Clarus Camera Mfg. Co. 1946-52

The Tomei Collection

As other collectors, I have a soft spot for a company that produced beautifully crafted cameras that rarely receive much praise. This is clearly due to the fact that they are heavy, awkward for 35mm cameras, but most of all, rarely work well if at all. However, that doesn't explain the entire story because many popular and more valuable classic cameras are equally ergonomically deficient and subject to failure. McKeown comments that these cameras may be more desirable in Europe where they didn't sell when new. This is highly unlikely since there are few of us who are old enough to have purchased one new some sixty years ago. So, the lack of broad interest in these cameras and accessories and the low auction values continues to be a mystery to me.

Below are images of the Clarus cameras and accessories in the collection (I will be adding more as time permits). I hope that these cameras and the history of this ambitious if not successful post-WWII company will be of increasing interest to collectors in the future.

Although Clarus only produced the MS-35, there were a number of variations that appeared between 1947 and 1952 that reflect the company's effort not only to improve the camera's performance, but also to control cost of production. The latter concern must have been of growing serious concern by 1951 as the end was in sight. For more details on the MS-35 camera and Clarus than I can provide, I would strongly recommend Scott's Photographical Collection and also Rick Oleson's site, both of which provide useful information for the collector. On close inspection of these cameras, one can see many small differences. I won't even try to catalog those differences here since they have been described nicely on Oleson's site.

(Image above: Another failed business from 1946 that is close to my heart. God bless you Uncle Joe Wilky)

Above: The earliest variant of the Ms-35 model appeared in 1946 and is marked by several differences compared with later ones. Here in this example, serial number *95185 is stamped on both the body as shown as well as the rear door. It appears to be unusual because this actually appears to have a small number 4 with two X's stamped over it (at first it may look like an asterisk) before the number and the fact that the last two digits are smaller. The serial number on the body as well as the matching serial number located on the bottom of the inside of the rear door, both highlighted with yellow paint for some reason, also match the Wollensak Velostigmat lens that is mounted on the camera. The significance of this practice is unknown at this time and I deffer to the real experts.

The body has raised bezels surrounding the viewfinder and rangefinder windows which do not appear in later variants. On the earliest variant, "Made in the U.S.A." is located beneath Clarus name on the right front, while the speed dial is engraved as shown here on the left. Note that the early examples also have strap lugs which were soon eliminated in subsequent variants. This example has the sliding rear door latch which was also soon changed to a pivoting latch.

You can always search the Internet and read about all the things that were wrong about the MS-35, and presumably the derivative model without the focal plane shutter, the uncommon Wescon. Here I simply wish to focus on the technological features that makes this camera an admirable albeit unsuccessful venture.

The MS-35 was solid for sure, constructed of a die cast alloy in three parts that permitted a focal distance of 1.509" +/- 0.005, according to Clarus. With its clean satin finish it stood up to years of exposure and neglect without significant corrosion. The leatherette covering was what Clarus called "war proven 'vinylyte'" which matched the metal finish in terms of durability. Weighing in at almost 2 pounds, it could not be called light in any sense. However, it did come with a focal plane shutter consisting of nylon fabric coated on both sides with natural rubber with larger curtain straps that were intended to reduce failure, and speeds from 1/25 through 1/1000 sec.

In keeping with Clarus' habit of trademarking features, the coupled rangefinder was referred to as a "military type Synchro-Loc" and claimed to use a new highly reflective mirror surface to ensure a bright field of view when focusing in low light.

Clarar Lens Coating

I should comment that the claim to an increased lens speed following coating (see right) is not inaccurate in principle since the actual purpose of some lens coatings is to increase total light transmission but not what is called the "grazing angle" of light at the lens surface which would require coatings of high index dielectric material that increases the critical angle to accept incoming light more efficiently. It is not possible that Wollensack actually employed such dielectric coatings but rather coatings that would reduce glass surface reflection. Therefore, although lens coating will possibly increase the light gathering efficiency of glass lenses, it would not have been possible to do so in 1948.

Thin anti-reflecting metalic fluoride coatings used at that time reduced surface reflection and stray light by destructive interference and not by increasing the total amount of light accepted from the environment. If the coatings were applied to inner surfaces of compound lenses, it would increase the total light transmission by reducing internal losses and not by gathering more light. To do so would require a more modern dielectric coating of high refractive index material not then available. Therefore, the Clarus claims are actually misleading since their coating did not increase the lens speed, but rather increased the transmission of light making their lens equivalent to a faster lens that was not coated. It was, none the less, a very creative marketing gimick.

Still to come, images of an example, serial 15915, that is intermediate between the two shown above. Each of the three MS-35 models in the collection differ from one another in a number of interesting ways. As time permits (as they say), images of these diferences will be posted here on this page.

Above: Shown mounted on a Kodak Senior Synchronizer flash gun with mechanical synch through a coupled shutter release.

Three fine Wollensak lenses were available, f/3.5 35mm, f/2.0 50mm, and f/3.5 101mm. The camera is shown above with the rather fast 101mm lens mounted. The camera shown in this case is serial number B7550 which also has a f/2.8 Wollensak-Clarus 2 inch (50mm) normal lens (serial number 755778) both with the trademarked Clarar coating as indicated by the symbol of "W" surrounded by the large "C". Other lenses are often found on these cameras including the f/2.0 Raptar and f/2.8 Velostigmat among others from Wollensak.

Clarus is the only camera manufacturer that revealed the degree to which the speed of the lens was increased as a consequence of coating. For instance, the effective speed of the f/2.0 lens was f/1.75 after coating, whereas the f/3.5 lenses had effective speeds of f/3.0 after coating. This represents a very significant 31% increase in lens light gathering capacity if true. Clarus called the lens coating "Clarar" although it is not likely that the coating was fundamentally different from that available on other Wollensak lenses.

The later variants were synchronized for flash and have a rubber grommet and port usually located on the top behind the accessory shoe. The flash gun was unusual because it mounted beneath the camera body as shown on the left. (Please note that the flash gun is shown on an early body for illustration only - early Clarus cameras did not have a synch port, of course. It happened to be the only body available in the studio at the time.) This kind of flash mount is rarely seen because it produces a rather odd lighting angle.

Clarus Camera Mfg. Co. 1946-52 The Tomei Collection

Clarus Camera Mfg. Co. 1946-52

The Tomei Collection