daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Apr 6, 2012 12:05:49 GMT -5
I've shot some film recently, but I need to get around to developing it. I'd prefer do it myself rather than take it in to a shop, but it's a question of getting round to ordering B&W, colour negative and reversal chemicals - not overly cheap. Shooting digitally I can get prints done at a local shop: these are proper photographic prints rather than inkjet. Most work, though, is looked at people on the internet anyway so whatever the initial medium it ends up as digital. In the last five years, say, I've probably used less than 10 actual films but used something like the equivalent of 2,500 (or more) films digitally.
With all that in mind, it's no wonder the shops don't have much paraphernalia associated with film.
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Apr 6, 2012 9:00:33 GMT -5
Shutter speeds: It would seem strange to me for a camera like this to be produced with just one shutter speed of 1/125. I would believe as little as two shutter speeds, perhaps 1/30 and 1/125 (or a little faster). At fixed 1/125 it would run out of light pretty rapidly. Perhaps though that is why this camera is less well known that the Olympus Trip. There does seem precious little information out there on it.
It's fairly easy to tell from the sound of a focal plane shutter what speeds are there. Looking through the lens as the shutter fires should give a guide as to whether the shutter is operating at just one speed, or more than one.
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Apr 6, 2012 8:41:14 GMT -5
Mickey,
Thanks. I've thought of that (lighter fluid), but haven't tried it yet. The blades are moving freely enough and look really clean. It's as if there is a catch not engaging to hold curtain 1 in its closed position, so when the wind-on lever is returned to its rest position the curtain follows it. As it stands I am uncertain if the catch is mechanical or magnetic. I need to study that manual properly.
Dave.
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Apr 6, 2012 4:25:48 GMT -5
In terms of getting the top off:
I would imagine you need some non-making grips to remove the top of the rewind knob, flash front stop and suchlike to get at the fastening mechanism. Underneath there will be be screws, nuts and similar which hold the top on. Well, I presume there will be.
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Apr 6, 2012 3:56:48 GMT -5
Definitely of interest, but there is too much of interest out there and too little time to explore it all. I shall have a look forthwith, or even sooner.
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Apr 6, 2012 3:52:28 GMT -5
Berndt, with my ongoing (and I presume fairly permanent internet problems - until the 'companies' get their fingers out and install more capacity in the system) I hadn't really seen your close up of the holes till just now. They certainly seem strange and 'not neat', as though they have been drilled through after manufacture.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if sealing them off resolved the problem.
Wouldn't it be awful if sealing them off resolved the problem: doing so would spoil an excellent thread. ;D
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Apr 6, 2012 3:42:52 GMT -5
Hye, I know what you mean but somehow a camera never looks complete without its original lens. That said I do tend to buy 'body only' if buying new now. The standard zoom lenses are pretty poor these days and, unless I'm buying a new make, I already have a better lens (or lenses) than would come with the kit. (Exceptions of, of course, are those kits that come with the top quality lenses.)
Dave.
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Apr 6, 2012 3:36:36 GMT -5
I have actually found a repair manual for the P30. However, quite true to form, every fault seems to be mentioned except the one that needs to be sorted out. (Mind you I need that oscilloscope that I could have made from plans in Practical Wireless almost forty years ago.)
It feels and looks very nice. I'm not sure that I would use it even if it were working properly. Film costs money and if I want to take film I have cameras that will outperform it in either simplicity (and/) or ability. It does feel and look nice though.
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Apr 5, 2012 22:53:32 GMT -5
I've just acquired a Pentax P30t. It looks and sounds fine with the back closed, but:
with back open you can see, as it is wound on, that the first and second (vertical) shutter curtains are reset, only to have the first blade open again as the arm is released at the end of its travel, i.e. the shutter is permanently open until 'fired' which then closes the second curtain.
Before I delve further, does anyone know anything about the shutter on this camera?
(I think the consequence of this would be a worse light leak than Berndt has suffered with his neat little camera! ;D)
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Apr 5, 2012 21:32:15 GMT -5
Berndt, hey, I've just had another thought - do a swap with Mickey.
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Apr 5, 2012 21:29:54 GMT -5
I've put them side by side, one above the other. Berndt, I can see on yours that they is flash shadow - might his not account for the appearance Mickey is talking about, although it does look different.
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Apr 5, 2012 21:24:35 GMT -5
Berndt, I do wonder if sometimes manufacturers don't delight in making each camera different in its assembly to cause maximum problem to anyone who has need to work on them. Presumably if there are holes there, they are there for a reason - if only to let light in! This is turning into a bigger saga than the Vikings ever managed. Dave.
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Apr 5, 2012 21:08:57 GMT -5
Definitely different! ;D
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Apr 5, 2012 1:01:22 GMT -5
Berndt, It seems to me that logical and sensible tests aren't showing anything up, so you have to ignore everything you have done so far and go back to the start and methodically check every avenue. When all that has failed ( ) get yourself a nice digital camera - they don't have light leak problems. We need to make a complete list of possibilities, from the logical to the illogical and then devise a way of eliminating each one as a source of the problem. I would still favour blocking the area behind the lens as the first step, so no light can come through from either the lens itself or its mounting. Then bombard the rest of the camera with intense light to see if there is any problem to the film. At some stage perhaps try taking the back of and with a ground glass screen in place opening the shutter and seeing if the area of 'flare' can be reproduced on the screen. Mind you, that won't be easy if the camera doesn't have B or T in its settings. As Sherlock Holmes said "It is a capital mistake to theorize before you have all the evidence. It biases the judgement." He was the most methodical man ever. Holmes would surely find the problem.
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Apr 5, 2012 0:12:35 GMT -5
Bob,
The only thing I can think of is that you move! Even only a few years ago most things photographic were available from the chemists shop less than a hundred yards from our house. No, other than a few 35mm films nothing seems to be available within fifty miles. Even the big concerns like Jessops hardly seem to have anything in stock, even though their website appears to show that they might.
Dave.
|
|