| Author |
Message |
    
Paul Jenner
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, November 08, 2005 - 04:59 am: | 
|
Hi all.
I have a lovely Minolta Hi-Matic 7 SII which I intend to use more, mainly for available light type of work. The unit seems to be in beautiful condition, only some *very* minor wobble on the lens barrel.
However, I noticed that the aperture blades on my Hi-Matic do not open entirely when i choose a wider aperture or even f/1.7. Neither when I turn the aperture ring, nor when I press the button after that.
Aperture and shutter blades look as clean as they came brand new out of the factory.
Does anyone know what might be the problem ?
Is there something wrong with the aperture-ring/gearbox ?
Thanks,
PAul. |
Winfried
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, November 08, 2005 - 06:04 am: |
|
Even if there is no visible grease on shutter or aperture blades they may be sticky. My best guess is to remove the front lens cell and wipe the aperture blades with lighter fluid.
The return spring of the aperture blades is not very strong, even minor residues of lighter fluid which might need some time for evaporating may cause stickyness. So in case it works even worse after your cleaning attempts let it rest over night and try again. |
Paul Jenner
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, November 08, 2005 - 09:26 am: |
|
Hello winfried, thanks for your prompt remark.
I have no idea how to remove the front lens cell. And, at risk of being accused as stubborn, I somewhat doubt if the problem lies in sticky blades. I mean, I have seen several lenses by now, and even brought one which evidently had sticky blades to a repairshop. But this 40 mm/ 1.7 Rokkor looks like its new from the factory ...
I did not mean to say that the aperture blades do not move at all. They do. I can clearly see the difference between f/16, f/11 and f/8, but then it stops. When I press the shutter button halfway, the aperture even opens up a little further, but not far enough. No where near where it should be at f/4 and wider.
Hmmm, what to do ???
Paul. |
Will
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, November 08, 2005 - 10:21 am: |
|
The lens 'wobble' is common more or less to all the Minolta 7SII/Revue 400SE/Viv 35ES/Konica S3 clone cameras, and results from excessive manufacturing tolerances by the original manufacturer (most likely, Cosina). It doesn't affect operation or picture quality.
I side with Winfried on the probable cause of the sticky shutter, it's a common issue on these rangefinders, especially ones that have been stored unused for long periods. For lens removal, see his comments on the very similar Revue 400SE:
https://kyp.hauslendale.com/classics/forum/messages/674/356.html?1029558561 |
Paul Jenner
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, November 08, 2005 - 12:42 pm: |
|
Thanks for the link Will, I will look into it.
Do you really think this camera is made by Cosina ? I think it was Minolta who made them ...
Paul. |
Paul Jenner
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, November 08, 2005 - 01:38 pm: |
|
Two more questions:
1) Do I remove the "retainer ring holding the name plate ring" by turning the slim black ring just under the filter thread, that has two small slots in it ?
2) Will "Ronsonol lighter fluid for petrol lighters" be appropriate ?
Tnx,
Paul. |
Winfried
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, November 09, 2005 - 12:06 am: |
|
1. Yes
2. Probably yes - Ronsonol is not a common brand in Germany. I once bought a small can in France and it seems to be the right stuff.W |
Paul Jenner
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, November 09, 2005 - 02:54 am: |
|
Thanks for all so far,
I'll keep you guys posted.
Paul. |
Paul Jenner
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, November 17, 2005 - 01:23 pm: |
|
So far, I have removed the black ring around the frontlens. I made a tool out of a piece from a tin can and tried to unscrew the first set of lenses. Didn't work, though  It simply doens't come loose ! Any ideas how to remove this first lens set so I can apply the lighter fluid to the aperture blades ?
Paul. |
Paul Jenner
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 03:41 pm: |
|
Does nobody know the answer ?
Paul |
Paul Jenner
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 04:15 pm: |
|
Does nobody know the answer ?
Paul |
WernerJB
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, November 26, 2005 - 07:41 am: |
|
Perhaps you should try again with a more sturdy tool, removal of the front lens group/cell is indispensable, as it logically is the next step to be taken towards cleaning the blades. |
Paul Jenner
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 01:19 am: |
|
I guess a rubber band,some pliers and brute force is out of the question ?
Paul. |
WernerJB
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 02:47 am: |
|
This is the last straw, I guess. The last time I had to go the hard way was when the front lens cell of an Oly 35 RD wouldn't unscrew. Before you use that method make sure you can live without that particular camera, if you mess it up by using too much "brute force"; good luck, Paul.
I have, on the other hand, never heard of or encountered a Hi-M 7 S II or one of its clone's (Konica/ Revue/ Vivitar) front lens being so tightly screwed in.
PS: not considering the traces left around the front lens from previous owners' useless attepts to open the Oly it has survived and is in perfect shape again. |
Paul Jenner
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 05:48 am: |
|
THanks for the support, Werner. I'll try again.
Paul. |
Kiron Kid
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, December 09, 2005 - 10:08 am: |
|
Yes, it was made by Cosina. However, the lens is a Minolta-Leitz collaboration design, and a very good one.
Kiron Kid |
Paul Jenner
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, December 09, 2005 - 05:39 pm: |
|
How do you know ? At first, I found it very hard to believe that -of all brands- Minolta had to call in the help from others to build a body. But now I have three HiMatics, with only one working more or less without troubles, it gets a little bit less hard to believe that someone else build it. I can't imagine Minolta putting anything on the market that is prone to failure ....
And what exactly do you know about the lens ? I read in one place on the net that the lens was an ElCan design. Meaning Ernst Leitz Canada. And built of course by Minolta.
Paul. |
WernerJB
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, December 10, 2005 - 09:33 am: |
|
When money can be made, the almost unbelievable is usually going to happen, Cosina, Konica, Minolta, Ricoh, what's the difference? They have, I reckon, all cooperated, somehow, somewhere, at certain times, unnoticed or openly, for the mutual benefit of both companies and photographers. For quite a while now, everybody have only been interested in sales rates, shareholder value, outwitting competitors. Customers ? Generally speaking, they only count as long as they buy whatever is on the market and promises to be prestigious. In my experience Minolta's good reputation started fading decades ago, so I am afraid to say sth was "built by Minolta" does by no means signify quality. |
Winfried
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, December 11, 2005 - 03:30 am: |
|
I have the Revue400SE, the Hi-Matic7SII, the Konica Auto-S2 and the Vivitar 35ES, and I can tell you that all these cameras are very similar in design - also inside. For example, the Auto-S2 has an extra indicator for the aperture selected by the flashmatic system. The indicator is swung into place when a flash is attached, and this lever has a bearing on top of the lightmeter assembly. The Revue 400SE has EXACTLY the same lightmeter assembly, including two mounting holes needed for the Auto-S2 lever but unnecessary on the 400SE. The body die cast is somewhat different on each of these cameras but the interiors are almost identical. IMHO the Auto-S3 has the best build quality of these. |
WernerJB
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, December 11, 2005 - 03:59 am: |
|
I widely agree with Winfried, with minor differences though, as there are not many similarities between the Konica Auto S 2 and the Konica Auto S 3 (!). In fact, this latter camera and the three others mentioned "clones" have hardly anything in common with the Auto S 2.
And, as always, there are unbelievable differences in build quality inside between what I think must be different batches of Revue 400 SE cameras; some are excellent, wonderfully made, have no wobbly lenses, etc. while others are real crap, not worth anything, altough they look the same. This could mean they were made elsewhere, or later models, etc. To sum it all up, concerning usefulness and quality I would say it always depends on the specimen at hand whether this one is a "good" or a "bad" camera. |
Paul Jenner
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, December 12, 2005 - 02:45 pm: |
|
The strange thing is ...
I have three HiMatics now, and there appear to be at least two different versions of it. On the inside, that is. You can see a slight difference in the mechanics when you remove the bottom plate ...
Anyways,
the front lens cel is removed, I flushed with Ronsonol, and the aperture blades look a bit peculiar now. In the middle the blades appear as they did before, a bit greyish, towards the edges they appear a tint darker now. Almost as if they are still wet. Which is impossible because the flush is THREE days ago. Cannot look into it now, have to go to bed.
My first guess is that the blades are indeed dirty, and that that very dirt soaked up some Ronsonol. I did not wipe the blades after the flushing.
Regards,
Paul. |
WernerJB
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, December 13, 2005 - 07:17 am: |
|
Not wiping the blades means that the oil is only taken elsewhere by the cleansing agent, maybe if you really flushed in the literal sense of the word you have made all the oil that had been caught by each blade's bearing to spread over their metal surface. This was the case on one of my cameras, because the previous owner had added oil to reduce friction, but had increased adhesion by doing so. I had to use another solvent (Isopropyl by CRC) to make it come off, then wipe it at least a dozen times or so to get rid of all the residue, in other words, wiping things dry actually means removing dirt !
I think you are right assuming that there are slight differences in the interior makeup of these cameras, cf. my last entry above, why should Minolta be exceptional ? They never were. Maybe this also offers further explanations why they were never really enthusiastic about repairing their 7 IIs (to put it mildly), because they knew for sure some suchlike produce was in a state of irrepair anyway. There has never been, for example, another cure for a 7 II's wobbly lens than to swap the thing for one from a different batch of cameras that will most probably never develop that symptom of failure. |
Paul Jenner
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, December 13, 2005 - 08:33 am: |
|
I will try to clean the blades by wetting them again with Ronsonol, then using a cotton swab, over which I will fold a piece of lens cleaning tissue, and gently wipe from the outside to the inside. I take it one can only apply the tiniest amount of pressure to these blades. That should work.
I intend to re-tighten the four screws that hold the lens assembly. Then seal the screws with nail polish. Do you think that will cure the wobbly nature of the beast ?
Paul. |
WernerJB
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, December 13, 2005 - 03:43 pm: |
|
Sometimes - if this is the cause of the problem - it helps to re-tighten the screws. But not very many users/tinkerers would complain about their cameras having wobbly lenses if it was so easy to settle the case.
Too much pressure will probably harm or unhook the blades, so some care is advised.
I usually put a drop of solvent on a cotton or microfiber swab and use as it is, as that is the easiest way. I bet the blades' backside also needs cleaning ! |
Will
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 12:48 pm: |
|
"I intend to re-tighten the four screws that hold the lens assembly. Then seal the screws with nail polish. Do you think that will cure the wobbly nature of the beast?"
It may help, but, as I said, many of these lens mounts wobble because of sloppy manufacturing tolerances, so nothing can be guaranteed. In any event it seems to have no effect on picture quality, that I can tell. |
Paul Jenner
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, December 17, 2005 - 06:18 am: |
|
I'll just give it a try. Some of them HiMatics show a strange kind of bokeh in the corners of the frame. The wobbly lens could be the cause of this. But it might be just the film is not entirely flat. There is very little room inside you know. The pressure plate is very close to the take-up spool.
I have one HiMatic up- and running now. It has some tiny amount of fungus in the lens. I don't expect it will show up on the pictures. Otherwise, I now know how to open the front lens 
I have converted it for the use with 1600 ASA film. Don't really know yet if the meter is reacting correctly. I have tested it against the meter on my XD-11 with a 35 mm lens on it. Looks more or less okay.
I have put the repair of the one with the sticky blades aside for a moment. Right now I am concentrating on perfectioning the black one I acquired. The shutter was blocked due to a stuck selftimer. That is working o.k. now.
Paul. |
