cameracravings

Greetings. My 5-year-old Canon EF L USM 24-125mm f/4 II has loose front element -- it has has a lot of play. I am wondering if anybody repaired this lens before and can give me an advice.

So I thought some screws must be loose inside, i thought if I opened the lens and tightened the screws the wobbliness of front element wod go away. So I did -- stripped the lens down to telwcsopic barrell and found all screws to be tight.

I am thinking now that maybe the 3 guides for zoom barrel P/N - YF2-2027-000 are worn out causing front elelement loose? I am trying to figure out that this might be the case before buying these guides at $12 apiece on ebay.

Any suggestions will be most welcomed!

My Pentax Spotmatic with Super-Multicoated Takumar 50 1.4 and 2 filters attached ND4 + Circular Polarizer produced this strange light leak 2 times in a single roll and I was wondering about the reason for this. Did anybody seen a leak like this? Maybe this is mirror doing something? Thanks!

Hi, when you say you overhauled the camera, what else did you do? The majority of Spotmatics I've run across these days tend to need a CLA, with shutter capping being a fairly common issue. Dried grease or lack of lubrication could cause uneven shutter travel.

Hi Dave, I completely tore down my Spotmatic, took out curtains, cleaned and re-lubed drum shafts, pinion shafts, cleaned all mechanisms, mirror cage and re-lubed everything that needs to be lubed.

I agree with you, I have seen it, when there is grease on selector gears or on curtain pinions the same shutter speed would be all over the place.

Hi need some help. Has anybody seen on Spotmatic, SPII or SP F a straight or a diagonal underexposed band running by the edge of the negative that is on the side of speed selector (where curtains begin to travel)? This only happens at 1/1000. Please check my photos attached. Apart from that one underexposed band the rest of the negative exposed evenly.

I am wondering what may this be? It is clear that one of the curtains does something at the beginning of its travel.

I recently overhauled this Spotmatic and I deliberately overlapped curtains bymore than 1 bar (let's say 1 and a half bar) in an attempt to get fastest shutter speeds p erform closer to spec.

Thanks for all suggestions!

Alex

I just looked at K1000 on ebay. Pentax K1000 SLR Camera w/ Pentax-M 50mm f/2 Lens 27075045002 | eBay

Rewind knob, shutter speed dial and the cover for frame counter look identical to Spotmatic. Even though advance crank looks different I bet it would mount just the same on Spotmatic

Thanks Hunter! I just calibrated the rangefinder. Everything checks up at 15ft, 10ft, 5ft and infinity. The screw you described actually has to do with adjusting the distance dial itself. It does not calibrate the split field (or maybe it does a little). Cam follower as seen in the photo below with adjustment screw in it calibrates the rangefinder itself.

So thanks again! I am off to respooling 120 film!

I recall the process for aligning the rangefinder on my Medalist I.

 

You are going to need a piece of ground glass to go in the film plane with a cutout in the corner to access the rangefinder cam adjustment screw which is in the upper right interior of the camera. The camera was set up at 15 feet with a easily focus-able flat object in the viewfinder at this distance. The focus is adjusted on the helical until the image is then in focus on the ground glass. Then, this screw is adjusted until the top and bottom images converge in the rangefinder.

 

The final part was to align the distance scale to be accurate, which on the Medalist I requires turning it about 450 degrees to put some spring tension on the coil spring that powers the dial and then to replace the viewfinder assembly. One of the changes on the Medalist II was that the distance scale does not come off with the viewfinder assembly, so you may need to consult the manual for that specific procedure.

I've just had a look at my Medalist 1 and there's certainly never been any kind of light seals in the grooves or on the door itself. I guess the Mark 2 is the same. Many cameras of that era depended on the depth of the grooves and on close tolerances giving a tight fit between door and body. Some cameras used a black yarn, it was much later that foam seals entered the scene.

Thanks John, I appreciate your input. Will leave my Metalist as is. I actually prefer yarn over foam because over time foam will become either sticky or dry stiff. Thanks again!

Yes, the prism sits as orientated in the last image near the middle red star. It would be glued onto the L shaped bracket (with the 3 screw holes) and together are designated as the "Coincidence Prism Assembly - 94048 (Medalist II, late model)

Thanks Rick! I need to calibrate rangefinder now. Can you look at the repair manual and suggest how I am to approach this job? Thanks! Alecs

Thanks guys! Really appreciate help! I kinda figured it out. Since I realized the camera was in a complete disarray, jammed in all possible places, etc. The only good it has is the looks. So I tore it down for a big restoration job. Now it's clicking and ticking all cleaned up and lubricated. This was my first experience restoring Medalist, and I am very happy how easy it is to work on this camera.

One more thing. I need to calibrate rangefinder, it is completely off. Can anybody give me pages or info from repair manual concerning rangefinder adjustment? Thanks a lot!

Hello, I need help figuring out the position of one of the prisms in Kodak Medalist II rangefinder. I just bought this camera in good shape visually but totally non-functional. Rangefinder window was dark. I opened rangefinder and realized that one of the prisms was loose inside rangefinder housing. I found the photo suggesting the location of the prism in question, but I cannot be sure 100% how it is supposed to be positioned and affixed. Can someone shed the light please? thank you!

It isn't that unusual for the mirror to sit unevenly in the up position. The Hasselblad myth is that they fell from the heavens as a completely ingenious flawless design, the Hasselblad reality is they contain a few questionable functional elements that are not nearly as refined as other aspects of the camera. The mirror geometry being the most obvious: it works and has proven reliable over the decades, but is notably cruder than many other aspects of the body mechanics. Vignetting wasn't the only reason Hasselblad eventually re-designed their mirror system.

 

Your focusing issue is not something you'll be able to repair as a DIY project. Hasselblads are not DIY amenable, period: you wouldn't be the first photographer to discover this system will kill you with unexpected service costs (prices of bodies and lenses collapsed with the onset of digital, but required servicing became less available and ever more expensive). If you did not drop the camera or experience some other impact before the focus just suddenly drifted, the most likely cause is deterioration of the three foam pads sandwiched between the mirror and the metal plate it rides on. These pads function as both shock absorbers and positioning devices: depending on climate, after ten-fifteen-twenty years these pads rot into dust or goo, which throws the mirror viewing angle out of spec. The focusing error manifests most noticeably in the middle-close distance range (at least in my experience with a failed 500cm and 500elm). Replacing these pads will solve the problem, but requires fairly deep disassembly to get to them at a typical service fee of approx $200.

 

I chose to replace my 500elm rather than have it repaired, since I could easily find a mint condition 500elx body (with improved mirror design) for about the same cost as the repair. My 500cm was serviced, because prices on manual wind replacement bodies have soared beyond all reason in the last couple years. Any random second-hand 500cm costs close to double the service fee, with no guarantee it won't soon need the same repair. Manual-wind Hasselblads with the improved mirror are priced in the stratosphere: you can't touch a 501cm or 503cw these days. Your best bet would be to contact factory-trained repair tech David Odess and see what he thinks: he is very cordial and helpful in making service decisions.

Hi thanks for your input! Unfortunately I don't like the way 500elx looks although it seems it has new mirror system, so I will need to fix my 500cm :) Do you know more about three foam pads between the mirror and its housing? Do you know the thickness? Thanks!

When I removed focusing screen I noticed that the mirror in the up position has uneven spacing on the sides. While on the left side (top picture) the space is even, on the right side (bottom picture) I notice that the space is wider towards the back and narrower towards the front of the camera. And I guess mirror damper is shot too!

I can't think of anything which would affect the flange to film plane distance, other than dropping the camera and bending the lens mount. That would not happen without your knowledge.

 

In terms of conventional focusing, the length of the optical path is paramount, and can only be measured with special fixtures. It is more likely that this distance has changed, either by wear on the mirror linkages and stops, or by the focusing screen. Make sure that the focusing screen is not upside down. The grid marks, prism, etc, would be facing the lens, not the eye. If the mirror position is off, there will be a shift in focus between the top and bottom of the screen. A newspaper taped to the wall and careful leveling (paralleling) would provide an easy test setup.

 

Another problem is focusing on the correct plane of the screen. Acute-Matte screens are too transparent for accurate confusing, in order to be as bright as possible. Make sure your eye is focused precisely on the screen grid or other features, If you relax your eye, there is a tendency to focus through the screen on a virtual image, which will result in rear-focus from correct plane.

Thanks Ed I will try your suggestions! Don't remember dropping my camera. It's been sitting in my closet for 5 years though -- can't remember too well what happened 5 years ago. The screen is placed correctly prism facing the lens. Now, I have a question about your comments on focusing -- Ok so when I am focusing I should make sure I am mentally aware of the visible properties of the focusing screen such as the grid etc and make sure I am factoring them in when focusing? Thanks

Hi I just joined the forum in hopes that someone really can help me with advice so that I can put my Hasselbad 500c/m back in service :smile: My Hassy was taking perfect, sharp photos and then one day something happened and it started taking very out-of-focus photos. I don't have the 'Hasselblad' tools and I don't have the money to service it. So I have to do it myself using regular tools that I have. If I fail the first time, I will just keep coming at it.

Some time ago I had to put away my Hasselblad 500c/m until I can afford to repair it because it developed focus problem. The last roll of film I shot was out of focus pretty bad. Today I tried to evaluate the scope of the problem. I mounted Polaroid back and used ground glass pressed against picture plane of the Polaroid back and a magnifier glass to compare focus through waist-level finder vs. through the lens. For this used 50mm f/4, 80mm f/2.8 and 150mm f/4 Zeiss lenses.

While all lenses showed good focus at infinity (except for 80mm which came up short) they all performed differently at the close distance of approximately 1.5-1.7 meters. 150mm showed the least discrepancy, and the 50mm showed the most discrepancy. Photos show my blue marker markings labeled 'W' for the viewfinder and 'L' for through-the-lens. Please note that my markings have no relation to the distance scale of the lenses.

I set the camera on a tripod and only changed the lenses. For each lens, I first established sharp focus through the viewfinder and then checked it through the lens. I found that the camera was back-focusing through the lens. I think this suggests that the flange to the ground glass distance (viewfinder) is shorter than the flange focal distance. I thought it is probably not the mirror / deteriorated mirror cushion issue, for, if the mirror sogged, the flange to ground glass distance would be longer, right?

At this point, I only know that the camera's focal distance is adjusted by moving the chassis against the outer body shell.

Next, I decided to check the camera's flange focal distance using depth gage with the wide base. I do realize that my method may be fundamentally flawed as I was not entirely sure what points I should measure to and from. So I would welcome any suggestions on this!

I mounted a lens and placed calibrated depth gauge with the wide base on the picture frame of the open Polaroid back, and measured the distance to the back side of the mounted lens. Here's what I measured:

top left corner 2.8" or 71.12mm

top right corner 2.797" or 71.04mm

bottom left corner 2.797" or 71.04mm

bottom right corner 2.796" or 71.03mm

I know that the flange focal distance for Hasselblad 500c/m is 71.4mm +- 0.03mm, so my camera is outside the tolerances by at least 0.3mm. Does this agree with my camera back-focusing through the lens? Can this error dramatically affect focus at close distance and be less noticeable at infinity? If not, then I should probably check camera back. ANY SUGGESTIONS TO IMPROVE MY MEASUREMENT? Once I am able to verify my measurements I will start figuring out how to adjust the camera.

Thanks, everybody for your input! Really appreciate it!

Alex