Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Kodak Bantam Special
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Film Rangefinder / Viewfinder Cameras
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:05 am    Post subject: Kodak Bantam Special Reply with quote
Today's antique shop buy- lots of dirt inside .The shutter and focusing ring work Very Happy ,still has a a film roll inside . After careful cleaning of visible areas. I need to open up the lens and clean the elements at a later time.















Best regards


PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
congrats! ive always loved the look of these, plus i'm a kodak freak. these take 35mm??


PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
rbelyell wrote:
congrats! ive always loved the look of these, plus i'm a kodak freak. these take 35mm??


My research tells me that it isn't. It was made for the 828 film-paper backed cousin of the 35mm, as according to Camera quest. So its going to be a great shelf piece-unless I find the right film. It does have a half used roll inside .I opened the back and instinctively closed it when I saw film-I did see the paper backing.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 2:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
yeah, thats what i thought, thats why i never got one even though its so cooooool.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 3:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
120 film can be cut down to 828 size.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 3:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
rbelyell wrote:
yeah, thats what i thought, thats why i never got one even though its so cooooool.


I just finished cleaning the lens-luckily I only had to clean the front element- inside and outside- I have the lens very clean & clear-so the coolness factor just increased some Very Happy .

dof wrote:
120 film can be cut down to 828 size.


Nice to know that- I would image the cuts got to be surgeon precise ,and done in a dark room ?


PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 9:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The camera looks too nice to keep it only for the shelf!


PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Kathmandu wrote:
rbelyell wrote:
congrats! ive always loved the look of these, plus i'm a kodak freak. these take 35mm??


My research tells me that it isn't. It was made for the 828 film-paper backed cousin of the 35mm, as according to Camera quest. So its going to be a great shelf piece-unless I find the right film. It does have a half used roll inside .I opened the back and instinctively closed it when I saw film-I did see the paper backing.


I own a 838 Bantam. Keep the roll inside, you will need a secon spool to take the film.
The 838 film is the same wide than the 35mm one without holes, (just one hole by frame). I got a 40m roll of unpunched 35mm film. What can be done is using that alternate film and wind it on the old spools, keep the backing paper in the old roll!.
It's not easy to put the film and the backing paper all together in the spool, but can be done.
As far as I remeber they fit a small piece of film able to shot 8 shots. Exposition covers the whole filw wide. If you use standard 35mm film with perforations, the shots will cover also the punched area.

Hope to see soon some samples from that nice cam Smile

Regards.
Jes.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Jesito wrote:
Kathmandu wrote:
rbelyell wrote:
congrats! ive always loved the look of these, plus i'm a kodak freak. these take 35mm??


My research tells me that it isn't. It was made for the 828 film-paper backed cousin of the 35mm, as according to Camera quest. So its going to be a great shelf piece-unless I find the right film. It does have a half used roll inside .I opened the back and instinctively closed it when I saw film-I did see the paper backing.


I own a 838 Bantam. Keep the roll that you have found inside, you will need a second spool to take the film.
The 838 film is the same wide than the 35mm one without holes, (just one hole by frame). I got a 40m roll of unpunched 35mm film. What can be done is using that alternate film and wind it on the old spools, keep the backing paper in the old roll!.
It's not easy to put the film and the backing paper all together in the spool, but can be done.
As far as I remeber they fit a small piece of film able to shot 8 shots. Exposition covers the whole fillm wide. If you use standard 35mm film with perforations, the shots will cover also the punched area.

Hope to see soon some samples from that nice cam Smile

Regards.
Jes.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 6:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Those are very collectible and have pretty good resale value.

Whats the lens ?


PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 6:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Looks cool.
Fast F2 lens and some of the most pricey cameras in this brochure: Wholesale Radio Service Camera Photo Supplies - 1938.
http://www.butkus.org/chinon/booklet/wholesale_radio_service-1938/wholesale_radio_service.htm



PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Minolfan wrote:
The camera looks too nice to keep it only for the shelf!


Very Happy Laughing Laughing

Jesito wrote:
I own a 838 Bantam. Keep the roll inside, you will need a secon spool to take the film.
The 838 film is the same wide than the 35mm one without holes, (just one hole by frame). I got a 40m roll of unpunched 35mm film. What can be done is using that alternate film and wind it on the old spools, keep the backing paper in the old roll!.
It's not easy to put the film and the backing paper all together in the spool, but can be done.
As far as I remeber they fit a small piece of film able to shot 8 shots. Exposition covers the whole filw wide. If you use standard 35mm film with perforations, the shots will cover also the punched area.

Hope to see soon some samples from that nice cam

Regards.
Jes.


I appreciate you sharing your experience and knowledge ,Thank you. I have zip/nada experience with 828.



luisalegria wrote:
Those are very collectible and have pretty good resale value.

Whats the lens ?


I intend on working on it more -to get it looking even better , improve what I can .It had been sitting in someones house in "god knows what "condition, and then in an antique shop display without being cleaned-for a long time . Yes I am going to hang on to this. Design and mechanics of great quality .

Its a 6/4 Gaussian type-and looks like this, now after a cleanup:





I bet it would make beautiful swirly bokeh Laughing

std wrote:
Looks cool.
Fast F2 lens and some of the most pricey cameras in this brochure: Wholesale Radio Service Camera Photo Supplies - 1938.


Thanks for posting the brochure -which shows the Compur Rapid shutter. My research tells me they were used initially ,and in bigger numbers. The camera I have uses the US made Supermatic Shutter which they used for a shorter run up until they discontinued the camera. Very Happy .

G'day

Last edited by Kathmandu on Wed Jan 25, 2012 9:12 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 9:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
That Supermatic is more reliable than the Compur and easier to fix.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
luisalegria wrote:
That Supermatic is more reliable than the Compur and easier to fix.


The shutter sounds snappy , winds and clicks ,and responds to all speeds -maybe not as accurately at lower speeds ? I dropped in a couple of drops of naptha through the side , and cocked and fired at all settings many times last night without a hitch.
It is encouraging to know that they are easier to fix -should the need arise. Very Happy .

Thanks


PostPosted: Thu Jan 26, 2012 5:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Kathmandu wrote:

dof wrote:
120 film can be cut down to 828 size.


Nice to know that- I would image the cuts got to be surgeon precise ,and done in a dark room ?


You don't need a darkroom. I cut down 120 film for 127 film cameras. I haven't tried it for 828 but it would work the same way. You just measure and cut. There is sometimes a little fogging on the edge of the film but it usually doesn't extend into the frame area if you handle it carefully. Some people just saw right through the roll (spool and all) with a power saw. I use a tubing cutter to start the cut and a razor knife to complete it down to the spool core. Then load onto a 127 spool in a changing bag. Once loaded in the camera I either guess how far to advance between frames (if no auto frame stop on the camera) or I just rely on the camera's frame stop mechanism if it has one. It's not very exact, I admit, but it's fun and it works well enough. You don't have to measure all that precisely when you cut as long as you don't make the film too wide to fit on the roll.

Or, as has been suggested, you can also use non-perf 35mm film but then you have to add the backing paper, etc. It's more work that way I think.

828 film has a larger image area than standard 35mm film so it actually has more potential for image quality. If I ever get a nice quality 828 camera like your Bantam Special I would like to try shooting it with modern film.

Last edited by dof on Thu Jan 26, 2012 4:14 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Jan 26, 2012 6:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
My first 'real' camera was the Kodak Bantam 4.5 (1938-1948) and back in '62-'64 you could still get
828 film. As I remember it was expired film that the owner of a studio in my hometown would get out
of the refrigerator and sell for next to nothing.

Looking forward to your adventure of respooling 35mm onto 828 spools! Wink


PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2012 6:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
dof wrote:

You don't need a darkroom. I cut down 120 film for 127 film cameras. I haven't tried it for 828 but it would work the same way. You just measure and cut. There is sometimes a little fogging on the edge of the film but it usually doesn't extend into the frame area if you handle it carefully. Some people just saw right through the roll (spool and all) with a power saw. I use a tubing cutter to start the cut and a razor knife to complete it down to the spool core. Then load onto a 127 spool in a changing bag. Once loaded in the camera I either guess how far to advance between frames (if no auto frame stop on the camera) or I just rely on the camera's frame stop mechanism if it has one. It's not very exact, I admit, but it's fun and it works well enough. You don't have to measure all that precisely when you cut as long as you don't make the film too wide to fit on the roll.

Or, as has been suggested, you can also use non-perf 35mm film but then you have to add the backing paper, etc. It's more work that way I think.

828 film has a larger image area than standard 35mm film so it actually has more potential for image quality. If I ever get a nice quality 828 camera like your Bantam Special I would like to try shooting it with modern film.


Thank you for sharing your method and experience, certainly nice to know its doable. I am keeping my ears peeled for some semi-decently priced 828 film ,and am going to give it a go with some old expired film, just to see how it comes out. Smile

Katastrofo wrote:
My first 'real' camera was the Kodak Bantam 4.5 (1938-1948) and back in '62-'64 you could still get
828 film. As I remember it was expired film that the owner of a studio in my hometown would get out
of the refrigerator and sell for next to nothing.

Looking forward to your adventure of respooling 35mm onto 828 spools!


Thanks for sharing your experience, Bill- I am sure I will be adventuring into respooling. I plan on seeing how it performs with some long expired 828 film that I plan on buying initially .
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Film Rangefinder / Viewfinder Cameras
Page 1 of 1