But even with all of these things going for it, the Bantam had one challenging drawback: it's film format. Don't get me wrong - I actually really love 828 format, as well as the fact that I can cut down any 120 film of my choice to create a roll of double-length 828 film, but I have a growing number of film stocks only available in 35mm format that I want to try, and for putting these emulsions to the test, I want to use a 35mm camera rather than trying to plaster the film stock to 828 backing paper in the dark and hope it is lined up correctly.
I have a wonderful and quite capable 35mm camera in the form of the Exakta VX, but as great as it is, it is a bulky monster, and as such, it will never be a camera that I can simply carry along at pretty much any time. Knowing this, I decided that I would look for a "135 Bantam" of sorts, one that used 35mm film, but was similar in features and size to the beloved Bantam. Sadly, Kodak did not make a 35mm version of the 1940's design of the Bantam, leaving me an interesting challenge of finding something that could possibly equate to the Bantam for the 135 format.
My list of must-haves, based upon the most likable traits of the Bantam were as follows:
- Compact Form Factor
- Full Manual Control
- At least 4 shutter speeds plus a bulb setting
- A good (preferably coated) 4-element lens with and f/4.5 or better maximum aperture
- A slightly wide focal length.
- An affordable price tag.
The availability of a rangefinder or metering would also be nice, but not essential. I spent some time perusing sites, and found some possible candidates on Mike Eckman's Camera site that piqued my interest. I had all but settled on an Agfa Karat and found one on ebay at a low bidding price and put a modest bid in, given the risks of a non-functioning shutter or a seized focusing ring. The bidding went over my very modest bid, so I let it go.
Without doing much in the way of research, I spotted another camera on a reasonable buy-it-now price, and decided it was worth the modest cost to give it a shot. From the photos on the listing it seemed to fit most of my list of must-haves. It was at least worth a roll of film, and it certainly seemed more travel-friendly than the Exakta. And this is how I became the owner of a Kodak Retinette, okay two Kodak Retinette cameras.
Without doing much in the way of research, I spotted another camera on a reasonable buy-it-now price, and decided it was worth the modest cost to give it a shot. From the photos on the listing it seemed to fit most of my list of must-haves. It was at least worth a roll of film, and it certainly seemed more travel-friendly than the Exakta. And this is how I became the owner of a Kodak Retinette, okay two Kodak Retinette cameras.
Two Kodak Retinettes, a ca. 1959 Type 030 on the left, and a ca. 1962 Type 042 on the right, with some other goodies tossed in for size comparison.
