It seems to me that for decades, Kodak had a successful, two-part business model.
- Sell photography itself as a lifestyle, a necessity for documenting some of life’s most important moments.
- Sell products and services that support that, ensuring a robust recurring revenue stream.
For a very long time, it worked quite well for the company.
When it came to cameras, it appears that part of Kodak’s strategy was making as many different cameras as possible, with a range of sizes, styles, feature sets, and price points. Most were centered on ease of use, as evidenced by the venerable Brownie series, or the more recent Instamatic series. An oft-forgotten family of Kodak cameras was interesting in its own right as well: the Kodak Duaflex.
The Camera
If you’ve not heard of the Duaflex, you might have seen one on television and not realized it. I Love Lucy successor The Lucy-Desi Comedy Hour — shown in reruns for decades now — featured one in Season 1, Episode 5 (titled Lucy Goes to Sun Valley) in early 1958. Vivian Vance, portraying Ethel Mertz, had one around her neck. The camera featured prominently in the episode’s storyline.
The Duaflex series is really not particularly different than the Brownie cameras apart from the shape and outward appearance; both are simple, easy to use, and take 620 roll film. Manufactured from the late 1940s until 1960, the Duaflex series clearly took its design cues from TLRs. Indeed, twin-lens reflex (TLR) cameras like the Rolleiflex were the cameras of choice for many professional photographers of the day, and it seems evident that Kodak was attempting to capitalize on that with the Duaflex:
- The Rolleiflex has two lenses up front; so does the Duaflex.
- The Rolleiflex has a waist-level viewfinder with a lift-up hood; so does the Duaflex (although simpler in design; also, the first Duaflex didn’t have a hood, while the II, III and IV all do).
- The Rolleiflex takes 6×6 medium format images; so does the Duaflex.
- “Rolleiflex” and “Duaflex” are obviously similar names and suggest other potential similarities
Alas, any similarities between a Rolleiflex and a Duaflex are at best skin-deep.
Indeed, the differences start to stack up.
First was the price. In the early 1950s, a Rolleiflex cost around US$300 while a Duaflex II with a simple Kodet lens was less than US$15. In today’s dollars, that translates to nearly US$3,000 for the Rolleiflex — or about US$145 for the Duaflex. Said another way, while the Duaflex might not have been “cheap” per se, it was something the typical American family could afford to buy, while the Rolleiflex was a luxury purchase in the extreme. But they looked similar; perhaps most people might be fooled that you were shooting your family vacation with a Rolleiflex if they didn’t get too close.
Secondly, the Duaflex is not a true TLR; many use the term “pseudo TLR” to describe it. The reason is that the Duaflex has a simple reflecting viewfinder with a large, square lens under the viewfinder hood — not a ground glass screen. In fact, the Duaflex has no focusing ability at all.
Apertures and Shutter Speeds
The Kodet lens version of the Duaflex II (the subject of this review) is not just fixed-focus, it’s fixed-aperture and fixed-shutter speed as well, depending fully on the exposure latitude of the film to cover for the limitations. The more expensive Kodar lens version of the Duaflex, however, has a three-position Waterhouse-style aperture setting: f/8, f/11 and f/16, advertised as being for hazy sun, bright sun, and bright sun on snow or sand, respectively. (Wow, such flexibility.)
Fellow Denver photographer Daniel Schneider had this to say about the shutter speeds of the Duaflex II in his review:
The shutter, a simple leaf, has two settings: Bulb and Instant. In Instant (snapshot) mode, the shutter speed is 1/30 or 1/40 or 1/50 sec. and is X-synced to the flash. Sources disagree about exactly how fast the shutter is, though at least one blogger indicates that it tested at 1/30 sec.
Even if the shutters were originally manufactured to be faster, which some sources speculate they may have been, it’s conceivable that the springs could’ve slowed down after 60-65 years. Nearly all my snapshot cameras of this vintage have a shutter speed somewhere between 1/30 sec. and 1/60 sec., though.
I recently had my friends at Cameraworks in Colorado Springs test the shutter speed on their diagnostic gear, and my particular Duaflex II tests at 1/60 — and does so with great consistency it seems. Given what Daniel suggested, there’s variation camera-to-camera, but it would also appear that it’s within about a stop — which isn’t enough to matter with film in most situations, and with most film stocks.
Schneider goes on to say that the aperture is either f/11 (seems most plausible to me) or according to some sources f/15. Assuming it’s f/11, given the 1/60 shutter speed, it equates to an EV of 13. And further assuming you get 2 stops (minimum) of latitude with a typical roll of black and white, that’d result in a serviceable range of about EV 11 to EV 15. With the recommended ISO 100 film in the camera, and with standard outdoor, daytime shooting conditions, that does seem about right.
At one point, I tried some Lomography 800 color negative film in this camera after seeing the results that Trevor at The Darkroom had in this blog post. He claims his Duaflex III is f/15 at 1/30; don’t know if he had it tested, or where those numbers come from exactly, but that would still be about EV 13 in any case. My experience using Lomo 800 was a disaster (I think there was about one usable shot on the entire roll), but I also hadn’t figured-out the EV equivalence yet, and didn’t try metering anything. I might well try it again — with a meter this time to ensure I’m giving the film enough (but not too much) light. The same approach and numbers could be used to shoot just about any speed film in the camera, as long as you watch your lighting conditions, and meter similarly to make sure you’re in that EV 11 to EV 15 range.
Of course, without knowing the EV equivalence, and without using a meter, the Duaflex is, as I like to say, point-and-shoot-and-pray — that you actually got a usable shot.
Lastly, quality. As the price differential might suggest, the quality difference between a Rolleiflex and a Duaflex is dramatic. Putting adjustability of focus, aperture and shutter speed aside, you will in no way mistake the Kodet or Kodar lenses of a Duaflex for the Carl Zeiss glass of a Rolleiflex. Many reviewers of Duaflex cameras (including Daniel Schneider) note pincushion distortion and other issues with the optics, and while I don’t see any particular evidence of pincushion distortion specifically in my example, the focus is slightly on the soft side, especially in the corners. And there is (unsurprisingly) some level of chromatic aberration as well. If you want crisp, sharp images — then this isn’t the camera for you.
Over the course of the decade or so of Duaflex production in the US and the UK by Kodak, the camera came in four basic model numbers (the original “plain” Duaflex, which wasn’t labeled as “Duaflex I” but nevertheless sort of was, as well as the II, III and IV), with myriad variations on the theme. Some had double-exposure prevention, some didn’t. Some had adjustable aperture, some didn’t. I’ve seen at least three different variations for how straps might be attached. Some had a metal bar on the side of the camera between the shutter release and the film winder knob and some did not. And none of these things seems in any way directly related to the model numbering on the front.
The Back Story
My particular Duaflex II came to me decades ago as the first camera I ever owned. My maternal grandmother — an inveterate garage-saler — picked-up the camera at one, and gifted it to me. As near as I can triangulate, that was about 1975. It’s been in my possession ever since.
My earliest indelible memory of using it was when it traveled with me in 6th grade to Outdoor Lab, the week-long field trip offered by the school district of my primary education that marked to 6th graders like me (at the time) that they’d truly come of age (or that’s how it seemed). My classmates thought the camera very strange, what with its waist-level viewfinder and dated appearance. At that point, the camera was already a couple of decades or so into its life, and certainly looked both bulky and dated compared to then-current cameras. Even then, the bare film rolls were a curiosity; my classmates were using cameras with cartridges of some sort (110, etc.).
As I grew-up, the camera saw occasional use, but it spent most of my adult life as a shelf queen, unused, but looking interesting on a living room shelf with other curios and nicknacks. Part of that was the fact that the camera used 620 film, and 620 was difficult to find by the time the 80s rolled around, and impossible after 1995 when the last of it was discontinued.
When I started getting back into film, however, the Duaflex was one of the two film cameras I immediately picked-up and starting using. Well, immediately — after a cleaning. On that note, I was quite thankful to stumble across an Instructables page that details how to take the camera apart enough to give it a nice, thorough cleaning job, which after years of sitting on a shelf with only simple dusting periodically, it truly needed.
The Experience
Using a Duaflex has to begin with that obvious thing I just mentioned, the elephant in the room if you will: the film. With factory-produced 620 film being a thing of the distant past, one has to work around that issue first. In the end, it’s not particularly difficult; 620 film and still-produced 120 film are identical, other than the spool on which the film and backing paper are wound, leaving open the possibilities of either modifying a 120 roll to cram into the 620 space, or more easily, re-rolling the 120 film and backing paper onto a 620 spool.
Getting the spool is the first step, and in my view, it was simplest to just get some pre-rolled film and some extra spools. Michael Raso and the FPP team make that quite simple; the FPP store has a variety of films already hand-rolled onto 620 spools, as well as newly-made, injection-molded plastic spools for purchase. While initially a bit expensive, once you have the spools, you can re-roll 120 yourself easily, and use them over and over again. (You can Google how to do it; there are numerous YouTube videos, articles, etc. on what’s involved. If you develop 120 film at home by any chance, the feel and handling of the film itself will be quite familiar, and while tedious, it’s easy to do.)
If you do re-roll your own film, you’ll want to use ISO 100 (or near ISO 100) film for the best results. Kodak Ektar 100 is a great color choice, while Kodak T-Max 100, CatLABS X FILM 80 (ISO 80), Ilford FP4+ (ISO 125) or Fomapan 100 Classic all make great choices for re-rolling film for use in a Duaflex (or Brownie, or most other classic 620 cameras, actually).
As always, Mike Butkus has manuals available for classic cameras including the Duaflex if you need assistance understanding how to load the film; Google will reveal them to you with a search. The process is little different than some other 120/620 roll film cameras.
The Duaflex is a manual-wind camera with a ruby window. Once you have positive take-up of the film, close the back, and wind slowly by hand until you see the arrows go by, followed by the dots or other indicator that you’re about to get to a frame, then stop once you see a numeral “1” in the very center of the ruby window.
Be aware: Seeing that number on some films will be difficult, in particular, on Kodak films. Kodak prints the numbers and markings on the backing paper very, very lightly these days, to prevent transfer of the markings to the film — historically something that’s been a problem in some specific situations. Worse, the typeface that Kodak has chosen for its modern backing paper printing make it very difficult to see what is, in fact, a numeral 1, and on my first attempt, I went right past it to frame 2. There’s no way to go back without opening the camera in total darkness, then removing and winding the film back, so proceed very slowly.
Once ready, then all there is to taking a shot is pointing it at what you want to take — with the subject in full daylight — and pressing the shutter button. Be aware:
- In many Duaflex cameras (but not all), there’s nothing to prevent you from taking a double-exposure. On my Duaflex II, it’s quite easy. Get into the habit of winding the film until the next sequential number appears in the ruby window, after each and every shot you take. Double-exposures can be interesting, but not always when done accidentally.
- Nothing protects that shutter button. I have no case or other protection for my Duaflex, which means that it has to be stored carefully and carried carefully to avoid something pressing the shutter button inadvertently.
- Make sure that the switch on the side of the camera body is in the “I” (instant) position, not the “B” position. B means bulb — meaning the shutter will stay open as long as the shutter button remains pressed, in the unlikely event that you want to experiment with time exposures. (Unlikely, because with no cable release connection, you’re probably not going to get good results trying it with a Duaflex; it’s too easy to move the camera will holding the button down.) The “I” position ensures the shutter closes after the preset shutter duration.
There are two things about a Duaflex to understand:
- Just like a TLR, the image you see in the viewfinder is laterally reversed. What’s on your right is shown on the left side of the viewfinder image, and vice-versa. If you’re new to waist-level viewfinders, this will take some getting used to. It’s weird at first, but you quickly get used to it. Shooting intentional Dutch angles adds to the strangeness, but that too gets easier.
- Because there’s no focus, you can’t really trust the viewfinder. The Duaflex II manual claims that objects 5 feet from the lens to infinity are in-focus, but that’s simply not true. Anything much closer than about 12 feet will be blurry.
Once all the shots are taken, wind the film completely onto the take-up roll, open the back, remove, seal the roll, and process (or have it processed, as the case may be).
The Accessories
I’m personally aware of only three accessories for the Duaflex II:
- Flash Bulb Holder
Considering that virtually all flash bulbs are now out of production, a flash bulb holder isn’t going to be of much use these days. They do exist, however, and were part of full outfits that Kodak sold back in the day. At one point in my life, I actually had one of these, but it’s long since gone missing. I know of no way, personally, to use a modern electronic flash with the Duaflex, given the lack of PC sync connector, and the lack of any sort of switch for flash timing adjustments.
- Close-up Attachment
The Duaflex II manual made mention of a close-up attachment, specifically “No. 6A,” which attaches to the front of the taking lens on the camera. As you can see from the manual excerpt below, it claims that when attached to the camera, the subject must then be between 3 and 4-1/2 feet from the camera. This is also where the manual states that the bare camera has images in focus from 5 feet to infinity; that’s simply inaccurate as I already mentioned.
- Field Case
The manual for the Duaflex also mentions a field case. I don’t recall ever actually seeing these in the flesh, but clearly they existed as well.
The Results
In both color and black and white, I’ve been a bit pleasantly surprised at the results I’ve gotten with the Duaflex. It can be an interesting creative challenge to get outside with the camera on a nice day, and not be able to think of things like depth-of-field, focusing instead on composition, and composition alone.
Here are a few sample shots taken with my Duaflex:
I think you’ll agree that this basic, 70 year old camera is able to take some surprisingly nice images given its simplicity and inherent limitations. If you happen to stumble across one, you might consider giving it a try; they come-up reasonably often in antique stores and the like, and of course, are easily found on eBay, although often at ridiculous price points.
