Why It's Not Hip to Be Square

I bought a 1940s camera which takes square photos. I did not like it.

I’ve wanted a “square format” camera for ages. That is, a camera which produces 24x24mm negatives (rather than normal 24x36mm) and takes roughly 50 pics (not 36) on a normal roll of film.

Square format cameras are quite rare. In the universe of 35mm cameras, untold thousands of models have been made that produce ordinary 24x36mm negatives. There are probably a dozen or so that produce square negatives.

I could reflect this is because rectangular photos are good - and square photos kinda suck. After all, most paintings, postcards and books are also rectangular. Moreover, I could just scan normal negatives, crop the sides in Photoshop, and print them square.

BUT THAT’S NOT THE POINT. WANT SQUARE CAMERA.

Anyway, because they’re rare and collectable square cameras also tend to be expensive. But eventually I found one for around £100. This ticked a lot of boxes. It was made in 1947 in Germany. It has a weird name: Efka 24. It was made in a factory owned by a guy called Fritz Kuhnert who had previously made optics for the Luftwaffe. Rather charmingly, the lens is an “Elor” named after Fritz’s wife, Eleanor. It’s quite well specced for a camera as old as my mum.

The Fritz Kuhnert Freiberg Efka 24

I took my Efka out twice. Once to the beach in Norfolk and once to North Greenwich. Both were bright days, ideal for film photography with finicky vintage cameras. This is the point where I’m supposed to get all lyrical about the beautiful, characterful pics a 78 year old camera delivers. But no.

The Efka 24 is a total pain in the arse to use. It’s a pain to load. It’s a pain to focus: the numbers on the focusing ring are minuscule, what a friend once described as “ant’s penis writing”. Ditto the shutter speed ring. You don’t notice the tiny type on the aperture ring because it is even more of a pain in the arse other ways. The wind-on lever is absolutely baffling. Every time I use it, I find myself asking WHY? WHY DID YOU DESIGN IT THIS WAY?

The shutter button is fine. I’ll give them that. And while we’re on the positives, it’s not ugly. It looks OK. It’s small and light. But it is not a pleasure to use in any way.

Why is the design so terrible? Well, here’s my theory. By the mid-late 1950s, camera design had become quite standardised around controls that were fairly intuitive and made ergonomic sense. But in the late 40s, manufacturers were still trying out weird shit to see what worked. This camera is full of weird shit that didn’t make the cut.

Oh, and finally, it has a tendency to tear film.

Anyway, all of this might be forgivable if the camera produced great pictures. But sadly, Eleanor doesn’t deliver the goods. There’s a slightly milky look to the lens and a definite lo-fi vibe to many of the pics. They’re not terrible, but they are just OK. In general, I really like the look and character that vintage lenses produce. But there are hundreds of excellent old lenses which produce great-quality images that ooze charm. Eleanor is not one of them.

All in all, the Efka is probably an interesting camera for a collector. It’s quirky AF and has a cool backstory. However, it is not a nice camera to take pictures with - and I like cameras I can actually use. So I’ll probably sell it on eBay at some point Hit me up if (having read all this) you’re interested.

And I’ll be taking a second bite from the square cherry soon. I recently bought a Pentacon Taxona which is waiting to be repaired. It’s a cheaper square format camera then the Efka, but will almost certainly be easier to use. Plus, at some point, perhaps I’ll splurge and drop £400 on either a Robot Royale or a Zeiss Ikon Tenax II.

These two are the gold standard of 35mm square photography. But if I buy one of them (and I will) I suspect it will disappoint too. Why? Because there are good reasons why 24x24mm negatives never took off. It’s not hip to be square.

The Pentacon Taxona