Ever had a camera that you couldn't help but hate to love it?
I picked up a Kodak Signet 50 a few months ago. I'd previously had a Signet 35 that was a nice little gem until the shutter finally gave out. I'd never actually seen a 50 until I bought this one on the auction site.
This thing is a real piece of work. To me it looks like a 1957 vintage prototype for a modern disposable camera. Just about everything that can be made of plastic is. Most of the body, the lens barrel, much of the innards. The shutter itself is metal and the lens is glass. The shutter release is a flat plastic tab that sticks out in front and looks and feels flimsy enough that it gives real concern that it might break off any time you trip the shutter. This is not semi-rugged bakelite, but genuine 1950s plastic. No rangefinder, just a scale focus, though it does have a nice bright line frame finder. The top and bottom plates are metal, sort of. Two pieces of aluminum that if they were any thinner could be considered as heavy aluminum foil.
It does have a built in light meter. But using it is a joy. You've got to read the EV reading off the meter on top, then transfer that to a scale on the bottom front of the lens. So you've got to look the camera right in the eye to see the scale, which was thoughtfully printed in red, and after 45+ years has faded to near invisibility. The shutter speed dial and aperture ring are lock stepped together so that once you do get the EV set, then you can just switch settings for faster shutter speed - up to a blazing 1/250th, or greater depth of field. But to bracket exposures you've got to press back on the inner ring to change the settings away from the matched ones on the shutter speed.
But as long as your looking into the front of the camera to set the exposure you can also check the frame counter, 'cause it's on the very bottom front. I have to wonder how many owners ended up with unintentional closeup shots of their own foreheads.
The midget flash bulb unit that came with it is likewise almost entirely of plastic. Even the parabolic reflector is plastic, which cracked in this one's case.
According to McKeown's Kodak sold these for $82 new in 1957-1960. A basic screwmount Leica was only about twice that and an Argus C3 was about half that. Except the Argus was more rugged, had a rangefinder, was actually more convenient to use, uglier to look at maybe, but had a lens that was at least as sharp, and probably sharper than the Signet 50. How Kodak sold any Signet 50's is either a testament to their sales staff's abilities or their customer's gullibility.
I ran a roll of Agfa Pan 100 through mine last April and though I developed the film right away, I've never gotten around to printing any of the shots or even scanning them until now. I've got to reluctantly admit that I'm kind of impressed with the negatives. No, not super sharp, though they do seem contrasty enough. Negs made with my Ricoh 300 of similar vintage would blow them away. But those made with the Signet 50 have some kind of a pleasantly vintage charm quality to them. Though this charm element probably wasn't the intention of the camera's designers who went out of their way to make a camera that was as 1950s space-age style glitzy in appearance, but made as cheaply as they could. But then the charm quality could be captured easier with the larger negative of a Brownie Hawkeye that only cost $7 at the time - ironically about what I paid for my Signet 50 last spring, plus postage.
