mwmcbroom

Kepler wrote for Modern Photography for decades, then after Pop Photo bought Modern, he wrote for Pop Photo for the rest of his life.

But I'm not buying his argument. Reason is because Canon did not change the body mount, so this didn't slow down 3rd party makers one iota. They just ignored the overly complicated New FD mount. As for why Canon went with it, I really do believe they wanted to make things simpler for the user. Many folks find they have to use both hands to mount a breechlock lens. And even if you're experienced and you use one hand, it does require some dexterity and practice if the lenses don't have that "mysterious" breech lock ring.. Whereas attaching an nFD lens is about as straightforward as attaching any other bayonet mount lens.

Here is this month's Coffee Break column. Fred Spira got an interesting request.

 

 

CB-1-sm-2

This one is hilarious!

I still think that one day somebody will come up with an entirely self-contained device that can be dropped into any 35mm SLR and which will be able to capture images that will be the equivalent to any images captured by current technology DSLRs. It's a matter of wanting to do it; it isn't a matter of any sort of tricky tech that needs to be overcome. The cartridge can have a small LCD readout to display pertinent information, a mini USB jack to charge onboard batteries, and a slot for a micro SD card to store images. Since the film pressure plate on SLRs is spring-loaded, there's room for a bit of thickness at the film plane. So the sensor (full frame, of course) is located on an extensible tongue -- one that can be locked in place at the proper location. Battery life will be okay since there is no display other than the small LCD one on the cartridge. But the cartridge could also contain a wireless function so that it could send images over a wireless connection, where they could be displayed on a smart phone or larger device. Or they could be sent directly to a wireless-ready printer. The cartridge would stay centered by both the pressure of the film pressure plate, and the spindle used to rewind the film. The module would have a few small switches -- on/off and up/down/enter switches to select from a small menu displayed in the LCD readout. For example, ISO can be selected via this method.

As for how it operates, this is one way I see it working. The sensor will be in an "always on" condition when the module is loaded in the camera. When the back is closed, the sensor picks up the total darkness condition and resets itself to "always on", waiting for another exposure. Once the next exposure is made, the digital module resets itself again to "always on", waiting for another exposure, and so on. The camera would be used just as if film were in it. For example, the camera's meter will be used to set the aperture and shutter speed. All the module needs is light. The self-timer and mirror lock up (if available) would be used just as if film were in the camera. What's nice -- even important -- about this arrangement, is that nothing needs to be done to the camera to make this work. One can pop out the digital module and immediately load a film cartridge and start shooting away with one's film of choice.

You know, you don't really need a TTL flash with a digital camera. TTL might speed things up somewhat but that's about it. Look, with any camera that has the capability to show you an image you just captured, you can use any flash with variable output -- or a thyristor for that matter. With a variable output flash set to manual mode, you just dial in the amount of flash you need for the task at hand. If the flash has a thyristor circuit, even better -- let the flash do the work. It'll shut down automatically once correct exposure has been reached.

I have a Sony NEX 7, which has that weird flash shoe that Minolta dreamed up for its Maxxum cameras. What were they thinking?!. I bought an adapter from Amazon for it -- made in China, but it works.. Anyway, my adapter slides right into place. It has a large dot where the main flash connection occurs, and four outlying dots, grouped in a rectangle below the large central dot. The arrangement looks like the pattern Canon uses for its TTL flashes, but I dunno, there might be some very slight differences in placement of the dots. Real world, though -- I have a couple of TTL Canon flashes and a couple of TTL Nikon flashes, all of which I can control the output, plus they all also have just a plain, old-style non-TTL auto mode. What I have done with all of them is set them to Manual mode, dial in the correct power level and then fire away. I can typically leave it in a given setting until the light changes in a significant way. In which case, all it takes is a couple of test fires to dial in the new setting. Of course, if I'm using a flash in its "Auto" mode, I don't even have to worry about adjustments as long as I stay within the "Auto" mode's working range.

Glad to read you got the lens unstuck. Sometimes they can get jammed pretty tightly. Awahlster is correct, to my knowledge. No aftermarket lens maker adopted the overly complex design of the New FD mount. Why should they, when the breechlock worked so well? And Awahster is also correct about Sigma. Their clever design with the little red button looked to function like a New FD lens, but it was just a disguised breechlock mount.

The lens should not affect the shutter, unless you have the T70 in one of the auto-exposure modes. Then, if the camera is in fairly dim surroundings, the camera may time out with a longer exposure.

Be sure to put fresh batteries in the camera. And you might want to visit Mike Butkus's site and d/l a pdf of you camera's manual. Be sure to shoot him a couple bucks for his troubles if you can spare it. Here's a link to the T70's opening page at Butikus's site:

Canon t70 instruction manual, user manual, PDF manual, free manuals

I have an FD camera facing me. You have two levers that affect the way the camera and lens operate. Actually, there are three, but I'm not gonna get into the third because it doesn't matter in this context. That lever on the right side that moves up and down is your full-aperture metering lever. It indexes with the lens to tell it how far to stop down during the moment the picture is taken. Along the bottom of the mount area is another lever. This is the important one. This is the lever that actually stops down the lens at the moment the picture is taken. When facing the camera, this lever moves from right to left. As it does so, it uncovers a red dot.

With my camera -- an FTb (I have an AE-1 downstairs in my camera cabinet although it should work the same) -- both levers move freely whether the camera is cocked or not. Only the bottom lever moves during the moment the picture is taken. It moves very rapidly from right to left and then back right again. But this is a manual camera. With the AE-1, the side lever may pre-position itself for proper exposure. I'm not sure. But the important thing is that neither lever is locked in place.

Since you have at least one lever that is locked in place on the camera, it is that mechanism that I would consider to be at fault. Good news is it's repairable. Bad news is the repairs will likely cost more than the camera is worth. I would consider a repair or replace strategy, and the possibility of purchasing another AE-1 through a reputable dealer that offers a warranty, or at least a return option. You might want to consider an upgrade to the AE-1 Program too. In addition to having a Program mode, which the AE-1 lacks, the AE-1P has user-interchangeable focusing screens and a motor drive option (Motor Drive MA), whereas the AE-1 has a fixed focusing screen and takes only the Winders A and A2.

I developed a basic fireworks technique from trial and error. Here's my recommendation:

Don't use mirror lock up. It isn't necessary

Do use a cable release and set your shutter speed to B

Do use a slow speed film. 100 ISO if you can find it. You'll want to shoot in color.

Set your lens to f/8 or so. Please recall, you'll be shooting light and trails of light, so even f/8 will allow for plenty of illumination, but it will also help keep the smoke from being too obvious.

This is important: When do you trip the shutter, you might be wondering? Well, you don't want to trip the shutter when you first see the explosion. Reason is you won't be recording the very moment of the explosion and the result will be a burst with a black empty area in the middle. The solution is to listen. You will hear a dull thump when the pyrotechnic is launched. Shortly after you hear this thump is when you open the shutter. A moment later, you'll see the burst -- you will have captured all of it. Leave the shutter open as long as you feel is necessary to record the burst as it fades away. When you get your images back, one of the things you might notice from recording your fireworks this way, is you'll see a faint glimmering trail leading up to the point where the burst occurs. Congrats, you've captured the pyrotechnic in its ascending phase. I think it adds a cool feature to the overall image of the fireworks burst.

Remember: Listen!

Finally, if your camera possesses multi-exposure capability, here's something to consider. Most fireworks shows I've been to have a "grand finale" where they light off a whole bunch of stuff, but not all at once. So, rather than just keep the shutter open for the finale, it's better to take multiple exposures during the event. It does get harder to hear the thumps, though, because of all the ambient noise.

I've been interested in this concept since 2001. There's nothing new about it. I even bought stock in a company which claimed it was working on a "digital film" project. Lost money, they spun off the concept to somebody else, who shelved the idea, and meanwhile the stock fell to about 10% of its value when I bought it. So yeah, this is a concept I've long believed in, but still nobody's come up with a working product you can actually buy. I've even made extensive drawings of how the "film canister" and "film leader" would have to work. Just need somebody to put it into practice. I recall, several years ago, running across a fellow from England who had built a unit that worked with a Minolta SLR he was using as his test bed. He had posted videos on the 'net, explaining his invention's performance. But I guess he wasn't able to gin up enough interest. Which mystifies me.

To me, it's always been a no-brainer that somebody would develop and bring to market a digital film device, what with the billions of 35mm SLRs in existence. There's certainly enough customers if it's developed right and priced right. Vapor ware? I dunno, maybe. But eventually it will be easily do-able.

I own three EFs and (touch wood) they all work! I've known for many years that the EF is the bane of camera techs and that most won't even work on them (was told this by a camera repair tech friend back in about 1990!). So I consider it to be all the more extraordinary that I have three that work.

The EF looks a lot like the original F-1, but that is largely where the similarities end. Even the self-timer/stop-down lever/mirror up module is different. They look almost the same, but the EF has a little button that must be depressed to get things working, whereas the old F-1 and FTb don't have the button.

I own a large collection of FD cameras and lenses and a smaller collection of EOS cameras and lenses. My only EOS film camera is an Elan IIe, a very nice camera that doesn't get any respect. A couple years ago, I sold a mint, almost unused Elan II on eBay at auction, opening bid of $9;95. That's what it sold for! I was stunned. And that's what really woke me up to just how low prices are for amateur orientated EOS cameras. And most other recent vintage electronic film cameras, except for the pro-oriented ones, which are still selling for, well, at least not peanuts.

On the FD side, for probably 35 years or so, I've preferred the older manual FD cameras, like the FTb and original F-1. I like the way these two cameras' meters operate and I prefer match-needle metering, which both have. Unlike most other FD cameras, when used manually, the meter responds to changes in both the aperture and shutter speeds (most FD Canons' meters respond to changes in shutter speeds only). The old F-1 and FTb also both use the NLA 1.35v mercury batteries, but thankfully the 1.4v 675 hearing aid batteries are an easy replacement -- and they are cheap. I can buy a card of 40 of them at Costco for less than $10. So what if a 675 may last for only 6 months or less? I usually drop in a new one before I head out on a new shoot if it's been a while since I last used the camera. It's also only fair to mention, I feel, that the New F-1 is a spectacular camera, even if it's missing the mirror lockup function that both the FTb and old F-1 have.

I can recall that, back in the 80s, users of Canon gear were somewhat regarded as second class citizens, since in the SLR world, Nikon was the undisputed champion. Funny how time has a way of leveling things, though, eh? I've always known that Canon had produced some brilliant glass and that it was at least the equivalent to Nikon in terms of image quality. These days, though, I shoot both Canon and Nikon manual focus and I regard them as equivalent, optically. Each system has its standouts: Canon's 85mm f/1.2 Asph and L and 55/50mm f/1.2 Asph and L, Nikon's 180mm f/2.8 ED, etc.It's all good.

These days I have several different systems that I use: in addition to Canon and Nikon, I also have Pentax, Minolta, and most recently Contax. Plus I have a good selection of Tamron SP lenses, most of which are superb optical performers, so no matter what system I'm using, I have a nice selection of lenses to use with it.

But looking over my collection in its entirety, I must say that newer electronic cameras are only a tiny fraction of the total. This was more or less a conscious move on my part -- mostly because of a perceived lack of durability of the newer gear. Take my Elan IIe for an example, or my Nikon N80. Both are fine cameras in terms of features and performance, but each weighs next to nothing because it's made almost entirely from plastic. This may not be a cause for concern because I've seen in many instances proof that modern plastics can take a huge amount of abuse and even resist it in ways that metals can't. But were these cameras made in such a fashion? I dunno and I have no interest in subjecting them to torture tests to find out.

Just a brief note: Dave is an uncommon repair guy in this day and age. Most repair people won't even touch the EF because the condition of its circuits can often be very brittle and damage can result just from poking about and gently moving the circuits around. Glad to read about Dave, though. I own three EFs and if I ever have a problem with one, I now know who to send it to.

Here's hoping the shiny one you get from Japan will be in good working order.

I have owned an EF since new (1974). About a dozen years ago I decided to use it since I had gotten away from photography for a few years other than family snapshots. I discovered that the electronic shutter speeds (two seconds to thirty seconds) no longer worked. The shutter would open and stay opened. After fooling with it for 15 or 20 minutes, could get it to close. The mechanical speeds (one second to 1/1000th) appeared to work. Honestly, I can not remember if I noticed if the meter was responding. I sent it to, I think ACR, and after evaluating it, they told me the CPU had failed and was no longer available. I had them replace the seals, clean it out a bit and return it to me. I have two other Canons - an FTb bought new (1972) and a perfect AE1 Program I inherited. I had both re-sealed and CLA'd. So I am not out of business. I put the EF in my display case with my small collection of non-user cameras and went on to use the others. But, damn, I miss using the EF and, recently, I got it back out. I have read about people who have them and I have not read of anyone having similar problems. And most seem to have bought them used. I know I can use it manually. The question is has anyone had this problem with his or her EF?

This is actually a very common problem with the EF. It is indicative of electronics failure. I currently own three EFs, one of which is dead electronically. The typical symptoms are no slow shutter speeds and a non-working meter. I've known for over 20 years about the rather delicate nature of the EF's electronics. The flex circuits apparently get brittle over time and the camera itself is apparently very difficult to work on -- this from a camera repair tech friend of mine. He also told me that most repair techs won't even touch an EF -- because they're afraid they'll break something if they open one up, I suppose.

Yes, it is still a good, usable camera with shutter speeds ranging from 1/2 sec to 1/1000, plus B. Just use a hand-held meter or the Sunny f/16 Rule. Having the 1/125 flash sync and mirror lock-up are also useful features that make it worth keeping in one's camera rotation.

Why bother? The EF automatically adjusts voltage and works great with 1.5 volt 625A alkalines....

I have probably a hundred or more 675s and no 625s. That's why. May as well use what I got.

I've been primarily a 35mm shooter since I got into photography in a serious way back in the early 1980s. But shortly after, I got the urge to try my hand with the larger negative. So, being on a limited budget, my first medium format camera was a Yashica Mat 124G, which I bought new back in 1985. I was quite impressed with the format from my very first roll (of Tri-X). And ever since I've tried to keep one sort of medium format camera or another in my possession. Currently, I have the best assortment I've ever owned. Several years ago, when medium format gear prices were at their nadir, I was looking for a 6x6 system outfit. Couldn't really afford Hassy, even though back then you could get into a basic Hassy outfit for pretty cheap -- it was still more than I could afford. I was hoping to find an affordable Bronica SQ system. Well, as I was looking around, I fell into a deal on a Bronica ETRSi system for dirt cheap. I had mixed feelings about 645, but this outfit was so cheap, I couldn't resist. So I went for it. Well, perhaps not much to my surprise, the ETRSi handled things brilliantly. Outstanding image quality, plus I had the advantage of owning a true system camera. And I put together a basic setup for it, including three lenses, a few backs, a grip with film advance, and even a SCA300 adapter for my Metz 45 flash, providing me with TTL flash exposure.

I've used my ETRSi for a variety of tasks, from bridal portraiture to photographing a Civil War reenactment. Slides, C-41, B&W -- it handles all very well.

My other MF cameras are another Yashica Mat -- a plain 124 this time. A Zeiss Super Ikonta BX with the late Syncrho Compur shutter and coated lens, and an Agfa Isolette III. Oh, and I bought for cheap a Russian knock-off of the Super Ikonta C -- a Moskva 5. They all do a great job, but my favorite of the lot of old cameras is the Super Ikonta. I love the Super Ikonta B.

I don't have access to a darkroom anymore, so I run a "hybrid" setup. I develop my film in a tank, but then I dupe the slides and negs with my digital camera -- for 35mm. For MF I use my Epson 4990 scanner, scanning the images at 2400 ppi, which gives very nice images. For prints, I take the digital files down to Costco and have them print them out on their giant Epson printer. It does a very good job.

Frankly, I don't care how supposedly great digital cameras are. I just like the look and the warmth I get with film, and MF provides me with both the quality and flexibility that can't be easily achieved with anything else.

As a general rule, the aperture blades are closer to the rear of a lens than they are to the front. So I usually "attack" from the rear. You'll need the correct tools for this process, chief among them in this case being a good lens spanner. The rear element or element group should have a slotted retainer ring holding it in place. Use the spanner to loosen and remove this ring. From that point, it's just a matter of removing the next element or group until you get to the iris. What I will often do is clean the iris in situ. I use a good solvent to remove the oil from the blades. Alcohol is often a good way to go. I carefully apply it with clean cotton swabs. Often it takes several applications of the solvent before all the oil has been removed. If you use alcohol, keep in mind that the alcohol you buy from the drug store often has a significant amount of water in the mix. The label will usually state what the alcohol percentage is. Obviously, the less water the better. When you apply this solvent to the blades, you'll see how the alcohol evaporates faster than the water, often leaving behind some amount of water on the blades. You want to be sure to remove this water with one of your swabs. The iris should be bone dry when you're done. When cleaning an iris this way, usually the element in front of the iris gets smudged, so it will need to be carefully and completely cleaned with lens cleaning fluid before reassembling the elements or groups.

Obviously, this is just one way to do things. If you want to strip down the lens completely, that will involve a much bigger process, where you'll have to deal with disconnecting the focusing helical as well as removing the collar and sleeves as required. Usually this will also involve removing tiny grub screws, which can often be easily damaged -- or lost if you're not careful. Just pay attention to the way things come apart, and if you're disconnecting the helical, it helps to mark the parts so that you know at which position they go back together so that infinity is preserved.

Good luck!

Before switching to digital that was one of my favorite bodies and IMO the best Minolta ever made.

Yep!

Just to clarify here, Matthew is referring to the MC full-aperture metering tab. The MD tab is an additional tab that engages a switch at about the 10 o'clock position (facing the camera) on cameras that support MD. The MD tab and switch were introduced with the XD-11 (US, XD-7 or XD elsewhere) to support Shutter priority automation, and later Program control with the X-700.

Matthew, I agree with Rick's analysis. The tabs on your lenses were positioned where they are to provide correct exposure information during full aperture metering. Different full-aperture values for different lenses will have tabs positioned in different places. It's easy enough to evaluate whether you've got different metered values with different lenses. Choose an evenly, well lit, but blank subject area (the sky, a wall, green grass, etc.) and observe the exposure reading you get with each lens. They should all agree. If they do, but you've determined that indeed your exposure is off with a given lens, then, as Rick mentions, look to the lens's iris especially to make sure it's opening and closing properly. That is the most likely culprit. Another possibility, but one I feel is much less likely, is that the levers on the rear of the lens are not engaging properly with the tabs inside the camera mount. I'm not as familiar with Minolta as I am with other systems, but I have had times with my Canons where a breechlock lens wasn't mounted properly and the result was the tabs and levers were not properly engaged. The solution in this case is simple: dismount and carefully remount the lens. Do Minoltas ever suffer from this problem? I dunno, but I doubt it.

It's been a long time since I've had the bottom plate off an A-1, but if memory serves, the electromagnets are right there in plain view when you remove the back, so they're easy to get to, at least. I've never tried this repair, however, so I don't know what all's involved.

The foam pad(s) used to cushion the mirror from bouncing may cause some stickiness after the mirror has flipped up, but the shutter should fire normally as soon as the mirror has risen. So if this isn't happening, it's something else. Perhaps the electromagnets, as you've mentioned.