
Continuing exploring my modest camera collection, here are three more. These are much smaller than the previous ones and easily pocketable. Indeed, two of them have “Vest Pocket” in their names. I believe Ergun gave me the first two Kodak cameras, and Bud Tucker gave me the third one.
Kodak Vest Pocket Hawk-Eye
As descriptive as its name may be, it is equally confusing. Various Hawk-Eye, Vest Pocket, and other models containing parts of the phrases exist. This one carries the full name but gets a colorful treatment that might have rubbed off from Kodak Rainbow Hawk-Eye.
Probably its predecessor, Rainbow Hawk-Eye was produced between 1931 and 1933. They came in different colors, thus the name. My VP Hawk-Eye has colorful touch-ups and was made between 1927 and 1934. There are only a few references to the cyan lens mount and the body trim. The references I have found show a black version that appears identical in other ways.
It has two shutter settings, T and I. The aperture is handled by a rotating disk behind the front of the lens mount and ranges from 1 to 4. A typical swiveling waist-level finder is perched above the lens mount to one side. Using 127 films, it took eight 4×6 cm exposures. Meet Kodak Vest Pocket Hawk-Eye.
Click on the images to see them larger, uncropped, and read their titles.






Jiffy Kodak Vest Pocket Camera
Produced between 1935 and 1942, the Jiffy was considered an Art Deco piece with a bakelite body. Unlike the Hawk-Eye which is a folding-bed type camera, the Jiffy is a folding-strut one. It has minimal adjustments; shutter speeds are B and 1/50, two apertures, 11 and 16, and an eye-level flip-up viewfinder. There is also an unfolding support to help steady the camera on a flat surface.
It also uses 127 films and records eight 4×6 cm exposures. Its fixed-focus lens focuses 10′ to infinity. Its modern looks for the era, bakelite construction, small size, and Art Deco styling were probably its main attractions. According to one source, it was designed by Walter Dorwin Teague, a noted industrial designer who later worked on the design of early Polaroid cameras. In 1935, it cost $5! Here is Jiffy!






Univex A
The smallest and possibly the least expensive among these three is the Univex A. It was grouped among the Art Deco cameras partly because of its bakelite construction and partly because of the design lines. The Univex was made in 1933 and in three years, it sold three million cameras. This may be due to its diminutive size, $0.39 price, or modern design for the day.
The camera has no adjustments, just a wire finder frame that flips up and lines up with the eyepiece. It has a single-speed shutter which operates once by pushing down and then pushing it up.
The Univex A uses Univex #00 roll film that used to sell for $0.10 per roll. The camera I have is in a box with a roll of film. The box is not the original box but a simple shipping box well suited for the small camera with an address label. Look at this tiny jewel of a camera.






References
The following sites provided valuable information for this article
Kodak Classics
Historic Cemara
Art Deco Cameras
Art Deco Cameras
Camera-Wiki
Jackie
Love a pocket camera!
A. Cemal Ekin
They are always handy! By the way, your comment needed approval because one character was wrong. I fixed it and you should get this reply. Take care,
Cemal
Haluk Atamal
Your collection is awesome Cemal. All these cameras are unknown to me. Interesting is that the Univex A sells less than the price of only 4 rolls of film! Almost a disposable camera :)
I am definitely not complaining about the current level of technology; at least the “film” is f.o.c. and doesn’t need to be developed.
Thanks for sharing these valuable photos, Cemal.
A. Cemal Ekin
Glad to hear you enjoyed the collection so far. I may have one more in a little while. Take care,
Cemal
Paul White
Cemal
Another great blog about your camera collection. It is interesting and very timely. I have been exploring a Chinese twin lens reflex camera that is digital and sells for only $119
Always enjoy your blogs
A. Cemal Ekin
Good morning, Paul, and I am glad you enjoyed the article. More to come …
Take care,
Cemal