steven_d._johnson

<p>JB Fischer, thanks for your suggestion about the stop-down operation. In reviewing, I concluded that the Stop Down Slide was unlocked, and that is what was causing the lenes to not stop down. Unlocking the Stop Down slide disables the automated function of the actuator in using Stopped-Down (fixed-index) metering. It functions correctly, and I have locked the Stop Down Slide. The lenses now operate as I like. </p>

<p>I'm sorry, that wasn't enough of a response. The Stop Down Slide (depth of preview) fails to actuate the lens aperature with a mounted lens. With the lens removed, the Stop Down Slide does actually move the actuator tab. However, the camera itself will not operate the actuator tab. I can see it give very slight movement, but no travel. I note that on the AE-1 full travel and movement is achieved, using both the shutter release and by depth of field preview.<br>

Is there a function on the F1-N that I may have set that would prohibit the actuator tab from doing its job?</p>

<p>The Stop Down Slide fails to actuate the aperature.</p>

<p>Canon F1-N low miles, a good user. No problems in the past. I now find that it won't stop down any three OEM Canon FD lenses I always use. The lenses stop down just fine in AE or manual mode on my AE-1 body, under varying light conditions. Any of the lenses will not change their aperature when the shutter is fired, either in AE or Manual mode when mounted to the F1-N.<br>

I read the Owner's Manual for the F1-N and I cannot seem to figure out what I'm doing wrong. I have tried stopping down both in AE and in manual. Cycling the depth of field preview does not change anything. I have replaced the body battery, checked it with the camera's battery check function, it's OK. I have a fresh set of batteries in the FN motor drive. I note that one of the instructions states that the motor drive must be attached for the Shutter-priority AE function to work. The problem occours with or without the motor drive attached. This camera is equipped with the AE Finder FN.<br>

I need input on why the body won't stop down the lenses. Something in the camera failed? Or did I miss a setting that I might have earlier disturbed?<br>

Thanks!</p>

<p>Thanks for your reply. I do not know the history of it, but it's a fair guess that it was in a commercial environment. I don't know if it was ever forced, or jammed. It was a fleabay bargain basement deal, which I planned to have CLA'd and thus the reason for purchase. The rolls I shot were just so I could get a feel for any problems with it, and so....!!<br>

Other than that, my new concern is repair parts availability. It just recently occoured to me that support might not be available, yet MAC Group says they can overhaul it. Any thoughts?</p>

<p>EQUIPMENT: Mamiya RB67 Pro SD, 90mm KL and 50mm C lenses<br>

Hi, I have read many posts/solutions regarding a cocking lever/lens jam scenario, with a paperclip used to remove the lens. This is NOT that problem, although it kind of sounds like it at first.<br>

I have no problems removing the lens, but I cannot get the body to fire the shutter, or re-cock the mirror.<br>

PROBLEM:<br>

I have recently acquired a high-mileage Pro SD body that needs some repairs, most notably the cocking lever won't go down to drop the mirror. It worked fine for three or four rolls, and now it has this issue:<br>

I cannot seem to fire the shutter of either the 90mm KL or the 50mm C lens. (Both lenses have proven usable on my Pro S). Neither lens has an adaptor ring on it, but they seem to fit fine. Everything seemed to be working fine, then the cocking lever seemed to bind/hang up. I am concerned that the fact it has a Pro S and not a Pro SD RBack may be an issue, but I am not knowledgeable.<br>

WHAT I TRIED:<br>

Massaging/manipulating the RBack, cocking lever, and the firing button seemed to correct the problem for a few intermittent tries, then it finally stayed where it's at: Cocking lever up, mirror up, shutter release button plunging in and out, but ineffective. No problem mounting/changing lenses, then removed RBack, carefully checked limit plungers, pins and interlocks relating to film back, RBack etc. (the ususal suspects!)<br>

I also tried a cable release, but no difference was noted. The lenses can be hand-cocked off camera, and released, and the shutter lock on the body changes fine from lock to unlock, but the pin that transmits from the firing button to the rear of the body for the RBack doesn't always move to the rear when the firing button is pressed.<br>

AM I DOOMED?<br>

I get the impression that something has failed in the shutter release/firing button. Can this be repaired? Also, as it is a high-mileage unit, I am concerned about parts availability due to its age. No serial number was found.<br>

Thanks to all in advance!</p>

 

<p>Cost is certainly a factor, and I need to first decide whether it is feasible. As for 2x teleconverters on new lenses, I don't like the quality of the Schneider 2x that I have, and am doubtful that there exists a quality 2x converter that compares to OEM lens groups in a barrel.</p>

<p>But first, I need to find out if this even possible. The cost of the EF/EOS equivelant for the lens in questions is really quite serious, and I need to see <em>all</em> the options. Thanks for sharing!</p>

<p>I failed to mention earlier that I have 'double-posted' this inquiry in the EOS forum, with the below explanation:<br>

RE: Double Posting; my apologies for this. It seemed to me that because this is a question I have regarding this lens in respect to converting from one design (FD) to the next (EOS) that the possibility existed that there would be seperate and different replies. This is due to my thought that EOS folks are probably no longer are interested in FD products, and FD fans are sticking to their guns, or have accomplished a satisfactory task in regards to my inquiry. Following that line of thinking, it occured to me that neither party would likely follow the other closely. Modernization of the equipment likely spawned two seperate, but closely related followings.<br>

As it has quickly shown as of this writing, the answers in each forum are both different and helpful. I will try hard to limit such double-posting in the future.<br>

And, in light of the request that the informational replies are properly shared, I would like to direct those interested parties to the EOS Forum to follow this thread there.<br>

Thank you all very much; your information has spurred me in a new direction!<br>

</p>

<p>RE: Double Posting; my apologies for this. It seemed to me that because this is a question I have regarding this lens in respect to converting from one design (FD) to the next (EOS) that the possibility existed that there would be seperate and different replies. This is due to my thought that EOS folks are probably no longer are interested in FD products, and FD fans are sticking to their guns, or have accomplished a satisfactory task in regards to my inquiry. Following that line of thinking, it occured to me that neither party would likely follow the other closely. Modernization of the equipment likely spawned two seperate, but closely related followings.<br>

As it has quickly shown as of this writing, the answers in each forum are both different and helpful. I will try hard to limit such double-posting in the future.<br>

And, in light of the request that the informational replies are properly shared, I would like to direct those interested parties to the FD Forum to follow this thread there.<br>

Thank you all very much; your information has spurred me in a new direction!<br>

</p>

<p>I am considering going digital in the near future, and I am a proud owner of a Canon FD 150-600 f5,6 L series lens in good shape, Serial No. 10371. I was wondering if anyone knows if there has been any realistic conversions done for FD lenses to digital- <em>but not just using an adaptor!</em> Something integral, that doesn't change the focal length or telephoto abilities when converted to use on EOS bodies. I don't need AF, but the AE feature would be very helpful.<br>

This is not a new question, but the information I've found on this topic is fairly outdated. It's an exciting lens to use and is tack sharp. I'd hate to part with it just because I have to change formats! Perhaps some new idea has surfaced?</p>

<p>I am considering going digital in the near future, and I am a proud owner of a Canon FD 150-600 f5,6 L series lens in good shape, Serial No. 10371. I was wondering if anyone knows if there has been any realistic conversions done for FD lenses to digital- <em>but not just using an adaptor!</em> Something integral, that doesn't change the focal length or telephoto abilities when converted to use on EOS bodies. I don't need AF, but the AE feature would be very helpful.<br>

This is not a new question, but the information I've found on this topic is fairly outdated. It's an exciting lens to use and is tack sharp. I'd hate to part with it just because I have to change formats! Perhaps some new idea has surfaced?</p>

<p>Thank you all for your replies and insight. The more I reflect on this problem, the more I am starting to believe I was more careless in the actual wd2d+ developing process. With varying results using varying films, as well as difficulties in temperature control, I probably had more of an issue with the resulting incorrect developing times that were concurrent with the varying temperatures. I tried to follow the base times provided from Digital Truth's developing table, but I suspect the wd2d+ requires greater diligence than say, T-max developer. I am then generally satisifed that this is not a fixer issue, but rather a temperature/time issue in developing.<br>

Peter Carter pointed out an item I had never done before until working with this developer- presoak. The wd2d+ guidelines recommended this first step, and I did do that. I've read many arguments pro and con on the matter, but I figure if the directions recommend it, well then, do it! I might try that on other films in the future and log the results.<br>

Conrad Hoffman's suggestion about isolating the most troubled film and taking a fresh start under tighter conditions will be my next step.<br>

Thanks again!<br>

Steven Johnson<br>

Kingsburg, Calif.</p>

<p>

<p>Peter, Yes, I meant WD2D+ Whoops!<br>

Thanks for the suggestion on testing the fixer with a small strip in a dish. I’d never thought of that! And, I was amazed that in less than 40 seconds in normal strength and less than 30 seconds in twice strength, the film strips were cleared.<br>

I then tested some in-date and stored refrigerated film. I used 35mm FP4+ as follows: exposed at TTL metering, rated at 100 ASA. Developed in WD2D+ as per spec sheet. Stopped development using Kodak Indicator Stop bath (as with all previous rolls). Then, pulled reel from can and cut off several 3-frame strips, fixing as such: 30 seconds in twice-strength fixer, 1 minute in normal strength and then 9 minutes in twice strength and 3 minutes in normal strength to cover a range of times and strengths. All strips were beautiful, with no remarkable difference between them!<br>

I’m thinking now the only thing I could have screwed up was the developer, but I use a graduated milliliter flask for measuring parts A and B and then blend with distilled water prior to use, using a 1:50 ratio.</p>

<p> I wonder if the long term freezing caused problems? I need to keep in mind that on the previous rolls that were mostly blank, the film codes along the edge were also missing, or extremely faint. To me, that would indicate a user-caused chemistry problem, as this batch was perfect regardless of fixer manipulation.<br>

Would over-agitation or a ratio imbalance with the mixing of WD2D+ cause the image to wash away? Temperature control is erring on the side of being too cool, if anything. But I wonder how critical 2 to 3 degrees would be…perhaps more than I think?<br>

John, I would like to try pyro to see if it is good as I’ve read and seen. I know there is more to it than just negative development, ie; paper and other selections. Anyway, now it is a challenge that I must conquer!</p>

</p>

<p>

<p> I have just used Formulary's HD2D+ developer and TF-4 Fixer for the first time with various films, as I am looking at various products. I am developing 120 film in a small tank, and the film was exposed nearly a year ago, then kept in the freezer until now. (long story -don‘t ask!)<br>

I had good luck with three rolls of Ilford HP4+, but two subsequent rolls of Fuji Neopan came out 95% washed away. This included the film code on the edge. Thinking it was not compatible with the process, I continued on and processed four more rolls of other film, both T-max and FP4, with nothing left but ghost images. I then realized after double checking that I was fixing for 9 minutes, versus 3-4 minutes as described on the label of the TF-4. Thinking back to the first three rolls, I seem to recall that I did not fix them very long, but I can’t remember why or for how long.<br>

Two days later, I mixed up more of the TF-4 thinking I’d do one large batch, added it to the original batch, and then only to conclude that different films required different times, and that processing several rolls of various films in one batch is a poor idea.<br>

I started by processing a roll of Efke 100R for 10 minutes at around 66-67 F, and fixed for 3 minutes. It came out fine. Next, I processed TMAX 100 and 400 for 8 minutes at 68F, both came out severely washed out, with only faint imaging seen. The 100 fared worse than the 400. A roll of Neopan and a roll of FP4 were processed in the same tank, but this time the FP4 came out washed out, but the Neopan survived, albeit very light of density.<br>

For awhile I thought I’d' screwed up the chemistry or process somehow, as some rolls were good and some bad, but I thought I was being very careful in controlling mixtures of parts A and B of the HD2D+ and using it within a minute or so of mixing, and using it only once. Agitation was as prescribed on the HD2D+ instructions, but I did relax agitation by half after the first rolls washed away, thinking I might have over-agitated. Temperatures did fluctuate between 65 and 69 degrees F. I have doubts that the long-term cold storage would be the cause of this problem.<br>

Pondering all of this while I cleaned up the darkroom, I put all the prepared TF-4 into a collapsible container. It filled up the half-gallon container, and that’s when I noticed the bottle of TF-4 clearly stated that it makes one (1) gallon. So, in effect, I have carelessly doubled the strength of the fixer as I went along planning batches, etc. I’m thinking the root cause of the negatives being transparent with only very faint images would be a fixer that was twice as strong as was called for.<br>

Some would say that it is very difficult to over-fix a negative. As my experience with T-max and Kodak’s fixer has played out in the past, I‘d mostly agree . If anything, there is an easier tendency to under-fix a negative, leaving a purplish hue.<br>

Question: Can a fixer, in this case the TF-4, be cause for the image- including the film code- to disappear if it is too strong or held in the bath too long? Does anyone have any experience with this problem, or have any tips or advice when using TF-4?</p>

</p>

<p>Thanks all for the input. The update: John Siroringas of Century/Schneider and I discussed the issue and he is willing to take a look at it. His firm has done many conversions of these lenses to adapt to the motion picture industry and he may have the parts available to bring this lens back into shape. I also contacted Steve Sweringen in Reno and he will be investigating his resources for replacement components as well. He offered that he is often surprised by what Canon still has in stock, and he also has the exploded parts diagram to assist with part number identities. Again, thanks for your help...I'd still be surfing dead-ends on the internet, but for the input, I've found two potential places that might be able to do the work!</p>

<p>I don't know why he would keep it, but perhaps because it was rare, collectible, etc. I'd never seen one of that design, but I'm not a collector, either. I do recall that its movement was exceptionally smooth, and it did not have stops registered with notches. One could choose just about any sort of f-stop and the large number of blades provided for a nearly perfect circular port for the light to get through. Those conditions may have proved itself valuable, but I don't know. I needed modern equipment for that application, and that's why I went with the Copal 3 vice obtaining a 'period' shutter. <br>

As for the soldering iron, yes that's what they do- the lens caps are ABS plastic turned out on a lathe. Scoring the inside rim will certainlys do the trick- unless you do it too much, then it's all about sanding down the burs, etc. The point is, one of them was perfect and the other was loose. The fare for these caps was $60 each. At the time, their website touted precision craftsmanship, along with the associated fees. This sloppiness and poor quality control (did they even check it out?) along with not honoring our verbal and written agreement to return unused parts gave me pause, to say the least. There was never any discussion whatsoever about a 'discount', and to profess this is close to lying. </p>

<p>A word about Grimes: Make sure you know exactly what you're getting for your money. It's been more than four years, but I'm still a little burned. I sent them a 360mm pre-war Schneider TeleZenar with a beautiful aperature that probably had twenty blades in it. I needed the lens to be mounted in a new Copal 3 shutter and two lens caps made, return all unused parts.<br>

This order and work was first discussed by telephone between his staff and I, then confirmed with my formal letter included with the lens and lensboard I sent out. I received, for just under $700, a loose lens cap of the two he made and he kept my aperature. A follow up call resulted in him telling me that I got a 'discount' and he's keeping the aperature. As for the loose cap, he suggested I take a soldering iron and score the inside of the rim to give it a more snug fit on the lens barrel.<br>

I'll never send them anything of mine again. Best of luck to you.</p>

<p>I need an exploded parts diagram with part numbers for a Canon 150-600mm f1:5,6 L zoom lens so I can order parts from Canon. For some reason, they will not allow the diagram out, yet require part numbers from said diagram to verify availablity and pricing. For what it's worth, this is probably the older lens, as it is buff in color, not white. Its serial number is 10371. Thanks, - Steven Johnson</p>

<p>Thanks for furthering this- great new info since I last looked! By the way, a remote aspirator/bulb style cable release isn't feasible unless there is electrical control, due to the required interface with the field control circuit. Barring that, air pressure may not build quickly enough (although it might!) to have the shutter fire on time.<br>

]<br>

Mike and Jody- I'm a little confused by some of the information. Keep in mind that I need to fire the shutter remotely, in time with a seperate, custom control circuit, and film advance is not very important, but helpful. Jody: could you elaborate a little more as to your set-up regarding the shutter release? Mike: I thought the wireless controller was used to initate flash units. Is there a way for the LC-1 to release the shutter on the camera remotely? I've never used the LC-1, so any info would help. From what I can dig up, the LC-1 is not meant for the AE-1, rather the T series...? </p>

<p>I had my first roll of Fomapan-R developed by DR-5, and I'm very excited about the film, but what I thought were little specs of dust turned out to be very tiny bubble marks throughout the roll. Has anyone encountered this problem with either Fomapan-R or DR-5?<br>

]<br>

As it is late Friday evening, I have not had the opportunity to call them for some input. I did not ever experience this problem with Scala, and this is the first time I've used DR-5, so I have no idea what to expect from them or Fomapan, but both seemed to be well recommended.</p>

<p>Thanks, fellas. I knew someone out there would know! I am a little troubled by the A-2 comment when using it on the AE-1. I've used them for a few years on various bodies, never minding the two outer extra pins, as it didn't seem to bother it. Now I'm wondering if I'm slowly ruining them! And thanks for the link regarding the winder equipment. I'm starting to think it might be easier and far more versitile to make up a standard cable release that is coupled to a solenoid plunger. I could then use it on other cameras.</p>

<p>I tried to search this forum under various headings, but I cannot seem to find the topic. I need to fire the shutter on a Canon AE-1 remotely, by electrical means. I cannot use a cable release by itself or other independant mechanical means, due to the tie-in with the rest of the controls on the field equipment. I considered installing a cable release, set the shutter speed, then interrupting the battery control circuit. After locking down the cable release in the firing position, I presume that I can initiate a firing by allowing the battery circuit to re-enegrize through the field control circuit. Film advance would be handled by Powerwinder A-2.<br>

If this is feasible, was there an attachment made for this situation that I could use?</p>

<p>I want to use a Norman 800, older style, by powering it up in the field. The owner's manual indicates a 15 amp draw at 120VAC, so that's 1,800 watts if I'm not mistaken. I'm hoping that it really doesn't draw that many amps, as a portable 12VDC inverter may top out at 1000 watts. This would require a generator to be brought along (ugh!). Question: Has anyone tried to power up one of these off an inverter, and if so I'd like to know the results. Alternatively, I'd like to know others' opinion of powering up one of these 'in the field'. Thanks! </p>

<p>As far as archival quality, we must be doing something right as the only slides that have lost thier richness and faded pink or other were not Kodachrome. Most everything else over 25 years old, Ektachrome included, (but certainly not as much), has had some color change. The slides are stored in viewing sheets, carousel trays or metal cases and all are kept inside. Much to my wife's annoyance, I've left good furnishings in the garage from time to time as I expand my film empire. Personally, I've never seen a faded Kodachrome slide, but I know that there MUST be some out there. I wouldn't doubt that one bit! I do have four slides that I found taken at March Field (USAF) in the late 1950's that are crazed from heat, probably, but they have good color.<br>

*<br>

As far as projection is concerned, getting a projector IS sage advice if you don't have one now- and they are cheap. I like the AMT's also, as they are great for dissolve shows, and the variable timer keeps the slide show moving at a gental rate. If I'm not mistaken, those fine machines were among the last Ektagraphic equipment made. They are also relatively easy to service and overhaul, too! Currently, I have several other Kodak projectors that probably WILL wind up in a bad place because as the previous poster mentioned, the cost to ship outweighs the time and effort. These are the older models from the 1960's and 70's. Yet, I like those because they were built like brick s***houses. I like the Golden Navitar optics, and use the 6-9 inch f 3,5 as well as the 70-125 f,2.8 sets for dissolve shows. For home projection, I use the Schneider Vario-Prolux MC 70-210 f 2,8 and the Kodak lenses that came with the AMT's, and they all seem to do just fine. Always a tragedy when good images are ruined by cheap lenses!!! <br>

*<br>

I find using the high-intensity lamp modules also help significantly, but I like to limit projection time for fear of heat and extreme light intensity may damage the slide. I used to have a really nice Da-Lite (sic) screen, but it finally yellowed and the new screens they make seem whiter, but not made with the crystal reflective coating that the old ones had that which I like. I'm not sure why they did that...?<br>

*<br>

For those of you who don't have a projector, like the man said, GET ONE...now! All of the equipment I use and mentioned above, sans the new da-lite screen, can be found at on-line auction sites for almost 'scrap weight' prices as fools rush to digital photography.<br>

*<br>

Finally, I included a roll of PKR in yesterday's order from B&H. I'm going to try it again!</p>

<p>Thanks, Robin. That does seem like a reasonable take on this. My 35mm system is Canon AE, more than 25 years old and still working great! The only old lenses I have are for my 4x5 systems. I've heard from others that the old glass does play some telltale magic with Kodachrome. Maybe I'll look around for an Argus C3!<br>

And<br>

Stephen's post at the end mentions the key reasons why I still shoot film on 25-to-50 year old cameras. Suppose I could afford several thousand dollars for a high-end digital projector. Would the support be there ten years from now, or am I just investing in very expensive planned obsolesence? Last year I had to buy a new laptop computer just to do my taxes, because the 2008 software would overwhelm my current computer and then I couldn't open up 2007's return because my new laptop did not feature a 3.5" disk drive!! I'll keep shooting film on cameras that have as little technology built into them as possible.</p>