1950's thrift store cameras - which one to buy?

With film photography being on the resurgence and “lo-fi” images becoming popular, many people are flocking to flea markets, antique stores, and thrift shops in search of 1950’s era cheap film cameras.

I myself completely understand that, as the cheap cameras from that era create images that have a certain vibe that is hard to re-create with digital cameras and software. Plus, the joy of using a simple camera is hard to deny, as it just lets you “be” and enjoy the moment you are in. Not to mention the excitement you get when you see your developed images for the first time!

One of the most frequent type of emails I receive thru this website, other than SEO spam, are questions about what 1950’s era camera to buy. Sometimes I also get emails where someone has purchased one at an antique store and are having issues with it. I think because I’ve written so much about these type of cameras that my blogposts often show up in Google search and people reach out to me.

So I thought this would be the perfect opportunity to write a post with some do’s, don’ts, and my thoughts on buying a 1950’s bakelite “plastic fantastic” camera. I’ll be focusing mainly on the “psuedo-TLR” versions, which look a lot like the more expensive Rolleiflex, Rolleicord, Yashica, etc TLR cameras of the day.

Bakelite cameras from the 1950’s that I currently own and/or have used and reviewed. From left to right: Kodak Brownie Hawkeye, Argus 75, Herbert George Insta Flash, Ansco AnscoFlex II, Kodak Duaflex IV with Kodet lens, Kodak Duaflex IV with Kodar lens.

Before I dive into the cameras in the photo above, I want to give some advice on what to avoid.

Don’t spend more than $25 to $50 on any 1950’s plastic camera. Some people think they have something “rare” and in reality, for most of these models there were millions of them produced. Even if the seller has the box, flash attachment, original instructions, etc. Those are things that you aren’t going to put into use and they aren’t worth the extra cost.
If it looks like its led a hard life and has cracks or anything broken, put it down and walk away.
Look at the taking lens - if it is pitted, scratched, or extremely dirty its not worth your money or time.
Open the camera back, point it at a light, and look thru the lens when firing the shutter. If it fires correctly, that’s a good sign. If it feels sluggish, doesn’t return to closed, or doesn’t work, put it down and find another one. Note that some of these need to have the advance nob turned to cock the shutter - like for example on the Duaflex and Argus cameras.
While you have it open, check to see that it has a metal 620 take-up spool in the camera. You need that in order to shoot the camera. New replacement spools can cost almost as much as the entire camera. No spool = no deal. Unless you happen to already have one for some reason like I do.

OK, now that the bad stuff is out of the way, I’ll give you my thoughts on some of the more popular cameras that I’ve shot with.

Kodak Brownie Hawkeye

Probably the most widely produced camera of the bunch, the Kodak Brownie Hawkeye is pretty much an icon when it comes to these type of cameras. They are found in nearly every antique store you wander into, and have a somewhat cult following.

THE GOOD

Small form factor that’s easy to hold and shoot
Simple design and good looks
Can take 120 film with a simple modification of bending the tab on the feed bracket (Still needs the 620 spool for take-up though)
Image quality is average to above average for these type of cameras. Somewhat sharp in the middle. Loses contrast and sharpness toward the edges.

THE BAD

Slow shutter speed of 1/25th to 1/30th means you have to have steady hands
Glass viewing screen is very small and often hard to compose with
Need to be at least 10 feet away from subject for it to be sharp, further than most of these cameras
The thick Bakelite plastic used for these can get very brittle over time and is very prone to cracking. If a chunk cracks or breaks off, the camera is no longer light tight and therefor unusable.
Small carrying handle is useless, prone to breaking. No provision for a real strap.

SUMMARY: If you can get a good example for cheap, it’s worth a go. Just don’t drop it or its done for.

Argus Seventy Five

Another widely produced camera, the Argus Seventy Five was made in a few different variations over the years, and had a few name changes - Argoflex, Seventy Five, 75, and later on a version with a better lens and options called the Super 75. The one pictured here and that I will be discussing is the most common version with the fixed 75mm lens. This was a direct competitor for the Brownie Hawkeye back in its day.

THE GOOD

1/60th shutter speed makes it a little easier to take images with un-steady hands
Mostly metal construction means its less prone to cracking
Has a strap that’s useful, even though its little more than a shoestring
Decent image quality compared to others, comparable to the Kodak Brownie Hawkeye
Minimum focal distance is 7.5 feet, so you can get a little closer and still have things in focus
Big, bright viewfinder with a pop-up shade makes composing easier

THE BAD

Shutter button requires you to push inward toward yourself when holding the camera, which can cause unsteadiness. Needs to be braced against your chest for best results
Shutter mechanism is complicated and prone to breaking. This is one you really need to check its operation before buying, as a lot of them are dead.
The strap, although better than the Hawkeye’s handle, is still crappy. And its not replaceable, so you are stuck with it.
Paint on metal back of the camera is prone to chipping and flaking

SUMMARY: Like the Hawkeye, if you can pick one up for cheap, go for it. This is one you really need to inspect before buying because of known shutter problems - use caution when buying.

Herbert George Insta Flash

This one is a little more “rare” compared to the other cameras in this review. Only a few pop up from time to time, and there’s not even a manual online that you can download. Herbert George was a Chicago based camera company that made a lot of different cameras during its heyday in the 1950’s. I think a lot of these were made - just not many survived. However, don’t fall into the trap of paying more for one because of its rarity - there are still deals out there to be had if you search or wait.

THE GOOD:

Stylish looks
Built-in lens hoods on the viewing and taking lenses
Big viewfinder with pop-up shade
Smooth, light touch shutter
Image quality slightly above the Hawkeye and Seventy Five
Has a strap

THE BAD:

Viewfinder is very dim - hard to compose with even in the daytime
Plastic strap doesn’t instill confidence, once its broken its unreplaceable
Large gap between viewing and taking lens could lead to parallax errors
Very thin plastic construction on the camera body - feels cheap by comparison to other cameras from its day

SUMMARY: More “rare” nowadays than other cameras from its era, the Insta Flash has decent image quality but shoddy build quality. If you find one, check the shutter function as the one I used needed work and I had to take it apart to fix it. Not a good idea for your average user. Don’t pay a lot for one based on its rarity.

Ansco Anscoflex II

Featuring a beautiful Mid-Century Modern design created by Raymond Loewy, the Anscoflex II features an aluminum “garage door” design that protects the lens and controls when not in use. The novel built-in close-up filter and yellow filter dials seem like a great addition to the camera versus having separate pieces you have to add on. This was a camera that I REALLY wanted to like, however shooting with it was probably one of the least enjoyable experiences I’ve ever had with a camera from this era.

THE GOOD:

Beautiful Mid-Century Modern design - looks great on a shelf
Bright viewfinder for composing images
It has a strap

THE BAD:

Horrible ergonomics
Garage door gets in the way
Slow 1/40th shutter speed combined with a button you press sideways means blurry images
Crank to wind film is difficult to use and can create “fat” rolls (not enough tension, wound loosely)
Image quality is “meh”
Strap is too short

SUMMARY: Run away.

Kodak Duaflex

I’m lumping all of the Kodak Duaflex cameras in here. That includes the I thru IV, and both the Kodar and Kodet lens versions. The Duaflex line of cameras were widely produced and saw only small cosmetic changes over the years of their production. Arguably the Duaflex IV, the last of the series, is the best in terms of looks and features. I also own a I and II model, and while I do like them a lot, I prefer the IV series. The Kodet lens version is a fixed lens with a fixed f/11 aperture, while the Kodar version has a multi-element lens with different focal ranges and f-stops.

THE GOOD:

Great retro styling and looks, probably my favorite of the 1950’s cameras
Sharp lens, especially the Kodar version
Bright viewfinder screen, easy to compose
Good image quality
Small form factor
Decent strap (with lugs on the IV series that allows for strap replacement with whatever you like)

THE BAD:

While the Kodar lens version has the most features, it can be more problematic if someone has monkeyed with it in the past and messed up the focus calibration. If you aren’t into fixing and troubleshooting cameras like I am, the no-frills Kodet version is the safer bet.
Interior of the camera is very shiny - in bright light conditions there can be some internal flare on the images. I’ve fixed that with a coat of flat black paint on the inside of my personal Duaflex cameras
Sometimes its too easy to accidentally put the camera on “long” instead of “instant” exposure, especially when stowing it away or taking it out of your bag. I keep a piece of gaffer tape on mine to keep this from happening.

SUMMARY: Fun camera to use that produces good images. In the right hands its very capable. Stay away from the Kodar lens version unless you know it has been cared for well or you are handy.

So which one to buy then?

That’s up to you, but let me say this. If for some reason I was told that I had to dump all of my plastic 1950’s cameras except for one — the one that I’d keep would be the Kodak Duaflex IV with the Kodar lens. It really is fun to use, and if I take my time I’m rewarded with some great images that just have that “look”.

A few examples from my Duaflex are below: