john_shriver

There were very high domestic excise taxes on cameras in Japan in that era. So cameras to be sold through the post exchanges to American GI's were specially marked because they would not be taxed. A Japanese citizen with an <EP> or <CPO> marked camera would be presumed to be a tax dodger. For similar reasons, the Nikkormat was known as the Nikomat in Japan -- to make it clear that was the domestic "taxed" model.

Probably without rangefinder coupling, since they describe them as "mirrorless."

Seems quite possible that the rear lens element is a doublet -- two elements cemented together. Very typical for a Tessar formula lens, which is what this camera almost certainly has. The two "chips" you show may be an area where separation of the cement between the two elements started. Separation will cause a lot of reflection at the junction between the two elements.

In the washer under the winding knob, it reads "USE KODAK FILM 127." I'd say Vest Pocket Kodak Model B, probably 1932 or later since it doesn't have the "Autographic" feature. That model was only made with cheap lenses and shutters, either meniscus achromatic (one element) or doublet (two elements). Only Vest Pocket Special models had good lenses.

Looks very much like the tapered pins used to hold the hands onto certain types of clocks.

With any of the integral Polaroid films (SX-70 style or later), even if you "frankenback", you will get reversed images. Note that all of the relevant Polaroid cameras have a mirror in them...

I'd love to have one of those IR vision rigs. If you think loading 120 on a Nikor reel is hard, try 122 on that size Nikor reel: 93mm wide and floppy as a wet noodle. Using the clip is essential.

Unless you want to use the color filters to control the contrast of variable contrast paper, just leave them at 0. See Ilford's data sheets for their variable-contrast papers if you want to adjust contrast.

The leak is at the bottom right as viewed from the rear, given where it is on the negative.

Good discussion here: http://ss-it.de/data/finder/F2 Finder DP-1 Adjustment.pdf They note it's trivial to burn out the meter coil using a ohmmeter on the ring resistor. If meter test doesn't work, looking at the schematic it appears that open meter coil is by far the most likely problem. I suppose you could cannibalize another DP-1 with a totally failed ring resistor. Or with a de-silvered prism.

So this advertisement comes up on my Facebook feed. (No idea why Temu is trying to sell me women's swimwear!) Using a white special edition digital M camera with 50/1.4 Summilux as a prop. So I suppose they think white Leica are attractive to female thong buyers... Full product listing on Temu: https://www.temu.com/au/solid-color-low-waist-thong-swim-breifs-stretchy-v-string-versatile-sexy-swimsuit-bottoms-womens-swimwear-clothing-g-601099519101807.html?_x_sessn_id=mgbakt98ka&refer_page_name=bgn_verification&refer_page_id=10017_1699792828369_ybnh5da9zg&refer_page_sn=10017

Are the exposed frames spaced every 8 sprockets? In that case, the film gate is just too large. But if it's less than 8 sprockets, yeah there's a film transport issue.

Verichrome Pan has extreme exposure latitude, due to a two layer emulsion (fast and slow). It also keeps incredibly well, both before exposure, and latent image keeping. However, the multiple emulsion layers reduce acuity (sharpness), probably the reason it was never made in 35mm. Of course 828 film was 35mm wide! Verichrome (orthochromatic) has none of Verichrome Pan's virtues. Never had any success using NOS Verichrome, or recovering a decent latent image from 70 years ago... Always wind up with basically black film.

The Super D has no variable resistors, not on the ASA dial, nor reading out aperture. The setting of the shutter speed and ASA mechanically controls one end of the chain, the other end of the chain is controlled by the relative stop-down of the lens. The chain does "math" by rotating the case of the meter. The fine calibration of the meter is done by adjusting one of the chain pulleys that's on an eccentric stud. Given how unreliable variable resistors have been in camera exposure meters over the long run, this is very wise design by Topcon. They also patented it. Of course, the rotating meter takes a lot of space. The variable resistor in the Nikon Photomic finders for the F and F2 is their Achilles Heel! Follow the instructions in the service manual very carefully for disassembling the top of the camera, or you will spin the meter and fatally bend the needle. You will need to create some tooling (a pointed M1.4 screw) to hold parts in the shutter/ASA assembly.

When they made the change to reduce the travel of the wind lever (serials numbers starting with 71), that created a fragile set of gears up there. Not a problem with the original design (serial numbers starting 46). The reduction in travel is really pointless, and the wind isn't as smooth. There's a different weak part in the early Topcon RS. In serial numbers starting 320, there's a wind gear in the bottom held by a small pot-metal casting with a post, which is just not strong enough for the load it's placed under. In serial numbers staring 321, that gear (with a larger hole) is on a stud threaded (left-hand) through the casting, with the tip of the screw visible in the film chamber. That same design is used on all subsequent models. I got a "320" RS in parts with that casting broken, and I drilled and modified it to the 321 design, using a stud scavenged from a scrap Super D.

The way the lens mounts on the Leica and Contax is not the subject of the patent. The Leitz patent was for the cam on the lens and the roller on an arm in the camera that followed it, in the context of an interchangeable lens. So the Contax mount coupled the distance setting of the lens through rotation of the inner mount. Now, ultimately there is a cam on the back of that rotating inner mount, moving the rangefinder prism. But it is not a part of the lens mount proper.

Yes, Germany lost international (but not domestic) enforcement of patents as a war reparation. The shutters in Canon and Leica rangefinders would have violated Leitz's patents, and the rangefinder coupling on Leica was also patented. Many of the early Canon and Nikon lenses were copies of Zeiss's patented designs. Nobody was foolish enough to copy Zeiss's patented shutter from the Contax, which was incredibly complicated and hard to manufacture to avoid Leitz's patents. The constant-acceleration shutter in the Leica was so much more elegant and manufacturable. Nikon did burden themselves with the Contax lens mount, coupling distance to the camera through rotation, which Zeiss had used to avoid Leitz patent.

WD-40 is NOT suitable as a contact cleaner. There are specific electrical contact cleaners.

Running the lamp below it's rated voltage will lower the color temperature. Even for a given voltage, halogen lamps made in different color temperatures. Which will affect color printing results.

Perhaps the red scale is for a roll-film adapter.

You need a good clip at the hub of a 122 reel, to hold the film. The Nikon 122 reel has one, and one needs to do the same on a home-made one. Then center the end of the film very carefully. If making a 122 reel by splitting and gluing a smaller one, use a 35mm 20 exposure reel, as it has the right number of turns. The 36-exposure one has far more turns than necessary, and would be most unpleasant to load. 122 Nikor reels show up every year or two on eBay. I'm thinking of making a 103 reel, to use a No. 4 Kodak Panoram. Nikor Products never made one. The idea of a dowel sounds reasonably simple. I'd thought of using stainless steel tubing, but finding the right inside diameter is hard. It will require more turns than 122 film does, roll is longer.

I use the matching film profiles. There are ones for Kodak Tri-X 400 and Tri-X Professional 320. Prescan. Crop out any border. Adjust black and white points on histogram -- no clipping. Then adjust contrast and brightness. Scan.

Seattle Film Works was Eastman 5247, a color negative material for camera use in motion pictures, in ECN-2 process. But it may well have been "short ends" left over after a movie was completed, so somewhat outdated. (Movies buy more than enough film from the same production lot for each film.) Plus, cinema camera films are designed with very little concern for storage life at room temperature before exposure, or for latent image keeping. Plus, Seattle Film Works probably wasn't running the cleanest ECN-2 processing line. Also, ECN-2 films have a color response NOT designed to match color printing paper. Different contrast and color response. So you could not get prints with as good color as from Kodacolor film. Seattle Film Works would also make slides for you, on motion picture projection stock. Release prints are considered "expendable," so no major concern with color stability. Ever notice how badly the souvenir slide sets they sold at tourist traps in the 1960's and 1970's fade? Same projection stock. As for color stability, Kodak said the contemporaneous C-22 and C-41 color films were pretty similar to 5247, as were the E-4 Ektachrome films. Kodachrome has always been Kodak's most stable film, in terms of fading in dark storage. Of course, Eastman 5247 is long discontinued, and Seattle Film Works is no more. Plus all of Kodak's color films are more stable than they were 40 years ago!

US 4 = f/8 US 8 = f/11 US 16 = f/16 (easy way to calibrate) US 32 = f/22 US 64 = f/32

Someone told me that the f/6.3 is a much better lens than the f/4.5.