david_mount

Much more careful inspection reveals that it is indeed a Minolta mount - with two of the locking tabs broken clean off, and fungus[?] on the inner element. Damn Eb*y. It looks brand new, that's what put me off the track. Sorry to waste your time. Maybe I can use the case screws to repair another Eb*y 'bargain'...

Bought this after my Dad gave me his lovely as-new X-300 kit. But

although it says 'for Minolta MD' on the box, no way will it mount in

the camera body.

 

I've just bought an X-370 backup body, had hoped that might accept

the Toyo, but nope.

 

Other MD lenses click in nice and solid, this one just won't. Anyone

know what gives?

What a splendid crop of useful replies. Thanks, everyone!

 

I think the way to go is to get an M42 adaptor for the Pentax MV (I'm watching a £4/$7 busted Pentax MG, which will supply the bits to repair it and another 50mm prime), but treat the Praktica MTL5 as my main camera. I already have a decent Pentacon 1:2.8 zoom for it, and will shortly be taking delivery of another £12/$20 MTL5 (jammed - sigh...) to cannibalise for its 50mm prime, and for spares.

 

So I'll have one full-auto Pentax to be lazy with, and the Praktica tank to be a bit more earnest...and lots of spare parts.

 

;¬)

Thanks. That's well worth knowing.

Hi Back Shooter,

 

I was asking the reverse - is it possible to use a k-mount lens in an M42 body...like the Praktica MTL5 I've just acquired suitably cheap. Then I can use the prime.

 

I'm not sure how screwed the Pentax Mv (not 7, sorry) is; it's had a nasty blow at some point to shatter the rewind crank&knob, and locks up occasionally, but it's a full auto so I don't know if it's just being cranky or has really serious problems. It's certainly the nicest-looking camera I have (apart from the damage).

 

(Are you up very late, or very early? Last time I saw 5:30 am actively was, er, I don't remember.)

 

David

No doubt the Pentax K1000 is a very useful teaching/learning camera,

but its legendary reputation inflates the price, making it a poor buy

for the cash-challenged.

 

I've read here that the P30t is also very good for this application;

so what other manual slrs share the K1000's virtues of full manual

control, wide range of inexpensive-but-good lenses, good range of

shutter speeds and sturdy construction, without the shocking price

tag?

 

I'm looking at older Prakticas at the moment, because of the cross-

compatibility of M42 screwmount lenses (and the manageable prices).

 

Also, my Ma gave me an old Pentax M7 (k-mount) with a busted rewind

crank & knob, is there such a thing as an M42->Kmount adaptor ring?

(Then I can salvage its decent 50mm prime...)

Cool and graceful.

Thanks for those posts, Roger; most heartening. I do have some Nail Polish Remover (don't ask) but it's got all kinds of cosmetic goo in it as well as acetone; presumably you can get pure acetone from pharmacies.

1. If you want...or it could be from an obscure impulse that doesn't become clear until years later, if at all. A free spirit doesn't always have to make sense, even to itself; when the great innovators were breaking new ground, they were often subjected to howls of protest from those who thought they were the arbiters of taste.

 

2. I'd be fascinated. The programming necessary to create a computer - generated landscape indistinguishable from a photograph would be something *else*, and would almost certainly have fruitful applications elsewhere.

 

3a. The Abstract Expressionists of the earlier 20th C were working largely by intuition (I think) and produced some very powerful work.

 

3b. Only if it's any good; (interesting, moving, exciting, scary...)

 

3c. Intent means different things to, say, a Toltec sorcerer, a backpacker, and a New York lawyer. Your use of 'intent' seems to be synonymous with 'message', or even 'slogan', and thus to have more to do with advertising or propaganda than the big A.

 

I'm not saying no-one should have a clear mission statement (if that's what they want). I just think that the a-r-t itself comes from somewhere non-verbal, and the philosophising is necessarily post facto.

>Sounds like your Canonet *is* the junker. Instead, look for a good one and save this one as a parts donor.

 

No, no! This is not yet established...actually, I'd love to do just that, but the money won't be there for, ooh, about the next thousand years.

 

 

>BTW, you might find the screws you need by cannibalizing a junk lens - lotsa tiny screws of various sizes in there. Scrouge around pawn shops for the funkiest, nastiest, fungussy, dented up POS you can find and give 'em a buck for it.

 

Here in Rip-off Britain that junk lens would go for $25...well, possibly a *slight* exaggeration. Good call, as a source of tiny screws. Those tiny threads are very unforgiving tho', and it'd be easy to get it wrong.

 

>The battery is inserted sideways and retained by spring pressure inside the compartment so the tape is just a backup to keep it from falling out if the camera is jolted a bit.

 

Uh-huh. It's in the original case so the battery's not going anywhere (except loose, maybe) - guess I'm just picky.

Hello Roger, thanks for your quick reply;

 

>>Hopefully yours is mechanically sound - neither of mine were.

 

Bad luck there, twice! At first sight I thought mine was jammed; it'd had a rough ride, ill-packed (no padding in the box) ... B^( ... but as noted above, it does seem to be easing off with a little manipulation.

 

>>They're all getting long in the tooth and aren't economically repairable if anything major goes wrong.

 

Hmmm, yes...particularly since they seem notoriously unfriendly to amateur mechanics. The stuff I've read here fills me with admiration for people's cleverness and dexterity, but makes me even more sure I'd just fubar it. As soon as I can possibly afford it, it's off to a mechanic for a good c/l/a...AFTER the 35SP, that is.

 

>>Check the shutter release/auto exposure interlock (the shutter shouldn't fire in insufficient light)

 

Check...

 

>>the flash sync

 

Check...well, it *seems* to fire with the shutter, anyway...

 

>>and the rangefinder adjustment (relatively easy DIY)

 

You've got me there. I have fallen off the tiny raft of my camera knowledge into the stormy sea of photographic ignorance. More research is evidently in order.

I finally got my longed-for Canonet QL17 from Ebay - but it arrived

ill-packed, with 2 top cover screws missing (so the cover's flapping

in the breeze) and a very old strip of masking tape over the battery

compartment...ho hum.

 

Well, I clean it up as best I can (masking tape reacts with aluminium

over time btw, pits badly); the adjustment rings, and

shutter/aperture action, are stiff and cranky but it seems to free up

a little with use; I hope sometime to get the courage up to remove

the top cover completely to clean the VF and mirrors, but until that

day I just want to make sure it's secure.

 

So...if you have a dead one, and don't mind parting with 2 screws and

a battery cover, get in touch.

 

I got a Rollei E19C rechargeable flash and charger unit with the

camera that I can't use, because of UK mains voltage (see my ad

under 'Electronic Flash') so if you have 48mm filters/macros or other

QL stuff too, maybe we can trade with that.

 

Any CLA advice or ideas for screw/battery cover replacement are very,

very welcome.

My Dad gave me his old Kodak Pocket No.1 bellows camera when he heard

I'd been bitten by the photon bug.

 

The bellows folds have suffered with age, and the black stuff (light

screen) on the bellows cloth is peeling off, also when you put your

eye to the back of the lens you can see light leaks at the corners of

the folds etc.

 

I tried fixing it with a mixture of black gouache (glue-bound

pigment) and a little black acrylic ink, but the original black gunk

is still peeling away from the bellows cloth, and until I get the

mixture right I can't close the bellows again - acrylic stays

slightly sticky, see, so even with the powdery gouache surface, the

bellows folds are sticking together & peeling away more of the old

light seal gunk.

 

Does anyone know what the composition of the old black light-seal

gunk was?

 

The rest of the camera seems OK (as long as I can still get 120

film), and if I could get the light leaks fixed I'd love to run a

roll through it...at shutter speeds of T, B, 1/25 and 1/50...Lomo,

look out!

Many people are however using the approx 80 cents hearing aid batteries instead with the addition of a plastic shim - that seems to work just as well and a heck of a lot cheaper :-)

 

Cool...that was a 375 type, iirc, with a rubber ring or slice of suitably sized hose.

 

And...there is nothing wrong with being as excited as a child on christmas day when it comes to the 35SP - it's a truly wonderful camera with an outstanding lens! Enjoy!

 

A lovely thing, indeed, and I can't wait to a) give it the CLA it deserves and b) see my first roll back from the lab.

Richard,

 

all the classic Olympus 35's I've seen (all 3 of them) were originally supplied with a close-fitting case, even the modest but still groovy Trip 35; I'd have to say the case lid was probably the off switch.

 

I've just gone and taken the case off my Trip to try it, but the SP is a fair bit bigger.

Thanks Rick,

 

I had a good look at your site and thought hard about the many similarities, and if I ever got a broken 35RC (or preferably a couple broken in different ways, come to think of it) I'd have a go. But I'm too much in love with the SP to risk it; my internal critic would give me hell for the rest of my life if I screwed up.

 

(Like I just did with an already-dead Lomo...big time...)

 

The really difficult bit is not *so* much going to be the money, though that's no fun when you're unemployed, but finding someone I'd trust with it!

 

8^P

 

.............

 

Richard,

 

"Congrats, that's one fine camera you got!" - I hear you. In a difficult time, it's cheered me up tremendously. I'm not in the least embarrassed about being as excited as a child at Christmas.

 

Good, also, to hear that the advance lever on yours operates the same way.

 

"A clean viewfinder on these RF cameras is, I think, a must in

order to be fully content with the operation and final results that they can yield" - neatly encapsulates my feelings, as well as my notion that the RF system, (not less than the viewfinder or tiny mechanical components), is compromised by the film of gunk over its window. Light - OK, infra-red too - is being lost from the feedback loop.

Thanks for the recommendation, and the rapid response. I'll get in touch with them as soon as I recover from recent splurging - (like the Canonet QL17 GIII that's hopefully coming from LA, and the £35 I've just blown on macros and lens hoods)...

 

I was mostly concerned that similar gunge might be accumulating in the works; the advance lever seems to behave a little strangely, unless it's *supposed* to hang around half an inch from the rest position after use.

Hi, and glad to be here.

 

I just got my much-lusted-after 35SP, it seems fine, but the years

have left dust (skin? fungus, even?) *inside* the viewfinder,

lightmeter and CdS windows.

 

My first thought is to send it to shutterbugs (they're almost local)

or some other reputable classic camera dealers, but my second thought

is "£50 an hour"...should I just leave it the hell alone, bite the

bullet and pay up, or try to do it myself? (The mere thought gives me

indigestion.)