joshx

Gene, I would say that this is your best yet. Keep 'em coming.

Pico, thanks for the response. I didn't know what a tap or die was until I just looked it up. I suppose it comes from having no space to put tools other than a hammer, pliers, screwdrivers, etc in my miniscule NYC apartment. Someday, when I finally leave this place I will have a workshop filled with tools I'll rarely use. Someday...

 

Until then, I will look into the suggestion you presented. It seems like the correct way to permanently fix my lens. However, I am a bit hesitant to do anything permanent just yet. My solution, although very makeshift, is not permanent. I must dwell on this.

 

If anyone else has any other ideas or suggestions (especially where to perhaps find a new screw!), please let me know. Also, if anyone knows the proper names of any of the parts I described, feel free to educate me. Thanks!

Nancy, it is certainly possible. I don't have a drill with a metal bit that I think could do the job, but there is no reason I couldn't get one.

 

I also had another idea, in the event that a longer replacement screw isn't readily available: the shaft of my eyeglasses screwdriver that I use for camera/lens 'repair' is narrow enough to fit all the way to the end of the recessed notch in the iris ring. If I leave screwdriver in place I can turn the aperture ring and the iris opens and closes without any trouble. I think I might just buy another screwdriver (cheap eyeglasses repair kit), cut off an appropriate length of the shaft, and superglue it to the threaded part only. The drawback is that this is semi-permanent: it will require acetone and a bit of work to undo the superglue, and cleaning those screw threads (if it ever becomes necessary) won't be fun.

Thanks for the help Pete. I thought about having to file down threads myself, but I still wanted to throw the question out there in the event that somebody knows something I don't (which seems to happen often).

 

And I won't put lubrication near the iris at all. Promise.

By the way, are parts of the iris/diaphragm ever oiled/lubricated? I have read that I shouldn't put oil on the blades of the iris, but what about the outside of the ring where it turns/rubs against the metal of the barrel?

I recently acquired a large barrel lens which had a "stuck" iris. I took the

whole thing apart, cleaned it with Ronsonol, reassembled it (all 16 blades), and

found that it sort of works. I say "sort of" because every once in a while the

aperture ring sticks.

 

The iris opens and closes fine by itself, but I believe that when the aperture

got stuck the first time, someone tried to force it, and the screw that goes

through the aperture ring and into a groove of the rotating ring of the iris

caused stripping of the latter ring at the edge of the groove. (I don't know the

proper words to describe parts, but hope someone understands my explanation.)

 

Basically, the screw is now too short. If it were longer (it could extend almost

another 2mm into the groove of the iris ring) then it couldn't "slip out" of the

groove and cause the aperture to jam. (There is this extra space; why the screw

doesn't fully extend into the groove is beyond me.)

 

Were there generic screws/sizes for these particular screws in barrel lenses? (I

believe this might be an aerial camera lens.) I don't know the nomenclature for

describing a screw, but it is about 7mm long, with the 3mm at the tip being

threadless and about 1.5mm in diameter (this part goes into the groove of the

rotating iris ring), the next 3mm is threaded with about 8 threads in the 3mm

length and is about 2mm in diameter (this holds the screw in the aperture ring),

and the last mm is the head which is the same diameter as the threaded part

(about 2mm).

 

I've looked up machine screws (the only name I could think of to describe this),

but the ones I have seen are threaded full length. Any help in locating an

appropriate screw would be greatly appreciated. I would prefer to just buy one

somewhere, and only resort to contacting a machinist/repair shop if necessary

(e.g., SKGrimes; I only want a screw and I am not sure any sort of CLA would be

worth it for this lens right now). Thanks in advance!

Ha ha. I have some "collector's items" that I'll sell him for a tenth of the price. Think about it, he could make a nine-fold profit! ;)

Tom,<P>

I've seen this before and thought it was interesting. More interesting is using the same set up but with a photodetector. I haven't tried it, but it has been discussed on PN <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0044cW">before</a>.

Gene, you really should put together a book. Whether it is a collection of found films, all the nitty gritty technical details of developing film exposed in times past, or shooting and developing old films that have sat in storage for decades. Or all three.

Robert, as far as I can tell the film is held flat (sharpness doesn't seem any less than with 120 film; I haven't tried shooting resolution test charts and counting lp/mm with 220). I have had no problems with 220 film scratching, either. Certainly no light leaks. I've only done it a few times with Velvia 50, and see no reason not to continue to do so. My advice would be to try a roll of your favorite 220, as it will only cost maybe $10 for film and processing.

 

Murray, there is a special film sheet back and spacers that are available. You can't use the rangefinder with the sheet film back as the film plane is no longer in the same place. You need to use the ground glass. There is a back and sheet film holder available in an eBay store for $75, but it doesn't have the ground glass attachment so avoid it. Check out the back that is going for $8 now (item# 230064016486). It doesn't have a sheet film holder, and I don't know if they are proprietary or not.

Thanks for the correction Rob. I didn't mean to give out false information, but sometimes sleep deprivation interferes with normal brain function.

Jon,<P>

Check out <a href="http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/chemistry/e6Kit/e6Index.jhtml?id=0.2.20.14.18.14.3.28&lc=en">this link</a> to Kodak's single use chemistry kit. Even if you can't get this wherever you live, on the lefthand side of the page there are links to Kodak's technical publications which tell you exactly how to process E6.<P>

I have been processing E6 for over one year, and have always had great results. It is not as difficult as you might imagine, as long as you can maintain the proper temperature during 2 of the steps. (The other steps are a bit 'looser' on their temperature requirements.)

That other thread is maybe a week old, and I haven't made up my mind yet, so I remain Fuji-less. ;)

 

The GW690 is the fixed lens camera with the 90mm lens (I believe 'W' stands for 'Wide') and the GSW690 is the fixed lens camera with the 65mm lens ('SuperWide'). I don't know if the 65mm is sharper than the 90mm. I'd defer to others on that. However, the 65mm on the GSW690 is the same as the later model 65mm lenses for the GL690.

 

The camerapedia page (and associated Fuji rangefinder links) is a good read. Definitely take your time and go through it.

 

My only other piece of advice is to try and handle any/all of the cameras mentioned. If you have a strong preference for a film format (6x9 vs 6x7, for example), then that rules out most options. If you have a preference for a rangefinder vs an SLR, again, many options are ruled out. But holding and test-firing a camera can give you an idea if you will enjoy using it.

Jason,<P>

As Chris said, making 1 pint aliquots (or some equivalent) will allow your developer to last longer. The more exposure it gets to air (opening and closing the bottle, a little liquid left in a large bottle, etc) the sooner it loses strength.<P>

Using D-76 1:1 is probably the best compromise between sharpness and grainlessness. If you want a bit more sharpness (at the expense of a bit more apparent grain), try it at stock strength. Of course, you will need to adjust times.<P>

Ilford's recommendations for developing time are an OK place to start, but consider checking out <a href="http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.html">The Massive Dev Chart</a> for alternative times. Of course, you'll just have to experiment to see what you like best in a film/developer combo.<P>

I second the motion to use the developer as a one-shot deal. You will get the most consistent and best results this way.<P>

Good luck and happy shooting!

Gene,

 

Good stuff, and great photos for a camera that you mocked to pieces.

 

By the way, the film winder "quirk" that you mention sounds a lot like the film winder on my Pentax ME. If the winding lever is fully returned and flush with the body, you can't trip the shutter. With the Pentax it is because the meter is only on when the film advance lever is partially advanced, and the ME relies on the light meter when set to auto. With the Beaumat, well, I don't know.

 

It took me a while to get used to, having learned the basics of film photography on a Canon AE-1, but now I love it.

Wallace,<P>

 

Check out <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00J1XR&tag=">this thread</a> to see how sharp Fuji lenses are. (Granted, that's the 50mm f/5.6 on the GL690 as opposed to the 65mm or 90mm on the more recent fixed lens rangefinders.) With the older G690, G690BL, and GL690 you can change lenses. Of course, the cameras and lenses are much heavier than the GW- or GSW690 III. Just an option to consider (like you needed more).

Murray,

 

I've used 220 in my modified Medalist II. If I remember correctly, it takes about 9 or 10 full turns of the film winding knob to advance to the first frame.

 

Since the Medalist spaces shots for you automatically as you wind the film, once you are on the first frame there is nothing left to do but fire away. After you take your 8th shot, just wind the film about 2 or 3 revolutions of the knob (check when winding after the 7th shot for the exact amount), then reset the counter to "1" and wind a little bit until it clicks.

 

Fire away your last 8 shots and there you go. The spacing will be a bit tight early in the roll, I think. (It's been a while since I've done it.) It works though.

 

I suspect I have travelled a similar path as you: I started with a Moskva 5, realized that it wasn't in as great condition as the seller said (or it just isn't that great) and it now sits unused. I then bought 2 Agfa Clacks (and paid the outrageous shipping from Germany) with the intention of replacing the plastic single element lenses with real lenses/shutters and modifying the film plane, but didn't want to shell out >$100 for a lens/shutter since I am trying to do this on the cheap. Finally I bought the Medalist II and paid for the conversion.

 

I wanted to find a 6x9 solution cheaper than a Fuji rangefinder. Ironically, I've spent almost enough money to buy a nice GW or GSW690 II, and more than enough to have bought a G or GL690 and two lenses. Aaaah, to live and to learn. ;)

Thanks for the replies.<P>

In case anyone else cares, it is possible to get a <a href="http://www.cameraquest.com/adapt_deckel.htm">Deckel adapter</a> to mount your Bessamatic/Ultramatic/Retina S lenses to a Pentax 42 body. Meaning that if you have an M42 screwmount to K mount adapter, and the Deckel, you can use the silver Bessamatic lenses.<P>

Of course, it will only cost you $325 for the Deckel adapter alone. ;)

Browsing through Pentax bodies on KEH I saw that some of the SE varieties (K1000

and ME) are chrome with brown leather (instead of black). It occured to me what

a silver and brown camera would look like with a black lens: ugly.

 

I looked through the K-Mount page to see if there were any silver lenses, or SE

silver lenses. None, of course. I began browsing KEH and eBay for any silver

K-mount lenses, and didn't come up with any. It got me to wondering if silver

screw mount lenses existed, and the only ones I saw were either Leica lenses or

Leica clones.

 

I don't particularly care how ugly a camera is as long as it works (my ME is

well abused), but does anyone else think this was a bad idea? The only thing

that could've been uglier was to sell brown lenses for this camera. <shudder>

 

If anyone has suggestions for silver lenses that could be directly mounted or

adapted to a K-mount body, I am interested in hearing about them. Thanks.

Wow. You really are a collector if you pay that much for a knock-off.

Murray, the Medalist II does not have a self timer, so I am not sure what you moved, exactly. (If the copy of the manual sent to you was for the Medalist I, follow <a href="http://www.butkus.org/chinon/kodak/kodak_medalist_ii/kodak_medalist_ii.htm">this link</a> to the Medalist II manual on Butkus.org.)<P>

 

The Medalist II is a great camera; I love mine. I sent mine off to Ken Ruth at Photography on Bald Mountain and have been very happy with his workmanship. Now I no longer need to respool 120 onto 620 spools: both the film spool and take-up spool are 120.

<P>

One quirk I found that wasn't mentioned in the manual is that if you trip the shutter with a cable release, you can't advance the film until you 'trip the shutter' with the shutter button on the body. It won't actually trip the shutter and result in a double exposure (since the shutter is no longer cocked), it just releases the double exposure prevention mechanism.<P>

Enjoy!

Thanks to everyone for the responses to my questions. It looks like I have some more reading to do!

 

Max, again, thanks for posting the photos.

Max,

 

This just demonstrates why I love 6x9 chromes (especially Velvia 50)!

 

I've got a few questions about the GL690, if you don't mind. Have you used either a G690, G690BL, or any of the GW690's? How would the GL690 compare?

 

Dante Stella's page on the camera(s) only mentions an improvement on the pressure plate and ability to make/use short rolls with the GL690, but doesn't discuss a difference in user-experience, so I can't conclude anything.

 

As for a comparison with the GW690's, I realize the major difference is fixed lens vs. interchangeable lenses, and their is a substantial savings in weight (nevermind not carrying additional lenses). What about quality of the viewfinder or ability to focus?

 

I'd like to pick up one of these 3 cameras, but I'm not sure which. I suppose it comes down to the desire to be able to change lenses vs weight. Who knows, perhaps I will purchase one of the two and fall in love such that I also buy the other. :)

 

Thanks for posting the piece of the negative, as well as the 100% crop. I love 6x9!

LOL. Dean, I had that same moment as you, when I first developed some 6x9 negatives shot with a Kodak Medalist II. Since then I have been working hard to master fully manual medium format photography, rather than go back to easy automated inferior 35mm! ;)

 

Keep shooting.

Try <a href="http://cgi.ebay.ca/Temptation-Temptation-Temptation-Never-So-sweet_W0QQitemZ180050409854QQihZ008QQcategoryZ15248QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem">this link</a>.

<P>

Great story for sure.