carl_williams

<p>Genuine branded batteries in the UK tend to be excessively priced. For myself, I have no qualms about using honest aftermarket replacements. Like many, I work in electronics and am well aware that manufacturer's "genuine" batteries tend to be outsourced to variety of manufacturers in different countries, typically including Malaysia and China. The chances seem good that in many cases, the aftermarket batteries are the same units without the branding, or minor variations on the manufacturer's design. Typically, they use higher capacity cells, probably because of a shorter time-to-market and later starting point.</p>

<p>With the Chinese made stuff, I'm guessing that at least some of the counterfeit packs will be, in effect, genuine Nikon items, sold out of the back door of the factory which had been making the real deal, or knockoffs made from the same specs and with the same branding passed along from someone who was approached by Nikon to make a test batch or two. I'd be suspicious of the intent of someone selling packs from china labelled "made in Japan", but I'd not be surprised to find batches of batteries which differ in, and only in having dodgy faked holograms.</p>

<p>As I see it, an aftermarket vendor with its own branding, which isn't trying to increase the value of its product with bogus "genuine" branding, is in most cases probably going to be shipping decent enough batteries. I've had few problems with aftermarket unbranded LiIon batteries, though LiIon cells can and will catch fire or explode if abused, and non-existant or substandard internal charging/control circuitry can certainly lead to this.</p>

<p>I've used unbranded aftermarket batteries for all the DSLRs I've used, without problems or damage to the cameras, chargers or myself. I did get some very cheap aftermarket batteries for a Nikon Coolpix compact which turned out to be crap (hopeless at retaining charge) but they still didn't catch fire.</p>

<p>As DSLRs don't charge the batteries in-camera, I doubt there's too much risk to the camera itself even should you get an exploding one, though to be sure, exploding in the charger on your living room carpet is bad enough. </p>

<p>To judge from Nikon's own battery recalls, from exploding Dell laptops etc., "genuine original" doesn't necessarily guarantee the safety of a battery, although obviously a manufacturer is far more likely to compensate you if one of their branded batteries catches fire.</p>

<p>Not sure where you'd stand if a dealer has swapped a genuine for a counterfeit, though, as it appears may have happened. The dealer might themselves have been merely naive about their own sourcing. Kind of hard to tell. Counterfeit stuff is, IMO, much more problematic than unbranded/off-brand, because it sets out with unscrupulous intent from the get-go.</p>

<p>In heavy-ish use, a D200 seems to eat batteries at a fierce rate, and I figure for a day's shooting out of range of any charging arrangements, you're looking at three or four batteries minimum. At Nikon genuine prices in the UK, this gets well into "silly".</p>

<p>Jessops list EN-EL3e at 56 UK pounds ($92 USD). The aftermarket replacements I've bought, which make no pretence of being Nikon, work fine and which last longer than the by now slightly tired genuine one which came with the camera, cost about fifteen UK pounds (about $25 USD). Since the camera body was under 500 UK pounds s/h (in mint condition with a factory refurb warranty) and I'm not so well-off as to not care, I'm not about to spend a further 200 quid on a set of batteries which will need replacing after a few hundred cycles whether they're branded Nikon or not.</p>

<p>Early-adopters with much more disposable income and much lighter shooting requirements may differ considerably, and I fully accept that for them, the genuine batteries are the way to go. People in the US who only have to pay 38 bucks for genuine EN-EL3e replacements likewise, I can understand completely why they're not willing to take any sort of chance for the sake of saving ten bucks - if the price difference in the UK was the same, I would feel the same way. </p>

<p> </p>

Answering my own post above (bad form, I know) - found the equipment listing. Under "my

portfolio", where it probably was before, thinking about it - s'been a long time, as I said...

 

Still, re: numbers on cameras, I agree with everything the idiot who couldn't find the my

equipment" section said :-)

Just looked back on here after a LONG absence (during which time my photography has

improved somewhat, I *must* update my pix :-) ) and this thread caught my eye, mostly

'cos I was looking for the "my equipment" section, where I'd painstakingly recorded my

bodies and lenses with their serial numbers. I only ever had one item stolen, a lovely

50mm f/1.4, but I'd foolishly neglected to record the serial number. Don't expect I'd have

got it back *anyway* but at least I could have logged it stolen on some websites, and

hoped.

 

However, the section seems to have gone? At least I can't find it... Most annoying!

 

Re: engravings/markings on gear, I too think it adds to the "history" of a camera, if not

done in too ugly or horrible a way. As many have said, cameras are to be used, not kept

pristine in glass cases. A mint unused collected camera is a wasted camera, as far as I'm

concerned, unless it winds up in my camera bag after a disinterested relative of its

deceased owner has flogged it at a boot sale for a fiver. I don't think I've ever brought

myself to *sell* a camera, all mine are *used*. Very used, in some cases. Got a lovely

Nikon FM2 with memories attached to every dent, it still works a treat.

 

I wouldn't engrave my SS number on a camera, out of a very modern concern about

identity theft, but I wouldn't ridicule those who had - some of the attitudes on here are

astonishing! "This guy engraved his SS number on his cameras and he was a druggie and a

failure" "He'd devalued the only thing of value he had" - get a life, people! There's a world

out there, y'know, where folk USE cameras, for work, for politics, for art. Who the hell are

you to pass judgement on someone else's life? These things are highly subjective. GWB,

say, isn't a "failure" by some measures, far from it, but in my estimation he's spent his life

thus far vastly more destructively than the average dopehead, and I'd certainly be less

disposed to give him the time of day, or p*** on him if he were on fire. Say.

 

One person's "druggie failure" is another's wage-slave binge-drinking stockbroker with

massive personal fortune and, in photographic usefulness terms, a cabinet full of Leicas

which have never seen a film.

 

Loved the comment that the "de-valuing" effect of a scratched on name "depends on the

name", hehehe!

 

But where's my list of serial numbers?! Waah!<div></div>

I have a K10D, and you're right, it has no aperture ring position coupling, I guess the coupling was expensive and everyone else was doing aperture-ring-less lenses. The Pentax MZ (ZM in the US I think) series have the same absence. If your lens has an 'A' setting it will work just as recent lenses on the K10D, though, except you won't get auto-focus. You will get image stabilisation.

 

I bought my K10D mostly so I could use my collection of Pentax KA, KFA, K and M42 mount lenses to shoot digital, since I've found myself taking film cameras out less and less, and my partner's D70 more and more.

 

A 50mm/1.4 or 1.7 makes a gorgeous potrait lens on the K10D (and other cameras with the 1.5x magnification). There's nothing at all lacking with the Pentax standard lenses (unless they've been dropped, scratched, filled with dust etc) when used on a digital body, though 10m pixels in that kind of area do show up cheaper lenses somewhat, and digital sensors are inherently less forgiving of some lenses with very divergent lightpaths, the sensor sites don't like having light hit them at too much of an angle, it causes colour fringing and so on.

 

The K10D works, within the limitations of the lack of an aperture ring position sense, pretty much as well as can be expected with retty much any lens you put on it:

 

Obviously, the "for digital" series which come with the bodies,

everything works;

 

With AF lenses designed for the MZ series cameras, everything

works, as far as I can tell. There might be issues with zooms

and matrix metering, and perhaps some esoteric lenses, not sure;

 

With KA lenses, having the 'A' setting, on 'A' everything works,

though you may have to tell the camera what the focal length is

(when you mount the lens) if you want the shake reduction.

 

With K lenses, you can shoot stopped-down aperture priority - set

the body to aperture priority and briefly press the green button,

the camera stops the lens down, meters and sets the shutter speed.

You can switch to manual and use the shutter speed metered as above,

or you can meter wide open in manual mode and mentally shift the shutter speed from that metered wide open to one which suits the taking aperture. (This is a whole lot better than the Nikon D70,

where I've got used to doing without a meter at all because Nikon gratuitously disable all metering with old lenses.);

 

With M42 lenses (in a K mount adapter), if they've got an

auto/manual stop-down switch then you can just meter wide

open, calculate the shutter speed and then stop down manually

before shooting, or meter at the stopped-down aperture. With

no auto/manual switch you'll be limited to shooting wide open

unless you can find an adapter which depresses the stop-down

button on the back of the lens (full-time - I very much doubt

there are adapters which try to couple the K mount stop-down

mech with the M42 one).

 

With older lenses, you might notice them struggling to match the

sensor's resolving power, especially cheap aftermarket ones, and

espeially zooms. But many of the "classic" Pentax lenses, even

the screw mount ones, are solid performers and will turn in

excellent results on the K10D.

 

The K100D, at 6M pixels and 225 quid body only in the UK last time I looked, an absolute bargain - if you can't quite justify the K10D then I doubt the K100D will disappoint. It should be a bit better in low light (bigger pixels) and a bit less demanding of lenses (bigger pixels...) but is reputed to give extremely good results. 6M pixels isn't as much of a "downgrade" from 10M as you might think, in terms of image quality, though certain other aspects of the camera are built down to a price (fiddlier controls, pentamirror instead of pentaprism.)

 

The viewfinder of the K10D is bigger-looking then D70/D100/EOS350 and many other DSLRs with the same sensor size. That said, it's smaller than my MZ5-N by a fair margin, and I thought the MZ5-N was disappointing in that respect after the SuperA, let alone the LX or Nikon FM2, FE2 etc. Modern times dictate cramped viewing, it seems. Makes it easier for spectacle wearers to see the edges though, and in the K10D, the focusing screen is interchangeable, a welcome throwback to "proper" cameras that Pentax and most reviewers have been surprisingly quiet about.

 

If you like the whole "film" look and feel, then no current DSLR is going to give you the same thrill as a roll of Velvia in a beautifully built pro 35mm camera. However, if you find you take few photos 'cos of the cost and hassle of buying and developing film, and when you do the photos languish un-loved except for the few that you actually get around to scanning, then a DSLR will set you free to shoot photos to your heart's content...

I haven't noticed any difference in meter accuracy using silver oxide (SR44) or alkaline (LR44) button cells, or the 3v lithium cell - I think they all work fine. The voltage changes with use anyway, and you get a display warning when it's too low. LR44s don't last as long and don't like the cold very much, but I get them for about 10 pence (UK) each, so I mostly use them. If I'm going somewhere cold I treat it to some SR44s.

 

The alkalines seem to last a few months regardless, even if you leave the camera switched on a lot, ditto in my LX. A Nikon FM2 with a dodgy motor drive which doesn't power off the meter was a bit of a culture shock after the Pentaxes - the batteries will go flat in that in under a day if it's left on, so I've taken to carrying spares now.

 

'course, the SuperA actually *needs* batteries to operate the shutter, while the FM2 & LX don't, but I don't think flat batteries have stopped me taking a single picture in over 20 years with a SuperA. The same definitely can't be said of the MZ5n, which is very well behaved if well-fed but a royal pain when stuck in *cold* *expensive* German towns without spare CR2s - twenty six euros for a pair, mutter, grumble.

If it happens with all lenses, most likely the mirror isn't returning to the correct position because the thing it rests on has moved, either that or the camera's had some sort of knock which has dislodged the viewfinder optics in some way. I've dropped my SuperA (UK Super Program) several times onto very hard surfaces from cringe-inducing heights. The last time this happened (owing to monumental carelessness and having lent the strap to someone else...) it landed on the pentaprism housing and cracked it, and even that didn't alter the focus, whereas Pentax mirror rests and other bits of rubber in pentaxes are notorious for compressing (and getting sticky) with age. So my money's on the mirror rest. It's a simple(ish) thing to adjust but if the rubber's getting sticky, the mirror will get more and more reluctant to return, eventually sticking to the point where it will jam after every shot - there are other elastic bits in the mirror mechanism which deteriorate at the same rate.

Further to this, I've been using the FM2n with an MD12 motor on it

for a while since my initial problem with the shutter, running

flawlessly. Then I showed it to a friend, who took the drive off

and cocked the camera manually. Once again the shutter stuck at

the 3mm (it is about 3mm, the other posters are right, my memory

was faulty...) point, as per the above message(s). I released it

using the highly not recommended fingernail-on-shutter-blind-hinge

technique and watched my friend do the same again - he didn't have

his finger on the release. Played with it a bit. Winding on slowly,

it jammed 50% of the time. Winding on fast or with the motor, it

didn't jam. A clue...

 

Took the bottom off the camera and identified the long flat bit

which gets pulled across by a cam on the advance spindle. With

the camera upside-down, peering into the bottom, this part is

pretty obvious. You have to remove the motor drive coupling plate,

which also provides the cam action to move said long flat bit,

and the pawl described by other posters which provides the

wind-on lock between exposures, and a screw which goes through

a slot in the long flat bit. Lift out the long flat bit, and

attached to the other side of it is a short pin which pokes

deeper into the camera. This pin cocks the shutter, and on mine

it was loose and worn. I think the motor drives give this part

a pretty hard time. Advancing at speed, there's enough inertia

to fully cock the shutter. At low speed, it sometimes doesn't

quite latch properly. Anyway, the pin's threaded into the long

flat bit, I think - mine seemed to be - and after I cleaned it and

appllied a tiny smidgen of loctite, a tweak with a pair of pliars

tightened it up and moved the worn side of the pin around out of

the way of the roller it acts on. Re-assembled it all and the camera

has been fine since, I can wind on as slowly as I like and it

properly cocks the shutter every time.

 

Just thought this might help someone out there!

I'm new to Nikons, but I just bought a well-used FM2N for a friend

and I had this problem a few times when beginning to use the camera,

never since. I watched it happen with the back open: The shutter cocks,

the second curtain reaches the bottom and then fails to lock down,

springing back to the position a few mm from the top of the film gate

(about 8mm in my case). Then, firing the shutter drops the first curtain, the second one stays where it is and the thing is then out of sync, with the mirror locked up and, worryingly, a gap onto the film

which would be a real swine if you didn't realise and tried to rewind a film after such a jam.

 

Camera technicians and those of a delicate disposition can look the

other way for my descrition of how I persuaded the thing to re-sync, which I *DO NOT* recommend, and which in any case wouldn't be much help with a film in - I just *gently* pressed the second blind back down and released it using a non-greasy, non-sharp object and taking

considerable care to avoid applying pressure in any wrong directions 'cos these things are extremely delicate, etc. Anyway, I got away with it, two or three times, and the camera's worked flawlessly since. I would strongly recommend the remove-the-bottom-plate approach cited above instead of my own risky procedure, though.

 

This particular sort of jam seems oft-mentioned with FM2s and I

suspect it might account for some of the "failed shutter" problems.

The shutter on mine had been replaced before I had it, so I don't

think it's likely to be worn out.

 

Either it happens 'cos some bit which latches the shutter blade

down is sticky with non-use (mine had sat idle for 6 months) or

it happens when you wind on and accidentally catch the shutter

release at the same time, or perhaps both. Either way, having freed

it and used it a bit, the problem hasn't recurred on mine.

 

Just an extra data point, disclaimers apply, especially about

touching the shutter blades - they're pretty tough consdering they're

microscopically thin, but extremely delicate nonetheless and I really

wouldn't advise poking at them.

I agree with JS, insofar as I, too, think criticism of the status quo is healthy and necessary. And I appreciate what Christopher Lovenguth is saying re: art vs. technique, art vs. craft I suppose, but have to point out, through sheer devilment if nothing else, the circularity in his assertion that artists are primarily interested in content, and photographers in technique. As he says himself: "... I think that most people here are trying to be artist and just don't have the foundation to do that." - this surely is the point: you need to speak the language to say anything meaningful. For artists, that means you need to have a grounding in what has gone before, a knowledge of the symbolism which is understood by (a) other artists and (b) the society in which you expect your art to work, which, if you are honest, includes your fellow artists and critics. If you don't speak the language, no-one can understand. If you want to invent new language, you need to start off with an understanding of current language, or at least some sort of common ground with your audience.

 

I would venture that, for me, without wishing to put any noses out of joint, that art which is only meaningful to artists of a particular school is always going to be irrelevant to the majority (though it may prove very important eventually), and it's evident that some artists derive satisfaction from the exclusivity of their work (which is perfectly fine, of course.)

 

So it is with photography - there are basic assumptions people have about photographs, and it's fine to challenge those assumptions but, to be taken seriously by photographers and those who hold the assumptions, you need to speak the language. In photographic terms that generally means a certain mastery of technique, and in that it differs little from art - it's all so much more credible to the lay person if there's some evidence of technical ability (or draftsmanship). As with painting or poetry or music, there's always

the risk of an inspired and competent artist being dismissed as merely

unskilled by an audience who don't understand the message, if the artist chooses to throw convention to the wind and produce work which

may be seen as technically careless or un-accomplished. An artist may choose to narrow his or her audience this way but, having thus chosen, there's no point at all in whining that people don't "get it". If an artist wants people to "get it" then that artist has to speak their language, or at least take the trouble to teach them a new language.

 

Artists, of all people, should understand that symbolism is an unavoidably pervasive and essential aspect of human thought. A lot of this symbolism goes unexamined. Perspective, for example: that way of representing depth in a flat image is artifice, but it's ingrained, accepted, widely-understood artifice (and it's informed by photography, lately.)

 

Painting down the years has embraced many conventions, as has music, as has poetry, and all ground- and rule- breakers tend to be seen in their own time as merely not very good, except possibly by a pretentious few who are dead scared that they might reveal their ignorance if they say "what the hell is *that*?", and a vanishingly small number of people who happen to be on the same wavelength as the artist, assuming the artist isn't just cynically exploiting the dead-scared people.

 

Getting back to photos, I would say that there are photos on photo.net which challenge stuffy and restrictive conventions about what a photo should be like, and which *do* work, for a reasonable sized audience - obviously they're still going to attract censure from those (larger number of people) with a checklist of "good photo" qualities and for who the image has no immediate impact, but that's always going to be the case. I agree that it's a shame if the rating system reduces the audience for such pictures.

Hi - I've searched the web (and photonet forums) for info on this, but

drawn a blank (more or less).

 

My question is whether anyone can point me to pinout and/or circuit

diagrams for the dedicated TTL flash systems on Pentax (Super-A (Super

Program), MZ5N (Z5N)) and Minolta Dynax (Maxxum) cameras (The Minoltas

with the funny inside-out hotshoes).

 

I just bought, very cheap, a Cobra 440AF dedicated to the Minolta

Dynax system - Dixons were desperate to get rid of it because they

consider the Dynax obsolte, so I bought it for GBP 7.90 figuring that

I could just use it as a reasonably powerful dumb remote slave with an

optical slave sensor, if nothing else. My cameras are Pentax...

 

Does anyone know, or know where to find

out, what pin does what on the peculiar Minolta hotshoe, and likewise

on the Pentax Super-A and the later MZ5N shoes. The SuperA has a TTL

flash sensor and the MZ5N does TTL flash metering with the same Pentax

flashguns as the SuperA, but with extra features like flash-selectable

trailing curtain sync (the superA might do this too, for all I know,

I've long since lost its manual having bought it new in around

1980...)

 

I'm not a total novice with electronics, and I've found a circuit

diagram for a Pentax LX dedicated flashgun so I have some ideas,

but (a) the LX's TTL flash system isn't as capable as the MZ (or the

Minolta) and (b) the circuits I have offer no clues about hotshoe

pin-out, only a kind of extension lead plug (the flash in

question is intended for underwater set-ups).

 

As Cobra offer the 440AF dedicated only to Nikon, Canon or Minolta

(according to its manual) I'm guessing that the way the quench circuit

operates is different on Pentaxes, or perhaps it's just that the

camera uses different means to control the AF illuminator and standby

wake-up etc etc. I don't need the AF illuminator, especially for the

non-AF bodies :-).

 

I don't mind building some kind of adapter circuit

and using the flash off-camera, and I don't mind taking the flash

itself to pieces and attempting to work out which contact does what in

its Minolta hotshoe, but I can't easily do the same with the Pentax.

 

Although I have had the SuperA apart to fix a broken spring (the only

fault in 20 years' use!) the flash dedication signalling must be

fairly subtle on the MZ5N, and I don't think I have the time, patience

or ability to reverse-engineer it. Any Pentax engineers out there? (He

asks, with pitiful optimism...)

 

Cheers,

 

Carl Williams

Just to add that I agree with Phillipe, too, re: rating from the top pages, and to add a complaint about the disabling of "browse by date" (and all the others), which further emphasises the bias towards the pictures on the top pages. How long is "temporarily" in this context?

 

If I'm in a mood to go through a load of photos, it's nice to be able to see what's been uploaded recently, rather than to rely seeing a percentage of what the editors choose to put in the critique queue. Many excellent photos seem not to surface at all.

 

Someone earlier suggested a quota per unit time, and I think that's a better idea than the overall quota.

<P>

I've just returned to photo.net after a break, and find the reduced range of ratings a bit pointless, to be honest. I suppose an odd

number of steps gives a "middle" rating, but it might as well be 1-9

or 1-99. The ratings are only really meaningful if taken in context,

or so it seems to me. That is, taken with reference to the way a

person tends to rate, their preferences, the relative qualities of

similar photos by the same photographer and so on.

</P>

<P>

I don't tend to rate photos that I don't like,

whereas some people only rate photos they don't like, some rate everything. The ratings are pretty much random, except when taken in context.

</P><P>

If a photo of mine is rated, I usually go and look at the rater's

profile. This tends to be the way I find most interesting photos, and

I'm aware that my photos are most-seen in response to my rating

others, which is about the only reason (for me) to rate at all when the rating

is so nearly "thumbs up" vs. "thumbs down". It hardly breaks my heart

if someone vindictively low-rates one of my pictures. It's pretty

obvious when checking back that someone with an average rating history

of around 1, nothing but negative comments and no photos of their own

is best ignored, and I really can't understand why people

get worked up about such folk. (Admittedly, the "rankings" are of absolutely no interest to me whatsoever, and never have been.) If anything reflects the popularity of a particular picture, I think it's the number of times viewed, but that's also subject to the vaguries of chance, the preferences of the "critique" list selectors, and, dare I mention, how much the photographer is willing to pay.

</p>

<p>

In light of the above, I tend to see the ratings as a kind of

shorthand for "I noticed your picture, would be interested

to take a look at mine?". I think the comments system is far better

for that in principle, except for a couple of small problems. The worst problem with comments, IMO, is

that there's still no way to delete comments which have been

orphaned by the photographer having removed their picture, nor do such

comments seem to vanish by themselves (I just tried). <i>[2]</i> </p>

<p>

The orphaned comment syndrome is only going to get worse now there

are quotas <i>[1]</i> and now that various photographers are withdrawing

all their images, for whatever reasons. I can see the reason for quotas, and why they may well be unavoidable, but I'd rather they

weren't necessary (and having to put a cap on the number of images

on pnet seems to weaken the site, to me - albeit probably unavoidably.)

</p>

<p>Aside from the orphaned comment thing, the quotas and the crude rating range, I can't say overall that I think photo.net has gone <i>entirely</i> down the tubes :-). There are things I don't like, but then there always

will be. I can understand people getting annoyed when things aren't as they'd like, though. All the while it's a free service, folk have "only" invested time and effort uploading their pictures (though that

investment might still be considerable, albeit with an implicit understanding that it's at their own risk) but among paying subscribers I would expect to see a more militant and ungrateful attitude towards changes with which they disagree and towards any extra restrictions like quotas.

</p>

<p>

Notwithstanding this caution against gratuitous change, I guess my wish-list for photonet at the moment includes:

<ul>

<li>that the comment mechanism be fixed to prevent orphan comments (ideally a link to the delete

URL from the logged-in user's list of their own comments)

<li>that the comments have a link to the photo and the photographer

<li>that the user's workspacce include a list of recently rated, as well as recently commented-on photos.

<li>that someone donates enough hard disc to get the quotas lifted :-)

</ul>

</p>

<p>Finally: I think I've worked out what POW is <i>for</i> - I suspect that it's a honeypot for the mean-spirited who like to vent their spleen. It keeps them busy away from the rest of the site, and as such should be maintained at

all costs :-)

</p>

<br><br><br>

 

 

<i>[1]</i> and I had to look mighty hard to find what the quota

<b>is</b> - 100 images, if anyone's still wondering.

<br><br>

<i>[2]</i>

nor do orphaned comments provide a link to the commented-on photographer, which can be very frustrating if you know that the deleted photo has been re-uploaded after a bit of re-touching, say, but can't remember who uploaded it. The work-around is to comment, click on "edit comment" straight away and bookmark the "edit comment" page just in case you need to delete it. (Or whine to the already overstretched

maintainers... :-) Perhaps a benefit is that it does give prospective critics pause to consider.

 

Hi Brian - that idea (delete the comments with the 'photo) sounds

fine to me, and has the virtue of simplicity.

<P>

I think it'd be very difficult to try to re-attach to a

new instance of the same 'photo (though perhaps it'd be handy to

have an option when

a photo is deleted to maintain an HTML placekeeper for the list

of comments, if extensive, which could link to related work, e.g. the

photo re-posted after applying suggestions etc?)

<P>

The other idea,

of having a "delete" link with the comment itself (only for the

owner, obviously) would, however, have the advantage of leaving

comments which may be part of some loose wider dialogue, or which

provide some kind of insight into the mood and attitude of the

commentator. And a link to the commented-on photographer would be

a handy luxury...

<P>

Regards,<P>

Carl Williams

Hi - I now have several "orphan" comments on photodb photos in

my list, and there doesn't appear to be any way to remove these.

<P>

When a contributer moves (re-submits?), disables viewing of or

deletes a photo, anyone who has commented on the photo is left

with comments which point to a "this photo has gone" page. Like this:

<A HREF="http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=778456">a

comented-on photo</A>

<P>

Since the "delete this comment" link is on the photo page, not in

the commenting contributer's list, the comment becomes un-removeable

yet at the same time irrelevant and frustrating for other users,

who may be following comment links to find photos. In at least

one case with my own comments, the photo has just been re-submitted

with the same name but a different ID, and it was only by chance that

I followed another photographer's comment link to the new location.

<p>

How about a "delete this comment" link within the comment list itself?

Also, how about a link to the commented-on photographer, as well as

the photograph, as people often re-submit the same picture after

re-scanning, touching up, whatever, and it's nice to be able to go

back to a comment and see what it refers to, and/or check out any new

work by a contributer whose photos one has commented on before.

<p>

A minor niggle, perhaps, but my guess is that the increasing number of

broken comment links will start to erode the usefulness of checking

out a contributer's list of comments, something I find generally very

helpful at the moment.

<p>

Any thoughts?

<P>

Cheers,

<P>

      Carl Williams

Dunno if there's anybody out there, but I think I have this sussed

now (see other post in reply to someone else) and I'll try to put

together a "how to fix it" page. Sometime...

 

<p>

 

Cheers,

 

<p>

 

Carl

Hi -

 

<p>

 

This sounds like the sort of Canon A1 meter problem I've seen a

few times - the film speed dial fails to make a difference and the

camera "thinks" it's on ISO 6 permanently. The fix, in my limited

experience, appears to be simple but very fiddly, so depending on

how brave you're feeling you can dismantle the camera and fix it

yourself or get someone to service it, which should sort it. A "CLA"

(clean, lube, align) type service is probably a Good Thing, so I

guess I'd have to recommend that.

 

<p>

 

Any attempt to fix it yourself is obviously strictly at your own

risk, whereas a dealer will be honour bound to replace it if

they screw it up.

 

<p>

 

That said, being no stranger to the innards of intricate gizmos, I

had a crack at fixing one with the same syptoms and found that the

problem was improper contact between the flexible circuit boards and

the film speed dial's circuit board. There a a *lot* of parts in a

Canon A1, and plenty of dis-assembly pitfalls to beware of; one

ball bearing to lose, part of the shutter release easily mislaid,

delicate flash sync socket wire to unsolder and re-solder, etc.

 

<p>

 

The actual problem seems to be that the contacts between flexible

and rigid boards are made by a small cover plate applying pressure

via a rectangular rubber block about 2mm in section. There are three

of these types of connections on that board, and they're all suspect,

but the one which causes the most mayhem if it's not properly

connected is the most tricky one to access/clean. I have one in

bits at the moment, and plan to take some digital snaps and try

to slap together a page showing how to fix it, but don't hold your

breath 'cos I'm *very* snowed-under. It's *not* a fix for the

feint-hearted. Don't poke about in there without electrostatic

precautions, either.

 

<p>

 

HTH

 

<p>

 

Carl

Hi folks,

I've got a problem with a Canon A1 meter: the meter appears

to work fine but for the fact that it remains convinced that it has

the minimum film speed set, regardless of position of film speed dial.

 

<p>

 

I've cured a similar problem once before by (very carefully)

cleaning the contacts between the flexible circuit boards (yes,

this involves removing the top cover and a fair few other bits)

and re-assembling, but no luck this time.

 

<p>

 

(The camera was dropped in a river about ten years back, but

immediately completely serviced, cleaned etc. by Canon. When

the meter started playing up a few years later, I went looking

for contacts that may have oxidised slightly.)

 

<p>

 

Anyone else had an A-1 meter with this problem? Anyone got one

who wants to know the fix, if I manage to fix it?

 

<p>

 

I've noticed that there's a chip on a flexible circuit board

underneath the film speed dial assy. which has the PC socket sync

lead passing perilously close to it, given the voltages sometimes

seen on the sync sockets - anyone know if that chip has anything to

do with the film speed switch? Or can anyone point me to on-line

resources like circuit diagrams etc.? I guess I could write to Canon,

they may still have a few "antique" enthusiasts on their staff :-)

 

<p>

 

This camera belongs to a friend of mine, and I haven't seen it for

a while. I'd forgotten what '80s cameras were like. I can see why

they don't make 'em like that any more (cost) but I wish they did -

we thought of the A1 and cheap and plasticky at the time, but it's

like the proverbial brick outhouse alongside modern AF jobs, at least

in the "amateur" price bracket.

 

<p>

 

Cheers,

 

<p>

 

Carl