mark_overton1

Most Ministers have four element f/2.8 lenses which have typical sharpness of that era, which is good enough. However, some f/2.8

lenses had five elements with excellent sharpness, as does the

faster lenses on one or two uncommon models of these cameras.

<p>I have a number of Ministers in my collection, so I have a good

idea of what Yashica was doing. Marketing-wise,

they are above the entry-level Yashica J, and below the Lynx series.

<p>The Minister-700 is rare, and probably best due to its f/1.7 lens.

But the common f/2.8 models sell on eBay for $10-20. This is cheap

considering that they have good shutters and good Tessar-type lenses.

<p>If you're going to shoot with these, check the light-seals on

the take-up side.<p>Enjoy!

I'm thinking of getting back to doing my own developing, and have

been pondering the storage-issue. We all know that mixed developer

has a finite storage-life (typically a few months). I only shoot

about two rolls per month, so this could be a problem.<p>

Here's my question: Is it possible to <i>freeze</i> developer to

extend its storage-life? Has anyone actually tried this? I know that

freezing unopened film works well, so I'm wondering if this would

help developer also.

I suggest that you buy another Akarette on ebay cheaply with

a typical mediocre triplet lens. Then put the Xenar on it.

That Xenar is really sharp. Don't give it away unless you're

giving it to me!

Even when they were working, the Selenium meters were poor because they assumed an average level of scene-reflectance that's violated all too often. So I only shoot cameras with a full manual mode.

In the half-frame world, that means the Canon Demi EE 17, Canon Demi with single exposure control that sets both speed and aperture, or the Olympus Pen (I) or D or S. Plus other models. The important thing is that you have the ability to set exposure yourself.

I had no idea that so many others on this list had recemented lenses. Maybe I should have asked before trying. Anyway, that dust-remover would be nice. I was always afraid a tiny speck would end up in there.<p>

Chris, yes, I simply glued the group back into the mount with a couple of dabs of contact cement.<p>

Jani, I was afraid to pry open the burnishing for fear of chipping the element. I guess you haven't had chipping, so maybe I should have done that. Cutting metal with a lathe is, um, permanent.<p>

Mike, your WD-40 idea reminds me of a trick that salesmen of old large-format lenses used to do: If the lens had separation, they'd put a little oil on it, and it would wick into the gap. I've wondered if we could do the same thing with UV cement: let it wick in to fill the gap, then hit it UV to harden it.<p>

Anyway, I have 2 or 3 Vito B's with separation (common problem with their f/3.5 lenses), so maybe I'll try the above wick-and-cure trick. (This FED had deterioration (not separation), so it had to be taken apart.) Time to try Jani's pry-open suggestion on those Vito B's...

Just one pixel too wide! Trying it again...<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

Good work!<p>

How did you get #1? The fellow's hand is about one foot from your

lens, yet he's unaware of you. In general, your shots are taken

at eye-level, and usually unnoticed. How do you get away with that?

I always shoot at waist-level.

I've become adept at most other kinds of camera-repair, and finally

tried this one. The rear group of a FED lens (pre-war) had badly

separated, with complete cement breakdown.<p>

First, I removed the brass burnishing on a lathe. The cement was so

bad that the lens came apart in my hand. That made separating the

elements easy. :-)<p>

Then a thorough cleaning in acetone, and hoping that no bit of dust

would fall onto the elements while I was working on them. I used the

UV-curable cement that micro-tools.com sells, which happens to be

the UV glass-cement sold at Home Depot (!).<p>

I followed Steve Grimes instructions, and put a small dab of cement

in the middle of one element, and simply sat the other element on

top of it, and let the glue spread from center to edge by its own

surface-tension wicking. Actually, I pressed on the upper element

to speed this some. On the first attempt, it would not spread all the

way to the edge, so I pulled the elements apart and added a little

more glue (too lazy to clean off the existing glue first).<p>

I kept the elements aligned by putting three sockets from a

socket-set by them.

Although the instructions say to put this in the sun, I put it

under a "UV nails" lamp used for curing women's fingernail polish

by UV. 5 minutes, and those elements were glued together hard.<p>

There are a few microscopic bubbles in there because I was too

lazy to clean off my first attempt, but too little to affect

pictures so I don't care.<p>

The lens looks good in the collimator, so I'm hoping it'll shoot

well once I get this camera back together.<p><p>

Mark Overton

Yikes! Yes, that's the semi-silvered mirror. It transmits 50% of the light from the viewfinder optics in front, and reflects 50% of the light from the rangefinder optics to its left, giving you both images superimposed. I really hate it when folks try to clean such mirrors -- they usually damage them. In your case, it sounds like most of the semi-silvering is gone, so you need another mirror. Maybe Mamiya still has some in stock.

 

Mark Overton

I have overhauled three Retina IIIs's, and they're not that bad.

Much easier than a Retina Reflex.<p>

Peeling leatherette gives you access to three of the four screws

securing the shutter-assembly plate. The fourth is hidden under

the emblem just to the upper-right of the shutter. Do yourself

a favor and do NOT try to peel off the emblem. You'll ruin it.

Instead, apply acetone to it repeatedly over about five minutes,

and you'll soften the glue under the emblem enough that it can

be lifted off with a piece of tape.<p>

Remove the fourth screw, and the shutter assembly can be lifted

off the camera. From there, you can tighten screws securing the

shutter, or remove the shutter if you'd like. It's been a few

years, so I've forgotten the details of this.<p>

Getting the assembly back on requires carefully making sure

the linkages are lining up okay. It may help to cock the shutter

before putting the assembly back on.<p>

Regarding the rings on the front: Yes, there's a proper orientation

of those rings. If wrong, you won't be able to hit the extreme

settings of B/f2 and 500/f22.<p>

Good luck. These are great cameras.<p>

Mark Overton

Nice beginning there. I like the clickable logos; you did a good job of scanning those (or you did your own artwork?). That Canon IVsb sure is a beauty, isn't it? The quality of your photos is good, making the cameras look appealing.

You are fortunate to get a Contaflex that works. Most of them have stuck shutters or irises. The Super B has the "recomputed Tessar", which is even sharper than the earlier Tessars, which were already plenty sharp. It'll compete against just about anything. In fact, this was one of the first lenses designed by computer, and probably the first German computer-designed lens. Congratulations!

(Daniel wonders why it's only sticky initially, and not always sticky). This is a characteristic of the oil on there. The oil takes a "set" when it hasn't moved for a while. Move it a couple of times, and it becomes more fluid, and the shutter stops sticking -- until you leave it alone for a while.

Oil has crept onto the shutter blades (not dirt). Here's how you can see it:<p>

1. crank and fire a few times to get the shutter running.<br>

2. move advance lever all the way, and leave it there (don't let it return).<br>

3. with your other hand, release the shutter using the lever on the shutter (not using the shutter button). nothing will happen, but keep holding down that release lever.<br>

4. while holding the release lever, slowly return the advance

lever on the body. as you do, the blades will slowly open, and

you will see the oil on the normally-covered surfaces.<p>

You need to clean off that oil. Use a swab soaked in lighter fluid,

and gently dab, using the method above to access the blade surfaces.

This will get the shutter running for a few weeks, until enough

oil has crept back in to make it stick again. But this quickie

cleaning only takes a couple of minutes, and involves no disassembly

other than removing the front lens element, and you can

go shooting with confidence.

Nice work! One question though: Since you shot with a Nikon F, how did you keep from being noticed? Especially the couple kissing were

obviously not noticing you. How did you keep discreet?

Kerry,

 

> Are you saying that the f2.8 lens on the IIc was deliberately

> dumbed down so as to not compete with the IIIc. Then how come

> such authorities as Ivor Matanle claim that the the f2.8 lens

> is a better performer than the f2.0?

 

Yes. The Xenon (not Xenar) f/2.8 has the exact same optical design

as the f/2.0 Xenon. As proof, you can swap front elements between

the IIc and IIIc and you'll have no visible change in photos.

I have overhauled a number of Retinas, and am very familiar with

these lenses. In fact, the f/2 Xenon in the original Retina Reflex

is also identical, making it a handy source of replacement front

elements.

 

Ivor Matanle is wrong if he claims that the f/2 is any different

from the f/2.8. However, I suspect the f/2 has less flare at a

given aperture because less light is hitting the sides. Thus,

the f/2 might have slightly higher contrast.

 

Kodak cut down the front elements, so you'll see a minor change

in diameter as another poster noted. But the rear groups are

identical.

 

I built an auto-collimator, which you can see here:

 

http://idccdata.members.easyspace.com/Mark/collimator.htm

 

With this device, I can see subtle changes in accuracy of focus,

as well as gauge lens-quality. There are sample-to-sample variations

in lenses, so if you swap front elements, there will be a slight

change in focus. This is probably not noticable under most photo

situations, but it's obvious in the collimator, and means that

for best results, the camera should be re-calibrated for the new

lens. This is a long way of saying: Keep those serial numbers

matched between shutter and front element.

 

I guess that's enough rambling for today...

 

Mark

The lenses on both have exactly the same optical formulae. So they perform identically. The only difference is the front element on the IIc has been cut down to f/2.8. The rear elements are identical.

<p>

The IIc is my favorite because I like its sleeker styling. I use a hand-meter I trust (a Weston Master), so the lack of internal meter doesn't matter to me.

These are not boring at all. Portraits usually attempt to reveal some feeling and strive to appear honest. You've done both. You have some interesting characters there, and their expressions make me stop and ponder what they are thinking and who they really are. Good work!

<br>Truthfulness is one thing that makes street photography appeal to me, and your portraits show the truth about those people. I'd say you've found a good niche in S.P.

Yes, the Apotar is yet another copy of the Cooke Triplet. However, the f/3.5 Apotar found in many Silettes is exceptionally sharp, and in my experience matches the sharpness of many Tessar-copies. I haven't tried the f/2.8 Apotar so I can't comment on it.

Dan,

 

I have a Welti.

The missing piece in the middle is the shutter-release button.

That's how you are supposed to fire the shutter.

Looks like you're in the market for a parts-camera...

 

Mark

Wow! Nice to see a user of classic cameras who also has artistic ability.

 

What city were those street shots taken in? That looks like a great area for street photography.

 

Thanks

You're not <i>that</i> old!<div></div>

This would have worked for the "food" thread also.<div></div>