StarDestroyer.Net BBS

The Kodak Brownie Hawkeye: The Other, Other Box

The Hawkeye was yet another of the mass-produced Kodak cameras, made between 1949 and 1961. In 1950 a version with a built-in synch port for a side-mounted flashgun was added, and it was this version that dominated the production run. This is the version I own, though I removed the flashgun when I used it as it added weight and bulk while interfering with my grip on the left side.



The Hawkeye is a nice example of 1950s-style streamlining and another one of Walter Dorwin Teague's fine designs for Kodak. Despite being a '50s-simple box camera, it is comfortable to use. The viewfinder is large and bright (about 2 cm by 2 cm), the body is well-sized and the rounded edges make it easy to hold, and the few controls are large and fall under the appropriate fingers. "Few" is the Kodak standard for later box cameras: shutter under the right thumb, pull-up knob for the Bulb setting under the left thumb, and film advance knob out of the way under the right palm. There is no double exposure prevention.

The lens is a simple uncoated meniscus with an aperture of about f/11, while the shutter speed is most probably 1/30 sec (1/30 seems to have been the default Kodak flash synch speed). Like most old cameras, it is meant to be used with slower films - even something as slow as ASA 100 film is pushing it except in low light, and there are only a few options remaining for ASA 25 or 50 film, as camera shutter speeds have steadily increased and faster - albeit grainier - film has become more prevalent to match. I used Fuji Reala 100 and was obliged to correct for overexposure in every frame, despite shooting just after sunrise and in heavy winter overcast. I think one could make a faster shutter by reducing the size of the window, though.

A note on film: the Hawkeye is built for 620 film, which differs from 120 in the spool dimensions, specifically and most critically the breadth and diameter of the end plates. Fortunately, the Hawkeye can accommodate a 120 spool with only a little trimming. The film advance might be a little stiffer than otherwise, but it is perfectly usable without hang-ups.

So, what can it do?



The first drawback of its simplicity is obvious; the one-element lens is not as sharp or consistent as a more complicated, newer lens. That said, the results are much better than I expected.

The slow shutter is no real obstacle, as the grip allows the camera to be braced against the body easily.

A note about Reala 100: I have a favorable view of this film considering how it performed despite the shortcomings of the camera and how well it accepted the necessary post-processing. This is a 100% crop at 3200 PPI:









A second drawback of the camera's simplicity is revealed: no coating on the lens = much more glare. I suppose one could try to fashion a lens shade of some kind, but that's about it.



I had more fun just using this camera than I have with any other. The waist-level finder helped prevent carelessness and haste while making shots, while the lack of fine control meant that there was no need to worry about fine control. It is, in effect, a photographic vacation. In my opinion, this is the camera Lomography should have marketed, were they an honest photography company instead of a bunch of hucksters. It is simple and fun to use, it is easily modified (flipping the lens to fuck up photos Holga-style is popular, but it can also be fitted with the synch equipment for modern electric flashes, given a cable release and a tripod mount point, etc.), and looks better and produces better quality results than the toy cameras so in vogue today.

I began shooting generally in the beginning of December after a two-month break, the results of which are just tricking back in. Anything great so far? No, but I'm going to post some anyway.

The landscape photos and the "quality"/trait of the glare on that thing make some Really beautiful landscape photos - It's the first time in aaaages that I can honestly say that I see the difference (for the better) in film's quality, and a change for the better in it being less "clean" than film.

Shots 2,4,5,6 are excellent (Put them on your flickr stream too ). The composition and light on shot 2 leave something to be desired, I could understand the shadow on the right, but the one on the left really detracts from the shot. Your second shot of the "Sunday Money" boat could be great, but only if it didn't have the wood taking up a fifth of the upper frame (And zooming in more would also have helped compose the shot to excellence).

Does that thing take 35mm film?

Does that thing take 35mm film?

Not unless you dismantle it completely and rebuild the internal mechanism from the ground up. Have you ever seen 120 spools?

Simplicius: nice review, and I'm happy for you that the old box is working fine. Are the B/W shots derived from colour film or did you run actual monochrome film through it? They seem to work out a lot better lighting and sharpness-wise; I suppose that's not surprising for a simple lens.

So it's one speed, one aperture, one focus? There's not even a guess focussing (or whatever the hell you call it in English) selector?

Bounty wrote:Are the B/W shots derived from colour film or did you run actual monochrome film through it? They seem to work out a lot better lighting and sharpness-wise; I suppose that's not surprising for a simple lens.

I ought to have noted that the last four photos I posted were done with my regular winter SLR, which no doubt explains a great deal. So far, the Reala is the only film I've put through the Hawkeye, and until I get some nice slow 120, it will have to stay that way.

So it's one speed, one aperture, one focus? There's not even a guess focussing (or whatever the hell you call it in English) selector?

Absolutely nada. It's almost as simple as a camera can be; the focal range is ~5 feet to infinity so it's more than adequate for the amateur snapshot work it was designed for.

Death wrote:Shots 2,4,5,6 are excellent (Put them on your flickr stream too ). The composition and light on shot 2 leave something to be desired, I could understand the shadow on the right, but the one on the left really detracts from the shot.

I actually don't think they're display-worthy. The overexposure is a problem, as are the mistakes - like the part of my shadow in #2 that you pointed out - caused by me getting used to the feel of the camera. I've got to use this one a bit before I can do good things with it, and I also have to get film that works well with its limitations.

Your second shot of the "Sunday Money" boat could be great, but only if it didn't have the wood taking up a fifth of the upper frame (And zooming in more would also have helped compose the shot to excellence).

That was essentially a snapshot; I had the focus all dialed in beforehand and was shooting any time it looked like a shot was about to present itself. Any weakness is the shot is - of course - because I wasn't close enough; I was standing at pier's edge with the longest lens I owned, and so that was the only photo I could take.

Does that thing take 35mm film?

It's hypothetically possible, but it would be time-consuming to rig up and difficult to use. There'd also be no point to it; other than cost and convenience, bigger is always better when it comes to film.

Bounty wrote:

Does that thing take 35mm film?

Not unless you dismantle it completely and rebuild the internal mechanism from the ground up. Have you ever seen 120 spools?

Nope.
So, is 120mm medium format?

Yes; And there's no "mm", juts "120". In the same numbering system, 35mm is "135".

Medium format is usually in a square format called 6x6. Which is roughly 6cm (it's actually 56mm, but rounded off to 6cm) square. the drawback is that you have 12 exposures to a roll, and the film costs more to buy it, and to process(usually).

It's pretty much IMAX in a still camera.

The only real way to go from there is Large Format, where your negative is 4x5 (that's inches) or even 8x10. That's when you have images where the the limiting factor is the glass in the camera and not the film.

Medium format and large format is the one area of photography where digital technology is still playing catch-up.

Simplicius wrote:

So it's one speed, one aperture, one focus? There's not even a guess focussing (or whatever the hell you call it in English) selector?

Absolutely nada. It's almost as simple as a camera can be; the focal range is ~5 feet to infinity so it's more than adequate for the amateur snapshot work it was designed for.

So it's like a modern single use disposable camera, except the film can be changed & reloaded...interesting. Kinda curious though, any idea why they'd made a medium format camera with so many compromises as opposed to a a 35mm film camera?

Kinda curious though, any idea why they'd made a medium format camera with so many compromises as opposed to a a 35mm film camera?

Because 120 film at the time was ubiquitous and widely adopted, and 35mm was the film for pros and and semi-pros? At the time 120 was the format of choice for a great deal of cameras, and the Brownie is not significantly compromised compared to other budget cameras of the era. I've got a Brownie 127 here that is pretty much the same feature-wise; a bakelite box with a film advance and a single-speed shutter.

I see. I had the impression 35mm film took over the mainstream earlier than that, I thought medium format was well on the way out soon after WWII. Learn something new every day.

Nope, medium format was the in thing well into the sixties. I learned something new too, I thought 35mm took off with professionals because Contax and Leica used it pre-WWII but turns out that's not the case; journalists apparently didn't pick up 35mm until much later.