Wrayflex II

[peterqd]

I found an interesting camera on eBay UK. A Wrayflex II with 50 and 90mm lenses and flash bracket.
Click here to see on Ebay

All I know about this camera is that it was the last of the line of 3 models after I and Ia - the only UK-built 35mm SLR.
It dates from 1959 and because of the evolving German and Japanese dominance, it was discontinued after only 350 had been made.

Anyone know anything about Wrayflex? I know nothing about Wray SLR lenses, is it M42?
BTW, I won't be bidding, but it will be interesting to see what it goes for.

[Mos6502]

It seems it is M42, but with a shorter register. I have actually never seen or heard of the II before, it's apparently a very different camera from the original Wrayflex which used a mirror arrangement instead of a pentaprism.

[Minolfan]

New for me, very interesting!

[martinsmith99]

I've seen them before but dismissed them as uninteresting.

[iangreenhalgh1]

I had a lens for it, made by Wray, pretty poor one, I sold it. I also have a couple of Wray lenses in M39 that were for the Periflex, those are crap too.

[peterqd]

[sichko]

[martinsmith99]

[Minolfan]

[sichko]

[scsambrook]

The Wrayflex is actually an interesting camera, and not only because it was the only 35mm SLR made in Britain. There's actually a nicely written and detailed book about it - http://www.wrayflex.co.uk/content.html - which I have but can't actually find right now

The first version produced negs sized 24x32mm (not exactly a stroke of genius) and had a series of mirrors in the viewfinder to give a laterally reversed image. Sounds hopeless today, but when "serious" photographers were still peering into Rolleiflex focusing hoods or being buried under black cloths focusing plate cameras, it wasn't at all weird.

The 50mm f2 lens was an interesting 5 element design which subsequently turned up in the Canonet in the early 60s and sold in millions.

I owned one briefly in the 1970s, as a curiosity more than anything else as the shutter didn't work and I refused to spend any money fixing it. It was a nicely handling camera and in the context of the early 1950s a very modern design. Far more more meritorious than the Reid . . .

It kept appearing in the Amateur Photographer magazine's annual camera guides until around 1960, I think, but very, very few were actually sold.

[estudleon]

[peterqd]

Well, it went for £577.00, so I guess the lucky buyer got a good deal, compared to the sale John linked to.

From the information posted I've found out that the mount is unique - 41.2mm OD thread at 26TPI pitch - and the register distance is 42.05mm. For its time, the camera looks to have been quite high quality and the reason for using mirrors instead of a prism was because prisms were "outrageusly expensive" at that time. That's something I didn't know. The story of the inventor, Major Studdert, and the Wray factory is very interesting too. Many thanks to all who replied.

[sichko]

[barrydunnage]

It may be of interest That I'm the guy who purchased the Wrayflex II recently on eBay for £577. A steal? Probably, but bear in mind that I have been waiting about 30 years to get hold of one. I have a Wrayflex I that I bought in Edinburgh about 40 years ago. Now that I have this model, and have been able to examine it closely, I am really impressed with it as a machine and with its innovation. I am also pleased to find that it still works pretty well, but I'm not surprised it never got anywhere. Too late and too complicated I think would be my view, but then, unfortunately that sums up many areas of British innovation. Not all of course, but too many - we have always had a tendency to get lost in the details!

[luisalegria]

Its a wonderful feeling to finally snag something like that.

Its a pretty small amount to finally scratch a 30-year itch.

Btw - I have seen diagrams of the Wrayflex I mirror system. How does that work with the Pentaprism Wrayflex II ?
Does the whole thing fold up under the mirror ?

[barrydunnage]

I haven't quite worked out what happens in the reflex housing of the Wrayflex II. I'm pretty sure that there is a prism, I think, but the mirror and fresnal screen somehow slides up into the prism housing for film exposure. No doubt John Wade's book will have all the answers, and I shall probably end up buying a copy, but I'd like to try and get hold of an original manual first, if I can. Thanks for your interest, and for your understanding of my obsession!

[scsambrook]

Barry - You must be one of the few people to own both models! Congratulations, indeed.

I've never even SEEN a Wrayflex II, let alone used one, but I remember from reading Amateur Photographer in the late 50s and early 60s that it did indeed have a pentaprism. The Wade book also talks about it. What I didn't know was that the Wrayflex II retained the lifting mirror and screen, which suggests that the redesigning process was very limited indeed, and also explains the great height of the prism housing !

Do be sure to get John Wade's book. It's something of a hagiography of Wray and the firm's personnel but that doesn't take anything away from the company's praiseworthy efforts to make an advanced camera. The book is a treasure trove of otherwise unpublished information and I'm presently grinding my teeth because I can't find my copy either at work or at home.

Instruction books being what they are, I doubt that it will include much (if anything) about the mechanism of the camera. And no doubt one will cost you an arm and maybe both legs if you track one down. Still, it would be nice to find one.

Eventually, someone may produce a serious history of the post-WWII British camera industry, not that it will be a particularly lengthy book. At first sight, it seems that the "plagiarists" (Reid, MPP, Apparatus & General Instruments) who took advantage of seized German patents did better than the innovators (Wray, Corfield, Kennedy Instruments), although I suppose none of them did really well. There's a task for my dotage when I've retired:)

[barrydunnage]

Many thanks for your thoughts Stephen.

I have actually placed an order for John's book now! Yes, the prism housing is exceptionally deep - all a bit cobbled really, when you think about it, which does seem to have been a mark of much British early 20thC design!

One other camera that interests me a lot is the Ilford Witness, a rangefinder camera from the early 1950s - a very rare item and one which doesn't come under this mflenses category, so I probably shouldn't be writing about it. I did see one however, a long while ago. Absolutely beautiful and not at all botched, so we can do it sometimes.

B.

[scsambrook]

Hi Barry!

You're okay with the Ilford Witness - after all, it does use manually focusing lenses

I had one, mid-1970s. But there was neither shutter nor rangefinder in it ! Just a body shell and the standard lens. I let it go eventually, probably for the equivalent of half a guinea I suppose even its Dallmeyer SuperSix lens would fetch a high price these days. But back then, such things were of little monetary value. A Reid would sit on the shelf for months and end up selling for maybe £50 or £60, and we couldn't even have GIVEN a Periflex away . . .

[barrydunnage]

S

What a shame not to have had a complete version of the Witness. Very odd really. As you say, they are so expensive now, around 3k I gather, as there were only about 300 made, so it would have done you well to hold onto the lens at least. Depending on how it got to be in the state it was, even the history of the incomplete body might have been worth uncovering?

The only version I don't have of the Wrayflex is the 1A, but I might see if I can pick one up somewhere! Not sure what the difference is between that and the number 1. Any ideas?

B.

[scsambrook]

I think the Witness I had may have been cannibalized for spares - it was actually quite shabby and the visible screw heads were marked. I can't remember how I came by it - maybe I picked it up from another shop. I used to buy used gear from other dealers, stuff they couldn't sell and suchlike, at knocked-down prices. All sorts turned up in boxes of oddments.

Why on earth I didn't keep the lens, I'll never know. I had a Leica outfit . . . and the interrupted screw thread of the Witness lens mount would have been no problem on a screw-bayonet adapter.

In the mid-70s the "historian" in me was minimal. Too busy selling photo stuff and revelling in the latest gitzmos, I suppose. If I had a golden sovereign for every piece of nice old gear I sold for peanuts, I'd be a rich man. But those were the days when we used to tell customers we didn't actually want their Leica M3 in part-ex 'cos "nobody wants them just now". But we'd take it for 50 quid with its Summicron. And sometimes we did.

Still can't find my Wrayflex book. Was the 1a the 24x36 neg size that replaced the 24x32 ? Or was it flash syncho? I can't recall. I may have to buy another copy . . .

[barrydunnage]

S

Neg size - yes - that sounds right to me. I shall have to get my Wrayflex 1 out and measure up!

So, you were one of those guys I used to envy when I went into places like Fox Talbot or Brocks Cameras at the start of my career? Which reminds me, I bought my first 5x4 monorail from Brocks in Upper Street, Islington about 1974 I think, a Linhof Cardan Color, which I still have.

Thanks
B.