. Also, while there seems to be a very slight fringing on highlights of out of focus areas, it is once again comparable to Gaussian lenses costing dozens of times more and even at its size, it has a 6-blade aperture, so no obnoxious pentagons throughout the image.
Have always liked Tessar formula lenses because of their flare-resistance (I shoot into light sources a lot), but generally, they are just too soft wide open to be useful, but this little guy really shows what American optical could do back in the day. Can't wait to take this on a real project with some Provia 100F, Illford Delta and Kodak Portra 160!
BTW - a lot of these appear on eBay to come with a Series-V holder and the perk of this is that it is just about perfect as a lens-shade too.
A couple of outside links to check out for those interested in these,
Great shot from Japan showing some GORGEOUS Bokeh!!!!
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cqyid2fUsAEMm3Q.jpg
Also, another Site from Japan showing one of these lenses mounted on a Sony Alpha at 6000x4000. Ridiculous detail across all but the very corners (the fact that this old lens is being compared beside a Biogon and Summicron, should tell you something!).
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/img/dcw/docs/629/561/070.jpg
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/img/dcw/docs/629/561/069.jpg
Attachments
Hatchetman
Well-known
I think it is the best value in rangefinders. lens is as good as my similar aged Leica or Contax glass. Downsides: f3.5 max, shutter speeds extremely limited, very squinty viewfinder. But for $30 or so? Steal of the century.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Your pics look great. I have seen many of these cameras for sale, but unfortunately none of them have ever been functional.
shawn
Mentor
Not as nice looking (AKA ugly) but also check out the Signet 80 that can be had cheap. The 50 is very well regarded, built in meter, prism based 1:1 viewfinder (with good contrast) and a quick loading feature that doesn't use a take up spool.
Downsides are more limited shutter speeds, not pretty (though solid feeling) and the viewfinder position is a little odd. The viewfinder only has framelines for the 50, the 35 and 90 needed an auxiliary bright frame viewfinder.
Shawn
Downsides are more limited shutter speeds, not pretty (though solid feeling) and the viewfinder position is a little odd. The viewfinder only has framelines for the 50, the 35 and 90 needed an auxiliary bright frame viewfinder.
Shawn
Dpingr1
Established
Kodak really concentrated on making good looking cameras back then, and the Signet 35 still maintains some of that art deco influence that made the Bantam Special and Brownie Hawkeye line so attractive. Kodak made lots of excellent Ektar glass, as anyone who has used their large format combinations can attest. My Commercial Ektar 8.5 inch is my all-time favorite lens in any format.
Wait — is the designer's name actually Arthur Hunt Crapsey, Jr?
Ah, crap… NOMEN EST OMEN plus U.S. [140393406528] taste that everything should look like really bad sci-fi-movie stage prop.
Ah, crap… NOMEN EST OMEN plus U.S. [140393406528] taste that everything should look like really bad sci-fi-movie stage prop.
Oren Grad
Well-known
I've had a Signet 35 for more than 40 years (yikes!) now - my dad gave it to me as my first 35mm camera. He had purchased it new around 1952; I'm fortunate to still have our old family albums with many pictures made with it.
The three main drawbacks from my POV: f/3.5 is very limiting for indoor or other low-light work, which means it doesn't really work for me as an only camera; the limited range of shutter speeds compounds the difficulty; and the shutter has proved to be not terribly reliable. More's the pity, because it is indeed a lovely object, a very pretty example of a distinctive style of industrial design.
The three main drawbacks from my POV: f/3.5 is very limiting for indoor or other low-light work, which means it doesn't really work for me as an only camera; the limited range of shutter speeds compounds the difficulty; and the shutter has proved to be not terribly reliable. More's the pity, because it is indeed a lovely object, a very pretty example of a distinctive style of industrial design.
artphotodude
Adam V. Albrec
f3.5 seems fast to me since most of my work is on a tripod (Hasselblad not withstanding - f2.8), but it is true, the viewfinder is small. Was happy that it appears to be pretty accurate. I think it's 'Pre-cropped' it for parallax.
Hatchetman
Well-known
I have the whole Signet 80 set up. The 50mm is decent enough but the other lenses are pretty mediocre. The camera itself is big and feels cheaply made. The Signet 35 is a much better camera all around.
Orbiter
Established
I really love mine. Even though it's a bit fiddly, it's a fun camera to shoot. And the results are great, the lens really is terrific. The top shutter speed is a bit slow, but the shutter also seems pretty reliable, a tradeoff I can live with.
Graybeard
Longtime IIIf User
I've been tempted by these, more than once, at flea markets.
Unhappily for me, the examples with operating shutters had very cloudy viewfinders.
Unhappily for me, the examples with operating shutters had very cloudy viewfinders.
artphotodude
Adam V. Albrec
Seriously, these are NOT hard to clean. Mine took just a few minutes and now is quite acceptable. Here are the repair guides on iFixit: https://www.ifixit.com/Device/Kodak_Signet_35
The only trick is using a fine piece of string to hold the frame-count advance arm away from the wheel until you get the top back on. I did this through the wind-knob hole and once in place let go of one end of the string and pulled it through. Works great now.
trip-xa
Established
Mine sits on my fireplace mantle. The RF patch is so dark as to make it impossible to use. I shot one roll of film and zone focused.
Kodak Signet by Dan Fogel, on Flickr
Kodak Signet by Dan Fogel, on Flickr
Hmmm, that red dot...
Graybeard
Longtime IIIf User
One can only be pleased that things worked out so well for you; if only things were so for me.
My own, clearly, ham-handed attempts at minor camera repairs have proceeded to such an unhappy end in the past that I now must let such work be done "by others", as it sometimes says in contracts.
I, all too painfully, remember that faint "ding" when an irreplaceable part went dancing across the floor, never to be found again.
I envy your ability to repairs things for yourself.
artphotodude
Adam V. Albrec
Mine sits on my fireplace mantle. The RF patch is so dark as to make it impossible to use. I shot one roll of film and zone focused.
Little bit jealous! Yours is in a bit better shape than mine cosmetically!
Hatchetman
Well-known
Timmyjoe
Mentor
After reading this thread I went to the auction site to see what these cameras were going for and had to laugh when I came across this auction for a Signet 35 listed as Good Condition:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-Kodak-Signet-35-Camera-Leather-Case-in-good-condition-/192102771012
Accompanied by this picture:
Looks like it was living at the bottom of a lake.
Best,
-Tim
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-Kodak-Signet-35-Camera-Leather-Case-in-good-condition-/192102771012
Accompanied by this picture:
Looks like it was living at the bottom of a lake.
Best,
-Tim
Timmyjoe
Mentor
While waiting for a Signet 35 to arrive from the auction site, I stumbled across a Signet 50 in pristine condition, and mistook it for a rangefinder. Sadly, no. But still a lot of fun to shoot, and was pleasantly surprised that the light meter was still accurate after all these years.
Best,
-Tim
Best,
-Tim
mich rassena
Well-known
After reading this thread I went to the auction site to see what these cameras were going for and had to laugh when I came across this auction for a Signet 35 listed as Good Condition:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-Kodak-Signet-35-Camera-Leather-Case-in-good-condition-/192102771012
Accompanied by this picture:
Looks like it was living at the bottom of a lake.
Best,
-Tim
I keep seeing this same camera on eBay and I keep clicking on it because as a small thumbnail it looks like it's covered in a gray leather or something special.
What always amuses me is when a seller describes a camera as in "great shape for its age". Which translates to junk.
As for the Signet 35, I've had two of them, sold one that didn't work and managed to buy one that works on only one shutter speed. I love the idea of this camera. It's the coolest-looking thing, and I can imagine astronauts using it (because of the big knobs and shutter trigger). The shutter's just too fragile. I have a Signet 80 as well. Nice looking, smooth, weird, just completely delicate through and through. What was Kodak thinking? They could have set the bar just a little higher and been truly great.