My step-father acquired one of these in the mid-'50s when I was a teenager. I don't recall him using it, but I do remember how impressed I was at the time with the compact, elegant styling of the camera. What brought that distant past into focus was an ad on Craigslist for a Signet 35 for $10.
The cosmetic appearance of the camera was not bad, but the shutter only worked sluggishly and the viewfinder was nearly opaque. Luckily, this is one of the easiest rangefinder cameras to work on, and a bit of light cleaning of the optics and mechanics got everything working fine. There are excellent on line resources for servicing the Signet 35 including the pheugo site, Mike Elek and Chris Sherlock. The Kodak Signet 35 user manual is available on line from Butkus.
The Signet 35 shares a number of design features with the contemporary Kodak Bantam RF, however the plastic-bodied Bantam used 828 roll film, while the even smaller Signet accommodated 35mm cassettes. The Signet 35 body was sturdy cast aluminum, which made it more suitable for the military applications to which it was put during the Korean War period. The manual cocking shutter has a limited but adequate range of speeds going up to 1/300. The Ektar lens is a Tessar type, and of outstanding quality.
I included a bit of the camera's frame mask in the last shot to illustrate a curious feature which the Signet 35 shares with both the plastic and the metal-bodied Bantams. I have never found a satisfactory explanation for those little notches on the left side of the image. I assume they had something to do with the assembly or adjustment of the camera in the factory. Kodak, like most big manufacturing concerns in those days, was very secretive about their design and construction processes, and it seems unlikely at this point that the question of the notches will get an authoritative answer. It is also something of a mystery as to why the company did not further pursue the design innovations incorporated in the Signet 35.
16 comments:
The photo of the window with the tulips and daffodils is just stunning.
I used to have a Signet 35 but it appears that I never put film through it before selling it on. That's not at all like me. I have no memory now of why I did that.
The Signet 35 is really a nice little camera. For some reason it has acquired a reputation of being difficult to work on, but it is not. It has a more modular construction than anything I have seen before. I'm particularly pleased to have another Ektar lens. My only other one is on a Retina I.
This is a great piece on the camera and the color photos really show the richness of Springtime!
Thanks, Becky. The fine weather we've had really has inspired me to get out more with the cameras. That shot of the garden is made in the courtyard where the Velvet Coffeeshop is located.
Really nice work with that Kodak! That lens kicks butt!
Most everyone I know thinks of Kodak only as a manufacturer of film and cheap plastic Instamatics. Truth is, the company produced some very fine and capable cameras
Can't disagree with that. Even the simplest Kodaks made good pictures with appropriate use. The top-end cameras from the company were very competitive thanks to some very talented designers like Arthur Crapsey, who was responsible for a lot of the post-war models including the Pony, the Bantam RF and the Signet 35.
Great stuff Mike. Every time I read one of your reviews I think "I should probably get one of those!" It's a dangerous blog that way. Keep up the good work. :)
I think the Signet 35 is going to be my last camera. Nice to go out on a high note.
Thanks for calling our attention to this small, capable and somewhat forgotten camera; these are not common in my area and I have never handled one. Excellent frames, as usual.
Please no more of this "last camera" talk. Those of us in the crowd want to see more posts like this one! Thanks again.
Thanks, Julio. Always great to get a message from the other end of the world that harbors a lot of great memories for me. I'm just thinking I don't need to add any new acquisitions to the camera collection. I've got about a hundred that I can recycle for new material. The Signet 35 is particularly appealing to me because of the personal history. The camera also has all the features that I value including compactness, full control and lens excellence. On top of all that: 10 bucks!
Wow, those photographs look great Mike! I just recently acquired a Kodak Signet 35 and am anxious to clean it up and put it through its paces! The Ektar lenses are indeed something special. They are every bit as good as, if not better than, their foreign counterparts. I have the Kodak Chevron which has a 78mm Ektar that I love. Other than the required 620 film takeup spool, the Chevron is one of my favorites. I just trim down the spool from 120 film and it fits just fine on the supply side in the camera. Though it is much larger than the Signet 35, it has similar styling. I'm looking forward to using it now based on your results!
-Jason
Wow, a Kodak Chevron! Do you have some photos on line from that interesting Kodak?
Sorry for the untimely delay in my responding! I came across your blog again Mike when I was searching the Signet 35. I recently sent the Signet 35 and Chevron off to be cleaned and hope to get them back soon!
I do have a few photos I posted online from my first role I ran through the Chevron, they are linked here: https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/kodak-chevron.5510436/. There are also a few photos of the camera itself. Such a quirky looking camera I think, but it has a loveliness to it at the same time. It's not at all a difficult camera to use, except once must use an exposure meter. I typically just use an exposure meter app on my iPhone. I did find out the hard way that the plastic 120 spools must be trimmed down and perfectly smooth in order to ensure the film lies flat inside the camera. If the trimmed ends are somewhat jagged, I think it causes the film to no longer maintain the flatness it needs to ensure razor sharp images in the negatives. Of course, if you are re-rolling your 120 film onto a 620 spool, you don't have to worry about it, but I usually just trim the plastic spool and then take a file and go around it a few times to make sure all edges are smoothed out. It doesn't take long at all and it is worth it.
I think this particular Ektar lens gives an interesting look to the photos. I haven't used the Kodak Medalist so I'm not sure how they compare side by side, but I am guessing both are very similar. The Chevron is a somewhat big camera to carry around, but it is unique and forces you to slow down a bit when composing your picture.
Many thanks for getting back with some info on the amazing Chevron. Don't know how I missed your post on photo.net as I check there daily. The styling really does look a lot like the Kodak Signet In my experience, all the Ektar lenses produce woderful results. I think people who report poor performance just haven't given the cameras the restorative attention that is required of decades-old equipment.
The notches on the film gate probably served to identify the camera the film was exposed in. I've got several old Kodaks with various notches. I think each pattern of notches is specific to a model of camera. It might be a research project for some student of photographic history to work this out. Because Kodak had a pretty robust photofinishing business they might have wanted to track how much each camera was used, for marketing purposes.
That is an explanation that had not occurred to me. You are right that the pattern of notches is different in different cameras. The two notches in the Signet are widely spaced on the right side of the film gate. In the Flash Bantam the two notches are close together on the left. The Pony 828 with a plastic film gate has no notches while the Bantam RF has one notch on the middle of the right side. So maybe we still don't know exactly what the purpose was, but at least we have assembled some data.
Post a Comment