alan_swartz

<p>Alex,</p> <p>Enjoyed those photos. That is one of my most-used lenses. Still using it with 35mm, I find myself using it mostly at 20mm, sometimes zooming longer. I like to use its perspective to emphasize a nearby object against a vast field. It's a favorite travel lens for me. Mine has great contrast.</p>

<p>Reynold,</p> <p>Years ago, as I learned to make repairs on FD cameras, I used to respond here to people's repair questions, but grew weary of the censures that generally followed; it was either morally, ethically, professionally, or mechanically wrong, or I or another soul was certain to doom a camera to inevitable death, whose value had by that time fallen to a pittance anyway. People had already stopped sending $30 AE-1's in for $69 CLA's anyway. But I will stick my neck out again and attempt to answer your question, if memory will serve.</p> <p>The squeaky mirror damper flywheel--not a gear--is located with the rest of the mechanism on the outside of the mirror cage, on the shutter-release side of the camera, near the top. It can be reached with a bent hypodermic needle through the upper lens bayonet mounting screw hole, as it lies just behind and below that screw hole. For what it's worth, I purchased such an oiling syringe prepared by a camera technician roughly 15 years ago, which included precise instructions for finding the flywheel shaft's bushing by feel with the needle. I applied a miniscule--yes, miniscule: 1ml is a lifetime supply for 50 cameras--droplet of oil to two A-1's, an AE-1, two AE-1P's, and a handful of other A-somethings I've now forgotten, none of which have ever squeaked since or displayed any side effect from the treatment. (There are mushrooms growing on the shutter curtains, but I don't think that's related.)</p> <p>As I recall, once the leatherette is off, there are screws straight in from the front of the camera that retain the mirror cage, which has flanges that mate with the front casting of the body. I do not recall any access to the sides or bottom of the cage without removing the whole thing from the body. I may be wrong. It's been a long time. But I think National would have indicated another method if it were possible.</p> <p>Standard disclaimer: anyone who goes into a camera with inadequate skills, poor tools, insufficient knowledge, bad luck, or simply makes a mistake, might ruin it. I never felt it was the forum's job to pass judgment on anyone's skills. You take your chances. Just because some people can't do it doesn't mean that no one can do it. Reynold has clearly stated that he has a junk camera bought specifically for practice...just as the camera repair books recommend. Have fun!</p>

<p>Wait! I was out of town yesterday, haven't checked the forum lately, haven't offered an opinion!</p> <p>Keep it!</p> <p>Sorry. I had a fun day yesterday. As to the lens, unless the damage diffuses a lot of light into the lens, it goes unnoticed. People forget that a reference point on the subject, say the brick wall one photographs to make tests to worry about one's lenses, "radiates" light spherically (unless obstructed) into space. Therefore, its rays impinge upon the entirety of the lens's surface and are then refocused exiting the rear of the lens. Those little damaged spots are not reserved for specific points on the subject or in the frame.</p> <p>Of course, should the damage be catastrophic, contrast will suffer. Photographers have been known to paint large chips in the glass with black paint to stop them diffusing light into the lens, like skylights on your roof.</p> <p>Michael mentioned the string and depth of field. I did once run into a situation where dirt on a filter became visible when I fully stopped down a superwide, and it was probably my 17mm. But that flaw is on a flat surface, and I can't imagine that the lens's own front element would fall into the depth of field. If you're concerned, shoot a few test exposures with various telling subjects at minimum aperture.</p> <p>My 14mm/2.8L has a tiny, tiny blemish in the coating. It saved me many, many hundreds of dollars. It will save the next owner a lot of money, too, when I can no longer stand or lift the lens. Of course, no one can ever see a problem in the images. Well, except for the faults in my photography!</p> <p>Now, I have a question. The central obstruction in a mirror lens, as Mark says, doesn't affect the realization of the image at the focal plane. But it surely does have an effect either side of the focal plane, creating the famous "donut effect" in out-of-focus highlights. Has anyone ever had a conventional lens with a front element so damaged that it had any effect on bokeh or out-of-focus highlights? I wonder how much trauma it would take to have a visible effect.</p>

<p>My pleasure. I think a lot of us take aesthetic pleasure in beautiful machinery. My latest quirk has been a search for a lathe. I enjoy seeing the 1940s-era Monarch lathes. They are attractive in their way, a statement of precision in strength and latent power. I'd seen pictures, then happened to stumble onto an actual example locally, about 14 feet long, probably weighs 11,000 pounds. Its designers made no real attempt at beauty or style, but it is still attractive.</p> <p>Paul, search this forum for a thread entitled "Original Prices?" It contains a discussion of a lot of items plus some scans of old ads.</p>

<p>Bill, I wish my dad had met you. He grew up in what must have been wilderness Arkansas mountains in the 1920s and loved birds all his life...almost as much as you do! As much as he loved to sit for hours watching birds at the feeder, he would have been thrilled by all of your FD-optics bird photography. He spent many years wishing for FD gear, starting back in the earliest FD days, but never made the leap until we found a deal on a bagful of stuff, probably in the early 90s. By then he didn't have much enthusiasm to go out and shoot.</p> <p>After he came to live with us, I set up a feeder with a natural perch outside the kitchen windows. We'd mount a big telephoto on a tripod outside and run a long release through the window. He was at least 87 then, with reflexes not quite as fast as cardinals and finches, but he still captured some good shots. Your work reminds me of him every time I browse the forum. You do good work, and it's getting better all the time.</p> <p>Alas, the beautiful old Arkansas farmstead is now the back yard of a McDonald's. An interstate runs right behind the site of the old house. Only the well remains.</p>

<p>Photo 4: First curtain magnet labelled, second curtain magnet held open. Remember that the T90 uses permanent magnet cores. Only a brief electrical impulse is applied at exposure to buck the permanent magnet's field to make the armature move. It takes a surprising amount of force to pluck it off of the core by hand, like I did here. (Note the armature gap I'm holding open on the left magnet; that's where they stick.) I don't claim to know what causes them to "stick." Maybe magnetization of the moving part, maybe some sort of sticky film, maybe black magic.</p> <p>I have the mirror box as well, but cannot find it tonight. When I locate it, I'll add it to this thread, but its sticky magnet looks essentially the same.</p><div></div>

<p>Photo 3: opposite side of the mechanism. The release magnets are at the top, identified by their copper windings. Below them are black plastic worm gears on long shafts, which engage spur gears that adjust curtain spring tension. If you look closely, you can see that the plastic worm is broken off on the left side. That's for the second curtain. It no longer has proper spring tension and only closes about halfway. I don't know whether that gear failed from stress, or if it was damaged after the shutter was removed from the camera. I hope it was the latter.</p><div></div>

<p>Photo 2: a closer view of the flex circuit and the shutter-side of the mechanism.</p><div></div>

<p>OK, not a movie. I've been meaning to do this, so I finally did, reminded by the recent "flashing arrow" thread. This is a defunct T90 shutter that's been lying around in a box of parts for years. I took some photos this evening so everyone can see the infamous magnets.</p> <p>Photo 1: the entire shutter assembly. Curtains run in a frame about 3mm thick. The high-rise structure at the end is the charge and release mechanism. It houses what must be 100 different springs, levers, pawls, catches, shafts, gears, the two release magnets, and the switch for flash sync. The large lever that protrudes is operated by the motor drive at film advance to charge or cock the mechanism prior to exposure. The flex circuit on top carries five transistors, at least two of which would be drivers for the release magnet coils. The "tail" on the flex circuit wends its way up to the top of the camera, where five connections solder to the main circuit and I believe two to the hot shoe.</p><div></div>

<p>If your manual photography is generally sharp, then you undoubtedly already know whether this is camera shake or any other problem with your own technique. </p> <p>My prime question: was your test roll slide film or print film? In other words, are you judging by the original image shot in the camera, or by later-generation images made at the lab, which could introduce errors despite your instructions?</p> <p>Beyond that, I'd mostly reiterate points made above.<br> 1. Focusing screen not installed properly and fully seated against its rails.<br> 2. My most likely candidate, the mirror in need of adjustment. A tiny error here can make a big error in focus at the film plane.<br> 3. Possible problem with the lens. Maybe a botched repair, maybe a severely clouded element, maybe a wobbly or loose mount that's inconsistent. If focus problem exists only at infinity, perhaps the focusing ring only needs readjustment.</p> <p>I've made tests with "screens" on the film rails in the film chamber. This is a sensitive business. If you really want to accomplish something meaningful here, you need a rigid screen that sits firmly on the inner rails and stays put. Any flex will destroy your results. Resting the screen on the outer film guide rails, which are "higher," will put you out of the film plane, again giving false results.</p> <p>As for dioptric correction for the viewfinder, I find that the error of my eyes doesn't <em>shift</em> the point of best focus out of the film plane. When I am not properly corrected for the viewfinder, it simply never looks completely in focus, but the <em>best</em> point of focus, though still poor, is the focal point on the film plane. In other words, the finder's always blurry, but the least blurry point is "in focus" on the film. There is no "wrong" or misleading in-focus point in the viewfinder.</p> <p> </p>

<p>There are three release magnets in the T90, one for the mirror mechanism and one for each of the two shutter curtains. All three are prone to "stick" when disused.</p> <p>The mirror release magnet must release first. Then the first curtain magnet releases, then after the proper electronically timed interval, the second curtain magnet releases.</p> <p>It's been a long time, so my memory isn't entirely clear, but failure of one of these to release causes the flashing arrow in the LCD--I think the mirror magnet. In any case, "EEE" is <em>not</em> the only visible result of a stuck magnet.</p> <p>Gaining access to the magnets is a huge, painstaking disassembly process suited only for the determined, skilled, and highly capable person in both mechanics and electronics. If you're good enough, you don't necessarily have to be a camera repair specialist, but you must have those qualities.</p> <p>The simplest plan is to send the camera for a CLA, have the magic done to the three magnets, have the now-gooey rubber bumper replaced, and let the technician clean, adjust, and check over everything else. Just be done with it. Steve Sweringen, Camera Clinic; Reno, Nevada, if you're in the US. I am a delighted customer.</p> <p>Or do you want to bang your precision T90 on the floor? Somehow this has never seemed to me like a good way to treat a precision instrument. After a while, the magnet is going to stick again anyway. When buying a used T90, always ask the seller how often the magnets have been "fixed" by slamming it on the floor. I'm glad I bought my T90s before the banging became Internet legend.</p> <p>When I see a speck of dust in my FD 400mm f/2.8L, I grab it by the skinny end and swing it like a baseball bat, into a tree trunk. Oak is better than pine, higher density, more rigid. The sudden deceleration of the lens causes the speck to fly to the edge of the barrel through its own inertia, lodging in the anti-reflective flocking. This is why I prefer the 400mm f/4.5. Its glass has fewer cracks. Along the same lines, if I were a golfer, perhaps a driver applied swiftly to a T90 perched upon a tee would be a good way to repair it. Alas, I own no clubs.</p> <p>End of hyperbolic comment. No offense meant.</p>

<p>I did see a couple FD 200/1.8L's for sale ages ago, online. After I regained consciousness following my sighting of the prices, I did note that they were definitely retrofitted EF lenses, as has always been said. They don't look like FD lenses, they look like EF.</p>

<p>Just to reiterate the business about the FD 600mm again, from a somewhat different angle, consider this.</p> <p>The longer the focal length, the worse chromatic aberration becomes. Beyond 300mm it is a gigantic design obstacle. Look at the glasses used in the FD teles from 300mm up. With the sole exception of the 400/4.5, which performs better than its construction suggests it should--a lucky design outcome?--these lenses all perform as the glass dictates they will:</p> <p>300/4: ordinary glass. Mediocre performance.<br />300/4L: two UD (ultra-low dispersion) elements. Outstanding performance.<br />300/2.8L: one UD, one fluorite. Brilliant performance.</p> <p>400/4.5: Canon says, "Appropriate selection of glasses, including low dispersion glass...." Not UD glass, but appparently not just "glass." Performs well.<br />400/2.8L: two UD. Brilliant performance.</p> <p>500/4.5: one UD, one fluorite. Not as stellar as the 400/2.8 despite the fluorite, but the length is catching up with us now.</p> <p>600/4.5: has glass. Not one word from Canon about the glass. Length is now a severe problem and there is no help from exotic glass. Expect mediocre performance, and that's what it delivers. Pronounced chromatic aberration, strong purple color fringing.</p> <p>800/5.6: one UD. Length now extreme, but the UD helps enough that performance is better than the 600. Still inferior to the 500, though, in my experience. It should be, at 1.6 times the focal length and without the benefit of the fluorite element.</p> <p>Why wouldn't you put fluorite in the 400/2.8L? I have to wonder if it's simply because of the huge diameter. Fluorite only appears in the smaller diameter lenses. Might have been too difficult or too expensive to grow a crystal large enough. That would also eliminate the possibility in the 600. Canon was just pioneering big calcium fluorite crystals in those days.</p> <p>Why not UD glass in the 600? I suspect a marketing decision. Let's make one supertelephoto that ordinary people can afford, the big white one for the over-the-top camera-club guys. Lots of nature and sports pros were going to use the 500 because of its focal length and slimmer physical size. It had to be great. The 600 was already going to be cumbersome, with that weird rack and pinion focusing. Never mind. But then some extreme wildlife people will want the 800, so it needs to perform. Perhaps cost precluded a second UD element in it.</p> <p>Speculation.</p> <p>I am absolutely clueless about the Nikon 600mm. But if they designed it as a true top-notch professional lens, and not just a filler between 500 and 800mm as Canon did, it must be the better choice.</p> <p>I should disclaim that my opinions about lens performance are based upon my results with the single copies that I own, operated with my technique, whatever that should be.</p>

<p>Ben asked how much I actually use these. Not too much, of course. The 800 more than the 6, 5, or 400, because we live in the country, have nesting hawks and animals and things at a distance and it was fun to pretend to be a wildlife photographer. This was a spectacular way to develop a razor's-edge respect for <em>good</em> wildlife photographers.</p> <p>In recent years, I've plunged headlong into late middle-age--make that face-first on the pavement--so eyesight has become a limiting factor. I also have extremely wide-ranging interests and tend to humor them (and finance them) in cycles. Some of my interests involve large and heavy objects, so I'm working on those while I still have the physical ability to do them. Therefore I've shot almost nothing for some time. So another timely answer to the question is, "I shoot these just as much as I do all the regular lenses."</p> <p>But I like to collect. I'm a profitless collector, rather than one who invests in mint items that will appreciate in value. I just like to have things for fun. I do have acquisition syndrome, and not just with photography gear. Some would call me compulsive, but I don't hoard in the sense of burying my living space or ruining anyone's life. Guests like seeing the stuff; it's like going to a museum where everything works or is being restored. </p> <p>This reminds me of the "lectures" some used to give on this forum and on Yahoo years ago. We were all supposed to be out shooting, not collecting. Well, no apologies from me. I <em>like</em> collecting, and if I only shoot a roll of Velvia every two years, so be it. I also refuse treatment for an illness that doesn't exist. Many who have some discretionary cash usually put it somewhere besides the bank.</p> <p>There's a new thread today where Gary's apologizing for buying another F-1. So what? Unless it deprives your family of food or shelter or some other necessity, enjoy it. Go make some art!</p> <p> </p>

<p>Sorry to cause envy. It wasn't my intent...guess I should have thought of that. I spent <em>years</em> collecting these, and probably hundreds of evening hours scouring ads and auctions trying to beat the prevailing prices, which I ultimately did. I bought these (naturally) before the bottom fell out of the FD market, but I still got the 300/2.8 and 500/4.5 for less than 4 digits USD at the time, and for not a lot more than the 300/4L or 400/4.5 were then going for.</p> <p>I think I posted many years ago that I will never own the 200/1.8 or the 150-600 because they simply got <em>too</em> insanely expensive. But I do have every other FDn lens Canon ever released, plus a smattering of breech lenses, a fair selection of "chrome noses," a small assortment of FL glass and a few R lenses. So JDM, you're not the sickest. In defense of the disease, I've had so much fun with them. No great photography, but great fun.</p> <p>Like Bill, when I actually <em>go</em> somewhere, it's usually the 300/4L and 400/4.5 I take simply because they can be handled without a loading crew. But when I do feel adventurous, and feel like I want to be suspicioned as an international spy, the white 300 and 400 are so, so amazing.</p> <p>John, I have not directly compared the 400/2.8 with 2X against the 800/5.6, at least not that I remember in a controlled situation. But I have a gut feeling that the 400 plus the genuine Canon 2X will at least equal the 800. It might surpass it. There are several reasons for that speculation. The 800 is hard to handle well, as we said in that other thread recently, due to its physical length. It's <em>extremely</em> susceptible to vibration. The 400 is half the length. It is also, I think, a much better lens before you apply the 2X--it's an <em>astonishingly</em> good lens. And, the Canon 2X is very good, too.</p> <p>Shooting either on digital, with the latitude to use high ISO's I never had on film, will change the game by several degrees. It'll be almost like getting free image stabilization.</p> <p>I am the last of the holdouts. Having really slowed down my shooting, and deliberately avoiding the new-digital-every-year phase of the industry, and putting money into other interests, I still do not own an EOS digital body, though I may make that move this year. My new iPhone is the most capable digital camera I have owned, actually. But I long ago did find a nice buy on the you-know-what lens adapter that Canon made in limited quantities. I've kept it in quiet reserve for the moment I do take the plunge, and that's why I've held onto all the big FD glass. If that day comes, then we'll make some tests. I have a brick wall. (Sarcasm intended.)</p> <p>The problem with the iPhone is that my carpet is dark green....</p> <p>And of course, Santa had nothing to do with this. I worked hard to pay for all of these!</p>