| Author |
Message |
    
Harlee
Rating: 
Votes: 2 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 07:52 am: | 
|
I have a mint A-1, but the exposures, compared to my second A-1, appear to be at least 1 1/2 to 2 F stops off. Where are the pots located for adjusting the meter. Most likely they're located under the top section, am I correct? Thanks, Harlee |
panu
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 09:33 am: |
|
There is lots of service manuals for Canon cameras at www.canonfd.com . It seems that there is one for A-1. |
Frank Marshman
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 12:03 pm: |
|
The problem I see with most of these cameras these days is that the sbc (silicone blue cell, the photo cell) has a plastic covering which developes a crust of white crystal substance over it. No one I know has any reason for this to happen but it does with Canon A series.
Remove the top. The sbc housing lives behind the pentaprism over the top of the eyepiece. Take a sharp knife blade and scrape the white crust off until the sbc is clear. The meter will be back correctly reading. |
Glenn Middleton
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 05:20 pm: |
|
This fix,if indeed it is a fix is not as simple as Frank makes out.Many people will start by removing the complete eyepiece shutter/photocell assembly and the less experienced will end up scraping away at the fresnel lens, which is also glued onto the metal support frame.
To expose the photocell requires the removal of the white plastic 'wedge' and then the black plastic light shield.As these two items are secured with a black adhesive/light seal care is required,otherwise it is quite likely that the solder connections between the photocell and flexicircuit will be fractured.Make sure the cell is sealed in again properly.
As to the white crystal substance on the plastic covering of the SBC.The plastic covering does not get any crystalline deposit on it.If you examine the SBC you will see that the covering also contains a 5mm x 5mm GLASS window.The glass window does have a white coating on it's outer surface,remove this and you see that the inner surface has a blue crystalline coating.
Now I have a problem with this fix. I have in the last hour stripped two A1s(cosmetic heaps) that give correct exposure values across the whole range - tested against currently certified meter.Both glass windows are covered in a white film on their outer surface.I also know that neither camera has seen the inside of a repair shop for at least twelve years.
Anybody got any NOS Canon SBCs? My initial guess is that there is a coating on the glass,which may or may not be breaking down.The blue inner coating may just be a white one with colouration from the glass window.I think a spell on the old firm's electron microscope is called for next week.
Harlee does not indicate how his A1's exposure is off.If this is Canon's cunning way of ensuring the A Series have a finite life,then the fix will only sort out over exposure.The official Canon A1 manual contains all the test criteria for setting up the metering.Make sure the copy you down load has been scanned properly,so that the diagrams/photographs are clear. |
Harlee
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 07:54 pm: |
|
All sounds Greek to me!!! Harlee |
Will
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, October 24, 2005 - 08:41 am: |
|
Best solution: dump the cheapo A-series Canons in the garbage and buy a good working T-90, F-1N, or Nikon F3 or FM2n. The A-series Canons weren't made to very high standards to begin with and certainly weren't designed to last 25 years. |
Harlee
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, October 24, 2005 - 01:21 pm: |
|
Well, I still have an AE-1 that I purchased in 1984 that works like a charm, and never developed the Canon Squeak. I also have an AE-1P, an AV-1 and two A1s, which perform flawlessly, with the exception of the A-1 in which the meter is off a tad. But I take care of my equiptment, take them with me on frequent trips into Russia and Ukraine, and I'm quite satisfied with their performance. A person can pick up a lemon in any camera regardless of the make, including Nikon! Harlee |
Glenn Middleton
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, October 24, 2005 - 01:53 pm: |
|
Once again we have some unknown person appearing from the darker corners of this Forum and as is the norm in such instances,talking a good deal of garbage himself.His 'a good working T-90'says it all about this model.The short production life means spares are now a problem and the model is no better engineered than the A-1.I speak from both the user and repairer perspective here.
The F-1N is an entirely different breed of camera,built for the professional from the start.The A-1 was not designed with the professional in mind as primary user.So when many of us did use them,that they performed well for us is a testament to their design and build quality.
Canon and Nikon both introduce cost savings during the manufacturing run of a camera series.In the A Series we see a gradual replacement of some metal gears etc for items made from Delrin or other suitable engineering plastics.Nikon have done the same for their consumer orientated product lines.
As for the A Series being built poorly.I can only vouch for the A-1,AE-1 and AE-1Prog.I have serviced many of these cameras for the first time after long working lives.They were brought to me with minor faults in the main.The only non repairable ones being the 'swimmers'.
I have many A-1 cameras and I expect my son to be using some in another 30 years time.
Harlee,
It may sound Greek,but the A-1 that you think is not giving correct readings - is it under or over exposing,when compared with your 'standard' A-1?
I assume that your 'standard' A1 is actually correct,ie checked against an accurate meter and not just judged to be correct because it gives results that you like.Mention this because once I had a rather irate chap who could not understand why his transparencies looked different after I recalibrated his A-1.He would or could not use the exposure compensation,so in the end I had to tweak the meter for him!
Frank appears to have repaired many thousands of cameras,judging from his comments in another thread.In the last 20 odd years I seem to have repaired around 750 A-1 if my records are complete.I have always managed to recalibrate the metering system via the official method.As I do not like disturbing the SBC assembly,Frank's comments were a little surprising.
Some investigations over the last two days has revealed that it would appear that my early serialed bodies do not have a white deposit on the 'glass window'of the cell.A safe way to examine the cell is to remove the fresnel lens from the assembly,rather than strip the cell out of the metal holder.The two bodies that had the deposit on the cell window but were still giving the correct exposure, both came from the last production batch of A-1.
Frank does not say if his fix is permanent or if the deposit 'grows' back.He states that the cells he has cleaned had an all plastic cover.All the cells on the A-1s I have just looked at have the 5 x 5 mm glass or quartz window on the front of the cell.The deposit did not look truely crystalline to me.Given the situation of the cell I would not be surprised if somebody had said that he had found fungus on it.However does not look at all like the dreaded F word.
Whilst the A-1 may not be everybody's cup of tea on this Forum,I find it quite straight forward to repair/service.The spares supply is also well catered for, unless we start to find ICs etc with a finite life.Hence my interest in the deposit on the SBC.
If anybody has A-1s that have failed because of this,I would be interested in the serial number of the body.Also if anybody has a SBC with a deposit on it that has been removed for replacement, I would gladly refund postage so that I could undertake X-ray probe analysis on the deposit.
I have access to the facilities that can solve this and as previously stated I want my A-1s to continue working in my son's hands.I would like to work on a larger sample than the two cells I already have. |
Will
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, October 24, 2005 - 04:39 pm: |
|
"Once again we have some unknown person appearing from the darker corners of this Forum and as is the norm in such instances,talking a good deal of garbage himself"
No more than you are, Glenn. I'm not 'unknown', my name is Will. An opinion has a value of '1', including yours. The difference is, I think the repair history of the A-series more than backs up my comments. In addition, even a CURSORY review of the archives here reveals, beyond argument, complaint after complaint on A-series Canons, and the same issues cropping up again and again, many times that of say, the Nikon FM2n, F3, or Canon F-1N. You just don't see the same number of posts with the cameras I mentioned, and that's a fact.
As to comparisons of camera build, remember, we aren't talking about brand new cameras any more!! They are all used, and the materials in the commodity consumer cams like the A-series Canons are showing up in terms of frequency of repair. So, why put up with them, unless you're a tinkerer or a masochist? Better-built cameras ARE available inexpensively used now, so you CAN compare and consider the ownership of higher level and more expensive cameras, even pro cameras. This seems to be pretty obvious, no?
No one can seriously argue that an old fabric-shuttered A-1 requires the same or less maintenance than more modern metal shutter cameras, especially those with professional build quality. Canon sacrficed a modern Copal shutter, bearings and fast flasy sync for low price. It worked, in market terms. But today, when a used Nikon FE-2 goes for $200 or less, they're not a good bargain, unless you like frequent servicing and maintenance.
True, Nikon did have some entry consumer cameras it introduced after the success of the AE-1 (had to, Nikon itself mentions the EM and FG line was specifically designed to fight endless hordes of cheaply made Canons and Minoltas). I didn't recommend them, for obvious reasons, even though the FG does have a more reliable shutter. With the A-series Canon and Minolta will always be known for putting market share ahead of build quality, and nothing can change that.
As to the T-90, I recall Canon press releases at the time specifically mentioned this camera was designed to resolve some outstanding complaints on A-series Canons, namely shutter and mirror mechanism complaints (even then, the Canon squeal was getting press). The T-90 isn't my first choice for a manual Canon, but it's a damn sight better than an A-1. |
Harlee
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 04:11 pm: |
|
Wow, sounds like we have a cat fight on our hands! Persoanlly, I like what I use and have had very little repairs done to my Canons. So, as the saying goes, to each his own. I'm not a professional, perhaps an advanced amature, and while all cameras are not created equal, I guess I'll stick with what I've got. Harlee |
Henry
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 05:17 pm: |
|
Come on guys...be nice. Remember we are not photographers here. We hung our "artsy-fartsy" hats on the wall as we entered here. We don't care what takes the best photo or which model can be reliable taking a billion photos. We don't care. WE ARE TINKERERS! What we care about is how to get a camera working...any camera, not just the best or our favorite ones. After all "best" and "favorite" is purely subjective. If it wasn't we'd all be working on only one type/model of camera...whichever that one might be! In my livingroom I have a Hit camera and a Leica M5 on the shelf side-by-side. You can guess who fixed them both.
Take me for instance, I don't care much for using rangefinders. I prefer SLR's. But I'll work on just about anything. I don't care if they take the "best" photos. I'm no photographer.
There are lots of "here look at my pretty picture" or "my brand is better than your brand" sites. This site isn't either of those! We come here every day for only one purpose: to help someone get their camera/lens working again. A guy contacted me a couple weeks ago about fixing his early 60's low end half frame camera. It is worth maybe $5 in a working condition...his obviously isn't. But...his has a story...he carried this camera in the mud of Vietnam. How could I turn down fixing it? Sure I could have suggested he buy a new or different camera...but THAT wasn't his point in contacting me!
Let's keep it friendly and helpful.
Henry |
Michael Linn
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 05:22 pm: |
|
Harlee, in starting this thread, you asked an honest question within the stated bounds of the forum. You got some honest answers until someone without a profile, e-mail address, and apparently a shadow arrived and told you that your camera and all of it's close relatives should be dumped into the garbage. What a childish way to stop an adult conversation. |
Glenn Middleton
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 07:10 pm: |
|
As Harlee says in the end it all comes down to personal choice,but I still maintain that you cannot just write the A Series off as market share grabbing junk.All manufacturers have to look at their market share/prospective customer base.I would suggest that the reason why one sees so many requests for help in sorting A Series problems,apart from the fact that most of them have never been serviced properly,is due to the fact that there are many 10s of thousands still in circulation - far more than any of the other types Will mentioned.
As Will mentions, one would be daft to pass up on a good Canon f-1n or Nikon F3 at a bargain price.However as a professional I will point out that second hand equipment that has had professional use is not always a bargain.It should be viewed in a different light to pro quality equipment that has seen amateur use.
My partner and I do not belong to the school that thinks a professional must have a camera around their neck that looks like its been to Hades and back -Capra and Burrows et al really earned that privilege.In consequence her F3 outfit and my F-1n kit look relatively good but inside both are well worn, even with the yearly maintenance they got when we were working fulltime.They still produce the goods but do require that little bit of extra care and maintenance,especially if motor drives are used.
I like the A-1 and have used them for years as my slr of choice,having some very nice L glass I do not fancy a change of brand.The only real problem I have ever had was with the first two I purchased.These were out of one of the first shipments into the UK.Both suffered from a seized mirror damper after approx nine months use and were replaced by Canon.As I have previously stated on this Forum the early damper on the A-1 could seize under heavy use - the bearing clearance was too small/out of spec shaft material or something.Canon squeal is due to bearing wear allowing the flywheel to oscillate.
To put the cat amongst the pigeons,my non earning cameras have always been Leica M2.Even more useful now that we seem to have become paranoid in the UK when people take photographs in public places. |
Glenn Middleton
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 07:20 pm: |
|
Henry,Michael,you posted whilst I was writing the above --- could not say it better myself.Your thoughts on the matter Michael are exactly what made me write my original comments in the first place.
Glenn. |
Will
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 10:36 am: |
|
Well, I see cheap shots and personal criticism, but no effective refutation of my points. I say it's sound advice to recommend a well-built used SLR anyday over something with plastic parts and metal bushings that requires periodic lubrication with Slick 50 or whatever flavor-of-the-month automotive non-standard lubricant that has been pronounced as the current favorite for keeping an A-series Canon going.
Being a tinkerer is a fine hobby and no bad thing, but anyone who knows the A-series Canons and X-series Minolta repair history (and the way they were further cheapened in build over the years!), yet would realistically consider recommending them to a potential buyer without lots of time and tinkering ability needs their head examined. In that light, I maintain that when the tinkering exhausts itself, the garbage can is a fine resting place for two camera model lines that consistently emphasized low price over quality of construction. |
Henry
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 03:10 pm: |
|
Look Will, you are totally missing the point. We are trying to fix cameras here. We aren't in the business of advising people what cameras to take photos with. We are technicians, we know ANY camera will take a decent photo if adjusted properly. As for the durability of the cameras you recommend. Look at the ergonomics and ease of use of most of those you recommended. They won't ever get used as much as the Canon A-series and Minolta X-series. A Canon AE1-P will have taken 10x the photos of a Nikon FM2...merely because it is easier to use.
Let me get real silly and put you in Harlee's shoes and I'll jump in yours. Frankly, if I don't use my digitals, I use Leicas. Why don't YOU dump your cheapie Nikon crap and buy a Leica that new parts are STILL available for, even though it is 40 years old. You want to compare durability and build quality? Let's compare Nikons (CANON F's, 190's, whatever) to Leicas...wanna do that? How many FM2's are still working? Half of them? Doubt it. How many of the comparable Leicas are still going...I'll give you a hint...if they weren't driven over by a McMichael's concrete truck they ALL still are.
Does this help your perspective? Doubt it, you'll simply claim Leica's are too expensive. Ok, grant that...but aren't the cameras you recommend more expensive than the A's and X's?
Will, everything is relative.
Henry |
Michael Linn
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 05:45 pm: |
|
I think that our moderator's exceptional patience has finally been worn out.
Of course it took someone who couldn't take a hint about being non-responsive and completely off topic. I think it is impossible to reason with people who do not understand that taking a thread off topic solely for their own agenda and gratification is just rude.
It's also extremely rude to intrude on an enthusiast's forum on the interent. It is just pure mischief to get on this forum, which purpose is clearly stated up front, and claim that all items of the most successful SLR line in history are just garbage. That is purposely inflammatory and I think that the responses have been very subdued and overly polite.
Nikon has certainly had it's share of failures which are less known simply because of Nikons's rather small market share after the introduction of the Canon AE-1 and it's relatives. I well remember the Nikon FA, which was quickly dubbed the Nikon FAilure. If someone were to ask a question here about repairing an FA, I cannot imagine anyone, myself included, who would ridicule them rather than trying to help them get their camera back into operation. |
WernerJB
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, October 28, 2005 - 03:37 am: |
|
All this is not only amusing, as it puts up very serious questions: if one of the "members" (is there a clear-cut definition of this term with respect to a forum like this ?) is branded as being an "unknown person appearing from the darker corners of this Forum" who are the members of the home team? Who is the old bull here? Quite obviously none of the participants of that above mentioned "cat fight" are fully capable of(mutual) tolerance. Don't take me wrong, I find Will's statements biased and inappropriate, but interesting enough to be read. Again: who decides about who has got the right to speak their (often opinionated) views ? Is this input considered a matter of opinion? Am I a "member"? |
Henry
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, October 28, 2005 - 09:31 am: |
|
WernerJB, we are not trying to censor Will. Heck, if I was I would have just deleted his messages. Rather I (and we) were trying to show him how his statements were completely inappropriate for this forum. The purpose of this forum is to help people fix their cameras. Whether their cameras are "worthy" of being fixed is not our decision. Being "worthy" is completely a personal opinion.
Opinions are free to be stated here, of course. Personally I dislike Kiev 60's...in fact I abhor them! But one of my articles is about a Kiev 60 with a hole in the shutter curtain (because it is a common failing) that I fixed for a friend who really likes them. I didn't bad mouth his taste in cameras by telling him to junk it and get a Leica R3 (one of my all time favorite cameras). That would have been insulting and rude. Which is how we took Will's statements.
And this is a public forum...no members...or everyone's a member, depending upon how one looks at it. Kar Yan and myself only ask that everyone treat each other with respect and try to be helpful. So by this definition Werner, yes, you are definitely a "member". Because you have always been helpful and respectful.
This is a very good thread because it goes to the heart of what Kar Yan and I were trying to do when we first started these webpages! And Will, don't get your tail feathers ruffled because we are using you as a test case. You are very welcome here. (And as soon as you ask your first question on how to fix your T-90 all will be forgiven.) Just try to be helpful in giving advise to get someone's beloved old camera working again...and respect their feelings for these cameras--however lowly. My wife still has fond memories of a shiny red box camera her aunt gave her when she was very young. She no longer has the camera, but she has the memories. Think about how fortunate one is to still have both the memories AND the camera! I wouldn't dare tell her those plastic Brownies are a piece of crap. It would be the same as telling her her memories are crap.
The "unknown person" bit was refering to Will not stating his email address so he could be contacted directly and the dirty laundry not being hung up in front of the world. As we are continuing to hang it up until it gets dry. And the "darker corners of this forum" simply meant the unhelpful side. That is if I'm reading Glenn correctly.
Henry |
Henry
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, October 28, 2005 - 10:48 am: |
|
Guess I'm the "old bull" here. Kar Yan would definitely be offended if she was called an old bull...err, old cow! :-) But I don't paw the ground and snort...too often.
I'm not the most experienced on this forum--any way you look at it. I've never worked as a camera tech. My knowledge and experience are very limited. And I'm happy with that.
I didn't even buy my first "real" camera until four days before my grandson was born, nine years ago. It was a Canon Rebel G with a Sigma 28-80 zoom. Don't laugh! Anyway, Kar Yan and I met on a Canon EOS newsgroup (some of you must remember how unhelpful and argumentative newsgroups can be) and instantly became friends when I politely answered a question she asked. Guess she was tired of the rudeness too!
As a humorous sidenote... I remember her calling me to task one day, a few weeks after we started emailing. Back then we both wanted to be good photographers. She became a great one and I quit trying due to total lack of talent. Seems I kept refering to her in the masculine and she finally got tired of it. Hey, I'm just a contankerous old "Okie", I "don't know no" chinese. She wrote in such great grammar and always so maturely. I figured she was just another old cantankerous coot with a weird name. (She is going to kill me for writing this!)
Kar Yan got me into tinkering when she bought a Canonet so she could experiment with old fashioned manual photography. Of course it didn't work...oily blades. Then I bought a Demi because I'd NEVER heard of half frame cameras. Wow, I might have sucked at photography but tinkering I could handle! In fixing these cameras I was totally clueless. Back then there was practically nothing on the net that would help. Mostly just people selling high priced copies of instruction manuals. The rest is history. We started these pages to help folk that found themselves in the same shoes as us.
And although neither of us are as active in either writing articles or on the forum as we once were, we still believe in the concept: free, no strings attached help.
Thinking back... I think Kar Yan was still in high school when we first started this site. So she had lots of time back then. She now makes her living, with digital cameras in hand, as a graphic designer...and hopping around the world.
I was an ill, medically retired engineer half a continent away. Couldn't get out much so tinkering was good therapy. But I'm much healthier now so cameras are on the back burner most of the time. I started an engineering consulting company that keeps me VERY busy.
Now you all know the "old bulls" better...
Henry |
Glenn Middleton
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, October 28, 2005 - 03:47 pm: |
|
Henry,
You read me correctly in every way.Will does not like the A Series,Harlee and myself have only positive experiences of them and that's all there is to it really.However, as you say we are all here to be as helpful as we can and I doubt I would have even bothered to reply to Will's original comments if he had been contactable.I doubt if anybody is really interested in my working experiences - not really proper Forum content.
I would have asked Harlee,as I eventually did,for more details because in the midst of all this we have not solve Harlee's original problem.As I previously stated; Frank's comments on the white deposit on the SBC are of great interest and because I have access to the relevant analytical tools,would like to get to the bottom of the problem.These genuine concerns seem to have got lost in the fog of war. |
Henry
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, October 28, 2005 - 06:12 pm: |
|
Oh, thought that was all solved. Figured Harlee would try to scrape off the white stuff. That or just send the camera to you (Glenn) for analysis. Either way, it seemed like a done deal.
Harlee, any progress?
Henry |
WernerJB
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, October 29, 2005 - 02:48 am: |
|
Thanks for the open words, Henry.
There's one more thing I would like to add. In D. Mitchell's words, camera repair is "a spiritual exercise". I fully agree to this, as it helps fight back those frustrating experiences one inevitably gathers in life; all this has got to do with both self-respect and pleasure. There is no activity without a motivation. On a larger scale, I think, this is what leisure activities are about, and that is what puts paticipation in this forum among my cherished ideas. Without it (e.g. reading how others solve their technical problems, in the first place) I would still be absolutely ignorant about how to fix a broken camera.
... enough said, let's get cracking ..., W. |
Henry
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, October 29, 2005 - 10:46 am: |
|
"Zen and the Art of Camera Maintenance"
I think I'll open a new thread since we are only cluttering up Harlee's A-1 thread.
Henry |
Ron
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, November 04, 2005 - 08:44 am: |
|
Don't know much about Canons, but Will's definitely got my vote on the Minolta X-cameras, especially the later produced models. The quality of the components is inexcusable. |
Sergey Ilyin
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, May 08, 2006 - 05:12 am: |
|
Hello! I have readed this discussion with a great interest.
I have the A-1, also with metering problems. All shots are underexposed on about 2EV (hopefully, this still can be compensated with Exposure Compensation Lever).
I think this is not 'The White Crystals Problem' -- this crystals must prevent the light to go to SBC and lead to overexposed shots. Is there any explanations of my problem or it is just mis-regulation of lightmeter?
Thank you in advance |
|
