1939 Retinette - well it works!

[daveywaugh]

I was at a friends house last week and spied a nice looking antique camera... My friend's grandfather had used it in the war and I am pretty sure it's one of the first edition Retinettes. I was amazed to find it working so I popped in a film and snapped a few 🙂 It was just so fun to use! I had never heard of these cameras but they must have been built well! I have been trying to do some research... apart from a faster lens, what else did the Retina offer?

When I picked up the films I told the guy at the lab about the camera and he didn;t believe me! Tried to sell me a new Canon digi P&S. On these results I think I will pick me up one and I reckon you could get results better than a digi anyway 🙂

Thanks.

 

[former member]

The Retina II and others added a rangefinder in addition to faster/more complex lenses. The Xenar is a very good Tessar copy. The Xenon's are a bit sharper, and faster. Stopped down to F4, hard to tell the difference. I use both.

 

[ZeissFan]

The Retinette was the budget alternative to the Retina. I believe this camera uses a triplet -- the Schneider-Kreuznach Reomar.

The earliest versions looked very much like the other folding Retinas. They were nice little cameras.

I really like the shots that you posted. Nice compositions, nice soft colors and very sharp.

Which model Retinette did you use? Kodak AG also made them alongside the Retinas, but I don't think they ever produced a version with a rangefinder. I think they were always zone focus.

 

[ZeissFan]

More info:

I checked my Kodak book, and it looks like there were 15 Retinette models. The first was introduced in 1939 and had an f/6.3 Kodak Anastigmat (the triplet version).

Successive models had an f/3.5 or f/4.5 Kodak Anastigmat, Enna Ennatar or Schneider-Kreuznach Reomar with nearly all after the fourth model carrying the Reomar.

Before I gave up trying to hunt down each of the 15 models, I did learn that there was one version with a Schneider-Kreuznach Xenar (Tessar type) and one version that was shipped to France without any lens at all.

 

[daveywaugh]

I wish I had the camera in front of me... from memory it looks like the Type 160. I am only assuming it was made in 1939 as it went to war (an Australian soldier who left here in early 1940 I believe). It does have Compur shutter and I am pretty sure it had a f3.5 lens... maybe this makes it a later model? The Schneider-Kreuznach Reomar rings a bell.

He could have perhaps purchased it in Europe perhaps before going to the frontline? I am guessing production stopped on the cameras for some time because of the war??

 

[daveywaugh]

Oh and thanks for your help too ZeissFan! And Brian also - it's much appreciated. My friend with the Retinette has just had a baby girl, so my aim is to take some nice portraits of her and new baby for her mother... using her grandad's camera from the war! Yes I am confused already 🙂 It's nice to know a little bit about the camera's history as she is really interested.

 

[Tom hicks]

Davey what film did you use here they have a nice 50's look to them. Excellent .

 

[daveywaugh]

Thanks Tom. Just some Fuji Superior 400. Hoping to use some Tri-X when I have another go.

 

[ZeissFan]

I was very impressed with the photos. And the camera is so small that it isn't intimidating in a way that a larger camera (SLR or rangefinder) can be. Nice work.

 

[mh2000]

the older Retinas are not really much bigger or intimidating than a Retinette, just they have better lenses, shutters and of course, a RF for when you need one. For snap shots I shoot my Retina IIa zone focus just like you would a Retinette. My mint IIa cost $50 off ebay and it is my very favorite shooting classic camera, more so than my very pretty Leica IIIc. I highly recommend the IIa... the lever wind is a nice touch. Retinettes are cute cameras too though... I could never find a reason to get one when Retinas were almost as small and cheap... ymmv.