I seem to be on quite the tear when it comes to cheap 1950’s vintage cameras. I’m not quite certain what my attraction has been to them lately; I think maybe I just need something different on occasion to shake things up a bit. And old 1950’s era cameras seem to be filling that need.

HISTORY AND MARKETING

The Duaflex series of cameras were made from 1947 thru 1960 and were designed for consumers wanting something a little “better” than a Brownie but still easy to use. And less expensive than the deluxe TLR’s of the day like the Rolleiflex.

The Duaflex series of cameras were extremely popular and fit in perfectly with Kodak’s two-part business model: 1. Sell photography itself as a lifestyle and to document life’s most important moments and 2. Sell products that support that (ie, film), ensuring a robust and continual revenue stream.

Below are several ads for the Duaflex series of cameras over the years. My favorite is “The Snowman Never Melts in Snapshots”. Sounds like a great movie title, doesn’t it?

To that end, they were marketed to families in countless print and television advertisements, along with product placement in popular shows such as I Love Lucy. Kodak obviously did very well with the Duaflex line; a quick search on eBay gives you countless options for picking one up today, with prices ranging from $5 to $75 depending on condition, extras, and whatever over-inflated value a seller may have in their minds. I wouldn’t recommend spending more than $20 to $25 on one, and at that price you should be able to find one in good working order that may need a little cleaning.

The two Duaflex IV cameras I’m featuring here are the last of the lineage – the I, II, and III versions being basically the same over the years but with different trim and some small improvements here and there. Most of the Duaflex IV’s you see on eBay are the “cheaper” simple versions with the single element Kodet lens, fixed aperture of f/11, and fixed focal distance. But there was also a “deluxe” version that looked almost the same but had a 3 element Kodar lens, distance/scale focusing, and waterhouse f-stops of f/8, f/11, and f/16.

I own a few copies of each of them and thought it might be interesting to write a review about what its like to use them, and what makes them different from each other.

620 FILM

The first thing I need to talk about here is the 800lb gorilla in the room – they both take 620 film. As I’ve written before, 620 film is physically the same as current 120 film, with the spool being slightly thinner at the ends and a smaller diameter. Just enough difference so that a 120 roll won’t fit in the area of the camera designed for a 620 roll. It was Kodak’s way of making you buy their film instead of 120 that was made by a host of manufacturers at the time. Today something like that would instantly trip the alarm bells of anti-trust watchdogs, but back in the day it was Kodak just being Kodak in fulfilling their above-mentioned two-part business model. Anyway, if you have a dark bag or a dark room, a 620 spool, and a spare 120 spool, you can transfer the film over to the 620 spool fairly easily and then shoot it in your 620 camera. Once you’ve done 1 or 2 rolls it becomes an easy and fast process. I can respool 120 onto a 620 roll in less than 5 minutes now, which gives me the same range of film options as all of my 120 cameras without the worry about keeping two different types of film stocked up.

MORE FEATURES = MORE POTENTIAL HEADACHES

On paper, the deluxe version with the adjustable 3 element Kodar lens seems to be the obvious choice, as they both command about the same prices on eBay. Most sellers don’t even know there were two different versions. So common sense dictates that you should buy the one with more features for the same amount of money. But is that true in practice?

Its common that feature-laden versions of products come with more potential problems compared to their less-spec’d versions, and this holds true in the case of the Duaflex IV. The extra moving parts of the Kodar version of the lens elements and waterhouse stops mean there are more things to get dirty, hazy, or stuck. This can cause blurry or out-of-focus images.

The biggest problem on the Kodar lens model is how the outer 3rd lens element is held in place and moves through the focus range. Two tiny screws hold the metal cap that surrounds the lens, and these can come loose over time. Or, someone can loosen them when trying to clean the lens and not put the cap back in the correct orientation. The result is that the lens is no longer adjusted to be sharp at infinity focus and therefor soft, or maybe even really soft, through the focal range. How can something this easy to mess up and ruin the camera’s performance be an integral part of the design?

The design of the lens and focusing mechanism is simple. Almost too simple. The outer lens element is encased in a threaded helicoil that moves in and out as it is screwed/unscrewed. This changes the focus; when it is screwed “in” at the correct maximum spot its sharp at infinity, and when it is screwed “out” at the correct maximum spot it is sharp at about 3.5 feet. The metal cap with the two screws sandwiches the outer lip of the lens helicoil with a plate on the back when the two visible screws are fully tightened. It’s this “tight sandwich” design that allows the lens to move in and out when the metal cap is rotated stop to stop. What happens when the screws are loosened? The cap and plate move independent of the lens. That means that when the screws work their way even slightly loose, or if someone monkeys with it in a ham-fisted attempt to clean the lens, there’s a 100% chance its no longer calibrated properly and not sharp anywhere on the focus scale.

My first Duaflex IV that I purchased had this problem. None of the shots from the first roll were in focus. I had no clue what was wrong as it was my first time using the camera and all seemed to work fine with it when I was out. It was then upon closer inspection that I realized the cap moved back and forth from 3.5 feet to Infinity, but the lens wasn’t moving with it. Uh-Oh.

I knew this was bad, so at that point I took it apart to understand how it worked. Once I had it apart, I realized that the only way to reset the correct focus was to attach a piece of ground glass to the camera where the film plane was, and then hold the shutter open at f8 and turn the lens without the cap on it until I got a sharp image on the glass at infinity. Once that was achieved, I screwed the cap back on with the pointer at “INF”, and then turned it to “3.5 ft” and checked focus compared to something that was about that far away. Bingo. Focus should now be calibrated correctly.

The next roll I shot was a test roll to check that I had remedied the problem, and sure enough the images were sharp this time. 4 of the images are below. Fairly impressive for what is essentially a glorified box camera.

The second Duaflex IV Kodar that found its way into my possession had the same problem, so there’s a good chance that anyone buying one may have the same issue. The fix was easy for me, but I would imagine for most people they’ll shoot one roll with it, see the disappointing results, and move on. This issue doesn’t exist with the standard Kodet version.

FIELD TEST AND OBSERVATIONS

The user experience with both versions is very similar. Loading film is the same for each camera. Both have a nice, bright viewfinder. The only real difference is that with the Kodet version you just point it at anything more than about 5 feet away and take the image, while with the Kodar version you set your focal distance and if needed, your f-stop before composing and taking the image.

The additional features on the Kodar version are great to have, but only if you remember to set and use them correctly. It may be a function of my age and the fact that I can be rather forgetful at times, but when I have a box camera or pseudo-TLR camera in my hand, I tend to just point and shoot with them. Because most of them don’t have any extra features. This has caught me out on the Kodar version a few times and cause me to have unsharp images due to unchanged adjustments. This isn’t a problem for me when using one of my Rolleiflex cameras; the nature of the camera itself tells me I need to set everything correctly before shooting.

One thing that can be problematic on both versions is the slide lever to change the shutter speed from Instant to Time settings. 99% of the time when shooting hand-held you are going to be taking images with the Instant setting. The problem is that the slide is easy to move to Time when putting the camera in a bag or taking it out, and all too often you don’t catch it until you’ve made an exposure or two.

On these older cameras that were designed back in the days of slow speed orthochromatic films, I like to put a piece of black gaffer tape over the red rear window for extra insurance against light streaks. It’s rare, but if you are out shooting in bright sun you run the risk of the red window letting in enough light to mess up modern film and leave streaks or a nice red circle in the middle of the image.

This past weekend I loaded both models with Ilford FP4+ film, which is a good 125 ISO film which should be perfect for both cameras on a sunny day. I set out walking around Springfield, Ohio with both cameras around my neck like a mad man, and shot the same shot on each camera for comparison. The weather was warm and sunny with a few clouds in the sky. Once home I developed both rolls in the same tank with Rodinal developer and scanned them on an Epson V600 with only light dust removal and final crops done in post. Below are all 12 pairs of images, with the Kodet lens image on the left and the Kodar lens image on the right.

FINAL THOUGHTS

As you can see in the images above, the Kodet lens does OK and certainly is on par with or better than most Holga and Diana cameras. This makes it a decent option for those wanting a cheap way to get into 6x6 medium format photography and aren’t looking for the highest resolution or perfection. Its does suffer from pin-cushion distortion - you can clearly see that in Image 5.

The Kodar lens performed very well, so much so that I’d say it punches above its weight class. While its not up there with an early Rolleicord Triotar (triplet) lens, it does a comparable job. A well adjusted and sorted out Kodar-equipped Duaflex IV is definitely a capable tool in the right hands.

Hopefully this helps you make a decision about which one to purchase based on your intended usage. I don’t think you can really go wrong with either if you pick up a nice example.

Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions!

Jeremy

PS. Some more images of each camera are below.

Duaflex IV Kodet

Duaflex IV Kodar