christos_theofilogiannakos

<p>...and the Pentacon is a truly great lens (esp. in the bokeh department) only marginally inferior to the more expensive Pancolar.</p>

<p>Nice images. I too have a soft spot for the all-mechanical Prakticas, but the crappy viewfinder, I could never come to terms with (save perhaps for the MTL-50 which received an upgrade in that department and the VLC models with the interchangeable finders). Also the AA battery thing is a convenient solution, but I'm pretty sure that the lower voltage doesn't permit deflection of the needle across the whole range of the light meter, so it's good for showing correct exposure, but you can't over- or under-expose at will, at least based on the needle (you can always simply go up or down one or two stops by changing speed or aperture ignoring the meter).</p>

<p>It's quite hard to get a manual K-mount camera combining the solid build and smoothness of a K-1000, but you are right that prices have gone through the roof. Speaking from personal experience, I can wholeheartedly recomment the Chinon CM-4 / CM-4S (the latter sports a self-timer which the first one lacks). Small and light yet solidly built, great viewfinder, all-manual and fully mechanical with a vertical shutter which is more accurate, less prone to failure but a bit more noisy than the horizontal one on the K-1000. Also I find it very nice that the LED exposure indicators lie just beside the VF eyepiece which means you can check and adjust exposure BEFORE bringing the camera at eye level to compose or you can just shoot it from the hip at hyperfocal for some covert street shooting, esp. with a wide-angle lens. You can also find them rebranded as Revueflex SC2, sold in Germany and most other european markets.<br>

The KR-5 is an option as well as mentioned above, but I find the Chinon cameras smaller, smoother in operation with better viewfinders.<br>

Also, the Cosina CT-1 and its variants (there's even one with 1/2000s top speed) spring to mind and they too can be found rebranded as Petri GX-1 and possibly others as the chassis was used by many companies for their basic manual SLR models. People say good things about them but I haven't used one myself.<br>

In general, as far as K-mount cameras are concerned, the range of all-mechanical, manual, cheap alternatives to the K-1000 is rather limited, contrary to electronic ones which are as common as grains of sand in the desert.</p>

<p>@Jeff Adler: I wasn't aware a Konica TC-X existed, I looked it up and it seems like it's another Cosina CT-1 spin-off. It's not as good-looking, but it seems like a good alternative, esp. with the AAA-powered meter instead of the two 675 cells required for the TC.</p>

<p>@Anthony Oresteen: |I guess the TC is common (and cheap) enough to just get another one hoping it will work, instead of trying to get it fixed. Getting spare parts must also be a problem.</p>

<p>@Michael Howard: Thanks for the feedback, this makes total sense. Film advance resistance is noticeably increased when film is loaded, so increased tension is a plausible culprit. This is also supported by the fact that most missed shots occured in the beginning of the roll where tension is greater. It's a pity really, because the TC is almost the only affordable compact, fully mechanical Konica body to use the Hexanon 1.8/40 with. A T/T3 body negates the size/weight advantage of the lens and the T4 is just too expensive on the european eBay sites. Electronic Konicas (FC/FT/FS) are out of the question due to reliability issues, plus I have made a conscious decision to stick to mechanical cameras only. Funny thing is that although only 9 out of 36 frames got exposed in the first roll, I got 27 exposed frames on the second one. Perhaps I advanced the film more calmly the second time?. Anyway, off to get another TC body!</p>

<p>@Daniel Deary: I own dozens of SLRs, light came through the shutter just fine every single time, on every single speed from 1/8-1/1000, both in full manual and AE mode.<br>

@Matthew Currie: The mirror seemed like a possible culprit, but I could see the whole circle of light coming through the lens and the shutter every single time of the hundreds I tripped the shutter both in AE and Manual with the film door open. If the mirror failed to rise at all, I wouldn't be able to see any light coming through. If it rose only half-way, some of the shots would be cut in half or underexposed, but at least something would have registered on film. It is either perfectly exposed images or total blanks, nothing inbetween. For the second roll, I deliberately shot some pictures at 1/1000 and while a couple of them failed to register at all, most came out just fine...</p>

<p>Hi all!<br>

I recently shot my first roll with a Konica Autoreflex TC that I got off eBay mainly for the AR Hexanon 1.8/40 it came with. When I got the roll back from development, most of the shots (3 out of 4) were completely blank, as if the shutter didn't open at all. Successful shots were randomly spread throughout the roll and were perfectly exposed. Furthermore, the spacing seems correct, i.e. blank segments between good frames correspond to either single or multiple frames, as indicated by 8 sprocket holes per frame. The Autoreflex TC has a mechanical shutter and while shooting the roll, everything sounded OK, the relatively loud thud of the metallic curtains was there for every shot, without any audible difference from the previous or the next one. Frame counter worked OK and the rewind lever turned OK while advancing the film, The first and last shot registered OK and there were no exposure problems in the successful shots, nor did anything register on the blank frames (no bands, dark corners, half frames, etc) they are just completely blank. Here comes the spooky stuff: While dry testing the shutter in manual mode with the film door open both before and after shooting the roll in question, everything seems OK: I tripped the shutter on every single speed in manual mode for more than 50 times for each speed and it fired correctly every single time. I repeated the same with the lens in AE mode (shutter priority) and every single time the shutter opened correctly with the lens aperture varying as expected between shots, corresponding to what the needle showed in the viewfinder. I shot a second roll with it, taking care to shoot each photo both in AE and manual mode, and the same thing happened: Some shots are completely blank in random order, sometimes both AE and manual versions of the same shot registered OK, sometimes one is missing, sometimes both are missing. I'm really baffled by this, as was my camera repair guy when I described the problem to him on the phone. Any ideas? Is it possible that the presence of film somehow causes the shutter to fail randomly?</p>

<p>So I checked the negatives and the leaks are definitely coming from the front, as they all stop at the sprocket holes and do not extend beyond them. So I checked the interior of the shutter box for shiny parts or reflective surfaces and compared it with the same areas on my other (not leaking) mju II and everything is identical, even when the lens is extended (I did the trick of taking out the batteries at the right moment to keep it extended, as described on the link given above by Lex Jenkins). The only difference I observed is on a ring just behind the shutter leaves, it being solid in the non-leaking camera (red arrow) while it appears to have some identations (or is something completely missing?) in the leaking camera (green arrow). Also there is something there (encircled in yellow) which is absent from the "good" camera. I hoped the culprit would be easily identifiable and maybe corrected with some matte paint, but there's nothing abnormal upon close inspection compared to the non-leaking camera, apart from this ring inbetween the lens elements which is obviously out of reach.</p><div></div>

<p>@Lex Jenkins: This guy seems to have similar problems. The white color and the repetitive pattern at exactly the same place on each photo lead to some problem in the shutter box. I will try to check my camera for exposed shiny parts and I will try to cover them with black matte enamel paint, left over from my modelling days. The mju II has a good lens but I don't really like it, it handles like a wet bar of soap being so small, light and curvy. </p>

<p>Thanks, that makes sense. I don't have the negatives at hand right now, I will check them first thing tomorrow. If it was a problem with the shutter box, wouldn't it be present in all photos?</p>

<p>However, one or two pics came out alright: </p><div></div>

<p>Here's one more:</p><div></div>

<p>I'll try once more:</p><div></div>

<p>I know the mju II is not a manual camera, but it's a classic alright and I didn't know where to post this, so here it goes: I recently ran a roll of Fuji Superia 400 through a mju II that was given to me, only to find out that it produced terrible light leaks that look like this:<br /> Any idea on where the leaks may come from?</p>

<p>Ι personally have come to the conclusion that wide-angles produce much more interesting images when used for close-ups, so close-focusing ability is definitely an asset. 4 inches sounds too close though.</p>

<p>Anthony Oresteen: It's a freebie anyway and it also served to educate me on Soligor T-mount lenses, so I guess it was worth it. I already own and use a Flektogon 2.4/35 and a Super Takumar 3.5/35 and it's pretty likely this Soligor won't even come close to their performance (esp. the Tak). The lens I originally ordered (and got this one instead) is a 2.8/105 Soligor which has a good reputation and cost me very little. I just hope the seller keeps his word and send it at no extra charge. </p>

<p>OK, I managed to unscrew the tapered part and it turns out the lens is truly a T2 Soligor screw mount lens for which, as luck would have it, I already have a M42 adapter from an old Prinz Galaxy lens, so it looks like the little Soligor is good to go again! Thanks everyone for contributing!</p>

<p>OK, according to this site (http://rick_oleson.tripod.com/index-99.html) this is an Exakta mount adapter, so Dennis W. is right! Having solved that, it's quite obvious that either there's something missing between the lens proper and the adapter, or the three missing screws held it firmly in place, at the same time allowing fine tuning it's position on the camera so that the markings are visible from above (this seems unlikely, as it could be theoretically possible for the lens to simply fall off the camera if the screws got too loose). In any case, the condition of the screw holes makes it unlikely for new screws to fit.</p>

<p>John Shriver: Nothing else can be removed from the lens body, unless you use a lens spanner which will also remove the rear element. Something seems to be missing between the lens proper and the mount part, hence the electrical tape to keep the latter snugly into place. It's a pity cause it looks like a good lens and mechanically everything seems to work well despite its age.</p>

<p><img src="/bboard/www.flickr.com/photos/deafburglar/15847646810/" alt="" />Hi all!<br>

This weird Soligor lens arrived today in the mail by mistake (the wrong item was posted to me). I have no idea what mount it is and if it could be adapted for use on my M42 cameras. Some sort of adapter was snugly fitted at the back with the use of carefully placed electrical tape. The "adapter itself has three screw holes that are semi-destroyed. The lens itself seems to have preset aperture control. I don't know if the rear detachable part is really an adapter or just the rear part of the lens that has broken off. Without the electrical tape there, it is very loose when placed at the back, perhaps the missing screws held it firmly in place? The lens itself is strongly reminiscent of the Super Takumar 3.5/35 I have in M42 mount, both size- and design-wise. I have come to an arrangement with the seller to simply keep the lens for free, so I was wondering if it could be easily fixed or if I could just get another adapter for it. </p><div></div>

<p> I recently got hold of a near-mint Pentax SV body. Being a big Spotmatic fan, I was curious to see what its predecessor looked and felt like. I was quite impressed with the mechanical smoothness of the SV, although I found the focusing screen inferior to that of the Spotmatic. <br>

While playing with it, I encountered a strange occurrence: The mirror tends to remain stuck in the up position, esp. at 1/30 and 1/60s speeds. This happens every 5-6 out of 10 times the shutter fires at those speeds, it happens only occasionally at slower speeds and almost never at higher speeds. I know this is not uncommon for Spotmatics, in fact I have a SPII which has the same problem at 1/15s and lower, but it tends to correct with a little gun oil applied over the shutter gears under the base plate and it is not real problem since I never go below 1/30s. <br>

Now, what is REALLY strange is that this happens ONLY WHEN A LENS IS ATTACHED! When it happens, the tab that pushes the lens aperture pin stays in the forward position keeping the lens stopped down and preventing it from unmounting. Advancing the film and firing the shutter sometimes (but not always) lowers the mirror, otherwise turning the speed dial to another speed and firing is required. At first, I thought that the aperture pin of the lens might somehow go over the tab blocking its return and thus keeping the lens up, but the same thing happens (although less often) when a Helios 44-2 which is a preset lens without an aperture pin is attached to the camera. The lack of a pin allows that lens to be removed without problem and this sometimes (but not always) allows the mirror to fall back into place. Without a lens attached, everything works OK, no matter how many times the shutter fires at all speeds, the lens always returns to its position. Any ideas on what may be wrong and how to fix it? </p>

<p>OK, for what it's worth, I'm back with the results of the added light sealing of the film door and it seems like the leaks were really coming from the back, as there is nothing to be seen in this new set of pics. The pics I took before adding the black tape added at various locations are leak-free, so I guess everything is alright and there was really no need for the detective work!. What did the job i think, was the added material at the hinge area which was most likely causing the problem. Thanks everyone for their feedback, I hope this discussion will prove helpful for other fellow photogs!</p>

<p>Chris: It's a cloth shutter alright. God know why they insisted on those.<br>

Matthew: There was no extra padding between the shutter window and the take-up spool originally, but it would be a useful extra precaution...<br>

The original seals were in the body grooves AND the film door edges and after removing them, I only added a double layer of cotton string in the grooves and the usual felt pad at the door hinge, an arrangement which has proven very efficient so far. Now I have added a band of 2mm-thick foamy all around the door's edge, incl. the hinge area. I'll take some shots with this arrangement, then some more with black tape placed around the hinge, then around the latch end and finally all around the door. If it's the seals, it will show!</p>

<p>John Seaman, Rick Drawbridge: OK, this makes sense too... I reinforced the hinge seals and I am going to try it once more. I will also add the black tape as you suggested, but only after I've made a few shots to test adequacy of the extra sealing and I'll be back with the results.</p>

<p>Thanks for the input everybody! </p>

<p>Jochen Schrey: I had already thought about something similar, but it would be hard to keep the shutter open as the FR I has an electronic cable release and I don't have it. The hole in the body cap is a good idea (I have a C/Y body cap), I couldn't figure out how to get the lamp into the camera. However, as the extra sealing made no difference whatsoever, it is most likely that the shutter curtains are the culprits.<br>

Chris Garner, Charles Monday: I checked the curtain movement, it seems OK in lower speeds. What I noticed is that at higher speeds (1/125 and over, which is where the problem mainly appears) there is no discernible difference to the naked eye. I know it is hard to judge high shutter speeds without specialized equipment, but I can definitely tell the difference between 1/125 and 1/1000 in my Spotmatic and I definitely cannot do so in the FR I. The curtain hypothesis seems to be further supported by the fact that the leaks are stronger in those photos that I deliberately overexposed by choosing too high an aperture in Auto mode (i.e. the needle pointed at the red zone above 1/1000 in the viewfinder) allowing more light to get through. <br>

I had shutter capping issues with a mint Canon FTb last month and I am gradually becoming a disciple of the vertical metal shutter. It is noisier, it tends to vibrate more, my Spotmatics (favorite cameras) don't have it, but I have never come across a faulty one so far, which is something I cannot say about horizontal cloth shutters. I will have a talk with the local repair shop and if the cost is reasonable (I got the camera very cheap) I'll get it fixed because it is otherwise a really nice camera and the lens is great. If not, I'll just sell them separately, the body as "for parts or repair" on eBay.</p>