Picked up a new camera this afternoon

Brian Moore

Brian Moore

Moderator
A Kodak Pony 135.

Model C
Viewfinder (no rangefinder)
Bakelite body
Kodak Anaston 44mm f3.5 lens (stops down to f22)
Kodak "Flash 300" shutter (Speeds 300, 100, 50, 25, and B)

It's in very good shape. It's previous caretaker was apparantly unable get the back properly secured (it was partly on but mostly not when I took the poor little orphan into my care). At first I thought it was broken. However, a little gentle manipulation soon revealed to me the manner of proper closure and her back settled in nicely.

It's very clean for it's age (more or less about 55 yrs), except that the viewfinder has acquired a patina of grunge. I loaded some color film in it this afternoon and I plan to snap a shot or two on the way home from work. (Can't wait for the results!)
 
Check it with a geiger counter!

I was researching my Kodak Pony, and found this nugget of useful knowledge...

The Anastar lens on the Pony IV utilizes components containing Thorium oxide, which results in a very high refractive index of the glass. Thorium is radioactive, and these lenses easily register on a Geiger counter (at app. 1 mr/hr). It is suspected that the lenses on the other Pony cameras share this trait, as do the lenses on the Signet 40, 80, the high end Instamatics, certain Ektars, and doubtlessly other Kodak lenses from this era.
Click to expand...
 
Ha, cooool!
Looking forward to the pictures taken with and of it!
Are you going to do an article for the film photography project? If not make sure to do one for us eh ;)

Isn't the same true of a lot of early watches with glow in te dark hands?
Surely it's not actualy dangerous?
 
The previous owner wasn't a giant ant by any chance was he? :)

Actually it is quite interesting this use of rare-earth metals in older lenses. There are several old LF lenses that are radioactive (emitting alpha particles and so relatively harmless unless you eat them!) and I have some specialised lenses that I suspect use such elements in their glass. I've often wondered whether this is the reason why, when I'm carrying technical camera stuff or a lot of lenses through an airport that I often have to take the bag for a 'special' inspection (especially at Berlin, Tegel). Whenever I ask they always say it's the electronics but there aren't any! I suspect the spectrograph in the X-ray machine is showing an odd signature because of the elements in these lenses (it couldn't pick up the radiation I wouldn't have thought because alpha particles can't penetrate that far, the bag would stop them).

No, Hamish, they aren't dangerous as long as they are under the glass - they often used to use a small amount of radium or a similar element in the phosphor paint to excite the electrons and cause the phosphorescence you see in the dark (it glows in the light as well of course - you just don't see it!). However, if one day you find you can count to 11 with more ease than you used to... ;)
 
Chris,...thanks for that. I had NO idea. I will not lick that lens when it needs a clean.

Hamish,...possibly. If not, then count on it.

Pete,...I actually can't say what species the previous owner was, since I got the camera at a shop that sells 2nd hand goods. However, I suspect he, she or it was not one of "Them" ants. Indeed, whatever corner of the animal kingdom the owner hailed from he, she or it was probably of a rather gracile variety of being, since the camera has apparently been treated with some degree of gentility over its half century of life.

Paul,...sage advice! Thank you.

Indeed,...thank you all for your fine contributions to this thread. UPDATE: I snapped off a roll of 24 exposures last night on the way home from work and dropped them off for processing before coming home. I'll get the results today and if any images are worthwhile I'll post one or two up.
 
Found this guide on exposure online at the http://www.hps.org website

The limit for radiation delivered in addition to the natural background radiation to individuals of the general public is 500 mrem in any one year and 100 mrem/yr on a prolonged basis. If we interpret continuous exposure as 8766 hours per year (24 hrs/day x 365.25 days/yr), 100 mrem/yr translates to 0.011 mrem/hr or 11 microrem/hr.

This would be in addition to the natural background radiation which is quite variable but which averages about 300 mrem/yr or 34 microrem/hr. This does not necessarily mean that radiation doses in excess of 500 mrem in a single year of 100 mrem on a prolonged basis are unsafe when added to the pre-existing natural background but rather these are the limits accepted for regulatory purposes.
Click to expand...

So keeping the camera in your shorts for more than 100 hrs a year is a definite no-no!!
 
Chris,...that's a relief.
(You must have a PHd in physics or sumthin', cause I couldn't make head nor tail outa that radiation rems and mems thing.)

Thanks. :-)
 
Brian Moore said:
Chris,...that's a relief.
(You must have a PHd in physics or sumthin', cause I couldn't make head nor tail outa that radiation rems and mems thing.)

Thanks. :-)
Click to expand...

PhD in Digital Image Processing (for what it's worth) - I think that means I should know more about image manipulation than I do... ;)
 
First images with the Pony. (Keep in mind I was just snapping away to test the camera.) All with "Memories" brand film, which is actually Fuji and is 200 ASA.

Memories200-005.jpg

First actual shot with the Pony. The model is Christina, a delightful young lady who works in my department. She had been hiding her face in her hands to avoid being photographed (although she and the others are well accustomed to my photographic documentation of departmental activities). Thinking I had snapped the shot, she removed her hands and I got what you see here. I shot this at 1/25th and f3.5. Obviously I didn't get the focus right, but I'm quite happy with it anyway.


Memories200-014.jpg

The above is a sunlight reflection off a building that I see as I cruise home in rush hour at the lightning speed of 15 miles per hour or so on the 405 Freeway (colloquially known locally as "The San Diego Freeway," although it is over a hundred miles north of San Diego and doesn't go there). I like how the sun reflects off the windows and onto the pavement. Its more dramatic from the freeway because you're higher up. Unfortunately I can't safely get a shot from that vantage point so I had to exit and get the shot from ground level.


Memories200-018.jpg

The above is looking west into the setting sun as I'm driving east on Westminster Avenue in Long Beach, California. I held the camera up out of the sunroof of my car and pointed it backwards then fired. The dark object emanating unfocused from the bottom of the frame is the camera strap, which was caught by the wind and blown into the frame.

Memories200-010.jpg

Babe's Kitchen is a funky little restaurant I pass by regularly. It's located in Long Beach, California. I've never eaten here but I want to try it one of these days.

The pictures aren't great but that's down to the failings of the photographer. Suffice to say I am quite happy with the performance of the Kodak Pony 135 Model C. I'll be using it again soon.
 
Looks sharp Brian, especially that shot of Babe's Kitchen :)
 
Never tried it, Chris. I looked at the website. I bet it's excellent. You've eaten there?

I'm putting it on my list of eatery "to-do's" right next to Babe's Kitchen.

Thanks.
 
Oh yes - a buddy introduced me - fantastic experience :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Bill Watts
Critique Welcomed Another new old camera
Replies
6
Views
140
Shlomi Ofir
Shlomi Ofir
Art Meripol
Critique Welcomed A mistake I liked.
Replies
7
Views
499
Murray Leshner
Murray Leshner
Chris Bennett
A found film: 116 format
Replies
2
Views
458
Chris Bennett
Chris Bennett
Hamish Gill
What is a Compact Camera, CSC Camera or Viewfinder Camera
Replies
6
Views
3K
Pete Askew
Pete Askew
Brian Moore
This Team Lacks Focus
Replies
10
Views
606
Brian Moore
Brian Moore
Back
Top