As my vintage camera collection grows, this is a question that keeps cropping up in my mind. For the most part, folding cameras were more advanced models than box cameras, with better lenses, more shutter speeds, and typically a higher price. However, that is not always the case. Some folders offer little more by way of functionality than the box cameras, which makes me wonder what the thought process was when choosing one or the other back in the 1950s or earlier.
Here is a good example:
As we can see from this advert for the All Distance Ensign and the Pocket Model No. 1, there really isn't much to distinguish these cameras. Both offer a single, instantaneous shutter speed, both allow time exposures, both have direct vision and reflex view finders, and both cameras come in red, blue, or brown. The only real difference is the price (25/- versus 37/6). Now the folding camera is obviously the more compact. The clue is in the name "folding" camera. In fact this model it is marketed as a camera for your pocket. One might suspect it has a better lens, but this is just another single element "all-distance" lens, with preset "portrait" or "view" mount positions.
So, is it a case of convenience only? Is it worth the extra cash just to have a camera that will fit in your pocket? Or is it a status thing? Do you buy the folder just because it looks like a more expensive camera?
There may be something in that theory. An early Ensign camera catalogue includes a review of the Ful-Vue (early model), which states:
Finally, it has the appearance of a very expensive camera, although one can buy it for a modest 25/-.
Nevertheless, in the same catalogue, a description of the Ensign Pocket E-20 Camera states:
Many beginners escape the box camera stage entirely and commence with a folding model. The convenience with which this type of camera can be carried compared with the 'box' needs no emphasis.
No better folding camera for a beginner is to be found in any maker's catalogue than the Ensign Pocket E-20....its graceful tapering ends and slim body enable it to be easily carried in almost any normal pocket.
A particular feature... is the hinged back, a feature until recently only found on the more expensive types of camera.
In terms of functionality and creative scope the Pocket E-20 cannot outdo the cheaper box cameras, so it isn't much of a progression for beginners to exchange their boxes for this. The description does indeed seem to claim that the convenient size and the appearance of a more expensive camera are the main selling points of this camera.
Were the beginners to fork out for Pocket E-20 Model 2, on the other hand, that would be quite the upgrade. They would get an Ensar f/7.7 anastigmat lens with front cell focusing and two instantaneous shutter speeds of 1/25 and 1/75. The model 1 cost 27/6. This upgraded model 2 cost £2-5-0.
What about other models, such as the Selfix Snapper? The entry camera into the impressive Selfix folding range.
 |
| Advert in PhotoGuide Magazine, Vol. 5, No.6 (1954) |
Well, if you read the advert you'll see this camera is barely more capable than the Ful-Vue Super, released the same year. Both had a three point focusing lens that would focus from 2 yards to infinity. They have a single instantaneous shutter speed, are both synchronised for flash, and both take 620 film. The only way that the Snapper is an upgrade on the Super is because it offers 2 apertures instead of just one. However, given that in 1955, The Chemist and Druggist magazine listed the Super's retail price as 59/8, you'd have to really want that extra aperture to pay £5.10.8 for the Snapper instead.
All I will say is the Snapper was a fine looking camera, and maybe that was part of what you were paying for.
So, for absolute beginners it seems to come down to aesthetics (my camera looks pretty), bragging rights (my camera looks expensive), and ease of carrying (my camera fits in my plus fours). If you had a little more cash at your disposal, the folders could offer nicer lenses and a few more apertures and shutter speeds. That said, not all box cameras were created equal. Some, such as the Balda Baldixette c.1956 had 2-element lenses and 2 apertures. The Halina 6-4, c.1961, had a 2-element lens, shot dual format, and had 3 apertures. So at the beginner level it really is swings and roundabouts. The folders don't outclass the boxes until we get to the improver models such as the Ensign Pocket E-20 Model 2, the Ensign Ranger II, or the Franka Bonafix.
Ultimately, what it really comes down to is the final print. The better the resolving power of the lens, the larger you can enlarge your prints. For those folders and box cameras that are roughly equivalent, with 'all distance' lenses, you probably wouldn't expect anything more than contact prints. If you could afford a Kodak Sterling II with its 4-element Tessar-type lens then you will be able to blow up the prints a good deal. If you're just starting out the cheaper boxes will do nicely.
 |
| A child with a folding camera, pictured in The Home Photographer and Snapshots Magazine, October 1933. |
