User_1172872

1st - the teleconverter should be attached to the body. If you have attached it between the bellows and the lens, you are going to lose sharpness. 2nd - I don't understand why you need the converter or the bellows. The 55mm micro should go to 1:2 on it's own. That's approximately full frame to DX Hope this helps.

<p>The body will not display the aperture with a manual focus lens. Also the meter would have to be set to manual or aperture priority. If you are using a non-cpu lens, set the meter to aperture priority and move the aperture ring. If the shutter speed changes, probably all is well.</p>

<p>Twenty years ago I owned some Kowa 6 gear. I have to agree with Rodeo Joe. My Kowa stuff just wouldn't stay repaired for very long, even thought I didn't use it very much. Tired of the frustration, I switched to Bronica. Given the price of used SQ-A or SQ-Ai gear today, I wouldn't go anywhere near a Kowa, except as a paperweight. With regard to the issue you described: I can't imagine any way the frame counter or pressure plate could cause the problem you described.</p>

<p>Your FE2 has a vertical travel shutter. The frame taken at 1/2000 is evidence that the shutter is "capping" at higher speeds, i.e., closing prematurely. If you're lucky, it may just require an adjustment; if you're unlucky, it may be irreparable or simply beyond economical repair. If I were you, I wouldn't have it fixed; I'd scout around for a used Nikon N8008, which has all the features of your FE2 plus auto wind, auto rewind, and auto ISO indexing. Only downside is that you have to replace the batteries more often but they are AA.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Only a mother could love.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Would that quote come from Lahue and Bailey in 'Glass, Brass, and Chrome'?</p>

<p>Multiply 8x to adjust for inflation. </p>

<p>Kuribayashi-Petri declared bankruptcy in 1978. (Later 'Petri' cameras are actually re-badged Cosina SLR cameras with the Pentax K lens mount.) Gus mentioned that Petri cameras did not have a good reputation for reliability. Certainly I didn't have a high opinion of the one I had! In his <em><strong>Collector's Guide to Kuribayashi-Petri Cameras </strong></em>, John Baird writes that "When they eventually do fail, most users find it terribly difficult to have them repaired." And that was published in 1991!<br /> If you are lucky, the only fault is that the shutter curtains have to be re-tensioned. Even then, a repair shop may be reluctant to take the job due to the risk of snapping a brittle spring when replacements are unavailable.<br /><br /></p>

<p> </p>

<p>What you're describing may be the result of an amateur "repair." I would shoot a roll of film and have it processed immediately. If the pictures look good I wouldn't worry about it.</p>

<p>The light leak on the 220 frame is much too large to be caused by loading in daylight. Did you change lenses during a roll? Since the 690BL has a leaf shutter in the lens, a curtain must completely block the film plane while changing lenses.</p>

<p>Since 220 film does not have a paper backing (except at the very beginning and the very end) a light leak can severely affect several frames simultaneously. An old Kowa 66 of mine had this problem. If I shot a roll of 120 very quickly, no problem. If I shot a roll of 220 at a leisurely pace, the frames were ruined. New foam solved the problem.</p>

<p>I'll wager that Julio has got it right. Above 1/60 sec., the speed of the curtain does not change, but the timing (lag of the second curtain behind the first) changes the width of the slit. So if the mirror is still in motion when the first curtain starts its travel, you'll see different shapes at different shutter speeds. And since the curtain moves from left to right (as seen from the back of the camera) you would see the dark patch in the lower right. </p>

<p>Are you certain nothing was blocking the lens externally, e.g., is the camera in the "never-ready"case? If not, remove the lens when there isn't any film in the camera and fire the shutter a few times. Is the mirror completing its travel all the way to the bumper?</p>

<p>I owned one for several years. Some advice;</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There's no reason why you can't put a 1.4x TC to make an 800/8 if you felt the need</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Unfortunately not my experience. The TC magnified magenta/green color fringing, i.e, longitudinal chromatic aberration to the point where it was clearly visible. Wait for a sunny day then carefully examine the splashes of water at your birdbath in frames with and without the TC.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> There are other gimbal heads (Wimberley look-alikes) at a lower price point </p>

</blockquote>

<p>I purchased one from Amazon. Having used a ball head I'd say the gimbal is the way to go. Final thought: I sold mine in order to purchase a 500mm f4 autofocus lens with image stabilization. You may have just purchased a "gateway lens!"<br>

Hope this helps.</p>

<p>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newman-Sinclair</p>

<p>Have you examined the foam bumper at the front of the screen? When these deteriorate they often become sticky, sometimes badly enough cause the mirror to hang up.</p>

<p>How is an N90s going to display an aperture on the LCD with a manual lens? </p>

<p>It appears to be a 'Bushnell Televar' monocular telephoto attachment, marketed under a different name. </p>

<p>I have never worked on a Bessa. However I have worked on several Ikonta and Nettar. Without exception, there was a locator pin on the back of the shutter, which fitted a slot or hole on the plate. </p>

<p>Any idea who made the 'Carl Wetzlar' binoculars? </p>

<p>I think JDW has got it right. This is a film flatness issue. If the pressure plate is missing, that would account for the odd variation of in-focus versus out-of-focus areas. </p>

<p>The 'springs' may look more like flat metal tabs. When you insert the film you should feel a little bit of resistance. And when you remove the take up spool the film should be tightly wound.</p>

 

<p>First please examine the negatives. Is the problem with the camera or your scanner? Once you have ruled out the scanner: are the struts rigid? Is one of them bent? Do they lock into place when you unfold the camera? Does the camera fold and unfold smoothly? Is the lens standard (the part the shutter is attached to) parallel to the film plane? When you advance the film does it feel tight or loose? There are two metal springs inside the nettar that are designed to press against each of the spools so that when you advance the film it is taut. Once you have eliminated mechanical problems, the last possibility is that a prior owner disassembled the lens to clean it and reversed one of the elements when putting it together. However that would create systematically sharp centers and progressively blur toward the edges. </p>

<p>This can happen if the hot shoe on the camera is loose. Is the flash anchored securely in the hot shoe without any free play or wobble? </p>

<p>Sorry but I don't see any moire on my monitor either. I'll recommend that you make a print first to see if it's really there.</p>

<p>I had one or more of these. Don't know what I did with them. But I don't think they were intended to serve as a lens cap in regular use. Perhaps, Nikon didn't want to supply you with a regular cap, but had to protect the rear element in transit? Seems to me it was just the equivalent of bubble wrap or foam peanuts. </p>