Jump to content

gnashings

Members
  • Posts

    1,885
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by gnashings

  1. I posted a couple threads (a LOOONGtime ago) with pictures of my own adventures in diaphragm cleaning, and although they were different lenses the process was very similar . Sadly I don't think they will help you much except maybe for the pictures, as I did not go as deep as you did. I found the Olsen article to be just about the only resource back then, along with the good folks here on the forums. Cracking open my nFD 100mm f2.8 [PLAIN]135mm f3.5SC FD(old), bargain shop find - or idiot vs lens part 3:)[/PLAIN] That's the extent of my knowledge, hopefully there is something there that might help. I know they are not 50's but I found the general procedure to be very similar if not the same. How you succeed in your repair, it's very gratifying:)
  2. That's an amazing link, thank you so much! I actually have a need for a few parts for my huge old bogen and my little 190 finally lost a screw, it's been loose fif a while, I've been lazy...I guess like owner like tripod it decided it was ok to have a screw loose in my household;)
  3. Thank you, I feel better knowing that, really appreciate the info! Surry to hear about burglary: ( hope it was limited to things you could replace.
  4. Definitely sounds like something has shorted out, at least that's what the hot battery would seem to indicate. I'm a little perplexed why the advance lever won't move, if I recall that's a pretty mechanical device. Still, unless the camera has sentimental value, I think the most efficient thing to do is to grab another one and move on. They're still plentiful and can be had for the price of a simple CLA, much less than any involved repairs for sure. My AE1 eventually"retired" due to intermittent shutter issues, which I tried unsuccessfully to track down myself. I know these cameras have an excellent reputation and are often recommended as starter cameras, but in my experience they seem to have their share of electronic gremlins. I suppose they are getting long in the tooth.
  5. I was thinking along the same lines, fwiw it looks like a head mating plate, as you mentioned the set screws are there and it appears to be shaped and finished like what it's supposed to be. I've just never seen that before on a "pro" (using the word loosely) level tripod. I suppose if it starts looking like it's not holding up I can replace the centre column. Thanks for chiming in, I know the bogen/manfrotto lineage is about as convoluted as a soap opera story line and I doubt anyone actually knows what happened when and why lol
  6. I don't want to argue semantics as to what constitutes old, I'm not sure when it was made, all I can tell you is it is Silver, not black. It certainly has a horizontal column configuration option (as does my friend's which is even older than mine, he has had his for a good 20 years). The question is about the part of the column where the head attaches. I'm used to seeing a metal part that mates to the base of the head. This thing is all polymer, and I was wondering if a part is missing or of this was just how they came, as I bought mine second hand in otherwise excellent condition? I'm attaching a picture, pointing to the part in question with the pencil. Horizontal column opening clearly visible as well...
  7. I didn't change anything intentionally I swear lol but it had been a while and I see some changes in these parts. The flamingos are ever vigilant, and with time became even more pink;) I think they might be getting a tad paranoid though as all utterances end in "... If that is who you really are..."
  8. I guess cameras are like people. I swear age renders me sticky and slow;) This is such a pretty camera, I'd try to fix it, I think if you work slowly and take lots of reference pixelograms you should be fine. How are the gnomes by the way?
  9. Hi all, I know there is a multitude of versions of the venerable 055, and I recently bought a second hand example. It's the older natural metal finish version, with the centre column that can be pulled out and mounted horizontally (again, the older version, you actually have to unscrew the head, pull the column out, and re insert it horizontally, unlike the modern versions with the collar that pops out and allows you to swivel the column into horizontal). My question is, was there a time when the head mounting collar/assembly was polimer? Mine appears to be a black plastic, just something I'm not used to seeing and I can't find any images on the web, leading me to wonder if there was a metal piece that is missing or is this the way they were made for a period of time? Thanks in advance Peter
  10. <p>This is officially one of my favourite threads of all time! Such a pleasure to finally put a face to the name of the man who takes us on such amazing trips with his pictures and shares so much wisdom with unparallelled warmth and generosity! And nicely framed in a typically fascinating post by Mr. Drawbridge - thank you for sharing this journey, reading this made my morning!:)</p>
  11. <p>All of these responses are spot on - and definitely to be considered closely. I do know that sometimes necessity dictates the method and as such there is only so much you can do.<br> However, along with all the sage advice already given, I have also encountered situations where I have an old camera with a rather heavy or rough shutter release - my Yashica Mat is like that, not in any way inherent to the design, just ravages of age and abuse on one particular example - I have taken to using the self timer. Obviously not for action photography, but for stationary subjects or slow moving, predictable ones, you can use it as a work around. On old cameras most self timers tend to be a wind up mechanism and can be engaged only at only a small fraction of its travel, thus giving a very slight delay. Just enough to remove the movement of your "trigger" finger from the equation.<br> Also, I have used cable releases while hand holding - sometimes the barrel of the button is rough but the part pushed by the cables plunger is not (the Yashica for example could not be "fixed" in such fashion as it uses a Leica style cable that fits over the button and pushes the whole thing, so the benefit of the cable is negligible since the button is so hard to push regardless of the device used to push it.)<br> Just some ideas that might be helpful in the back corner of your tool box somewhere:)</p>
  12. <p>Such a cool story - hats off to your mechanical abilities! and I am happy to hear that not one but THREE cameras have thus been rescued from the scrap heap, or worst yet, some hipsters interior design scheme as "vintage looking cameras that look cool"... but really just hold up books that much like the cameras will never get used, were probably never read...<br> But I SO digress - great and informative post, really glad you shared it. Of course now I want one too, but that's pretty standard around these parts:) </p>
  13. <p>Les, I was thinking MX and wrote K1000 :( I recall this series of images I think you have posted in a thread a while ago, it was actually what popped into mind when I saw this thread! Amazing how beastly the (actually very compact) FG looks next to that pentax!</p>
  14. <p>A lot of great suggestions, and I can't find fault with most of them. I wholeheartedly second the Canonet QL17 - but, it is a fixed lens and there is no bridge circuitry so you have to buy zinc air batteries. No biggie to me - its a wonderful little camera and the lens is winner - but, it doesn't seem to be meeting all your requirements. I love mine, its really a great camera that punches well above its weight class.<br> Somewhat in the same category would be a Kodak Retina II or III. Just a jewel of a camera, great glass. And its just plain neat - the folder design is just something cool to behold, its a real classic and a real mechanical marvel. if you're a good hunter they did come with auxiliary lenses that gave you a slight wide angle and a short tele - no personal experience with those, but from what I read the base 50 in its various forms is a wonderful lens in every way, but the aux ones are just... well, adequate. They do command a premium and are very hard to track down, and from what I hear when you do find them its quite often the case that they are not perfectly aligned with the host lens and quality suffers further. But a set is a bit of a trophy to sicko's like me and many on this forum.<br> In light of that, I would suggest a few classic (or classic...ish in some cases) SLR's.<br> For starters, the Nikon FG - its light, its very small, you can use any ai and later Nikkor glass, and with the 50 1.8 E series its a real compact package, and light too. It does feel a little plasticky but I assure you it is far more durable than it first appears. It is battery dependant - but the 357 cells are very cheap and very plentiful and easy to find. The meter has never let me down, and for giggles I put my 17-35 f2.8 on it the other day - you could hardly tell there was a camera back there lol but hey - it works perfectly. You mentioned you have a Nikkormat already, so it may be a prudent option to investigate.<br> I believe the Pentax K1000 may just be the smallest SLR, and you would not be lacking for choices of great glass that is relatively inexpensive, with a M42 adapter further opening options for glass choices - not just from Pentax but from just about everything that took that very popular mount for decades.<br> Also, you may want to look at an Olympus OM1 - very tidy and small SLR, fully mechanical except for the meter, and a real joy to use - you will love the wonderful large viewfinder, at least it made an impression on me. <br> I think those three SLR choices would actually leave little on the table to most interchangeable lens rangefinders out there in terms of size and weight, and all have access to some real winners in their lens line ups.<br> Just another option to consider, since you appear to be one of those weird people (weird for this forum) who are not hopelessly afflicted with GAS and find the phrase "choosing which camera to buy" completely foreign regardless of what language its in:)</p>
  15. <p>Rick, the PMK comment was tongue FIRMLY in cheek :) a photographer of your talent and vision could use coffee from a vending machne and still come up with wonderful images. But the Pyro developers are something I have not tried very much and I am curious to try it with a variety of films, etc. Definitely on the to do list.</p>
  16. <p>that's just too cool!:) and that lens certainly does seem to be a very capable performer - mind you I have long ago learned that Subbarayan's disarming humility and modesty is perhaps matched only by the level of his insight and expertise. Lovrly shots as always Rick, dull light apparently met it match.<br> And its called PMK Pyro.<br> 'Cause God knows its NEVER the photographer - its always the silver bullet;)</p>
  17. <p>But then you would be DOCTOR Rick! (sorry - I presume too much, perhaps you already are - just another feather in the cap then?). I think there is something to it - when I look at Praktica's they have a certain Teutonic angularity combined with a minimalist aesthetic that hints at the shunning of imperialist ideas of material wealth and decadence.<br> Of course any such theory could be defeated by someone holding up the Photomic finder;)</p>
  18. <p>Kenri, sadly mine appear somewhat different. But, as Chris said it appears that they all appear to separate in the fashion he descibes. It appears that some force is required which feels quite worrisome when you try to do it. I would imagine that an older lens that obviouslyhas some stories to tell may take more effort.</p>
  19. <p>You can't access the aperture blades on those lenses: they are BEHIND THE IRON CURTAIN (insert rim shot here)</p> <p>I joke, forgive me:)</p> <p>I have had several of these, and it appears to me that they vary in their assembly methods depending on age (I am told even from one week to another, but can't confirm that). If you have any means of uploading a picture of the exact lens I could see if I have one that looks exactly like yours and then perhaps we can try together to break my lens as well...uhm I mean - try to figure out how to get into yours.</p>
  20. <p>Friend of mine stumbled across an early OM1 at a garage sale - I know the 10 is not the same breed of beast exactly - but being accustomed to the array of Canikons, pentaxes, prakticas, zeniths, etc., I was INCREDIBLY impressed with the Olympus pretty much from the first time I raised it to my eye (even before tings like glass quality could be considered). The viewfinder just looked right to me - huge and bright - and everything fell to hand. Surprising, this, as the shutter speed ring seemed like something I would need Clockwork Orange grade programming to get used to and accept. But no. And it was just... a jewel - felt like the product of a fine watch maker. And it had character - lets face it, you see/hold one SLR... its rare that something really FEELS different.<br> Anyhow - some of those by they way why the hell not purchases unearth some lasting favourites. Enjoy!</p>
  21. <p>Thank you for this - as always informative and entertaining, and great images both "of" and "from" the camera! I know its really a standard SLR design, visually - but there is something subtly different about the way the lens mount panel curves into the penta prism housing. to my eye it is evocative of traditional Japanese architectural design elements. Perhaps its my brain putting the car before the horse, but its a very Japanese looking, very pretty camera.</p>
  22. <p>Mark,<br> <br />I have shot countless rolls of both HP5+ and TriX of various vintage (and age). I know its largely a matter of taste, but I always prefer Tri X - although with a heavy heart because I would much rather give my money to Ilford. And admittedly it is never enough to make me call one film better. I just prefer how TriX does what it does when I ask it. And yes, the older emulsion is visibly different from whats new in a store right now, sadly. But we are SPLITTING HAIRS. <br> I don't really know or care about how these films react in a scanner, as I can't think of a bigger waste of time than scanning b&w film, not to mention having some garrish approximation of black and white subsequently spat out from a glorified ink jet. But to each their own - if the market was swayed by actual value, Justin Bieber wouldn't outsell even the most middling of concert pianists, and no one would scan and inkjet film. Walmart would have long ago gone bankrupt, etc... but I digress.<br> <br />I also don't get the "if you're late to the party" comment - no one was late to the party, Kodak stopped making and supporting the film/process, and now future generations will not be able to enjoy this unique emulsion, through no sin other than their birth date. And those of us with full freezers just have to look at the pretty yellow boxes.<br> And yes, "its dead", but so was polaroid. Am I saying someone will do it, revive it? No, I am not. But it is not outside of the realm of possibility if a person with enough resources decides that "wouldn't it be nice". People still buy record players and you can still buy wooden sail boats. Caterham makes great business selling Lotus 7's and people still spend lots of money on new parts for some very old cars. Hell, last time I checked, people still paint - wasn't photography supposed to "effectively kill" all that canvas and brush nonsense? <br> One thing that Polaroid DID have is the instant gratification factor which not only survived the digital epidemic but was nourished by it like a genetically engineered tomato. Kodachrome does not have that, and for that reason, it is far likely to be the next darling of kickstarter and hipsters everywhere. It may be very much retro, but who will see it? Therefore, who cares.<br> One thing I can't dispute is that digital imaging has completely displaced photography in the professional realm. But I wouldn't say it did so for all the "right" reasons - I don't see today's magazine covers being any better than they were 30 years ago, and I see a LOT more hackery everywhere else. So the reasons I would call ECONOMICALLY inevitable rather than right. And when a photographer makes enough of a name for themselves that people will pay them and wait however long it takes - quite often a film camera still comes out. I would predict this will happen more and more often to be frank, in all but the most main stream, mass market applications.<br> For me, there is really nothing I have seen on a computer screen that is as magical and full of its own life as a slide - even 35mm. Sure, many of my slides suck as I am sure many of my b&w prints leave much to be desired - but I don't blame the medium. When I do my part there is nothing that hours with lightroom and photochop and whatever other pixel crunching programs could do to improve it - just like no amount of fiddling with curves and levels and whatever else will make a bunch of pixels look like a Kodachrome held up to a window.<br> And now I will remove myself from the soap box as my ranting has gone substantially off topic. Don't waste time and energy shooting Kodachrome as b&w on purpose. If you had the only existing picture of a long gone relative on a roll of it somewhere, sure, better that than nothing - but the aesthetic value of the packaging has in my experience outweighed the results of b&w resulting from such experiments. Get some Tri X. Or HP5. Or whatever b&w film catches your fancy. Or comes to hand. Or happens to be free or cheap. Learn to develop it. Get an enlarger - they're giving them away - one perfect for 35mm and even 120 will handily fit in a small apartment bathroom, trays in the tub, and whole set up can be up in 15 minutes and down in not much longer. Enjoy actual photographs as a result. And a sense of accomplishment - because when you get it right, you know it was all you. And when you don't, you will learn from it. Can't beat it:)</p>
  23. <p>People just call me a luddite. Among the nicer things they call me;)</p>
  24. <p>Richard, key word being wizard - I think you're right on all counts. I kinda hope someone gets a compulsion to make a Kodachrome clone and the processing needed. People said it couldn't be commercially viable with Polroid (hence "impossible") and yet here we are. Would be cool, right? One can dream...</p>
  25. <p>Generally you're correct - it most often means 1 part developer + x parts water. With various developers this can affect more than just developing times, as slightly (sometimes a lot) different effects can be achieved with various dilutions.</p>
×
×
  • Create New...