Kodak Anastigmat Special 101mm f/4.5 (Monitor 620)

[pdccameras]

HI Gang,

Just rec'd a beautiful Kodak Monitor 620 today, which I purchased off Ebay. I really wanted it for the lens, so I didn't care the back was rather covered in that pox which so often afflicts old leather folders: Zeiss bumps!

Anyway the lens is in wonderful condition - and the shutter works well, to boot.

With automatic film spacing, a really nice paralax compensating eye-level viewfinder (as well as an old style waist-leverl brilliant finder), superb coated (Lumenized) lens and synchronized shutter, the Monitor was probably the most advanced medium format folding camera ever produced in the US!

So I very carefully removed the lens/shutter assembly and put all the stray bits and pieces away so I can re-assemble the camera later.

Here are some images of the camera/lens and what it looks like mounted on the NEX. Note that I have to use a cable release on the lens shutter, since it does not have a "T" setting, only "B."

I didn't get a chance to test it yet - sun went down.

[luisalegria]

That is a VERY clean example of the Monitor.
The lens is great, and the shutter is excellent, in my opinion much better than the Synchro Compur. It certainly is more reliable and easier to fix.

There were however much more feature-laden folding cameras made in the US - all the miniature press cameras were "folding cameras" after all, and most had a ton of "more advanced" features.

And in that series of folders, in that era, the Kodak top of the line was actually the Super -

http://www.bnphoto.org/bnphoto/KodakSuper620.htm

A very, very advanced camera for its time - 1938 ! Typical case of this end of US industry though - US production costs were much higher than the foreign makers, and it wasn't thought worthwile to develop the concept. Also see the case of the Ektra, what should have been the US Leica.

[pdccameras]

Hi Luis,

Thanks for the link and excellent comments.

Yes, the super 620 was a wonder to behold in 1938 and today (I have only seen one in the flesh once). With a rudimentary automated photo-electric exposure system, combined range/viewfinder and rapid film advance it was definately more advanced than the Monitor. Unfortuately, it had an extremely high price tag, spotty reliability (even when new) and very low production volumes. It is hard to count it as a viable picture taking option. It is really more of a footnote, more of an interesting almost was.

The Graflexes and Busch press cameras, with interchangeable lenses and backs and coupled rangefinders were also more sophisticated than the Monitor, but I would lump those press cameras in a league of their own being closer to view cameras. But, I will concede that the line is certainly blurred - as you mentioned, they do fold.

The non-folding Medalists of the same era as the Monitor, and their later incarnation, the Chevron, were also much more sophisticated, but they aren't folders.

I should have said the Monitor was ONE of the most sophisticated SUCCESSFUL US manufactured folding cameras. I was allso thinking of american direct competitors forZeiss Ikontas, Voigtlander Bessas, maybe Plaubel Makinas, various Agfas and some British contenders, to just name a few. I don't think US production of these kinds of folders ever reached much higher than the Monitor during that era.

As you mentioned, production costs were high and both the Ektra and the Super 620 were launched on the eve of the 2nd World War, when the lion's share of US manufacturing was being converted to the production of wartime material. The demand for luxury civilian goods was understandably low.

The later Tourist series of folders had a nice array of features including a multiformat back and high end lens/shutter options. It was capable of producing first class results, but never moved beyond the realm of an amateur machine.

It is a shame we don't see more truly iconoclastic and innovative designs like the Ektra or the Super 620 today!

Best,

Paul

[danfromm]

Paul, your 101/4.5 Anastigmat Special is a front cell focusing version of the lens sold as the 101/4.5 Ektar. Yours was made in 1946, the year that EKCo started to offer coated lenses to the civilian market.

I'm not sure that the coating makes much of a difference in how the lens performs. I have an uncoated 101/4.5 Ektar, also made in 1946, that is superb.

[pdccameras]

Thanks Dan, great info.

Paul

[Abbazz]

I have exactly the same Kodak Monitor 620, a gorgeous camera indeed, very well constructed and equipped with a superb lens. The only problem with Kodak folders IMHO is this stupid 620 film...

Cheers!

Abbazz

[pdccameras]

[Nesster]

I also ended up with one of these recently... and you might be interested in the Kodak Lens Manual I've scanned and posted to Flickr:
http://forum.mflenses.com/kodak-lens-manual-1941-t40186.html

[buggz]

Any photos using this lens?
I just got a cool VPK, I really don't want to take it apart now...

[danfromm]

[buggz]

I still would like to see pics from that nice setup, this is interesting to me.

The mention of the VPK was just a BTW thing.
It is the single meniscus design lens, which I wanted for for soft look play/work.
I will adapt it, one way, or other, for use on my Canon 5DMkII.

I did get a Schneider-Kreuznach Radionar 4.5/10.5cm with Compur shutter in last week, still waiting on bellows and focus rails.
This also for use on my 5DMkII.

Lots of cool project work ahead for me, I like it!

[Mattco26]

What series of adapters did you use? I really want to see some photos from this setup.