gordonbennett

Maybe I'll swing by Michael's this weekend. The foam from Amazon costs a sawbuck. I'll try the 2.0mm and/or 2.5mm stuff.

I must have misremembered. I do have an adapter that I bought a very long time ago. 'M9' sounds familiar. [i've just looked at the CRIS website, and I think that's where I got it.] I was buying a new Pelican-style case at Hardware Sales for my Olympus kit, and looked for a 386 battery there. They didn't have one, so I still don't know whether the battery is bad, or if the adapter failed.

I've always used the built-in light meters on my still cameras, and a handheld meter for my cine cameras. I had an adapter for my OM-1 that allowed me to use a 1.5v 386 cell without modification, but I've since had it modified and calibrated to use the 1.5v 625 cell directly. I've just received (today) a Canon QL17 GIII rangefinder camera. The adapter/386 didn't work. It may be a dead cell, or the adapter may have died. (I'll get another 386 cell at lunchtime.) For the present, I have a 625 cell in it. If I continue to use the 625 cell, I'll need to compensate for the higher voltage. I'm pretty sure the factor is two stops; and I'm pretty sure that with ASA 400 film, a setting of ASA 200 on the camera is correct. Since I rely on accurate meters and don't have to think about compensation, I need a refresher. Is 'two stops' equal to 1/2 of the film ASA rating? If I am correct that a two stop compensation would be using ASA 400 film and setting ASA 200 on the camera, then is it true that if I use ASA 100 film I should set the camera's ASA to 50? Or suppose I'm using a vintage camera with and a vintage light meter. If I want to compensate for the meter reading by two stops, would I go down two shutter speed increments from, say, 1/500 second to 1/250 second? Obviously, if the over-volted meter is reading two stops high, I can simply set the aperture two stops lower than what it says. But am I correct that using a modern 1.5v cell in a camera or meter designed for the old 1.3v mercury cell reads two stops high?

Wait... what? People sell their cameras? :eek:

I ended up getting a Canon Canonet QL17 GIII. I wasn't in a hurry, but this one was especially nice. Paid too much for it. (No, I'm not saying. It was that much! :p ) I'm also keeping my eyes open for a good Olympus RC35. (tomspielman is right; the XA is a little too modern for my tastes.) I've read good things about the RC35, and they look very nice. I've just bought a Nikon FE though, and I have the QL17 now; so I'll hold off a while. I put a 386 cell in my mercury adapter, and put it in the QL17. The battery check light did not come on. I'd used the battery briefly, and then put it back in the blister pack. It's rather old, and it may be dead. I'm in the office today, and don't have any sort of tester. Or the adapter may be faulty. I'll pick up a new 386 cell at lunchtime and try again. I put a 1.5v 625 battery in the camera, and it functions. The film I have at home is ASA 400, so I set the ASA to 200 on the camera to compensate for the higher voltage. Thank, you everyone, for your input!

I used the LR44s from the Olympus.

I found some batteries in my OM-4, and put them in the Zenit. It looks like what I was missing was cocking the lens. The meter is a bit jumpy, but I was able to repeatedly settle on the green LED.

Looking at the camera, it seems pretty straightforward. SCL says that fitting a narrow piece of foam in the grooves can be challenging. I think I could make the foam fit with some patience. If not, the yarn sounds like an easier solution. If I am unable to find a pre-cut kit, I think cutting stringers for flying balsa airplanes in my youth may stand me in good stead cutting foam from sheets. The larger piece of foam on the right side of the camera looks pretty thin. I'm estimating a 1mm thick piece would be in order. But what about the grooves? I don't want to spend ten bucks on a sheet of 1mm foam, only to find it's too thin for the grooves. Can anyone suggest how thick the foam in the grooves should be? I have a question about the top groove and the counter reset lever. John Seaman says it's important not to block it. I assume the foam goes into the groove up to the left of that position, and a smaller piece goes to the right of it? Any worries about not having a seal over that couple/few millimetres? But my main question is the thickness of the foam.

Hm. I tried to contact USCamera using their web form, and it never completed. The last post on their Facebook page is 2016. I checked the State of Colorado Secretary of State, and their business license was renewed in 2017 and expires in 2020, so they appear to still be in business. SCL: What kind of yarn? Just anything from a yarn store? What diameter?

I've just found this place that has an OM10 light seal kit. USCamera Parts Downloads Plus | Olympus OM10 Custom Light Seal Kit

c_watson | 1: What thickness? The foam in the link in the OP is adhesive-backed. SCL: What's the yarn for? I saw a page on replacing the seals on an OM10, and the guy says something about 'the string'; but he didn't mention it before, or what it was for.

I sent an email to him last week to see if those kits are still available, and never received an answer. I think it might be safer to get the foam from Amazon (and I can use it on the possible rangefinder(s)).

I have an old Olympus OM10 that needs new seals. It's not worth having a camera shop replace them, so I thought I'd try it myself. Amazon has light seal foam. What thickness should I use? They have 1.0 mm, 1.5 mm, 2.0 mm, 2.5 mm, and 3.0 mm. I'm guessing I should use 1.0 mm, but I'd like advice from you experts. I thought I might prowl some thrift stores to see if they have any old rangefinder cameras. If I find one, it will undoubtedly need new seals. Will the same thickness I use for the OM10 be suitable for a vintage rangefinder?

Oh, definitely. If you have a warranty, use the warranty. In my case, I don't even remember how I got the camera and lens. (The camera is an Olympus OM10; not one I would have sought out, as I have an OM-1n and an OM-4.) My options were to throw the lens in the trash, or to see it I could use it as a learning experience.

My Olympus OM-1n uses a 1.3v mercury cell. I bought an adapter for it that allows me to use a modern 1.5v cell, as it reduces the voltage to 1.3v and I get a correct meter reading. When the meter stopped working though, I took it to a camera shop about a month ago. In addition to a complete overhaul, I had the diode in the light meter changed so that it can use a 1.5v #625 battery without the need for an adapter, Wein cell, or compensating two stops. (Of course the meter was calibrated as well.)

I have one of these lenses that was a bit fungusy. Since I had nothing to lose, I tried taking it apart. You don't need the spanner to get the name ring off; you can use a very small jeweller's screwdriver. The video I saw had a different style than my lens. I think the guy used a spanner on the one in the video. Mine has three screws. The ball bearing fell out at some point, and I didn't know where it went back. There's a sheet metal tab with a hole in the middle, and when I put the ball bearing there and put the lens back together, the aperture ring wouldn't turn. Maybe the ball bearing goes underneath the tab? Anyway, I have a spanner coming from Amazon. I can use it for other things. When it arrives, I'll play with the lens some more.

FWIW, I have four Minolta IV-F Auto Meters. All of them agree. I like the Sekonic because it's so 'old school', and that I can read any shutter/aperture combination once I take a reading. (The Minoltas are easier for cine, which is why I have them.) Unless the Sekonic can be fixed, I guess I'll just have to use one of the Minoltas.

I have an old Sekonic L-398 Studio Deluxe that I bought back in the '80s or early-'90s. I wanted to see if it worked. I took my Olympus OM-1n, which has just been cleaned, serviced, and calibrated, and my Nikon FM-2n outside and focused on an object that was in the shade with a little dappled sunlight. With the shutter speeds set to 1/125, the apertures on both cameras were between f/5.6 and f/8. I took a reading with the Sekonic. First, the needle swung all the way to the right without the High slide. With the high slide in, it read halfway between 20 and 40. At a 1/125 second shutter speed, this calls for an aperture ⅔ the way between f/8 and f/11. I covered the Lumidisc and ensured the needle read zero, and I turned the adjustment screw on the back and re-zeroed the meter. Two cameras agree on halfway between f/5.6 and f/8 at 1/125 second. The Sekonic disagrees. I could take out half a dozen other SLRs and compare their readings; but with the freshly-calibrated OM-1n and the Nikon FM-2a agreeing, I must conclude the Sekonic is incorrect -- especially since it seems to read WAY high without the High slide. Can anyone offer a diagnosis? Is this something I can fix myself? Is it fixable at all?

I live four miles south of the 49th Parallel, so sun angle needs to be taken into consideration most of the year. Summers here are glorious. Looking at the Kodak chart posted above, I see that f/16 is for bright or hazy sun on sand or snow. Most things are green up here, and the beach is a vast mud flat (when the tide is out) and not sandy. Of course I'll use a light meter as I start learning the Sunny 16 Rule (and probably use another camera or the camera's light meter for secondary verification), but just to get started, would I use f/16 on a sunny day up here, or f/11?

After checking out a few cameras online, the Canon 17QL is in the lead. I don't need an interchangeable lens, an image of the viewfinder looks great, and I like the AE capability. Considering that reviews I've read say they're cheap (one guy said he'd never paid over $40 for the five of them he's had), the ones I see on eBay are a bit expensive. Just looking at CLA'd ones, I see one for $170 that has a bit of fungus on the lens, and I see a couple for $300. Of course ones that are not CLA'd are cheaper, but I like things like not-cloudy viewfinders, no fungus on the lens, and that sort of thing. It looks like seals are easy to replace, so that's not a deal-breaker; but I really do want clean optics. Dumb question: Will the QL17 function without a battery? i.e., is the battery just there for the meter and AE mode?

I don't really want a Leica or anything. ;) I'll look at the P. Who knows? Maybe I'll even take a P? I do find the Canon P I just googled, and the QL17, to be more attractive than the Fujica I looked at -- not that I'd rule out a Fujica.

I have a bunch of 35mm SLRs but, aside from an old Argus C4, a Nikonos IV, and a Nikonos V, I don't have any rangefinders. I'd like to get one that is more modern than an Argus, not as specialised as Nikonos, and affordable. Since I know nothing about them, what do you like? Canon QL17? Fujica Compact 35? Something else? I'm not in any hurry, but I appreciate your input.

Last night I had two minutes to see if cocking the lens is the solution to the always-underexposed meter reading. I got no reading at all. I should remember to remove the battery, as I don't see an Off switch. Anyway, I got the Pentax SV today and I thought I'd put the lens on the Zenit to try the meter that way. It's an SMC lens with a pin. :(

The Pentax SV doesn't even have a light meter, let alone an auto/manual switch. ;) :p

As it happens, I'm getting a Pentax SV in a couple of weeks. I believe the lens will work on the Zenit. (Say, is the Pentax an Ess-Five', or an 'Ess-Vee'?)