|
Post by paulatukcamera on Jul 3, 2006 5:54:30 GMT -5
Peter, just to say you are not alone.
I have a Paxette with a similar problem - only I was just being curious - the Paxette Automatic 111 has a bayonet mount that is identical in appearance to the Regula one - only it isn't!
I couldn't get the lens off once I had twisted it and it went "click" In the end I had to take the front off the Paxette and it sits there awaiting re-assembly silently reproaching me.
On another old camera forum I think I was the first to call this a medical condition. I am still not cured and the arrival of another camera can set me off again!
It is called "Acute Dismantleitis" So far there is is no known cure.
Avoid doing this in the privacy of your office as this ensures it is slightly more controllable! Just ensure your wife or partner sees you reach for the watchmaker's screwdrivers and ask her to make her usual cutting comments.
Paul
|
|
|
Post by physiognomy on Jul 3, 2006 17:19:30 GMT -5
If it were my camera, I would drill through the aperture ring over where the Pin is holding the lens in. Once drilled, push the pin in while turning the lens to get it off. Then take the bayonet mount off and try to find what messed up. Hey Brian, Thanks for the advice... I'm assuming drilling the aperture ring would render the lens useless until the ring was replaced (not sure i have the skills to do that)... As it stands I have a fixed lens 35mm f/2 Nikkormat... Could be worse I guess, but it doesn't help me use my 105mm f/2.5. Maybe I should just get another Nikon! My lenses are non-ai, so I'd have to get someone to alter the 105mm to use it on a latter body anyway... I should have thought more seriously about the FM3a when my local camera store still had them in stock! I'd love one now! Time to think I guess... Peter ps I just bought my first LTM Nikkor!!! I can't wait to get my hands on it... Its a 50mm f/2. I would have preferred the f/1.4, but my lens came reasonably priced with a Nicca 3-S... Beggars (read poor grad student) can't be choosers!
|
|
|
Post by physiognomy on Jul 3, 2006 17:22:30 GMT -5
Thanks also Roger & Bob! I have posted on both the classic camera forum you mention & photo.net. I had a few responses (some similar suggestions to Brian's), but I thought I might have been missing something... Guess not... I'll know next time not to be more careful after 'fixing' my cameras!
Cheers!
Peter
ps Paul... I think I'm developing the symptoms you describe... I only had my Iloca in my hands for a few hours before the top was off & I was fiddling around looking for how the film counter worked... Didn't find out, but didn't mess anything up either (luckily!).
|
|
|
Post by physiognomy on Jul 5, 2006 0:08:31 GMT -5
The 5cm F2 Nikkor is very sharp. The F1.4 gets all the glory. I think the F2 lens has the edge on sharp and smooth backgrounds. You'll love it. Thanks Brian! I was a little worried buying the f/2 was going to be a mistake & that I'd just end up wishing I had the f/1.4... The wishing still might happen, but I'm really looking forward to having a quality 50mm... Ok, I have more to say, but maybe I'll wait until I have the lens & post some discussion in the correct forum. Nikkormats go cheap these days; I think $50 will pick up a decent shape FTn or even EL. Thanks... I'd love a FT2, but I also think it might just be better to get my lenses AI'd and see if I can pick up a F3... Somehow I think I'd end up using that camera more... Thanks again for all your help! Peter
|
|
|
Post by kamera on Jul 6, 2006 7:07:56 GMT -5
So many times a photog will go for the really fast lens...ie., 1.4 or 1.2 when they can be just as well off quality-wise with a less expensive 1.8 or 2.0; more like we just want to be impressive and say we have the fastest.
I have used 1.2-2.0's and personally cannot tell much difference. However I seldom shoot at those openings anyway, and I believe that probably most other photogs also do not. I like and generally use 5.6-8.
That is not to say that those faster apertures do not come in handy at times.
Ron Head Kalamazoo, MI
|
|
|
Post by John Parry on Jul 6, 2006 12:58:20 GMT -5
You're right Ron (Kamera)
Optically (other than the light gathering power), the 1.8 Tessar is no better than the 2.8, and I tend to reach for the 2.8 simply because it's better used and hence smoother. Plus, for close work you need light anyway.
Regards - John
|
|