Dutch Date - Part 2: The Detrola Model HW and the Falcon Model F

Every so often, I'll get really frugal and ask a couple of cameras to share a roll of film.  Though there are problems here and there, they'll usually agree.  I call these "Dutch Dates" and usually try to pair cameras with something more than simply the film format in common.  Below is a look at just one such pairing...

The two Seniors noshed on some Japanese fare, while recalling the days when their format wasn't at all obscure!

Camera Models: Detrola Model HW (1939) and Falcon Model F (1937)

Similarities: It's as if someone built the shell of this camera for both makers to utilize in putting their own finishing touches and features on their version, as they are that similar.  Both are Art Deco era American Viewfinder collapsible 127 cameras whose design is rich in Art Deco lettering and design work, and as it so happens, both have tended to have a particular dislike of "homemade" 127 film, from previous experience.  Both also have Wollensak 2 inch Velostigmat lenses that have unit focusing instead of front element focusing. 

Differences: The models come from different manufacturers, and have slight differences in top shutter speed, as well as expected differences in trim. 

Film Shared: Rerapan 100 in 127 format, fresh dated. 

If you have read more than a few of my posts, you'll soon note that I'm a bit of a sucker for what are often known as "obsolete" formats.  After successfully cutting down 120 film to feed old 828 format cameras, my attention later turned to 127 format models, and I began to expand my film cutting adventures to this format as well.  However, I discovered some 127 cameras weren't the most enthusiastic about using this custom slit film, often slipping in the film advance, or simply having many issues with film plane flatness.  



The Detrola Model HW and the Falcon Model F were two such cameras for me.  I'd previously tried a roll of cut 120 in each of these cameras.  The Detrola had some difficult light leaks that spilled across the exposed frames, while the shots from the Falcon showed troubling blurs symptomatic of improper film flatness. 

I certainly wanted to achieve more from these cameras, and thought a fresh roll of true 127 format film was worth trying, while using some care and attention to ensure the leaks of the Detrola were sealed while the film was in the camera, and taking care to ensure the film in the Falcon was pulled taunt.  With any luck, I'd have a roll with good samples from two cameras as a result.  

The Detrola Model HW is a late 1930's product of Detrola, a Michigan based maker of both cameras and radios.  The half-frame 127 format camera is awash with art deco details including tin embellishments and a rear exposure "calculator" (resembling an astrological chart of sorts) designed to work with the top mounted extinction meter.  

By comparison, the Falcon Model F, a product of Utility Manufacturing in New York, is (true to its maker's name) more utilitarian in nature, with less use of silver contrasting elements to the black bakelite body. There is no extinction meter or exposure guides to assist in selecting exposure - you are on your own.  The shutter on the Falcon is less versatile than that of the Detrola, topping out at 1/100, compared to the 1/200 top speed on its midwestern counterpart, and though many Falcon Model F cameras have a faster f/3.5 lens, my example has an f/4.5 Wollensak identical to the Detrola.  

Both of these models fall in the sweet spot of being models that are visually attractive, not excessively popular, not too often seen for sale, and not excessively priced when spotted.  I did not exceed my typical $25 comfort zone price point with either of these pickups.  Of the two, the Falcon would appear to be the less common, if anecdotal perusing of internet auctions can be considered a good indicator.  At any time, at least one Detrola can typically be spotted on ebay, while examples of the Falcon are fewer and father between.

Detrola Model HW

Looks like it is ready for shooting, and will totally fire the shutter, but the lens has to be extended first!

The Detrola Model HW is a camera that you notice before you even pick it up, and this suits it well.  As a fan of 1930's Art Deco styling, I couldn't help but be drawn to the form of the Detrola, to the point where its functionality bordered on irrelevant. Despite the lovely form, all the basic functions one needs in a camera are present in the Detrola, including selectable apertures and shutter speeds as well as functioning (helical at that) focus from 3 feet to infinity.  The lens is an f/4.5 Wollensak Velostigmat, presumably a triplet formula. 

There was something particularly nice about using a 1930's camera that embraced the era in which it was made.  All too often, the cameras of this era came in display boxes that radiate with Art Deco styling, but the camera bodies themselves are rather pedestrian by comparison. As well, it was nice to have all of the settings radiating from the lens where they could be set in one place, making it pretty easy to set the exposure settings based on available light levels, and then simply compose, set focus, and shoot.  

The attractiveness of this model was not enough to save it from a few functional quirks that made things a bit challenging.  I was unlucky enough to have an example of this model whose rear viewfinder eyepiece had come loose in the viewfinder housing. The design of the Detrola doesn't make it terribly obvious how to remove the unit to resecure the glass.  Not wanting to damage this 80 year old camera, I elected to leave it. Otherwise, my main issue with the design of this camera lay with the way it nests when collapsed.  To close the camera, one turns the focus to around 6 feet to line up a trio of openings to a corresponding trio of raised bumps on the lens barrel before pushing the lens barrel down and turning it to lock the lens barrel in the "collapsed" position.  To shoot with the camera, one reverses this motion, turning the focus to that same position and letting the lens barrel pop out for shooting.  The problem with this is that when collapsed, it isn't readily apparent that the camera is not extended, and it can be easy to mistakenly pick it up, turn the focus ring anywhere from 7 feet to infinity, and fire away shot after shot.  Fortunately, I didn't have this problem, but a friend of mine did, and I can see how easily such an error is to make. 

Once extended, using the settings on the Detrola is pretty straight-forward and no-nonsense.  As seen above, all settings are set in a single location.  The rear of the camera includes a neat exposure calculator that doubles as a cover for the two red windows. 

Despite its outward beauty, picking up and shooting a Detrola isn't commensurate with its appearance.  The fit of the camera parts feels a bit cheap compared to the models coming from Germany from the same era, though given the prices and specifications, this is certainly expected.  Focusing the Detrola is smooth enough, and unlike many 127 cameras on the lower end of the price spectrum, winding film is a breeze.  If anything, the film winding almost feels a bit too easy, precipitating some worry on my part that the film chamber had too much slack that might lead to film plane flatness with this roll of film. One other minor headache with the Detrola is that the shutter speed selector moves very easily.  I set it to 1/100 at one point, briefly put it in my bag, and pulled it out a few minutes later to discover it was between B and 1/25. 

My worries about the film flatness proved unfounded.  And by using electrical tape around the majority of the back plate to seal out light, my results had little to no light infringing on the negatives.  The use of "true" 127 film rather than "home made" 127 certainly helped to ensure I was getting the best possible images from this camera.  I found that the Detrola generally focused properly and its shutter worked as advertised.  Below are my results.   My last shot indicates one of the problems with self-cocking shutters on old cameras, as in handling the Detrola, I clearly pressed the shutter at some point in addition to the intended exposure, resulting in the less than effective double exposure. 

Gallery:

The use of 127 film and some precautions on light leaks worked to get some workable shots from the Detrola, even if the film stock was a bit less than optimal.  A corridor shot at Union Station. 

Framing with the viewfinder lens having fallen into the housing was a challenge, but I managed.  Despite the somewhat fuzzy rendition put forth by the film, I can detect some decent sharpness from the Wollensak lens. 

Focusing distances on the Detrola seemed to be spot-on.  While out of focus rendering wasn't anything poetic, the camera does take a nice photo. 

A bit of fuzziness evident here despite focusing at the proper distance.

Focused at the close focusing distance of 3 feet however, I was pleasantly surprised to get this result.  This is one case where the soft look of the film works to the advantage of the image. 

Another good result from the Detrola can be seen here, giving off a particularly vintage feel. 

A disadvantage of a self-cocking shutter is seen in this image.  I captured one more image of the stream bank in a back lit setting, only to accidentally depress the shutter again when putting the camera away, resulting in an unintended double exposure. 

Falcon Model F

Also in its collapsed state, the Falcon has a focus indicator at top that will only point to a focusing distance when the camera is properly extended.

While the Falcon isn't as snazzy as the Detrola, it certainly has its charms.  The engraved Falcon typeface around the lens barrel seems like it is only slightly different from that used by the Detrola.  Usage of the Falcon is quite similar to that of the Detrola, with all settings set in one main area around the center of the lens using easy to read indicators.  

I honestly expected very little from the Falcon, given the maker's tendency to create only most basic cameras for the budget end of the market, so I was taken aback to discover some particularly nice touches that were unexpected.  The collapsible design of this camera is far more pragmatic than that of the Detrola, in that the focus indicator is rotated around beyond the infinity mark to a docking point.  The shutter can still be fired in this position, but unlike the Detrola, one won't pick up a collapsed Falcon and see a focus indicator pointing to infinity that makes it appear as if the camera is ready to shoot.  Releasing the camera from the collapsed position requires one to depress a round latch and rotate the lens to extend it to align the focusing distances with the marker on the top of the barrel.  Each of the set focusing points has a detent, resulting in click stops at each point.  While some Falcon users found this to be a pain, I had no issue at all with it.  The Falcon also shared the same problem as the Detrola in having the rear viewfinder glass loose in the housing.  The simpler design of this housing made removing and reseating the glass a very simple process.  One other nice touch about the Falcon was that the winding knob would click as the film was being wound.  This at least gave the impression of a degree of precision build that wasn't quite there in the Detrola.

My pet peeves about the Falcon lay mostly with my previous results that didn't inspire confidence in this example, that I had hoped would be solved by using a roll of true 127 film. Otherwise, my misgivings centered around the lens and focusing assembly.  The Wollensak lens on my example was VERY wobbly in comparison with the Detrola, and I tried my best not to prod it much when using the Falcon.  Additionally, the focusing helical is cast metal (apparently aluminum based) rather than machined metal, so turning the focusing ring is a bit stiff on a camera body of this age. 

Some might find the click detents on the focusing dial annoying, but I actually like them.  I did find the ring a bit tricky to turn though.  The rear of the Falcon lacks the cool touches of the Detrola, opting for a very ordinary back plate. 

Having a fully working viewfinder made using the Falcon much easier, though it was evident in shooting that the viewfinder was seeing only some (maybe 75%) of what was reaching the film, making framing a bit of a challenge. The detents in the focus ring and clicks in the winding mechanism were certainly appreciated, though there were at least a couple of times where I wished I had a 1/200 shutter speed on this camera (such as on the Detrola) to be able to open up the lens a bit more to test the focus.  One thing I recalled from my previous roll is that the Falcon's viewing windows on the back are a bit imperfect, tending to clump each pair of exposures together.  I had to deliberately space the numbers so that the first appearance of a number was positioned in the beginning of the window, and the second appearance of a number was near the end of the window.  The Detrola did not have such an issue.  

When my negatives emerged from the tank, I was generally pleased with what I saw.  I could make out distinct details across the frame, unlike my previous effort which resulted in an awkward abstract of focused areas and blur.  It seems that the use of a film stock cut with greater precision was just what the Falcon needed to return improved results.  Below are the scans of these results.  A couple were taken with the slowest shutter speed of 1/25, which proved too slow for hand holding.

Gallery:

With the Falcon, composition was a bit easier due to its viewfinder glass being intact, but there are still challenges with a viewfinder camera, as the door in the background was centered as I composed it through the glass, but the result was anything but. 

Under less precisionate compositions though, the viewfinder did a decent job.  More importantly, the camera itself was able to capture subjects in accurate focus, as seen here. 

With a focus at the near end of 4 feet, the Falcon didn't quite seem to nail the focus as hoped, as can be seen here in the mushy and indistinct details.  

Using slow shutter speeds on the Falcon wasn't the easiest of endeavors.  Though legible, there is definite evidence of camera shake in this image. 

With faster shutter speeds, the camera does a decent job of getting a photo.  There is some softness evident in the lettering however. 

Here, the center of the image came out displaying nice sharpness.  Out of focus rendering in this example is rather ordinary. 

Shots taken wide open at longer focusing distances tend to be soft, as seen here. 

A good example to close the samples is this one, in which the foreground is properly focused and crisp, with the backdrop giving off a softer rendition. 

Thoughts:

Both of these cameras showed that they are still adequate performers after 80 years, able to properly focus and expose images, particularly when stocked with properly cut film.  So it may sound odd when I can say that I still have issue with the results while using a true 127 film.  The stock used above was fresh-dated Rerapan 100, but I'm less than thrilled with how this film looked after developing.  Tonality is decent on scenes of varied lighting, but when viewed at anything other than snapshot size, the grain of this film looks particularly harsh, and shots with deeper hues of sky show light colored specks that stand out in a bad way.  I honestly wonder if I would have gotten better results from shooting 40 year old Verichrome Pan rather than this "fresh" film.

Given that the lenses on both cameras are identical, the results from both seem more or less indistinguishable.  Sharpness is good particularly in the center of the images, while the slow lenses yield nothing terribly memorable in the form of out-of-focus rendering.  The main differences between the cameras thus come from the shooting experience, and to that degree, I'd have to give the nod to the Falcon as the better "shooter" of the pair.  Still, the distinction between both models isn't significant, as both were able shooters with some modest pain points that require some attentiveness to maximize image quality.

Now that I know these cameras CAN take good images, I'm curious of trying this experiment again, perhaps risking fate by trying another roll of home made film of better quality than the Rerapan that passed through their chambers this time.  I can't help but wonder how a slow fine-grained film would render through a classic Wollensak Velostigmat.