| Author |
Message |
    
Tony Duell
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 05:57 am: | 
|
Not suprisingly I have other interests besides classic cameras, and one of those is old clocks and watches.
Now, from what I've read, no serious classic (antique) clock or watch restorer would _ever_ flood-clean such a device. That's regarded as a real bodger's technique, likely to do more harm than good. No, clocks and watches are dismantled, the parts cleaned separately, then they're re-assembled.
And yet flood-cleaning is often recomended for cameras, which are similar in size and precision to a watch.
So my quesiton is (of course) : Why the difference? |
rick oleson
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 10:10 am: |
|
Personally, I don't recommend it. However, camera shutter timers are less delicate than watches, and if you can separate the shutter from the rest of the camera and the optics you can flood clean the shutter without harming anything if you use the right solvent. My biggest concern is that it's very difficult to really get the mechanism clean that way, grease tends to be trapped between the blades where the solvent doesn't get to it, and then the solvent itself becomes contaminated with oils and leaves a film all over everything you were hoping to clean.
As for why it's recommended: well, I suspect you have a lot more amateurs and hobbyists trying to repair cameras than watches, and there is a risk associated with disassembly and reassembly. In some circumstances, the risks of flood cleaning are less than those of disassembly, and if the job can be done with less risk of harm, there's something to be said for that.
rick : ) = |
Dan Mitchell
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 10:17 am: |
|
I'm not familiar with watch repair, but from what I understand a camera shutter is not anywhere near as precise as a fine watch. Add to that, most shutters are designed to run without any lubrication.
I think in most cases it is simply a fear of not being able to get everything apart and back together again. There is always the risk of losing or breaking a spring or lever, damaging a screw, etc. Also, you have to be able to get the shutter off the camera. Sometimes it requires considerable disassembly of the camera to just get the shutter off.
Flood cleaning is a little misleading anyway. Usually it is a matter of putting a few drops of solvent on the escapement, gears and parts that pivot and then blowing it out with compressed air.
Some people do dunk the whole shutter in a bowl of solvent to clean everything. That won't always work. Sometimes it is difficult to get all the contaminants out of the shutter and you end up washing the gunk off to the side. Eventually it will work its way back onto the blades and clockworks.
I think pouring copious amounts of solvent into the shutter while still on the camera is a bad idea. If it takes that much solvent, then the shutter should be removed and done properly.
Well, all that said -- sometimes all people want to do is shoot 1-2 rolls of film before putting the camera on display. In that situation, it doesn't make sense to spend hours working on the camera. (Unless of course you are like some of us who think it is just fun to disassemble cameras.  ) |
Martin
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 10:23 am: |
|
The following is just my experience:
Watch mechanisms are, in general, smaller and more precise than most camera mechanisms I work on. Also, watches don't come loaded with as much lubricant as a watch. I know the oil in watches will settle if the watch is not run but camera mechanisms seem to come with much more lubrication. In addition cameras have grease packed into focusing mechanisms etc that breaks down over the years and makes things even wetter. I only have a couple of nice automatic watches but they come with the instruction to get them serviced every 3 years and it seems frowned upon to ignore this instruction among watch lovers. Cameras, by comparison, seem to have a much harder life; they are typically used regularly for a decade and then put in a closet for a decade. When we drag them out again we are disappointed when they are no longer accurate or don't even work any more. The only time anyone sends them to be serviced is when they've squirted WD40 into the shutter and things still don't work.
Also, watches seem better sealed than most cameras. Dust and other detritus mingles with the old oil and degrading grease to form sludge. When we flood clean something in a camera it is often to remove this sludge from places where no lubricant was ever intended (e.g. shutters and irises). Sure, you could disassemble and reassemble the shutter mechanism but the chances or screwing something up are much greater and the chances or it being accurate and assembled to factory tolerances without the original assembly tools are small.
Finally there is the matter of the value of cameras and watches. Taking the time to strip down and rebuild a watch when the resulting piece will be valued at several hundred or even thousand dollars makes sense. When you're playing with a 70's rangefinder you bought for $20 at a junk store, which, in fully working order is still worth less than $50 to anyone but you, it makes less sense.
When I'm working on a camera I try to do the least amount of disassembly possible to achieve a repair. This is not just because I'm lazy but also because I get in less trouble this way. As such, flood cleaning any wet blades that should be dry seems like a perfectly reasonable technique.
As I said, this is just my opinion. Anyone else? |
Jon Goodman
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 02:07 pm: |
|
Hi, Tony. I've repaired watches for years. As for washing a shutter like a watch movement...I know of no reason it won't work under the proper set of conditions. Please forget the idea that a watchmaker takes a movement totally to bits to clean it. Movement cleaning machines have been around a long time, and they are very much the professional way to go. I think mine was made in the 1930s. The same company still makes a cleaning machine today (or as of the last brochure I saw) and boasts it can clean 16 complete movements at one time.
Jon |
WernerJB
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 02:37 pm: |
|
After everything else failed submerging a shutter that has been removed from a camera appears to me as a last straw, if the amateur tinkerer is left alone with just a few photos depicting the mechanism from different angles and the bare words of their liner notes and his own intuition.
Watchmakers (by definition people who can make or create watches AND spare parts by the number!) are a chosen few of skilful professional experts who by experience know how to deassemble a complicated mechanism and how to put things back together again, and, if in doubt, can rely on libraries of information.
Things are different in the case of average tinkerers, they rely on no advice or that of nonprofessionals. Many of them - like me - enjoy tinkering because they appreciate the different aspects of camera repair usually not considering how long it takes, without reliable sources for spare parts. They like communicating with others, improvising, using selfmade or makeshift tools etc. Above all they like the feeling of finally having made it, although "repairmen" had said the camera was beyond repair !
If all this is pejoratively called "dodger's technique": so what ? Since when do amateur tinkerers have to strive for perfectionism ? |
paul ron
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 03:48 pm: |
|
Mechanical antique clocks was what got me into camera reapirs. Old grandfathers movements and clock trains are not taken appart to clean. If you did that it wouldn't run anymore.
The gears have worn into eachother from running day in, day out, 24/7 and mesh perfectly to the inconsistancies and uniqueness of each out of roundness and imperfection as well as pin wear differences. If you were to remesh the gears to new faces, they'd just stop and no amount of lubrication will ever get it to run again. Flood washing is the prefered method. The springs and escapement are disengaged so the clock can be force run as the wash goes through all the moving parts. |
Jim Murray
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 07:22 pm: |
|
Everything that I have read on mechanical pendulum
clocks agree with complete disassembly of the works.
Lubrication is applied sparingly. The belief is
that soaking while assembled will not remove all of
the old gunk. I don't consider these to be pre-
cision devices. Watches are precision, and I would
put mechanical cameras somewhere in between the two.
I have had success with wetting aperture blades
repeatedly with naptha until 'most' of the oil residue is gone. I couldn't get all of it out with-
out disassembly, but it was enough to free-up the
blades. Also, when I take apart a clockworks I
remain fairly relaxed. When I play with a lens
I am sweating bullets, fearful of losing or break-
ing a part. It boils down to what I am comfortable with. |
Glenn Middleton
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 07:36 pm: |
|
I do all my solvent cleaning of shutters etc in a small, home engineered vapour degreasing tank.This completely removes all grease and oils and leaves the assembly totally oil free.It is quick and uses very little solvent.Also I must agree with the comments made by Paul about taking old clock movements apart.In fact if you can clean any old gear driven machine without taking apart, you might be saving yourself a load of grief in the long run.You just cannot anticipate the wear patterns in the gears. |
rick
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 08:07 pm: |
|
It sounds like there's room for multiple points of view, doesn't it?
: ) = |
Winfried
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 04:08 am: |
|
Yes - as always. Ask 5 doctors and you get 6 different answers...
I have no experience with clock and watch repair, but - having a degree in precision engineering - I have read a bit about it. As mentioned by others, clocks/watches are required to run continously, and to do that very precisely. Tolerances of 10 p.c. as allowed for shutter speeds would be a desaster for a clock. AFAIK clocks and watches need lubrication at least in some parts, otherwise the different makes of watchmakers oil offered by sellers for hobbyist (and professional) watchmakers would be useless. Watchmakers oil is also mentioned in the professional literature I have access to.
I have also heard that some makeshift watchmakers drown the whole watch in solvent, but this seems everything but a professional method, and probably only good for removing the most evident dirt. Relubricating a watch or clock will always require at least partial disassembly.
With camera shutters it is different. Of course the best method is to disassemble them as far as possible and wash every subassembly separately. Especially with the notoriously (and fairly simple) Prontor shutters I found this is less annoying than cleaning the (not disassembled) blades again and again and seeing them gum up again after a few weeks.
With shutters like most Compur shutters I don't like to remove the speed escapement since it must be held in proper position for speed adjustment (see the thread about the Retina IIIc shutter).
Shutters in general need very little lubrication. The Prontor repair manual just mentions that the aperture blades are slightly greased in the factory - but they work very well without that. They recommend to wash the speed escapement in solvent and to wipe the shutter blades with a dry cloth in case they don't work properly.
The gears of a shutter do not need any lubrication - but I prefer adding a tiny amount of gun oil, I think this makes them run properly for a longer period. The Compur shutter manual mentions four different lubricants for different purposes, mostly for greasing the cams, and in some cases (shutters with interchangeable lenses) the links between shutter and lens. |
Tony Duell
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 04:32 am: |
|
Firstly, I must respectifully disagree with Paul Ron. I read a monthly magazine called 'Clocks' and in every issue there's an article where somebody has restored a clock several hundreds of years old. Without exception, the movement has been dismantled, the parts cleaned separately. There are photographs of all the arbours (spindles), plates, etc separated.
Yes, watch cleaning machines exist. I've heard, though, that many watchmakers (the good ones, anyway) use them to clean parts of a watch separately, at least if it's a quality watch.
Perhaps the difference is that, as somebody said, watch and clock experts can generally make new parts if needed, camera repairers don't. So camera repairers are more wary about damaging something.
And perhaps it's just what you're happy doing. One of my sub-interests is HP desktop calculators, often over 30 years old. I think nothing of taking one of these machines (worth a few hundred dollars at least) and pulling it apart in front of an audience. I know that whatever I do I can put it right again.
I am possibly lucky in that I grew up taking things apart _and getting them together again_. I can't remember the last time I didn't get something together. So I am not afraid of taking a camera apart.
I was just worried there was some good reason for not dismantling things -- apparently there may not be.
Don't underestimate what an enthusiast can do. In some of my hobbies (including those HP calculators I mentioned), enthusiasts have gone _way_ beyond what any professional will do, or could do. Don't underestimate the facilities of an enthusiast either.
I feel it's a stupid idea to consider the value of the time you spend on your hobbies. Hobbies are something you do because you enjoy it. I enjoy repairing a mechanical camera. It doesn't matter it took me many tens of hours to do it. That time might be worth more than the camera, but so what? I enjoyed it, I needed to do something. To go back to those HP calculators, it took me many months to work out how to repair the first example of one particular machine I saw. At a low rate per hour, that's still tens of thousands of dollars. Fine. I enjoyed it. And the second one got repaired in an afternoon :-)
As regards lubrication, watch and clock wheels (gears) are designed to run dry. I suspect the same is true of shutter timing gears, but I don't see the harm in 1 drop of good watch oil on the pivots. Shutter blades must be dry, of course. Winding gears generally can be lubricated without problems. |
paul ron
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 10:45 am: |
|
Exactly right, if you are comfortable doing it a certain way, then by all means don't drift of the well taken path. It's how much enjoyment you've gotten from the time spent on it and the end result that make it all worth the effort. There is no "one way" although try telling that to my wife. |
|
