raftman
Established
This was my first rangefinder, and apparently it's a very bad one to start with. I got from ebay, and it apparently worked alright initially. The shutter fired, and speeds seemed reasonably accurate. The self timer would always stick but I wasn't expecting perfect function from a camera that's been around who knows where for the last 65 years (I determined my particular one was made in 1941).
The first roll of film produced moderate results, but 3 rolls after that ended up absolutely terrible. There are 2 windows to look through, one for focus and the other for composition, neither of which worked too well. The rangefinder required a lot of strain to use (the window was absolutely tiny) and required a huge amount of light to work correctly. The lens is also a pain to remove because it requires a lot of disassembly (but I guess this is because it really wasn't designed to be frequently changed)... the sharpness and contrast captured by the lens were also terrible. Soon after my test rolls, the camera broke, and the shutter would no longer cock. I took it apart and came up with a makeshift solution to the problem, but realized given the results the camera gave me, I'd never used it again. So I disassembled it further and it sits in pieces still. I think this is a terrible camera.
Does anyone else own one of these? If so, were your experiences with it any better?
On the plus side, the case the Kodak came with oddly enough seems to fit my Fed pretty well, and since the Fed didn't come with a case when I bought it, some good did come from the Kodak 35 RF.
The first roll of film produced moderate results, but 3 rolls after that ended up absolutely terrible. There are 2 windows to look through, one for focus and the other for composition, neither of which worked too well. The rangefinder required a lot of strain to use (the window was absolutely tiny) and required a huge amount of light to work correctly. The lens is also a pain to remove because it requires a lot of disassembly (but I guess this is because it really wasn't designed to be frequently changed)... the sharpness and contrast captured by the lens were also terrible. Soon after my test rolls, the camera broke, and the shutter would no longer cock. I took it apart and came up with a makeshift solution to the problem, but realized given the results the camera gave me, I'd never used it again. So I disassembled it further and it sits in pieces still. I think this is a terrible camera.
Does anyone else own one of these? If so, were your experiences with it any better?
On the plus side, the case the Kodak came with oddly enough seems to fit my Fed pretty well, and since the Fed didn't come with a case when I bought it, some good did come from the Kodak 35 RF.
lmd91343
There's my Proctor-Silex!
I have one of those. It belonged to my father-in-law. I tried it for a roll. The images where ok, it was just a pita to use. No parallax, small viewfinder, horrible split image RF. In the '40s, here in the US, and places elsewhere, Kodak was the best and sometimes only choice. A lot of people used those cameras for a long time. In fact, right after WWII, 'blad used Kodak lenses.
My father-in-law obtained many wonderful slides and B&W negs from it, so it must be quite capable. However, when he got back into photography in about 1980, He bought an AE pentax SLR!
Sometimes it is just not worth putting in the time or money on an old unsupported camera. My first 35mm camera was the one my father took to Korea. He travelled there at his Uncle Sam's request in the early '50s. It had no internal RF or lightmeter. Those values had to be input from an external lm and rf or guessed. His pictures were pretty good, amazing if you remember there was a war going on. I got very good images from that camera. It took almost five minutes a photo and I was not in a war! When the camera broke (shutter spring), it was only a little bit more expensive to buy a BRAND NEW PENTAX SLR with built in light meter.
My father-in-law obtained many wonderful slides and B&W negs from it, so it must be quite capable. However, when he got back into photography in about 1980, He bought an AE pentax SLR!
Sometimes it is just not worth putting in the time or money on an old unsupported camera. My first 35mm camera was the one my father took to Korea. He travelled there at his Uncle Sam's request in the early '50s. It had no internal RF or lightmeter. Those values had to be input from an external lm and rf or guessed. His pictures were pretty good, amazing if you remember there was a war going on. I got very good images from that camera. It took almost five minutes a photo and I was not in a war! When the camera broke (shutter spring), it was only a little bit more expensive to buy a BRAND NEW PENTAX SLR with built in light meter.
John Robertson
Well-known
Sometimes it is just not worth putting in the time or money on an old unsupported camera. .[/QUOTE said:
raftman
Established
The lens on mine is apparently in not very good condition... very cloudy and won't come clean... plus it's not that easy to replace. It's too bad because I do like some of its features. The wind/rewind mechanism is quite alright, and I like the "T" shutter speed.
OldNick
Well-known
As I recall when I was shopping for a rangefinder in the early fifties, the Kodak 35 had a miserable reputation. I steered clear of it. Kodak did make some decent rangefinders at that time, including the Signet, which was very small and compact, but really hit a winner when they imported the Retina line from Germany. That was pretty much the end of their in-house 35s.
Jim N.
Jim N.
raftman
Established
It also has a very crude, cheaply-made feel to it, so much so that even my Fed 5 seems elegant by comparison. What drew me to buy the Kodak 35 RF was the price, it was only $5 (excluding shipping which was another $7 or so). Adding the cost of the film and development, my losses aren't too steep but it's still something I regret.
John Robertson
Well-known
The Signet 80 was a nice camera with interchangeable lenses, but hard to find a good one now.
Tom Harrell
Well-known
I have one of the "ugly duckling's" as well. It has been setting on my shelf for sometime collecting dust. I just took it outside on the deck and shot about three frames with it. I don't think I ever ran any film through it. It belonged to a friend of mines brother and she gave it to me because of my interest in photography. I know it could use a CLA but the rangefinder seems to work and the focus turns freely. The shutter settings turn hard. I wonder if a shot of lighter fluid would free it up?
Tom
Tom
P
pshinkaw
Guest
This too was my first camera. Back in 1964. It made a lot of backpacking trips in the Sierras and traveled with me to school every day. I bulk loaded film and probably ran a couple of hundred feet through it before I finally moved on.
My father acquired it in the army before he went to Korea in 1952 and it was a an early 1940's model like the one above.
I bought another last month just out of nostalgia. However, there are lots of easier to use 35mm ragefinders around that will give you better results.
I suggest you reassemble it, put it on the shelf and move on.
-Paul
My father acquired it in the army before he went to Korea in 1952 and it was a an early 1940's model like the one above.
I bought another last month just out of nostalgia. However, there are lots of easier to use 35mm ragefinders around that will give you better results.
I suggest you reassemble it, put it on the shelf and move on.
-Paul
raftman
Established
I think by now, I'm missing a couple of screws and maybe a spring. Maybe I'll come across someone who wants parts or something. Although mine is the same model as the one pictured, it's not in nearly in as good of shape. I'm not totally sure why, but as mentioned before the lens is really foggy, and simply will not clean.
Last edited: