Only a collector would care. Instamatic 500 serial numbers

[genazzano]

My new Instamatic 500 arrived and it appears to never have been out of the box. I am frankly taken aback by the apparent quality of this German model of the lowly Instamatics. It is simply a beautiful camera that sadly uses 126 cartridges and will not likely be used much by me although I realize that the cartridge can be loaded with 35mm film (sproketted or unspoketted).

As I prepare a writeup for this camera, I see that the serial number is KP 305, way out of line from the numbers on other 500 cameras online. The manual is in French, so I can safely assume it was sold in Europe, perhaps an early version?

I know this borders on "who cares?" but I'm a compulsive old guy. Any suggestions on the production serial numbers?

Ciao! David

[Stephen]

Kodak themselves? Eastman Museum may be able to help, as Kodak production was so complex, even for basic models, they were made worldwide, with variations in each factory to national taste, depending partly on the age of the plants involved, the UK one in particular got their own way as to details and even models.
As usual the French also ran things their own way, 9.5 mm cine was a pain to Kodak in the US for many years!!
Stephen.

[genazzano]

I think the Kodak AA-13 online publication is all I can get and that doesn't mention serial numbers. Anyway, thought I'd take the chance to see if anyone had run across the information. The French have always marched to their own tune, I agree, so this one my just be too obscure and Instamatics are still not high on collectors lists to bring out the compulsive miners.

[truls]

David, Dwaynes Photo in USA are developing 126 film. I occasionally send film to them, as quality and the fact they develop odd kind of films, are a true value today.

[Doug T.]

Hi David!

I'm not sure about the serial numbers, but if I'm not mistaken, it's possible to reload 126 cartridges with fresh film.
You can check out "The Frugal Photographer" web site. They sell 126.
Doug

[genazzano]

I saw that there is a non-Kodak cassette (forgot the name right now) that is easier to break open and reload. This camera is just so nice that I've got the load it. I have another 8 weeks or so of good ole chemo, so I it will be delayed a bit.

Unfortunate that Kodak marketing decisions with the Bantam Special and 828 film, and the almost equally impressive Instamatic 500 and the 126 cassette. I suspect the the German team that designed such an excellent camera would have opted for the standard 35mm cassette but who knows.

[Stephen]

The reloading may not be so easy, in theory it is easy, but the devil is in the details, it needs the black 126 backing paper intact, and a can of Un-Perforated colour negative 35mm film.

Perforated 35mm could be used, but proper frame spacing is not possible. The un-perforated film has to be punched out in the darkroom, with the same spacing as the backing paper, not an easy task for non mechanically minded photographers.

The original Kodapak film was 35mm wide, with punched frame holes, and pre-exposed frames on the film to enable automatic printers to pick up each frame for printing. A generous allowance for mistakes was built in to the design. The punched holes were not used to line up the printers, they picked up the frame optically for speed, the hole only spaces the camera frames.

To test a 126 camera out, it may be possible to load with normal perf 35mm film and estimate the advance of the frames, but it will leave a film strip that most colour film processors will absolutely hate!! All right for black and white processing at home, few issues, but not for high street processors at all.

The 126 film was a very good consumer idea, it seems to have everything going for it, but the square format was not really that popular, giving an old fashioned look to the prints, and shouting out that a cheaper camera had been used to take the family photographs!

The better camera makers, including Kodak themselves, found that the film curled across the frame, it refused to lay flat, not a problem with cheaper lenses, as curvature of the field was compensated for !!!! The backing paper could also pick up damp, causing more risk of curl.

But then Kodak put a Xenar lens on the Instamatic 500, Zeiss also tried good lenses, and they simply failed to look to have better results than with the more inexpensive lenses, due to the film curl and bad register of the film plane. Only small aperture lenses really suited the 126 Kodapak Instamatic film.

828 roll film is much easier to brew at home, the black backing paper can be made easily from measurement of the camera, and the film is plain unperforated or perf, both work as the spacing is determined purely by the backing. Originally 828 was a patent breaker, it came during the years of the Ansco Kodak patent wars in the 1930's, offering an alternative to the perforated film, but with no patented cassette or container. The square format did not matter, people expected it in those days.

If you make your own roll film of any type, a good tip is to mark the frames on the black paper, with a patch of white Tippex Typewriter Correction fluid, and write the numbers on in fine black felt tip pen.

Now...... try to make Disc film at home.... !!!!!

Stephen.

[Stephen]

Jun 8, 2013 14:06:04 GMT -5 genazzano said:

I saw that there is a non-Kodak cassette (forgot the name right now) that is easier to break open and reload. This camera is just so nice that I've got the load it. I have another 8 weeks or so of good ole chemo, so I it will be delayed a bit.

Unfortunate that Kodak marketing decisions with the Bantam Special and 828 film, and the almost equally impressive Instamatic 500 and the 126 cassette. I suspect the the German team that designed such an excellent camera would have opted for the standard 35mm cassette but who knows.

Most German designers would have opted for the Agfa Karat Rapid system, full stop, it has none of the problems of 35mm, Robot, Universal, 828, or Kodapak 126, it was just that Kodak had not invented it!! Most 35mm design cameras could have been made or modified to take Karat film, I can't think of any real exceptions, and they would have functioned 100% as normal, without having to rewind as a bonus, plus complete recycling of the original metal cassette.

Karat depended on the film being driven by the sprockets so some cameras that pulled the film by the take up spool and spaced by sprocket would have had to been altered at the design stage.

Many of these intricacies of the various systems are the result of the pre-war patent situation, all the makers were at loggerheads with each other over everything, bar the basic 35mm perf film, and even that had issues with Ansco.

Stephen.

[kodaker]

I know this won't help you but my version of the 500 is serial number EK713755, and of course says Made in Germany.

[genazzano]

Thanks Stephen. I may just sprinbg for a couple cassettes pre-loaded from someplace online ($25 for about 18 frames... each!). No darkroom any more so it would have to be done in a darkbag. Another project on the list to look forward to.

KodaKer: As most compulsive collectors, I noticed something different about the camera - the serial number. KP 305 is odd and could be an indication of a very early production in Germany, but who knows. All 500's I have seen have the long Kodak serial numbers except this one. Just a little piece of info to be stored should I run across any clues in the future.

I wanted examples of the most influential camera possibly in history, the first Instamatic 100 in a pristine outfit, and the best Instamatic camera, the 500 IMO. Some history and a few examples of images and then behind the glass in the museum. I noticed the the entrance to Kodak's museum has the same 100 outfit sitting prominently in a glass case as well. However, I find older cameras much more interesting and the designs far more creative than those after the mid-60's.

Ciao! David

[philbirch]

Jun 8, 2013 5:00:19 GMT -5 Stephen said:

Kodak themselves? Eastman Museum may be able to help, as Kodak production was so complex, even for basic models, they were made worldwide, with variations in each factory to national taste, depending partly on the age of the plants involved, the UK one in particular got their own way as to details and even models.
As usual the French also ran things their own way, 9.5 mm cine was a pain to Kodak in the US for many years!!
Stephen.

9.5 was a pain to anyone if it came off the sprocket. With 8mm or 16mm you'd get marks off the edge of the frame, with 9.5 it was right in the middle. I've sat thru hours of home movies with the entire middle of the picture missing.



Pathe gave up making film long before Kodak did.