The Anscoflex cameras, both version I and II, feature some iconic Mid-Century Modern (MCM) design that really sets them apart from their contemporary competitors. That aluminum “garage door” cover, the way it flips open, the grey color with red anodized shutter button – there’s no mistaking them for any other camera. The addition of the built-in close-up lens and yellow filter on the Anscoflex II make it, on paper, a desirable camera.

My Anscoflex II was an unplanned purchase – if you read my blog entry last month you know the full story. Trying to somehow stick to my plan of lowering the number of cameras that reside in my home means that I really needed to get out and shoot a roll with it to see if it was really worth keeping, or if I wanted to sell it. I don’t want another “shelf-queen”, no matter how good she looks.

Images of the Anscoflex II are below. Not pictured are the original display box/case, and flash unit.

I loaded a roll of Ilford HP5+ that I re-spooled onto a 620 spool, and set out on a 10F degree day for an hour walk in the woods at Bill Yeck Park in Centerville, Ohio.

Before I get to the images, I have a few thoughts about the ergonomics and user experience of shooting the Anscoflex.

The built-in, non-replaceable vinyl strap is very short, meaning that wearing it around my neck put the camera high up on my chest and made winding and using the controls difficult. Sliding that garage door cover out of the way to reveal the lens was also a pain. And leaving it in the up position made me worry about damaging those upper doors that pop up, so I decided to pop the door back down after every shot. The other issue was the location of the shutter button. Having it on the side meant that I had to be very careful to not move the camera when I pressed it, for fear of the camera moving sideways and blurring the shot. TLR-style cameras that have the shutter button on the front are better in my opinion, because they allow you to brace the camera against your chest with the straps acting as extra bracing, so therefor nothing moves when you push it back toward you. Pushing a side button introduces a potential for blurry images at the slow 1/40th shutter speed. And the shutter button has to be pressed in quite a bit before you feel a faint “click”. It doesn’t inspire confidence that you got the shot.

Even though the camera has a tripod mount, the lack of a bulb or time setting means that you are limited to just the one shutter speed. No long exposures. So getting the exposure right means relying on making a prudent film choice based on lighting conditions. I guess you could find a way to made additional filters fit on the taking lens, but anything you stick on the front would get in the way of the rather fragile garage door closure, and risk damaging it if you forget there was something stuck on the front.

Anscoflex cameras are also know for having “fat rolls”, and mine is no exception. A “fat roll” is where the film isn’t wound tightly on the take-up spool and allows light in thru the edges or sides of the roll. The old roll of film that was in my camera when I purchased it was a fat roll, and I attributed that to a user that just didn’t know what they were doing. However, when I shot my roll of film, a fat roll was the result. I think the reason is due to the horrible ratchet system of winding on the film between shots. It never seemed to land directly on the exposure number in the window, and I found myself making ½ cranks sometimes to get the number centered in the window. This caused the film to be slack, which led to the fat roll and some occasional uneven spacing between images on the roll.

OK, enough talking - here are a few of the shots from my hike. These were Semi-Stand developed in Rodinal developer in a 1:100 mix ratio @ 68F for 60 minutes.

I’ve read that the 2-element lens is sharper than the single element competitors of its day, but I don’t really see that in my images. There very well may be some motion blur from pressing the side shutter button, even though I did my best to hold it steady.

Unfortunately, I think the Anscoflex suffers from a big problem of “form over function”. I can confidently state that I have no desire to shoot with it again. The design elements look great, but they don’t help, or in some cases they hinder, the usability of the camera. That’s a real shame, because if it actually worked as well as it looks, it would inspire someone to get out and shoot with it often. I own several cameras like that – my Hasselblad 500cm and any of my Rolleiflexs/Rolleicords look amazing, and make me want to pick them up and use them often.

I think that if someone is looking to buy a 620 box camera from the 1950’s and actually shoot with it, something like the Kodak Duaflex or Argus Seventy Five would be a much better option. Both of them are currently selling for about the same price as the Anscoflex, and have much better ergonomics in my opinion. They also have a bulb or time option, and sharper lenses. And no fat rolls. But they don’t look as good on a shelf as the Anscoflex does.

I am glad, however, that I purchased the Anscoflex. It had some hidden history inside that was shot nearly 60 years ago, and also gave me the opportunity to see what its like to use. Like I mentioned in my prior blog post, this was a camera that I had wanted to try out for a while. Now that I’ve had some time with it, I think this one is a “catch and release” camera for me. No regrets.

Anyone interested in buying a beautiful, very good condition Anscoflex?

It really does look great on a shelf.

Thanks for reading,

Jeremy