Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,970   Posts: 1,523,521   Online: 849
      
Page 13 of 18 FirstFirst ... 3789101112131415161718 LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 171
  1. #121

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati Ohio USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    668
    Quote Originally Posted by E. von Hoegh View Post
    Have you ever used one?
    Yes, I own a Kodak 35 and and my baby pictures from 1966 were take with the very same camera. It can give nice photos but I can not see how anyone agreed to put a camera like this into production. It could have been much better in so may ways.

  2. #122

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,325
    Quote Originally Posted by brianmquinn View Post
    Yes, I own a Kodak 35 and and my baby pictures from 1966 were take with the very same camera. It can give nice photos but I can not see how anyone agreed to put a camera like this into production. It could have been much better in so may ways.
    I asked if you used one.

    A Kodak 35 was my first real camera. It had a good lens, better than I realised at the time. It also taught me to see, meter and conserve film. You have to know what you are doing with a camera like that; otherwise you don't get pictures.

    It's a bit slow to use, but far from the worst camera design ever. Get out and use yours for a few rolls. Don't compare it to other cameras, just use it. You might be surprised what it will do if you give it a chance.

  3. #123
    cyberjunkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by lxdude View Post
    If it doesn't scare them away!
    Of course you can't take a bad/battered/badly mantained camera, as an example of the functionality of a certain model.
    The Seagull i owned was a perfectly fine copy of a Rolleicord.
    I purchased it NEW on 1976, and i've used it extensively during a road trip from Italy to India (with lots of detours in between), i did on 1977.
    Some of the best pictures i've ever done were taken with the Seagull, following sunny-16 rule, or with the aid of a separate selenium meter.
    I won't forget how inconvenient and heavy it was, especially during horse rides around Bamyan and Bhand-i-Amir lakes (still remember the camera thumping against my chest, when my poor horse-riding skills soccumbed to the free will of the animal )
    If i have to be absolutely sincere, i think that my two best pictures were actually taken during that trip in Afghanist, with the Seagull TLR: one is a portrait of two falconeers with their falcons, and the other.... well, the other is a double exposure done by mistake
    I enlarged the two pictures quite a bit, and the quality of the honest f/3.5 tessar copy proved up to the task.
    Of course my example had none of the problem reported in other posts.
    Not better than a Rolleicord, but on par with other cheap copies made in EU and Japan (and i mean CHEAP, the Yashica 124-G i purchased years later was way better, albeit not as lucky - it was stolen from my house before proving all its worth).

    If somebody got curious about the whereabouts of my chinese camera:
    it was sold shortly after, only to be substituted by another "communist" camera.
    For my second trip to Pakistan, India and Nepal, that took over 6 months, i purchased a Leica copy from a russian jew in Rome.
    It was a brand new Fed 5 (with the olympic stamp), with a set of 35mm, 50mm and 85mm.
    I wanted a camera that i could afford to break or loose... and with some sort of internal meter.
    BTW, not a single picture came out as good as the best ones i shot with the Seagull!

    have fun

    CJ


    Sent from my Android tablet
    Last edited by cyberjunkie; 06-11-2012 at 12:36 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    Getting back from digital to LF (mostly 5x7" and 8x10")
    selling Linhof Technika III 4x5" (fifth version, graflock back), Mamiya Press outfit + lenses, plus many LF lenses
    trading for soft focus lenses with 8x10" coverage - EU users preferred
    Photographica Flickr sets
    For sale

  4. #124

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati Ohio USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    668
    Quote Originally Posted by E. von Hoegh View Post
    I asked if you used one.
    Yes, I have used it. I have close to a 100 cameras in my collection and I have used them all. Some are quarky but fun to use. I do not find the Kodak 35 to be a fun camera to use so I have used it for only about a half dozen rolls of film. I much perfer one of my old Argus cameras of the same vintage and find them much more fun to use. I have to agree that it may not be the worst camera but in terms of fun to use I would rate it near the bottom.

  5. #125

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,325
    Quote Originally Posted by brianmquinn View Post
    Yes, I have used it. I have close to a 100 cameras in my collection and I have used them all. Some are quarky but fun to use. I do not find the Kodak 35 to be a fun camera to use so I have used it for only about a half dozen rolls of film. I much perfer one of my old Argus cameras of the same vintage and find them much more fun to use. I have to agree that it may not be the worst camera but in terms of fun to use I would rate it near the bottom.
    I get a kick out of using an old C3, as well.

  6. #126

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Boone, North Carolina, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    166
    Quote Originally Posted by tony lockerbie View Post
    The Exaktas have to be the very worst to use, ergonomics never entered into their equations at all!
    Actually, the Exakta was ergonomically designed. Put it on a copy stand and everything falls neatly into place. Of course if you try to use a copy camera as a hand held general photographic instrument, it does not work too well. Since it was the only 35mm SLR around for awhile, people put up with it, but mostly for close up and telephoto photography, sticking to their RF camera for general use.

  7. #127

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Boone, North Carolina, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    166
    Quote Originally Posted by brianmquinn View Post
    That is actually the Kodak 35 RF, I had one once. Almost impossible to use & ugly to boot. Worst $20 I ever spent on a camera. I sold it to a guy, who would not believe it was as bad as I said, for $10. I doubt if it was usable brand new, and can not understand why Kodak ever made it. Without the rangefinder the same camera was merely a cheap camera, not a nightmare.

  8. #128
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,156
    Images
    46
    Now the Kodak 35 is not a bad camera...

    Every little part serves some purpose. There's that little pop-off cover that gives you access to field adjusting the RF. Double-exposure prevention (enforced by an aluminum cover over the cocking mechanism that also protects the shutter release from accidental tripping), automatic shutter cocking. Red painted cocked indicator. Simple shutter that is not likely to fail, even if left for 50 years in a drawer.

    I put a roll through a few weeks ago and just realized that many shots were out of focus. Just checked and the rangefinder was accurate as far as the feet indicated on the lens. But the lens was out of whack. I think the rear element may have been tampered with because on inspection, I was getting infinity focus at the film plane when the scale indicated 15 feet. The front element is drilled tapped and pinned to the cam, so it isn't easy to reposition that scale... So I just adjusted the RF so it is accurate and I am going to have to ignore the indicated feet from now on...

    It's not as easy to use as a Leica. But it is a capable camera, albeit a bit slow (dad, hurry up and take the picture already!)

  9. #129

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,325
    Quote Originally Posted by graywolf View Post
    That is actually the Kodak 35 RF, I had one once. Almost impossible to use & ugly to boot. Worst $20 I ever spent on a camera. I sold it to a guy, who would not believe it was as bad as I said, for $10. I doubt if it was usable brand new, and can not understand why Kodak ever made it. Without the rangefinder the same camera was merely a cheap camera, not a nightmare.
    Impossible? I had no real difficulties using mine. But I was 13 at the time, and had never held a "better" camera.

    edit - It seems that, without their knowing it, some are being judged by this little camera. I find this very interesting.

  10. #130
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,156
    Images
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by E. von Hoegh View Post
    .. But I was 13 at the time, and had never held a "better" camera..
    Like you, I was a kid, around 16. I picked my first one at a garage sale for $7.50

    But I had held a better camera. And therein lies my frustration with the Kodak 35. I used it because I had to.

    My Dad would let me use his Spotmatic II but since he "needed" it for work he would not let me keep it.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin