| Author |
Message |
    
Andrew Bingham
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 09:38 pm: | 
|
I'm in the process of removing the old foam light seals from a Canonet GIII QL17, in preparation for putting in a new set so I can actually use the camera. Yes, I did go for the 'as-is' model, and I couldn't be happier. Other then the light seals, everything is in excellent condition.
I've been carefully using Q-Tips and rubbing alcohol (I know I should get some 97% somewhere instead of the 70%) to dissolve and remove the old foam, keeping careful track of where any bits go to preven them entering the camera body (which is in excellent shape). So far I've removed almost all of the large rear seal, the seal by the leaf spring on the door, and about half of the top door seal. Then I have to tackle the top door seal remains that are stuck to the metal in the camera body, and try to get to some of the upper body seal in that little groove (although I don't know how much of that I can get out, and it might be best just to leave it rather then break it all up into bits).
One thing I've noticed is that the surface above the chrome at the bottom of the body didn't clean up to a nice, smooth surface like I had expected. Instead, it's rough and a little bit tacky. Not really sticky, but not completely 'dry' feeling either. I suspect this may be a particularly stubborn deposit of degraded foam, but I was just wondering if it's some kind of rubber that is supposed to be there. The alcohol doesn't seem to dissolve it at all, so I'm going to leave it as is.
As for replacing the foam, I have gotten the 2mm closed-cell black craft foam. I purchased both self-stick and non-adhesive sheets, and I'm wondering which I should install. Will the self stick do the trick? Or should I find some type of adhesive and use the stand alone foam? These seals aren't taking any sheer force, just straight on pressure, so I don't see why not to use the self stick varient and save myself some time and possible mess on the camera.
I purchased a 1.5v 625-sized alkaline battery to test the meter, and I plan on boring it out and making it into an adapter for the 1.4v 675 zinc air hearing aid batteries. I think that's the easiest option and the 675's are easily available at several places near where I live ($11/16 from Radio Shack). From what I saw, it's +1-2 stops compared what what my Pentax MX says with the alkaline. I'll probably shoot a 12exp roll after I get the seals done just to check for light leaks.
One thing I'm not sure about is the rangefinder. It seems to be a little hazy in high contrast situations, looking a lot like lens flare on film. In lower contrast situations like just outdoors in fairly even lighting, it seems a lot better. I don't have any past experience with rangefinder cameras, so the only thing I have to compare to is my SLRs and my Canon WP-1 P&S (which has an even worse looking viewfinder with visible distortion). I'm torn between attempting to clean the rangefinder mechanism and just leaving it and chalking it up to the blue/yellow tinting of the optics.
The exterior of the camera is in pristine condition, although someone chose to remove the QC sticker in the past. Several blemishes that I thought were nicks in the chrome from the ebay pictures cleaned right off with alcohol (I think they were bits of foam that made their way to the exterior after it was handled) and the lens glass is virtually new. The UV filter needs a good cleaning but it sure has kept the lens clean.
Another thing I've noticed is that the shutter release seems a little 'loose' - it wobbles a bit to the right and left. Is this normal as well, or is there some way to firm it up a bit. I guess I should be happy that nitpicks like this are the worst of my worries.
I've got a Canonlite D on the way to go with it that I got for all of $10.28, also off eBay. Some corrosion on the battery door plate but the interior is clean and it is coming with the original case. I can't wait! I've seen vinegar suggested as a way of bubbling off the corrosion on metal battery terminals, will this work?
I'm really looking forward to putting some film in this little camera and having fun around campus and at home. It will probably replace the WP-1 as my main 'point and shoot' for when I feel like leaving the SLRs at home - the optics are surely several orders of magnitude better, and it offers creative control as well! I'm thinking of treating it to a modern case as I didn't get the original, just to trick people into thinking I have some fancy digital. |
Don LeRoux
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 11:15 pm: |
|
Andrew, Glad to hear you got a functional "AS IS" G-III QL. I found small, hard wooden scrapers, made from a birch tongue depresser, simplified the removal of the foam lightseal and carrier film/adhesive. The little scrapers were cut narrower than the lightseal grooves with chisel ends. You can buy alcohol at most hardware stores. Use the alcohol sparingly or you may soften the paint. My G-III QL rangefinder seems to have less contrast than the one in my GSN. The gold patch is hard to see in high light conditions. I am not sure cleaning will improve it. The glare is in the clear field. Best Wishes, Don LeRoux. |
Ezio
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 05:22 am: |
|
Welcome to the GIII community! Jon Goodman will most probably reply and give you all the information you might conceivably need about replacing the light seals. As regard the other points you raise and based on my own experience:
1) Virtually all GIIIs I handled had a wobbling shutter release button, and I think this was normal even in brand-new cameras. This is due to the button being designed with two short tongues that fit into recesses in the film advance shaft, so that a certain amount of play is unavoidable.
2) The rangefinder would certainly benefit from a cleaning (removing the top isn't that difficult), but be sure you follow the instruction as posted in another tread here! If you touch the semi-silvered mirror you're doomed!
3) Yes, once light seal residues stick to the crome strip under the lower part of the back door it it very difficult if not impossible to really clean it. I've use all the avaible cleaning means, including some pretty agressive metal polish on a part donor body, but the results have not been totally satisfactory. Solution = ignore it. |
Jon Goodman
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 05:44 am: |
|
Hi, Andrew.
Good for you! First thing I'd offer would be a suggestion to get some denatured alcohol at a hardware store. It doesn't cost much, and it will dissolve that old foam much faster and with much more authority than what you're using. Second thing I'd suggest is to not use a 2mm "Craft Foam" product in your camera. The gap between the back door and the camera body was about 1.2mm. That craft foam is a product made from some very cheap components, and imported from China. It does not compress very easily (you can try this by setting it on your desktop and pressing the wide flat side of a ruler into it). This stiffness of the foam will stress your film door, possibly damaging it. And I think none of us would want to ruin such a nice camera by using cheap materials in it, would we? I've had the best luck in these cameras with 1/16" (1.6mm) pure neoprene sponge foam. It provides a great seal, and it is soft enough to compress easily without damaging the hinge or causing the door to bend. If you'd like to see the kit I sell, please go to E-Bay, search using the "Items by Seller" option and type in my ID...Interslice. $6 will get you what you need, and I'll also send you some specialized instructions for the Canonet for free...4 pages with a bunch of pictures. In fact, you will see a picture of the Canonet on the auction page. Good luck!
Jon |
marco
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 07:11 am: |
|
Ahh, another mintish GIII ... whets me mouth! Allow me to advance a few off-the-holster comments: (i)if your camera is, as it seems to be, in working condition, and the lens is as beautiful as you describe it, postpone every repair, clean or remove that UV filter, load it up NOW and shoot! (ii) instead of taking a hasty decision on the foamies (Jon's are superb) simply tape your camera around with black electric tape and you'll end up with a unit sealed against light, water and all known gases for as long as your 24-hr (or less than an hour-!) test may take; (iii) don't meddle with poisons from exhausted batteries: i'd try setting the film sensitivity selector at the point where you get a reading in accordance to your control meter. Suggest a 24/36 exp. roll so you can run a few tests on this (may try later with other film speeds and end up with a "camera-specific table" printed at the back).
I believe you "can actually use the camera" now while leaving the rest for later, until you have before you a visual record of performance. I know I would (or my nails wouldn't last a day). |
Göran Bergqvist
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 07:17 am: |
|
Hi Andrew,
I have used a kind of technical and clean gasoline bought in a grocery store to clean more than 10 canonets, Olympuses and others. This is better than 100% alcohol and does not affect the paint, plastic etc. more than alcohol.
I now use the self-adhesive foam from Micro-tools which is OK. But earlier I used EPDM-rubber seals for windows which I had to cut properly which is more work but the quality of these seals is better, no stickiness after some years.
I think cleaning of the finder makes a real difference. I do not think the glass and the mirror are that fragile. Use some cotton tops with lens cleaning paper on, perhaps with alcohol first. And calibrate the rangefinder.
Best of wishes,
Göran |
Ezio
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 08:56 am: |
|
Well, Göran, I was speaking out of (unfortunate) personal experience. Yes, the semi-silvered rangefinder mirror is not that fragile, but any attempt at cleaning it unless with outmost care is very likely to remove the silver layer - after which, there it goes the rangefinding function. And, Marco, again out of personal experience: unfortunately adjusting the film sensibility sector will not work. The major problem with alkaline 1.5V batteries is not the difference in voltage, but rather they fact that their discharge curve is very gentle - meaning that the lightmeter will progressively receive less and less current. The GIII was designed to work with mercury battery which provides the exact 1.35V and then dies suddenly, and using an alkaline cell would mean that you will have to test the meter and readjust the sensíbility selector with virtually every new film. |
Andrew Bingham
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 11:19 am: |
|
Jon, thanks a bunch. I actually have a Pentax MX in need of new mirror foam and my mom has a K1000 that needs new light seal foam as well, so I'll probably go with the larger kit. A friend of mine has a Minolta XE5 that's starting to go to gunk as well, so I can help him out with that - it's not leaking light yet, so he was going to leave it, but I'll show him the Canonet when it's done and suggest proactivly removing the old seals before the gunk gets everywhere.
I looked at the craft foam and was very wary of it because of the lack of compressability and the closed cell nature. I'm somewhat of a perfectionist and it didn't make sense to replace open-cell foam with closed cell foam that would obviously look like it came from a craft store - I would notice it every time I put in new film ;) |
Andrew Bingham
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 11:27 am: |
|
Sorry to double post:
I could probably run a roll of 100 film through the camera set at 400 and be allright, as long as I don't significantly drain the battery in the process. I've seen the discharge curves for the various battery types and the options explained, so I know that in the long term I'll have to adapt it to work with either a silver oxide 1.5v or a zinc-air 1.4v - alkaline just isn't stabe enough. I'm thinking zinc-air, just beacause it's close to the 1.35v to begin with and the diode option seems a bit time consuming.
The old foam was very deteriorated, I don't think I would have even been comfortable putting film through it in the condition that it was in. Now that I've removed the majority of the deteriorated foam, I could probably put a roll of film through it just to test the optics and everything. If I tape all the edges up nice with a couple layers electrical tape, I don't think that much light will get through ;)
I'm really excited about this camera, I'm starting to feel quite attached to it. |
Don LeRoux
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 10:24 pm: |
|
Andrew, Another battery post. I chose the 1.4V zinc-air hearing aid battery as a starter in my AS-IS G-III QL. We will see what the voltage depletion curve is like. They really are inexpensive(6 FOR $6.99 at my drugstore). I made a little .035 inch thick, copper sheet metal battery adapter in approx. 45 minutes, which fits and works well. Drop me a line if you would like a description of it. I`m also interested in your rangefinder cleaning results when you do it. Best Wishes, Don LeRoux. |
Marco
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 09:08 am: |
|
Ezio, thank you for your pin-point clarification about alkalines' rate of voltage drop. What I had suggested clearly wouldn't give consistent readings during normal operation. And, as ever, thanks to our Editor and to all contributors. I learn more every day, as no dobt will also many others. |
Charles Fallis
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 04:54 pm: |
|
First off, I wouldn't use the craft foam either. Jon's kits are excellent, and I speak from experience with one (I'll be ready for another one soon, Jon). That little $6 kit has enough foam to do quite a few cameras. Next, I'd use the non-self-sticking foam and I wouldn't bother with adhesive. They will pressure fit nicely and opening and closing the door won't torque the foam quite as badly. I found that trying to get self sticking foam in those little groves was an exercise in frustration and futility.
As for cleaning that semi-silvered mirror, unless it is bad enough that you don't have much to lose, I wouldn't do anything but blow the dust off of it.
If you'd like to use the camera now, Wein makes a 625 zinc/air cell and Ritz carries it (or they did last time I went there). They are a little on the expensive side, though. Still, one will work nicely until you get your adapter made. |
Russ
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 07:56 pm: |
|
By all means, get one of Jon Goodman's resealing kit's. They're great, and so are the Canon GIII QL-17 resealing instructions that come with it. The best $6.00 you'll ever spend.
Kiron Kid |
Sharon
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 05:12 pm: |
|
Hello Everyone! I'm new to this forum. I just began to purchase classic cameras and recently purchased a Bell and Howell Canonet QL19. What size battery works best in this camera? According to instruction manuals located on the internet, this camera should use either the alternative for the PX625 or the RM1. I've tried both and neither is working. Of course, there could be other problems with the camera. Any suggestions? |
Winfried
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 02:21 pm: |
|
There have been many messages concerning 'black wire corrosion' on battery wires. Remove the battery compartment and check the solder point and/or the wire connected to it, and replace it if possible. Also, keep the battery contacts as clean as possible - any residues of corrosion will prohibit proper contact. |
|
