My first "good" camera: Back in the middle 70s, while in high school, I went to the only camera store in my hometown with the band director to pick up some photographs for use in a show the band put on every year. I'd never been in that store before. There was a 35mm SLR set up on a tripod aimed out the window of the store and focused on the sidewalk across the street. I bent over, looked through the viewfinder and entered a brand new world. The image contained in the black square was, to me, an amazing thing to see--like sitting in a dark theater seeing a stage play where a totally foreign world unfolds under stage lights, framed by the proscenium arch. If I could draw today, 59+ years later, I could draw with considerable detail the man who walked through the frame that day. I started saving my meager earnings that day until I could buy a Pentax Spotmatic II. A couple of years later, I was helping pay for college by shooting weddings. Today, my main camera is a Nikon D700 and I know that soon, I'll tap my savings for a Z8 or a Z9 (just to own the best camera in the world before I die). But... last week, at an estate sale, I bought a Retina IIIc (a small c, but one of the later models with the same rangefinder as came out on the big C). The camera looks brand new. Once I found a manual and started trying everything out, I discovered I could not move the focus. But 30 minutes ago, thanks to a Chris Sherlock video, I got it working with no problem. The Retina is not going to gather dust on the shelf of my collected cameras (one of which is a Century view camera, also most likely build by Kodak after it bought Century). I wouldn't give up my digital camera. Digital is a blessing with my ADD brain. But, I may have never replaced my enlarger after losing it in a move, but I still have some developing tanks. I'm going to put some film through this Retina. All I have to decide is whether I'm going to buy some film or crack open the unopened box containing 50' of Kodak Plus X I purchased for $6.95 a long time ago. Cheers.
My first camera was Kodak fisher and price 110 film camera.. the blue one. I loved that thing. I was 8 when my parents bought it for me. I used it ALL the time.. I was practically the only kid at elementary school, taking photos. Then as a teen, my father gave me his Nikkormat Ftn .. Such an awesome camera.. I still use it today at 41.
My dad used to talk about how he loved his Retina. That was in 1937 when I was 7. He soon after suffered a debilitating disease. Recently, because of that memory, I have bought a few Retinas but nothing pre-war. (By the way, he was a professional photographer in Vermont and Iowa. During the depression, at that.) Looking forward to shooting with my IIIc.
I purchased a Kodak Retina IB last week for 25,-€ (approx. 27,-$) - one of the simplier equipped models with a Schneider Kreuznach Xenar 50mm f2.8 and without rangefinder. Unfortunately the shutter and aperture blades were sticky. This and some other flaws have to be considered, when buying old cameras. I luckily managed to service it successfully by myself (videos by Chris Sherlock were very helpful) and now it works like charm. Anyways, I immediately fell in love with it and after watching this video I think about buying a IIIC. The first camera I leaned on was my dad's Voigtländer Bessamatic, when I was about 10 years old. It's a fully manual camera, and a perfect tool to learn the relation between film sensibility, aperture and exposure. I still use it today - Voigtländer lenses are also amazing!
The first camera i got was a Retina Ib which my grandfather bought in the 50s. Sadly someone stole it when we had a picnic and so i bought a IB. Later i tried the IIIc and finally the big C. This camera is not the best allrounder but it´s my favourite 35mm. Small, durable, shutter is always working and the 50mm is wonderful. Can´t say anything about the 80mm or the 35mm f4 but the 35mm f5.6 is a really good lense and nice for landscapes
I have an M3 and actully I prefer the IIIC for 50mm: it's smaller, lighter, more silent, simple to load and the 50mm is super sharp. Plus the IIIC has that integrated Light meter that is precise enough even for reversal film. On the other hand the M3 is fantastic with a 135mm Elmar lens.
@@kennethwajda the impression of shooting with the M3 and the elmar 135 is just incredible. There's something I do not experience with other cameras. Also the 135 framing in the viewfinder gives the unique ability to reframe very quickly if something interesting appears beyond that 135mm frame.
Starting in the 1930s, Kodak made though the Nagel factory in Germany, which it bought, about 1932, a series of 35mm folders under the Retina model name. The naming numbers assigned to distinguish the models are not very intuitive, but each model is a rational advancement over the previous, except for the very last. All have a build quality much higher than average for their period. There is a dividing line around 1952 with the introduction of the IIa, being the first to use the modern Synchro-Compur shutter used in all later models, as well as the Schneider Xenon 50mm 2.0 lens. The next major step was the IIIc/IIc, much like the one in the video, but retaining the frameless, squinty viewfinder of prior models. The former had a meter and a 2.0 lens; the latter no meter and a 2.8 lens for US versions. These were replaced by the IIIC (shown here)/IIC, which are the prior models but finally adopting a modern, large viewfinder and adding frame lines for the accessory lenses. My preference is the IIC, lacking a meter which was so-so when new and often has failed now. The last Retina folder was a IB, which used the same body, but dropped the meter and used a less complex(i.e., cheaper) lens. It was a budget option to milk the last sale out of the Retina market before dropping it. The Retina name carried on with non-folder models and a series of SLRs, which are quite nice when working but not the same vibe. (There are two urban legends about the IIc and IIC. (1) That the 2.8 lens is the same as the 2.0 lens, but with its maximum aperture blocked to encourage shoppers to buy the more expensive 2.0 lens model. Pretty sure that one is bogus. (2) The 2.8 lens is hugely sharper and overall better than the IIIc/C 2.0 lens. This would be contrary to the first legend, and is probably bogus if compared at the same apertures. Not personally tested, however.)
I just picked up a III "small c" and really like it simply as piece of beautiful crafted machinery. I look forward to shooting with it after a CLA. My first camera was Minolta SRT101 with the f1.7 lens which I received as gift in junior high school. They are solid cameras with nice lenses and can also be found for $100 or less these days.
Like you, I sought out the camera from my childhood, a Kodak Duaflex IV. My parents let me wind and "shoot" it empty, and the world looked so interesting through that big topside viewfinder. That led to a real TLR, a Mamiya C220, then a $125 box of 30-odd cameras from a man in Wheat Ridge selling his dad's collection. I've shot almost all of them, mostly '70s slrs, but also a couple of box cameras and a beautiful Olympus PEN FT. I found my Retina IIc in a camera shop in Montrose that was going out of business. It's a great little camera, but I wish I knew then what I know now about Retinas and checked for the IIIC.
Thanks for the motivation to pull out the small c. I forgot how beautiful the 2.0 lens is. Funny, it took a sec to figure out the numbers again. Enjoyed the Duane Michaels article BTW. Thanks again.
Nice. I don't get to shoot the cameras I already have. I always have an itch to acquire more cameras (that I'll probably never get to shoot). The Retina has always intrigued me. Maybe I'll pick one up if I come across one at that $100 price point. I'll need to remember "Big C."
The little c is preferable for the following reasons: - it is true that the big C finder is bigger. But the 50 mm frame lines is actually a bit smaller in the finder, so you have a smaller view of your subject. The ratio of the rangefinder patch covering the subject is also bigger on the C which can be a good or a bad thing. - The little c also has a viewfinder and rangefinder assembly that is far easier to disassemble and clean then the big C. - The little c has a flap over the light meter for daylight readings. This means that the light meter is far better protected and is more likely to work. - Little c are more numerous, so they will be easier to find a nice version of and not pay the price for being able to use the more or less useless extra lenses. - Little c is more likely to come with the Rodenstock Heligon, which is likely a slightly better lens.
Good points. The big C viewfinder is good for glasses-wearers like me, though! And I've never had a working light meter on any of these. The little C is certainly a gem! :-)
Hi, Ken Bought a refurbished Kodak Retina IIIC. Beautiful finish and workmanship but selenium meter is very sensitive to bright light and when I set to corresponding EV, it results in under exposure. How does one address this? Love the compact size and sharp lens but very unsure of selenium meter. Would you recommend using a hand held meter w this Kodak Retina IIIC?
An added note to my previous comment-- They aren't making any new film cameras, and the few attempts at doing so were flops and outright scams. Acquiring more film cameras, even though one might not shoot them often, isn't necessarily a bad thing. Eventually the supply of good, serviceable cameras will dry up. They're already going up in price considerably due to the resurgence of interest in film and the hipster/millennial crowd. I've got quite a collection of cameras now and always see need for more cameras and lenses. My refrigerator shelf has more film than I can shoot in probably two or more years. (Three more years until I'm done with child ransom payments through the state; then I can actually have a job I enjoy and do some real photography-- and hopefully some travelling--if we don't live in a dystopian COVID world by then.)
I've had a IIIc for decades. It is fantastically complex for a Kodak. You're right about the squinty viewfinder and the superb lens. Another Kodak with excellent lens and even squintier viewfinder is the hilariously "steampunk" Kodak 35RF of the late 40s/early 50s. The differences in design, construction, and complexity between the US-made Kodak and the German Kodak are stark.
My first "good" camera: Back in the middle 70s, while in high school, I went to the only camera store in my hometown with the band director to pick up some photographs for use in a show the band put on every year. I'd never been in that store before. There was a 35mm SLR set up on a tripod aimed out the window of the store and focused on the sidewalk across the street. I bent over, looked through the viewfinder and entered a brand new world. The image contained in the black square was, to me, an amazing thing to see--like sitting in a dark theater seeing a stage play where a totally foreign world unfolds under stage lights, framed by the proscenium arch. If I could draw today, 59+ years later, I could draw with considerable detail the man who walked through the frame that day. I started saving my meager earnings that day until I could buy a Pentax Spotmatic II. A couple of years later, I was helping pay for college by shooting weddings. Today, my main camera is a Nikon D700 and I know that soon, I'll tap my savings for a Z8 or a Z9 (just to own the best camera in the world before I die).
But...
last week, at an estate sale, I bought a Retina IIIc (a small c, but one of the later models with the same rangefinder as came out on the big C). The camera looks brand new. Once I found a manual and started trying everything out, I discovered I could not move the focus. But 30 minutes ago, thanks to a Chris Sherlock video, I got it working with no problem. The Retina is not going to gather dust on the shelf of my collected cameras (one of which is a Century view camera, also most likely build by Kodak after it bought Century). I wouldn't give up my digital camera. Digital is a blessing with my ADD brain. But, I may have never replaced my enlarger after losing it in a move, but I still have some developing tanks. I'm going to put some film through this Retina. All I have to decide is whether I'm going to buy some film or crack open the unopened box containing 50' of Kodak Plus X I purchased for $6.95 a long time ago.
Cheers.
My first camera was Kodak fisher and price 110 film camera.. the blue one. I loved that thing. I was 8 when my parents bought it for me. I used it ALL the time.. I was practically the only kid at elementary school, taking photos. Then as a teen, my father gave me his Nikkormat Ftn .. Such an awesome camera.. I still use it today at 41.
That Nikkormat will never stop working! Nice!
My grandmother has one that she bought new and still has the original manual and a wide and a telephoto lens!!
Sweet.
My dad used to talk about how he loved his Retina. That was in 1937 when I was 7. He soon after suffered a debilitating disease. Recently, because of that memory, I have bought a few Retinas but nothing pre-war. (By the way, he was a professional photographer in Vermont and Iowa. During the depression, at that.) Looking forward to shooting with my IIIc.
Wow, what he must have seen and photographed. Yes, get shooting!
I purchased a Kodak Retina IB last week for 25,-€ (approx. 27,-$) - one of the simplier equipped models with a Schneider Kreuznach Xenar 50mm f2.8 and without rangefinder. Unfortunately the shutter and aperture blades were sticky. This and some other flaws have to be considered, when buying old cameras. I luckily managed to service it successfully by myself (videos by Chris Sherlock were very helpful) and now it works like charm. Anyways, I immediately fell in love with it and after watching this video I think about buying a IIIC.
The first camera I leaned on was my dad's Voigtländer Bessamatic, when I was about 10 years old. It's a fully manual camera, and a perfect tool to learn the relation between film sensibility, aperture and exposure. I still use it today - Voigtländer lenses are also amazing!
The first camera i got was a Retina Ib which my grandfather bought in the 50s. Sadly someone stole it when we had a picnic and so i bought a IB. Later i tried the IIIc and finally the big C. This camera is not the best allrounder but it´s my favourite 35mm. Small, durable, shutter is always working and the 50mm is wonderful. Can´t say anything about the 80mm or the 35mm f4 but the 35mm f5.6 is a really good lense and nice for landscapes
I have an M3 and actully I prefer the IIIC for 50mm: it's smaller, lighter, more silent, simple to load and the 50mm is super sharp. Plus the IIIC has that integrated Light meter that is precise enough even for reversal film.
On the other hand the M3 is fantastic with a 135mm Elmar lens.
Nice two-camera setup.
@@kennethwajda the impression of shooting with the M3 and the elmar 135 is just incredible. There's something I do not experience with other cameras. Also the 135 framing in the viewfinder gives the unique ability to reframe very quickly if something interesting appears beyond that 135mm frame.
Starting in the 1930s, Kodak made though the Nagel factory in Germany, which it bought, about 1932, a series of 35mm folders under the Retina model name. The naming numbers assigned to distinguish the models are not very intuitive, but each model is a rational advancement over the previous, except for the very last. All have a build quality much higher than average for their period. There is a dividing line around 1952 with the introduction of the IIa, being the first to use the modern Synchro-Compur shutter used in all later models, as well as the Schneider Xenon 50mm 2.0 lens. The next major step was the IIIc/IIc, much like the one in the video, but retaining the frameless, squinty viewfinder of prior models. The former had a meter and a 2.0 lens; the latter no meter and a 2.8 lens for US versions. These were replaced by the IIIC (shown here)/IIC, which are the prior models but finally adopting a modern, large viewfinder and adding frame lines for the accessory lenses. My preference is the IIC, lacking a meter which was so-so when new and often has failed now. The last Retina folder was a IB, which used the same body, but dropped the meter and used a less complex(i.e., cheaper) lens. It was a budget option to milk the last sale out of the Retina market before dropping it. The Retina name carried on with non-folder models and a series of SLRs, which are quite nice when working but not the same vibe. (There are two urban legends about the IIc and IIC. (1) That the 2.8 lens is the same as the 2.0 lens, but with its maximum aperture blocked to encourage shoppers to buy the more expensive 2.0 lens model. Pretty sure that one is bogus. (2) The 2.8 lens is hugely sharper and overall better than the IIIc/C 2.0 lens. This would be contrary to the first legend, and is probably bogus if compared at the same apertures. Not personally tested, however.)
Thanks. Lots of good info. Appreciate you posting it!
I bought one and expect delivery this week. I can’t wait to use a camera older than me!
I just picked up a III "small c" and really like it simply as piece of beautiful crafted machinery. I look forward to shooting with it after a CLA. My first camera was Minolta SRT101 with the f1.7 lens which I received as gift in junior high school. They are solid cameras with nice lenses and can also be found for $100 or less these days.
Like you, I sought out the camera from my childhood, a Kodak Duaflex IV. My parents let me wind and "shoot" it empty, and the world looked so interesting through that big topside viewfinder. That led to a real TLR, a Mamiya C220, then a $125 box of 30-odd cameras from a man in Wheat Ridge selling his dad's collection. I've shot almost all of them, mostly '70s slrs, but also a couple of box cameras and a beautiful Olympus PEN FT. I found my Retina IIc in a camera shop in Montrose that was going out of business. It's a great little camera, but I wish I knew then what I know now about Retinas and checked for the IIIC.
Great video. I have one with the small C and it is a precision instrument. It has a little heft to it but that's because it's solidly built.
I know that one well. Also a great one.
Thanks for the motivation to pull out the small c. I forgot how beautiful the 2.0 lens is. Funny, it took a sec to figure out the numbers again. Enjoyed the Duane Michaels article BTW. Thanks again.
You're very welcome, J P.
Nice. I don't get to shoot the cameras I already have. I always have an itch to acquire more cameras (that I'll probably never get to shoot). The Retina has always intrigued me. Maybe I'll pick one up if I come across one at that $100 price point. I'll need to remember "Big C."
Yep! Good luck.
The little c is preferable for the following reasons:
- it is true that the big C finder is bigger. But the 50 mm frame lines is actually a bit smaller in the finder, so you have a smaller view of your subject.
The ratio of the rangefinder patch covering the subject is also bigger on the C which can be a good or a bad thing.
- The little c also has a viewfinder and rangefinder assembly that is far easier to disassemble and clean then the big C.
- The little c has a flap over the light meter for daylight readings. This means that the light meter is far better protected and is more likely to work.
- Little c are more numerous, so they will be easier to find a nice version of and not pay the price for being able to use the more or less useless extra lenses.
- Little c is more likely to come with the Rodenstock Heligon, which is likely a slightly better lens.
Good points. The big C viewfinder is good for glasses-wearers like me, though! And I've never had a working light meter on any of these. The little C is certainly a gem! :-)
Hi, Ken
Bought a refurbished Kodak Retina IIIC. Beautiful finish and workmanship but selenium meter is very sensitive to bright light and when I set to corresponding EV, it results in under exposure. How does one address this? Love the compact size and sharp lens but very unsure of selenium meter. Would you recommend using a hand held meter w this Kodak Retina IIIC?
An added note to my previous comment-- They aren't making any new film cameras, and the few attempts at doing so were flops and outright scams. Acquiring more film cameras, even though one might not shoot them often, isn't necessarily a bad thing. Eventually the supply of good, serviceable cameras will dry up. They're already going up in price considerably due to the resurgence of interest in film and the hipster/millennial crowd. I've got quite a collection of cameras now and always see need for more cameras and lenses. My refrigerator shelf has more film than I can shoot in probably two or more years. (Three more years until I'm done with child ransom payments through the state; then I can actually have a job I enjoy and do some real photography-- and hopefully some travelling--if we don't live in a dystopian COVID world by then.)
Yes, we will return to a normal world! Trust!
My first camera was a Brownie Starflash With Kodachrome film really took some nice images. At least at 15 yrs old I thought so. Lol.
Still have them? Post them here!
I've had a IIIc for decades. It is fantastically complex for a Kodak. You're right about the squinty viewfinder and the superb lens.
Another Kodak with excellent lens and even squintier viewfinder is the hilariously "steampunk" Kodak 35RF of the late 40s/early 50s. The differences in design, construction, and complexity between the US-made Kodak and the German Kodak are stark.
That is steampunky! Yes, the German-made are all quite good.
For Shame...not a Leica 3C at all !!!