WW2 cameras

Harvey_nikon

Harvey_nikon

Messages
3,746
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all,

I have an idea for a project, my mate has been trying to get me to tag along to WWII events with him, but he always wants to get dressed up in authentic gear.

Which I don't mind, but I really don't think my D60 would fit in with the theme, so, he has offered me his D40 + old manual 50mm f/1.8 IF I can fit it into an old case and make it look like a WWII camera :D

Problem is, can anyone give me a list of cameras that were used around that time that would accomodate the D40 insides, not look out of place with the 50mm f.1.8 on it AND is cheap and easy to get my hands on??

Obviously, I will want to purchase a broken one to rip apart, wouldn't want to wreck a working one!
 
For Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, Joe Rosenthal had a Graflex Speed Graphic.

Robert Capa on Omaha Beach for the D-Day landings used a pair of Contax II cameras with 50mm lenses.

Get faking!
 
Biggest problem you will have is that most 35mm cameras are smaller than digitals, and there are'nt many 1940,s SLR, might get away with a Zenith if you just used the top and front, mounted in its leather ERC.

Dave.
 
Don't use your digital camera would be my suggestion.

The images you get out of it won't look right no matter what you do to them. One of my pet hates that one is.

Get yourself a suitable film camera - obviously it depends on which side you are trying to portray, but you could get away with a Leica for most, or if you don't want to spend that much, try a FED which is a Soviet copy of the Leica.

The images you get out of it will be loved by the guys you are shooting for because they will look so much more like the ones from the pages of history. The digital shots will just look a bit lame by comparison.
 
In this country Professions were still using Plate cameras for the most part. Many press photographers were using things like a TP ruby reflex.. Mpp was set up to cover the shortage of new cameras available to the military. an early Rolleiflex or rolleicord would have been a very high quality camera then. Russian cameras were not available over here, pre war leicas were called in from civillians by the war office for war use.

Quite a few German quality cameras were liberated during the war, but very few made it home till after VE day. Contax Leica Rolleiflex Robot Exacta and Linhoff were used by their millitary.

You can have a lot of fun on those days

war.jpg
 
I think the most common camera folks had in the house during the war were box cameras, probaly find one big enough to fit your digital inside, some of them were made of a cardboard type composite material that would make it easy to fit your lens through the front.

I have few box cameras, if this idea is worth persuing, i will have a look later this week to see if i can find one that may work
 
Thanks for all the suggestions, I'll spend this evening having a look through them all.

As for using a proper film camera, I would really love to. However, If I am going film then I would also want to develop myself. So, add the cost of buying the equipment and film + the equipment to develop and then throw in the fact that I am trying to save every penny to go pro and I feel I lack the experience for film and I don't think I would be able to pull it off! It is definitely something for the future though :D

I am going to be spending some time researching photos from history, then trying to recreate them with digital images.
 
A cheap FED is next to nothing (ignore the an*l details, any FED will pass as a Leica and not look out of place), film is next to nothing, developing by a lap, next to nothing. Its not difficult to use! Don't imagine its some kind of black art! You digital camera is a million times more complex!

Results are a million times better than a nasty photoshop job and you'll be learning something new.

(I do know a *little* about the subject of reenactment btw... which group is your friend with?)
 
Fed 4 = £20, process & scan to disc - £7.ish, film £4.ish, cheaper if you shop around/buy in bulk, 36 exposure, not too expensive, gives you another string to your bow so to speak, any prints you do from that will look pretty authentic. shouldnt break the bank at that.

Dave.
 
There is a book (that I used to have and can't see on my bookshelves at the moment :razz:) called 'Camera at War' by Jorge Lewinski. Plenty of copies on Amazon cheap enough.

A good read for the history of war photography as I recall. Not that much about the cameras though.

This sort of thing any use?

166thsignalphotocoy02kc5.jpg


I'd guess that the most likely 35mm camera allied troops would be using would be things like the Kodak 35 - I'm guessing that using Leica and Contax would not have been particularly popular with those holding anti 'Boche' feelings that were common, certainly among the British population, during the war..
 
Voyager said:
I'd guess that the most likely 35mm camera allied troops would be using would be things like the Kodak 35
Click to expand...
Actually I wonder if 35mm film would have been fast enough to be of much use back then... 400ASA Tri-X was not even available in 35mm 'till the mid 50's was it?
 
desantnik said:
Don't use your digital camera would be my suggestion.

The images you get out of it won't look right no matter what you do to them. One of my pet hates that one is.

Get yourself a suitable film camera - obviously it depends on which side you are trying to portray, but you could get away with a Leica for most, or if you don't want to spend that much, try a FED which is a Soviet copy of the Leica.

The images you get out of it will be loved by the guys you are shooting for because they will look so much more like the ones from the pages of history. The digital shots will just look a bit lame by comparison.
Click to expand...

Yes, and I'd go that one step further by sticking in some black n white film.
 
My Grandad used an old box camera when he was based in India, the pics rock :)

4450293241_f7c3774d09.jpg

4450293401_c3a5a81f6d.jpg


I really must scan more in :)
 
Having had a look around the graflex aniversary speed graphic is from the era, could easily be modified to fit a few dslr lenses so I may try to find a broken one to modify .

I may also look at getting a 35mm film camera from the era, look at developing them myself until the point where instead of printing them I can scan the film on to the PC and print from there if needed. Should help cut the costs a bit :D

Suppose I'll have to start browsing the film forum now and looking for guides :) Missus isn't going to be happy :p


 
You don't need much equipment to develop B&W and the chemicals are quite cheap. I can recommend Rodinal - a high acutance developer, very economical in use and lasts for ages (30 years!) in a half-empty bottle. It's also authentic - been around since the 1890s.
 
Graflex cameras on the front row there in Post #13, Voyager.

I don't think anti-Bosch feelings would've played much part. Best tools for the job & all that. Leica copies were made in Leicester after WWII. More surprising, perhaps, is the post-War success of Japanese firms, but low prices must've been a major factor.

Here are some crops from screencaps of the BBC2 Newsnight Special D-Day to Berlin, broadcast in 1984 and again in 2009, showing US and Russian army photographers:

#1
09-02.jpg


#2
09-27.jpg


#3
09-44.jpg


#4
24-43.jpg


#5
36-34.jpg


#6
38-21.jpg
 
Harvey_nikon said:
Having had a look around the graflex aniversary speed graphic is from the era, could easily be modified to fit a few dslr lenses so I may try to find a broken one to modify .
Click to expand...

Arrrrgh! Why? Get one lens - a proper one to go with the film body, probably either 35mm or 50mm. Its not going to be pin sharp, its not going to be f2.8 with low dispersion glass and nano coating, its going to be exactly what it should be - a bit rubbish.

Thats why its going to take the shots that you can't get with a DSLR.

I may also look at getting a 35mm film camera from the era, look at developing them myself until the point where instead of printing them I can scan the film on to the PC and print from there if needed. Should help cut the costs a bit :D
Click to expand...

How many are you planning on taking? As suggested above, lab develop and scan to disk rather than print. Its not digital where you shoot tons. I'll bet you won't shoot nearly as many as you think you might.

Besides which you will also learn that with reenactment you will find you don't shoot much camera stuff at all - you'll get to the end of the weekend and think "oh I forgot to get the camera out".

Suppose I'll have to start browsing the film forum now and looking for guides :)
Click to expand...

Guide for what? Its the same as what you do now...
 
photon said:
Graflex cameras on the front row there in Post #13, Voyager.
Click to expand...
For sure - the Americans used Graflex (and processed their Verichrome films under red light - like printing) but I'm not sure the Brits did.
photon said:
I don't think anti-Bosch feelings would've played much part. Best tools for the job & all that.
Click to expand...
I think you might be surprised what the British people thought of 'German' things in the war. I read a book about Bert Hardy and I'm sure it was in that I remember reading that he was hassled for using a Leica during the blitz.
photon said:
Leica copies were made in Leicester after WWII. More surprising, perhaps, is the post-War success of Japanese firms, but low prices must've been a major factor.
Click to expand...
For sure Leica were known to be very good cameras indeed and were prised 'spoils of war' for many troops.

(Nice pics btw)
 
photon said:
For Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, Joe Rosenthal had a Graflex Speed Graphic.

Robert Capa on Omaha Beach for the D-Day landings used a pair of Contax II cameras with 50mm lenses.

Get faking!
Click to expand...

Pretty sure Capa used Leicas...three bodies in fact - it's pretty well documented that the reason he only shot three rolls of film on Omaha Beach was that he couldn't change films as his hands were shaking too much - it's a pretty awkward and cumbersome process to change films on a 'modern' M6, let alone the older Leicas, which were a real PITA...

Wiki states 2x Contax+50mm, but three rolls of 36 roughly equates to the 106 frames shot...and we all know how accurate Wiki can be sometimes...
 
Well, I had decided to try film and was about to start looking in to it all but it looks like a no go, at least for a while.

I was being made redundant from my job but they had created a similar position on the same money that I applied for. Instead, due to me having issues with an ex-manager who I stood up to because she was incompetent and damaged the business (something she was then fired for!) I have only been considered for the lower position meaning that I have lost £4k a year :(

I know it's cheap, but it's not something I can afford right now :( Sucks ass!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top