duane_kucheran

There are actually two gizmos that perform the same function. The

first is what Giovanni discusses. It's a little black plastic piece

that is used to hold the new FD diaphragm lever in the closed

position. Most FD breechlock lenses don't need this because they

have an internal latch to hold the lever. The new FDs do.

<p>

The second gizmo is basically a cut-out rear lens cap with a post on

the inside to push the diaphragm lever as the cap is installed on the

lens. This does the same function as the first piece and also acts

as a hood to cut down on light plus protect the rear element.

<p>

I have both items. They were found in various camera stores' old

canon bits bins. Some of the bigger US camera stores may have some

left. Otherwise, try the Canon parts group in New Jersy at (732) 521-

7230.

<p>

If all else fails, one could make up either of these pieces. If you

want dimensions or shapes please email me directly.

I bought my SL66 from a retiring camera repairman. He gave me a Bronica metering prism that he was going to adapt to the the body. I haven't got around to making the adapter myself - I've sort been looking for a damaged chimney finder to hack up for a base. I did place the prism on the body and it worked quite well in that the meter gave accurate results. A caveat was that the meter had to be set to the aperture of the lens in use so that it was correctly calibrated. It would be easy to forget to change this setting for different lenses.

Cheers,

I would say $1000 is tops unless it's in mint condition. This assumes an HFT (multicoated) lens. A single coated should go for a bit less.

Usually a re-brand lowers the price. I have not heard of this one.

There is an adapter and a lensboard. Hadley Chamberlain (www.hecphoto.com) has some of the latter (plus many lenses). I used one of the former to adapt a barrel mounted Kodak commercial Ektar. I had to machine up a tube and clamping ring as well. You will lose the automatic diaphragm though.

The biggest problem as you've found is scarcity; at least compared to 'blad or the Japanese brands. The camera is well engineered but you will have a bit more trouble finding someone to work on them if something goes wrong. The biggest problem I've had was that one of the backs jammed up. According to the local ex-rollei repairman this is fairly common and due to film slack not being taken up when mounting the back. He fixed the back, lubed it and off I went. Just a bit later it wouldn't load film properly. Since I have the repair manual I went over it and found a few loose screws. Tightening them solved the problem and it works great.

I like the camera because it has a "steam operated feel" to it and yet it is very modern. The ability to tilt the lens and go 1:1 macro is great! The optics are superb and because it is a bit scarce, prices on some things can be very good indeed - you just have to look around and wait.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask,

Cheers,

As of December last year you could still get this part from Canon

USA. Call 732 521-7230 and order a CA2-3969-000. I believe it is

called a 6th ring or intermediate ring and cost $13.52. The ring

comes engraved with a new serial number, but is otherwise exactly the

same.

<p>

I did the repair myself and added 3 extra screws to strengthen the

mount. To date it has not failed. I am lucky enough to work at an

electro-optical company with ex-Canon repair people and one of them

checked it out and adjusted the linkage for smoother operation. Just

about any camera repairman should be able to do the work.

<p>

If you have any questions, do not hesitate to ask,

<p>

Cheers,

The silver ring is the "breech lock" or "old FD" system. The "new

FD" or "bayonet" was introduced in the very late 70's and is a

redesign to make the lenses easier to mount on the body. Since the

actual camera mount did not change the old and new mounts are

compatible and interchangeable. The new FD lenses are generally all

black (no silver ring) except for some long lenses.

<p>

The FD mount was introduced in the early 70's and was an evolution of

the FL mount. You can use FL lenses on later bodies (& vice versa)

but you will have to use stop down metering. Very much like Nikon's

F mount/AI mount progression. While the FL's are useable don't

confuse them with FD's.

<p>

Some lenses are available only in the new FD mount, primarily the

later zooms while others are available in both mounts. The older

lenses are generally considered stronger and more robust. The new

lenses are often lighter, a few were new optical designs and have

improved coatings.

<p>

See these sites for more info: www.kjsl.com/canon-fd and

http://web.mit.edu/dennis/www/canon/fd-lens-info.html and

http://www.canon.co.jp/camera-museum/

<p>

Cheers,

I have an SL66 as well. I think they are reasonably durable and rugged for something of that size and construction. Because they are large and made with thin castings they won't have the ruggedness of say, an F body. As long as they aren't dropped or crushed they should be fine. I would bet the camera got a bump on the lens which broke the focussing rack. I broke mine when the tripod toppled. After a number of years, the nylon in the rack gets brittle and is easily broken.

I got a new replacement rack in the fall of '97 for less than $40 from Commercial Camera in Toronto, Canada (416) 223-2257. The part number is 06405.00.3 for the nylon design. I'm pretty sure from your description that this is the broken part. The first cameras used a brass rack and changed to nylon a bit later. I think the part works in the earlier cameras but can't guarantee it. Marflex, the Rollei repair guys in NJ had racks but they were more expensive.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask. I have the service manual for this camera as well. If you're interested I could make a copy available.

Cheers,

Hi Dave,

<p>

I use Sistan for more permanent prints but wasn't sure about a post-

rinse. I've confirmed from Agfa's website that you do not want to

rinse the print after dunking in Sistan. Just squeegee or wipe off

the drops.

<p>

I would bet that if the stuff were truly bad it would have all sorts

of warnings and precautions on the bottle. I don't remember seeing

any special warnings other than the general limitation of exposure.

FWIW, I use tongs to handle the prints and just rinse off my hands if

I touch the stuff.

<p>

Cheers,

The canon camera museum has a list of lenses produced:

http://www.canon.co.jp/camera-museum/lens/index.html It shows there

are 3 variations of the f1.2 aspheric with their introduction dates.

<p>

Cheers,

35 mm has sprocket holes on either side of the film so it's easy to pull an exact length thru the gate for each frame. 120 film doesn't. The amount of film pulled thru is based on how far the takeup spool rotates and in most cameras is varied by a cam driven from the counter. How well the film and paper backing pack on the spool also affect how much film is pulled. By allowing less frames on a roll then a less precise drive mechanism can be used.

One SL-66 back I have gave me 13 frames, but now I only get 12 1/2 so wear is probably involved. The bright side is that 13th frame was a problem to file anyway.

Cheers,

I grasp the opposite ends of the film and quickly pull it tight a few

times. If you do it quickly enough it snaps & makes the beads of

water jump off.

<p>

Cheers,

<p>

Duane

I've heard of one danger but it's probably an old wives' tale - the

top condenser may crack from the heat from the bigger bulb. I have a

D2V that came with a 212. It also had a heat absorbing glass in

place above the condensers. Printing times were so short I replaced

it with a 211 so I can't confirm any problems. Nonetheless, I'd be a

bit careful about allowing cold air on the top condenser after a long

printing session.

<p>

Check also that your timer can handle a 150W bulb. The inrush

current can be quite high which may cause the switch to fail if it's

rated for a smaller bulb.

<p>

Cheers,

Hello Michel,

<p>

You do not have to take the camera apart. The door can be changed

from the outside. I needed a pair of needlenose pliers with strong

grippy jaws. Open the door and locate the hinge pin - you should see

about 1-2 mm of it exposed inside the door. Grab the hinge pin with

the pliers and slide it axially into the body. The door should come

out. Install the new door and slide the pin back into the door.

<p>

Cheers,

FWIW, I saw two used Hasselblad 120 film cutters in local stores last year. I think the prices were about $25-35. The gizmos looked like miniature versions of a paper cutter.

Cheers,

An answer to part of your question. 120 format FP4+ requires longer

development time than 35 mm. I expose at 80-100 ASA and develop for

8 1/2 minutes in 1:14 Ilfosol. This is close to what Ilford

recomends in their website (www.ilford.com). I recall that Ilford

does not recomend development times less than (I think) 6 minutes due

to uniformity problems. I didn't see any but went to the 1:14 anyway

and I get the negatives that I want.

<p>

Cheers,

Hello Vesa-Pekka,

<p>

I have a 28-85 f4 that did the same thing. A fellow I work with used

to be a Canon repairman adjusted the lens for me. He said that the

screws along side the barrel near the mount hold one of optical

elements in place and by loosening them and moving the element you

can adjust the infinity focus. He says also that the parfocality

(whether the lens stays in focus during a zoom) can be affected by

this adjustment so it is a tradeoff.

<p>

I understand this is usually done on an optical bench with a

collimator but that it can be done outside with a distant object. I

suspect there is a bit of skill and knowledge needed to perform this

adjustment. Most any camera repair facility should be able to

perform this operation. Personally, I think the only danger is

loosening the wrong screws or allowing something to shift too far and

you won't be able to recover. I have done similar things myself but

have usually triumphed in the end and learned something too.

<p>

Cheers,

<p>

Duane

Without adding relay optics to maintain infinity focus, the only way

to mount FD on Nikon F is to modify the lens. This is due to the

Nikon mount register (film plane to front surface of mount on camera)

being something like 3mm greater than the FD. Therefore, a simple,

non optical adapter will not work. BTW, I saw a 300 f4L at a NW swap

meet that had the FD mount removed and a Nikon F put in it's place.

I don't think any of the auto diaphragm mechanism operated because

Nikon and Canon mechanisms move in opposite directions and it would

be a job to reverse them.

<p>

If you're doing macro work with tubes or bellows and reversing rings

then all you need is a Nikon F to filter thread adapter. Canon made

a gizmo called a macro auto ring that mated with the camera end of

the reversed lens that used a double cable release to stop down the

lens while the exposure was made.

<p>

Cheers,

<p>

Duane

This lens uses series IX filters. AFAIK, Tiffen still makes them but

they're not readily available - I understand series filters are still

used in motion picture cameras. I did see some, and an enhancing

filter in particular, at a swap meet in Portland OR last fall.

<p>

I have this lens and I machined up an adapter that replaces the

filter hold down ring that lets me use Cokin P holders and filters.

My adapter also holds the slightly smaller 77 mm filters in place of

the Series IX. I haven't seen any vignetting with this yet. Until I

made my adapter, I used an elastic band around the 77 mm filter to

hold it under the series IX ring. You might want to see if you could

get a Cokin P 82 or 77 mm adapter ring to 'stick' on this lens

somehow.

<p>

If I were a machinist or an entrepreneur I'd consider making up these

rings. If there is enough interest I could ask one of my machinist

friends to make up a bunch of these. I've seen similar adapters going

for about $40 each. Is anyone else interested?

<p>

Cheers,

<p>

Duane

I have no personal experience with the camera or lens but I'm just reading the book "Classic SLRs" by Matanle and he has some observations. The camera was designed in the early 50's and was available until the early 60's. It is "magnificently-engineered" and "The post-war camera is well built and was capable of first-class results in its day. However, both the pre- and post-war Exakta 66 cameras have a reputation for unreliability, and it would probably not be sensible to try to make much use of either."

According to Matanle the typical lens is a 80 f2.8 Tessar. (4 elements in 3 groups). I looked up the Biometar in one of my optics books and it was made by both the east and west german Zeiss companies. It is 6 elements in 4 groups. As of the 50's, its basic design is the same as the Schneider Xenotar of that time. Like most any Zeiss design it will have been as good as they could make it. However, if the lens is from the Jena works (East Germany), quality control may be suspect. If it's a Schneider lens, it's quite good as their QC was getting quite good by then.

I use older Rollei stuff and IMHO an SLR from the 50's will be more of a collector's piece than a daily user. It'll take fine images but will need TLC.

Cheers,

Duane

I adapted a 254 mm Commercial Ektar to an SL-66 by making up a tube about 6" long. The lens came as a barrel mount, ie. diaphragm but no shutter and just screwed into one end of the tube. I found a Rollei male bayonet fitting which went on the other end. I found that the contrast wasn't as good as should have been so I added a number of thin black baffles inside the tube and painted all the surfaces flat black. A lens hood helped as well. One thing you'll have to be aware of is that the SL-66 lens register is about 100 mm., ie. the lens mount front surface to film distance. If you want to put on a 400 mm lens you will have to make up that distance with a tube of some sort. Hadley Chamberlain (www.hecphoto.com) sells these tubes either with a bayonet or a thread on the lens end. If I were to do this again I'd get one of these tubes to start with, especially if you don't have a shop. For best overall sharpness you will want to

make the lens mount as parallel as possible to the film plane.

Most any lens will work. A friend of mine picked up a 400mm APO Nikkor from an old process camera that I've always though would make a good long lens for an SL-66. Although it's corrected for 1:1 it will still work at other ratios.

A tele design is probably the most practical as it will be shorter. Last year I was tempted by a 500 mm tele-xenar at Jim's Cameras in Seattle. It was this big lens about 18" long and 6" in diameter sitting on a focusing mount for a graphlex 4x5 that looked like it was made in a blacksmith's shop! You might want to keep your eyes open for something like that - this one was about $200. It might even still be there.

If you have any questions, please ask.

Cheers,

Duane

I think the problem is caused by the cap being airtight and there

being little air in the tank when it's full of liquid. You have to

let some air in to remove the cap. I have a flat little plastic

gizmo that I got from new socks or a new tie that I use to pry up on

the cap with. It breaks the seal and the cap comes off easily. I've

though of drilling a small hole in the cap to let air in and cover it

with my finger when agitating but never got around to it.

<p>

Cheers,