mwmcbroom

I have a Data Back A around here somewhere that I'd be willing to give the OP -- you pay postage. But as I recall, it's totally obsolete. With the year wheel, I've seen them with two digit years ending from 88 to 95. I don't recall offhand where mine ends. Still, you'd have to get really creative with the limited number of additional characters it has in order to cobble up some sort of date system: Roman numerals I through X, lower case letters a through g, and numerals 1 through 9. It's beyond me how one would come up with a symbol that would be recognized as"19" (for this year, of course).

The AE-1, AE-1 Program, and A-1 do have manual modes. It's just that the meter does not react to the lens aperture ring when it's rotated, which is an annoyance, but not an insurmountable one. Let's assume we're shooting outdoors for this example (indoors will probably require a flash and you'll probably want to use a dedicated one for that). Set the shutter speed to an appropriate value, e.g., faster than 1/60, then take a look at the meter readout in the viewfinder and see what aperture the meter is recommending for the photo. Then set the aperture ring to that value, recompose and shoot. You should have a photo that is properly exposed. Provided, of course, there is nothing unusual about the lighting in the frame, which can throw the meter off.

I just thought of some other stuff. One reason why I do like the F3 is its metering pattern. It's 80/20, compared to Nikon's tried and true 60/40. I think the reason for the tighter pattern is so that slide shooters would get more accurate exposures. Specifically when shooting in Aperture priority. I can recall at an event deciding to take a gamble and set my F3 on "A". The camera was loaded with ISO 100 slide film. I was very curious about how many shots would come out incorrectly exposed. Well, I was very surprised when I got my slides back. Not a single one was improperly exposed. I was impressed. So much so that pretty much from that day forward, I began to use my F3 in "A" mode at outdoor events. The FE/FE2/FM/FM2/FM3a all use Nikon's 60/40 pattern, which, while very good, is not as precise as the F3's 80/20 pattern. I've never even handled an FM3a -- just read about it in the forums. It sounds to me like an FE2 with a mechanical shutter. Yes? I prefer the FE and FE2 over most all Nikons. I like the match-needle metering they provide and they just feel good in my hand. Maybe I'll like the FM3a even more -- once its prices have come down to Earth. Although I'll admit, the F3 feels better. Too bad its meter readout sucks so bad. Another thing is motor drives. The MD4 for the F3 is really hard to beat. These days they can be found for very reasonable prices. To me, an F3 isn't complete unless it has an MD4. I feel almost the same way about the FE/FE2/FM/FM2/ -- and the FM3a? I know all the others take the MD12, but I dunno if the FM3a does as well. But about the MD12 -- it's a cute little unit that adds a bit of ergo comfort to the above cameras and provides a snappy 3.5 frames per second of wind-on capability. MD12s can be had for very reasonable prices these days.

I like the F3 well enough, except for its squinty readout. But I've always been a fan of match-needle metering, so I find I still prefer the FE and FE2 -- and the old Nikon EL2 -- for their easy to use match-needle meter displays. Yes, they may not be as easy to use in dim light, but I've usually got a dedicated flash mounted in that case, and it's taken over the metering. The only other concern is focus, and if worse comes to worst, I can use the lens's hyperfocal settings to insure proper focus.

I just took a look at several FD lenses, both the older breechlock style and the newer New FD style. Only one lens looks like its actuation lever might be machined. The others look like they were made from steel pieces that were pressed and cut into shape. What this tells me is that, if you have a bent lever, it should be able to be straightened without much difficulty. Still and all, I'd have an expert do the straightening -- again, somebody like Ken Oikawa. Also, of the FD lenses I've dismantled, it seems like each one has its own unique design to its aperture and positioning levers, so I wouldn't expect a whole lot of interchangeability there. But that may be due to the fact that the FD lenses I've dismantled have tended to vary considerably in focal length. So, sure, I could be wrong -- wouldn't surprise me if I was. Like with a 24/28 and a 28/2.8 and perhaps even a 35/2.8 -- all these lenses are so close in size, and have the same maximum aperture value, that it seems they might share the same actuating and positioning mechanisms.

Yes, but of course, there is the matter of taste as well. Especially with beer. For instance, I've grown weary of all the IPAs out there these days. I really don't care that much for IPAs. I much rather like the darker ales -- even the stouts and porters. So to each his own. And in many ways the same can be said about lens preferences. I thought it somewhat interesting your choice of lenses for a shoot out. A few years ago, I found a Yashica DS 50/1.7 and a Helios 44-2 (58mm f/2) at a pawn shop. I think I paid $10 for the pair. Both are in very clean condition with unmarked glass. And I decided to do a shoot-out with these two lenses. My results were that the Yashica was the clear winner. In fact, I would have to conclude that the Yashica is probably one of the sharpest normal lenses I own. I own several f/1.8s and f/1.7s in various brands and several f/1.4s in various brands -- Canon SSC, Nikon (pre-AI, AI and AIs), Pentax (M42 Super Tak and SMCT, and K-mount), and Minolta MD. All are great lenses, but I must admit that my favorite is my Canon 50/1.4 SSC. I also own a Canon FL 55mm f/1.2 and an FD 55mm f/1.2 SSC. They are the same optical formula, the coatings being the primary difference. I've found that these lenses actually are capable of very good resolution even when shooting with them wide open. But I also found that a fair amount of discipline must be employed when shooting with these lenses at f/1.2. When shooting at closer subjects, where depth of field is more critical, I discovered I had to be cogniscent of my body movement. The slightest movement fore and aft, for example, would be enough to throw the subject out of focus. I found that this sort of movement affected shots with these fast lenses more than any blur caused by slow shutter speeds.

Richard, you mention your preference for two wheels and that your preferred digital doesn't exist. Actually, I think it does. It's called the Nikon Df, and it is definitely a throwback in terms of controls. It's even a full-frame camera, but it's a bit "slow" in the megapixel department with only 16. But still, 16mp is plenty good enough with a full frame image. If you use AF lenses prior to the G-series, you'll have AF and and aperture ring. Go here to read more about it: Nikon Df | Classic Nikon DSLR with Modern Features Inside I own an F4 and it's my opinion that its AF basically sucks -- at least for moving subjects that are moving at any significant speed. But it's the only AF film camera I have any experience with that still has dials and switches instead of push-buttons and LCDs. In spite of its heft, its a comfortable camera to hold, and for that reason, I rather enjoy shooting with it. Just not at airshows with the AF engaged, though.

I'm glad I ran across this thread. I have an Isolette with the same problem and now I know how to fix it -- finally! Thanks for all the responses!

Agreed, but it must be pointed out that WD-40 is not an oil. It isn't really even a lubricant. "WD" stands for 'water displacement' and 40 is the 40th formula that was tried before the designers hit upon the success they were after, namely being able to satisfactorily displace water from a mechanism. Lubrication was never more than an additional feature, and wasn't considered by the manufacturer to be the chief reason for using the substance. For camera repair, there is a "household oil" that is suitable -- but only in very small doses -- sewing machine oil. It is very light, but has good lubricity. I would not use it on lenses, however. For lenses, there are lubes made especially for the helicals. But I would caution that one only try relubing helicals if one knows the ins and outs of lens construction. If this is something you want to learn, then try your skills out first on a cheap "throwaway" lens like an old 50/1.8 that essentially has no value. That is certainly not the case with an FD 300/2.8 Fluorite, however. Even though I've repaired many lenses, if that lens were mine, I would be most hesitant about trying to do this repair. I'd much prefer trusting the repair with a qualified professional. Someone like Ken Oikawa comes to mind.

It's the focusing screen, not the viewfinder. Most "normal" focusing screens are optimized for f/1.8-f/2, but will still work OK with f/1.4. So a focusing screen that's been optimized for the slower apertures won't respond to the faster apertures simply because of its design. I have a Canon AE-1 Program with a plain matte screen that is a real struggle when trying to focus using my Canon 55mm f/1.2 SSC. Objects are no brighter and it's very difficult to tell when an item is precisely in focus. My Canon F-1's plain matte screen was obviously designed to handle f/1.2 speeds, since I can focus without issues with it when using one of my fast Canon lenses. I realize that doesn't specifically address the brightness issue, but I thought I'd just point out that the focusing screen used can have an effect on photography, depending on the screen being used.

I find myself agreeing with Rodeo Joe. I've used a bunch of different 50mm lenses over the past 35 years or so. But I guess if I had to pick one, it would be a Leica screw mount 50mm f/3.5 collapsible Elmar. It is the sharpest lens -- with great contrast -- that I've ever come across.

I bought my first 35/2.5 FL back in 1984 and found it to be exceptionally sharp with outstanding contrast and great edge detail. It became my favorite 35mm lens. I've never owned one of the special concave 35/2s so I'm not able to make a direct comparison. Nonetheless, I've always been impressed with its image quality. Here are a couple of examples I shot with it, both of which are 35mm slides that I duped with a rig I cobbled together that consists of a NEX 7 and a Nikon 55/2.8 AIs Micro-Nikkor. Dead tree, Canon FTb, Canon 35mm f/2.5 FL, Kodachrome 64 http://michaelmcbroom.com/images/dead_tree_kern_river_2a.jpg Palos Verdes overlook Canon FTb, Canon 35mm f/2.5 FL, Kodachrome 64 http://michaelmcbroom.com/images/paloverdes1.jpg

I've owned the nFD 200/2.8 IF off and on since 1985 and one of the first things I discovered about it, when shooting slides, was that it had very pronounced CA. I ruined several slides shooting with it after I first bought the lens. After that, I learned what I could and couldn't shoot with it and it became a much more usable lens. These days one can get rid of most, if not all, of the CA in post, so it isn't nearly the problem it used to be. I switched systems from Canon FD to Nikon for a while (these days I have both systems) and after becoming a Nikon user, I sold all my Canon gear and soon thereafter, I bought a Nikon AIs 180mm f/2.8 ED. It is a superior lens to the Canon 200/2.8, both in terms of sharpness and CA control, thanks to that ED glass. I have found a good substitute for the Nikon ED 180, and that is the Tamron SP 80-200/2.8 LD. At 200mm, its performance is virtually identical to that of the 180 ED Nikkor. Having wrote all that, though, I still couldn't help myself, so a couple years ago, I re-acquired the Canon nFD 200/2.8 IF. I missed it is the only reason I can give for buying another copy of it.

Just a quick recommendation, based on experience. I can be a bit fumble-fingered at times. So I've found that it's always a good idea to do the disassembly over a towel or some sort of cloth. This prevents the little screws and any other small parts -- like the little detent ball -- from bouncing off the table and then disappearing into an alternate dimension. Questions: is this kit specific to nFD lenses? What about breechlocks? I have an old FL lens I'd like to convert to EOS mount - a 55mm f/1.2. Does Ed make kits for the old FL lenses, or might the breechlock specific kits work?

Ah, but was the meter engaged at either of those settings? I don't remember anymore. I had an ME for a while many years ago and just didn't care for it since I couldn't set shutter speeds.

When I was still a neophyte at photography, I bought a Canon IVSb rangefinder and realized that I needed a meter, not feeling confident with my skills at estimating exposure. So I bought a tiny little Sekonic that got the job done. There are other very small meters that are quite good, like the cool old Zeiss Ikophot. What I'm getting at is they take up essentially no room, thus are easy to transport. Now, as for range focusing, I've always had good luck with it because I pay attention to a lens's hyperfocal scale, and I use it. When outdoors, if my subject is distant enough, I'll typically set the lens to f/8 and set the far 8 at infinity, then just ensure that the near 8 is closer than the subject. This has always worked well for me.

I'll say. Like no manual mode at all. Had to get the ME Super if you wanted that.

This subject invariably results in a host of very capable rangefinders being suggested. Of those mentioned, I can concur with the Oly XA, the Minolta 7Sii, and especially the Canon QL17 GIII, my favorite of the three. But there's another camera that I feel should be mentioned. It doesn't have the flexibility of the others (range focusing only and a limited sort of aperture-priority mode, but usually it's program only), but it is a great picture-taker and is very easy to use. Plus, it doesn't need batteries! I'm talking about the Oly Trip 35, which can often be obtained for a very cheap price. I own one (along with an XA and a QL17 and a few others), and I'm really quite fond of mine. Olympus Trip 35 with some very expired Plus-X Pan http://michaelmcbroom.com/images/olytrip35_bigdog1.jpg http://michaelmcbroom.com/images/olytrip35_carlot1.jpg

I have a couple of FD to EOS adapters. The first one I bought was a fairly cheap one, a Bower, but the second one wasn't. It's a Fotodiox and I paid a premium for it because it was specifically advertised to deal with problems others exhibit. But it ended up being only slightly better than the Bower. Here's the problem when using these adapters. They produce a huge amount of flare at apertures wider than about f/2.8. So a normal f/1.4 or f/1.8 lens is useless unless stopped down a couple or three stops. Once the lens is stopped down to about f/2.8 -- or if it's a slower lens to begin with -- then this flare problem is minimized. Actually, once the lens has been stopped down sufficiently, these adapters work ok. Image degradation becomes almost insignificant. But I consider the lack of usability at wider apertures with these devices to be a fatal flaw. One other thing to keep in mind about these adapters is they are actually mild teleconverters. They operate as about a 1.2x or 1.25x teleconverter. Which got me to thinking. Why not convert a 1.4x or 1.5x TC from FD to EOS? These TCs don't have this flare problem and the difference between 1.25x and 1.4x or 1.5x isn't all that much. The Canon 1.4x-A TC won't work because of a protruding element. I looked long and hard for an FD TC of the proper type on eBay and finally found a Vivitar 1.5x TC. I planned to convert it to EOS, but never did. By the time I finally found a 1.5x FD TC, I had bought a Sony NEX 7, and once I had it, I bought an FD adapter and lost the reasons for doing the conversion.

Since you're already familiar with the FT, I'd strongly recommend the FTb (or the later update, the FTbn). Once you adapt to its "new" features, you'll feel right at home. Best of all, you can still find clean examples of the FTb for very reasonable prices. Next, I'd recommend you pick up a copy of the original F-1 (I prefer the F-1n, the update which came out in about 1976). The reason why I recommend the F-1 is because, since by this time you'll be familiar with the FTb, the F-1's layout will be second nature to you. All the controls are in the same place. But unlike the FTb, the F-1 is a system camera and Canon made a lot of accessories for it, many of which can still be found at places like eBay. The New F-1 is an excellent camera, but quite different from the original. I like the New F-1 a lot, but I still prefer the original. First, to me, it's just more comfortable than the New model, second, it's all mechanical, whereas the New F-1 requires a battery for all shutter speeds, and third, the original has mirror lock-up, same as the FTb, a feature the New F-1 lacks. And finally, I still prefer the metering method Canon employed with both the FTb and original F-1, where metering occurs only within a rectangle you see inside the viewfinder. This sort of arrangement allows me to maneuver the camera about where I can take sample readings of a scene before settling on best exposure. With the New F-1, you can get close to this, but you have to buy a focusing screen for it that supports partial metering. Chances are likely the focusing screen that comes with a New F-1 will be more of the centerweighted type, which to me has always been problematic because I've always shot slide film. Sometimes exposure situations occur that slide film can't handle because of its narrow exposure latitude, and these situations can occur much easier with centerweighted metering. With partial, or selective area metering, this sort of thing is much easier to control. If you're really eager for a strong dose of automation, then yes, the T90 is the way to go. It's a great camera -- just make sure you get a copy that works properly. Some are beginning to develop electronics issues now. The T90 is best used in one of the auto exposure modes. Its manual mode is not as good as even the FTb's is. This is because, like all A-series Canons (except for the AT-1), the aperture shown in the camera is that which the camera things should be used, not the aperture that is actually selected. So this requires that the user look away from the viewfinder and move the aperture ring to the setting the camera's meter is recommending. I've just never cared for this arrangement. Canon finally wised up with the EOS line -- even the cheapest Rebel has a decent manual exposure mode.

I've owned a few N80s with this problem. I still own one. To get rid of the stickiness, I dusted my hands lightly with talcum powder, and then just "handled" the camera all over. It got rid of the stickiness -- permanently.

I always enjoyed photography, ever since I was a kid, but I always had miserable cameras. When I was a kid, it was a Kodak Brownie -- a Starmite, I think. Then a brace of 110 cameras that reached all the way through my 20s. I finally bought my first real camera when I as 29 -- a Canon AE-1. This was the camera that propelled me into my future as a photographer. Within a year, I'd bought an A-1. Less than a year after that, I bought my first FTb, which was the camera that really opened me up to photography. And then less than a year after that, I bought my first Canon F-1 -- a first generation original model. And it's been downhill ever since. ;)

Yep, the 531, aka the Super Ikonta A, is hard to beat for a small camera that delivers with a BIG negative (6x4.5), especially one of the late ones, like bonsignore_ezio's, as shown above, with the Synchro Compur shutter and coated lens. Another range of cuties are the Konica Pearl 645 cameras. The early ones are priced fairly reasonably, but the late models go for big bucks -- often more than a clean Super Ikonta A. One of my favorite 35mm folders -- or a range of them actually -- are the Kodak Retina IIc and IIIc/IIIC cameras. Beautiful build quality with excellent optics.

It may not be retro enough for you, but it's really hard to beat the Olympus XA. Just a solid, great little rangefinder.

I had to do a few minor repairs to my Mat 124 (like the G, but all metal) after I bought it. I found some of Rick Oleson's exploded drawings helpful. You can find an example here: Basic TLR Repair Notes Also, I googled "Yashica Mat repair" and got a lot of hits on how-to, including several YouTube videos. You might want to check these out.