| Author |
Message |
    
Haig Hovaness
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, January 13, 2006 - 08:35 am: | 
|
The Internet makes it possible to organize information around a subject. How many people need to put up their own articles on how to disassemble a Konica III before we realize that there should be a single public site on the web where all the public information on the Konica III is available? This forum is a wonderful resource, but it is just a fragment of the Balkanized camera repair knowledge that is scattered all over the Web. How many of us have dozens of bookmarks for camera repair sites?
Isn't it time to start compiling and sharing this information in the smartest possible way? Isn't it time for a universal repair Wiki? |
WernerJB
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, January 13, 2006 - 10:08 am: |
|
Collecting info from the web and elsewhere and communicating with other people all around the globe is part of the game everybody is playing here. We are not professionals who earn their living by repairing cameras, we do that for the fun of it. Asking for something like a general authority to which one can apply is definitely the end of one's intuition and fantasy. |
Haig Hovaness
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, January 13, 2006 - 12:08 pm: |
|
I disagree. We shouldn't be hoarding knowledge and doling it out in little crumbs. If it is a good thing to share camera knowledge with a single person, is it not a vastly better thing to share it with the whole world.
The Wiki phenomenon is not centrally regulated. As far as I can see it is open to all contributors and edited by consensus. There are already many Wiki entries for cameras. Doesn't it make sense to add repair information? |
Glenn Middleton
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, January 13, 2006 - 03:25 pm: |
|
Who says the Wiki is the smartest way of sharing information? From what I have seen most are far worse than many of the really bad photographic forums. However I do see that it all depends on how you use the forum format. Is an individual a giver or taker of information or do they partake of both in equal amounts. If you are just after repair information, then perhaps a vast bank of information is all you want or need.
On the other hand if I look at myself, it is clear that I am more of a giver of information. The explanation for this is that for all my working life, the use/maintenance of certain makes/types of photographic equipment has been a major aspect of the daily work load. So if I can pass on this knowledge to somebody with a problem, why not? I was helped in the past so I am just continuing the process, and if I suddenly get the urge to start rebuilding an Alpa or some-such, then somebody will answer my cry for help.
Now all this information could be on a Wiki, but that does not provide the other important ingredient - the communication with the other people around the World. I have indicated that I am a nett giver of information to this Forum; in fact that is far from the truth, Jon Goodman has gone out and purchased a certain make of fabric paint for me (unavailable in UK)and other contributors have purchased items for me. This being to save ludicrously high post and packing charges, ie found a New York dealer selling NOS Canon 72mm lens caps for $9.95 - a bargain, until you added the standard carriage charge of $84.00!! Total deal cost me $19.95 via my 'Forum-pal'. Paypal is very useful in instances like this.
So I agree with Werner J.B.. The personal touch would disappear and I feel that it would be a backward step, if this Forum was replaced by some vast heap of facts that are open to editing by anybody with an axe to grind. |
rick oleson
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, January 13, 2006 - 05:10 pm: |
|
I know a fair amout about camera repair, and i am always interested to learn more.
But I haven't got the foggiest idea what a Wiki is. So putting lots of camera repair information into one is not likely to help me a lot. |
Haig Hovaness
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, January 13, 2006 - 06:56 pm: |
|
A Wikipedia is a collaborative, public Web-based encyclopedia. For an example of Wikipedia camera information, see the following entry on the Nikon FG:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_FG
Would it not make sense to add to this page links to all the available FG repair information? I know that it is very satisfying to communicate about specific issues in online forums, but isn't it silly for someone to have to post a forum query to figure out how to get the top off a camera?
If you look at the traffic on this excellent forum, you will find that about a third of the questions are very simple and repetitive inquiries that would be easily addressed by a single set of basic repair information organized by camera model. (E.g., How do I get the top off? How do I unjam the film advance? How do I unstick the shutter?)
More sophisticated queries should remain in the domain of specialist forums, but the simple, repetitive repair stuff is better left to the Wiki model. |
Michael Linn
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, January 13, 2006 - 08:32 pm: |
|
There is no hoarding of repair knowledge here at all.
Those who do not have the patience or ability to search the wealth of information here will have no more success elsewhere.
Remember that the Wiki is not really interactive- the newb who reads the instruction for "removing the top" and is suddenly frozen when the first difficulty is encountered is just stuck. Many repairs require the interaction and encouragement found here for final success. |
Richard Creviston
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, January 13, 2006 - 09:55 pm: |
|
The above responces from Werner,Glen,Rick and Michael have expressed my views far more eloquently than I could ever manage. For years I have read their advise as well as many others. I have bought repair manuals and in most cases they have fallen short of imparting any usefull information as to the actual process of repairing my cameras.
A belated thanks to all those who have taken their time to give of themselves to help others in solving problems. It takes a very special person to be willing to help others with no thought of receiving a financial gain. I read the forum every day and I am saddened to see that many times there is not even a "Thank you" fom the recipient of the advise.
I want to take this opportunity to thank all who have contributed to this forum, for the knowledge I have gained from their advise. Please don't change a thing. Please remember that there many ways to accomplish a given task and the input from several sources is far more helpful than any any repair manual I have seen.
Richard. |
WernerJB
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, January 14, 2006 - 05:25 am: |
|
If you follow Haig's link you will very soon find out what wiki is about (or better what it is NOT about).
It does not serve what I personally am looking for in this forum, although I must admit that I have drawn profit from other aspects of the encyclopedia in different contexts.
To Rick, especially: to the best of my knowlegde wikis are named after the Hawaiian term wiki meaning quick or fast, or, as a verb, (to) hasten. I have heard of other etymological explanations, but they seem senseless. In some cases, people use wikiwiki instead of wiki. |
Haig Hovaness
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, January 14, 2006 - 09:22 am: |
|
This is not a 1 or 0 issue. I too have received and provided useful information on this forum, and I don't expect forums like this to vanish if some of the knowledge shared here is provided more efficiently.
Consider undocumented cameras, like the Konica III. Are we to assume that anyone wanting to work on a Konica III must go on a forum pilgrimage until he or she finds a master willing to share secrets? Or is it better to sacrifice a camera to trial and error dissection?
A repair Wiki on the Konica III would be an indisputably good thing for the classic RF restoration community. Right now, I am trying to adjust the rangefinder cam, and I have nothing but guesswork to go on. When I finally figure out what to do, I would like to be able to share it with the rest of the world, not just whoever is lucky enough to google my forum postings. |
rick oleson
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, January 14, 2006 - 09:30 am: |
|
ah. i don't think i've ever used one. if someone wants to make up such a thing, that sounds fine. as long as it's not me. obviously, that is not my strong area.
: ) = |
Henry
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, January 14, 2006 - 09:57 am: |
|
I agree with everyone who has posted...as weird as it seems, I even agree with the contradictory bits. I'd like to see classic camera repair on the Wiki. I'm a big Wiki fan...though I've never submitted an article or addition to any of its multitude of subjects.
But the Wiki is like trying to learn to ride a bicycle by reading a book. Great source of knowledge and confidence builder, but the reader (inexperienced tinkerer) would immediately fall on their face in trying to actually fix a camera. Balance cannot be learned by reading, and neither can the proper handling of precision tools and delicate mechanisms. However, a camera repair Wiki would be invaluable to an experienced tinkerer who has already skinned his knees learning the unlearnable by reading basics.
The future I see with a camera repair Wiki is the unfortunate death of many a good classic camera via the hands of a too anxious newbie who has just read how to do it. Guess this is progress...
Henry |
WernerJB
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, January 14, 2006 - 10:18 am: |
|
... guesswork, what is wrong about that? That is what I call intuition, this is what most things in life are all about, at least in my view. A life without any challenges is boring, and that is why I do not want everything to be, in the language of bureaucrats, officially documented, listed, registered, as if documentary about data was sth sacred or objectively safe. There is no such thing as one-dimensional truth, neither in internet wikis nor elsewhere (and so I would not want to know the date of my dying day, as this would mean the end of any personal freedom).
Nobody here or elsewhere was able or willing (!?) to give information about the Taron Marquis' meter setup (mine was incomplete). It took me an interesting while and some effort to reach my aims, but every step was part of my way, my decision, my plight, everything done on purpose. I am proud to be a do-it-yourselfer, errors and failures included.
Now I own four such cameras and know them inside out, initiated by a lack of information, how's that? (The flipside of this is that successful projects tend to become boring, as there are no more veils to be lifted.) Information: yes; help: of course; solutions: why not ?; recipes: no, thanks ! |
Dan Mitchell
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, January 14, 2006 - 10:20 am: |
|
An interesting idea. I don't know the answer, but do have a few opinions (as always) :
One of the nice things about the internet is its redundancy. If a web site goes away the information may be available at an alternate site. On the other hand, one of the worse things about the internet is its redundancy. Doing a search using something like google will turn up thousands of entries, most of which are either useless or redundant, resulting in a frustrating waste of time.
I have seen in the weblog for my site that some of my articles on camera repair have been put into wikipedia from time to time. So, some people are alreadying doing that ad-hoc.
But, having a central place means someone has to agree to maintain that site, probably without getting paid for it. So what happens if the master site goes away because someone doesn't want the headache of maintaining it?
I think the internet is still evolving and for now the best approach is to try several different things. Eventually there will be a kind of "survival of the fittest" as the best and easiest approach will continue on while others get discarded. |
Haig Hovaness
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, January 14, 2006 - 12:08 pm: |
|
I agree with Dan that more efficient repair resources will evolve (and I compliment him on his excellent repair pages), but I think that the community on this forum could be very helpful in speeding up the evolution.
One area where we could all benefit by pooling our resources is the subject of undocumented cameras, models for which there is no commercially available official repair information. There are some fine cameras that fall into this category, such as the Lordomat, The Fujica V2, and the Konica II and III.
How could we establish such a list here and begin to provide informal documentation for these models? |
charlie
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, January 14, 2006 - 01:34 pm: |
|
Why not use the "keyword search" in the lefthand column to find what you're looking for? Why reinvent the wheel? |
Haig Hovaness
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, January 14, 2006 - 02:27 pm: |
|
Why not search this forum? Successful searching depends on the searchable knowledge pool and the search mechanism. This forum is an excellent resource, but it represents less than 1% of the camera repair knowledge on the Internet. Assuming that one uses Google to search the rest, one must still be clever and lucky in setting up search queries (Konica III? Konica 3a? Konica RF?)
Isn't it much more logical to go to a definitive SINGLE SOURCE on the Konica III and use it as a focal point for accumulating information. |
David
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, January 16, 2006 - 12:34 pm: |
|
One problem I have encountered with personal communication is that people change email addresses or just disappear altogether. I once corresponded with someone who knew how to remove the top off a Retina IIc which I desperately needed to know, he said he was busy but would get back to me. Well, he never did and now his email bounces back. Unless knowledge is saved somewhere (I have a vast store sitting on my hard drive) it will eventually be lost. |
Will
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, January 16, 2006 - 03:36 pm: |
|
Not to mention that the Wikipedia information is frequently biased, in that it is usually stocked by those with an agenda pro or con, and often goes uncorrected. The rose-colored 'spec' description of the FG, marketing history, and glossing over of its internal build deficiencies is a perfect example. |
Haig Hovaness
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, January 17, 2006 - 07:06 am: |
|
I think it is a far better thing to spread knowledge widely than to hand it out in little bits to one person at a time. That is why the repair Wiki makes sense. I am baffled by those who suggest that repair knowledge should be difficult to obtain on the Internet because only those who show themselves worthy by seeking it out successfully are entitled to it.
A Nikon EM without battery power has a mechanical 1/1000 shutter speed when set to "AUTO." This was never publicized by Nikon, but it is helpful information for an EM user with dead batteries. I recently added this information to the Wikipedia entry on the EM. Now everyone in the world has access to this knowledge. How many people could I have informed on this forum or via email exchanges?
Regarding biased Wikipedia descriptions, this is a problem for controversial subjects, such as politics and religion. Whether a fastener on a camera is left or right-hand threaded is a matter of fact. |
Will
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, January 17, 2006 - 03:54 pm: |
|
Who are you kiddin? The Wikipedia is full of erroneous info, political or not. Just take the FG entry - from reading it one would think the camera was relatively successful, when in fact both the EM and FG were both unequivocal, indisputable sales failures in the marketplace - in fact, Nikon lost money on them counting development budget. Turns out loyal Nikon customers didn't want a cheaply made camera. Also left out are specifics on build quality or lack thereof. These models fail at up to 5-10 the rate of much better made FE and FM cameras, I sure didn't see that fact listed. |
Glenn Middleton
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, January 17, 2006 - 04:44 pm: |
|
I ask myself why Nikon never advertised the fact or felt it was not worth mentioning in the manual. One answer is that the actual speed varies from camera to camera, so is in fact useless for accurate exposure.
Have you actually measured the shutter speed or are you just repeating some information that has been past on to you? Knowledge is only useful if it is correct in all details. I have seen the EM entry, but without provenance it belongs more in the realms of myth than a factual document. If the statement can be backed by measurements etc, quote the source of the information should be quoted.
This is the trouble with Wikipedia, nobody checks that the information is correct. The recent case of a completely false and libelous biography, that was posted by people unknown and passed by Wikipedia staff shows the weakness of this system. It was only when the person libeled, contacted the founder of Wikipedia that the bio was removed.
If somebody wants to trawl through all the forums etc gathering repair information, then that is OK by me. I just hope that the dodgy/confusing information is thrown out. |
Henry
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, January 17, 2006 - 05:26 pm: |
|
Yes Glenn, the default high speed seems to vary. I have an EM, FG20 and FG here. I tried them on the shutter tester just a few minutes ago. The 1/1000 seems to be an electronically controlled speed...and all of them darn accurate! Taking the battery out the default speeds were all faster than 1/1000. In fact the EM was so fast it went beyond my 1/4000 tester, yet I could discern light when snapped in front of my EV15 test light.
So in conclusion I'm guessing that Nikon sets up the mechanical geometry to be only faster than the fastest electronic speed. And that they do not calibrate it.
Henry |
Glenn Middleton
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, January 17, 2006 - 06:20 pm: |
|
Henry,
Many thanks for confirming what was only an educated guess. Your second paragraph sets out my reasoning - mechanics must function faster than the electronic governed maximum. Get the design, materials and dimensions/clearances correct and within tolerance, then the shutter will always operate in a range above your intended proper maximum. No calibration needed except for the sync speed perhaps, but 1/90 or 1/125 sec is far easier to attain accurately as a mechanical speed than 1/1000 or above.
Glenn |
Haig Hovaness
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, January 17, 2006 - 07:50 pm: |
|
I am pleased to say that I can provide more information on the subject of the EM's top mechanical shutter speed. I first became aware of this undocumented feature when reading the Nikon EM factory repair manual (Nikon publication 23FB-R-3023.A). On page 28, Section 12 is titled:
"Check of shutter speed at 'Auto' without power source, 'M90' and 'B'
According to this reference, the shutter timing standard for the 'Auto' without power setting is .49 to .98 ms. This equates to a speed of between 1/1500 and 1/1000.
Tonight I took three old EM bodies awaiting refurbishment and I checked the "Auto" speed without batteries on my Camlogix shutter speed tester. I got readings of .8, .9 and 1.2 milliseconds, respectively, on the three cameras. As you know, this is well within the range of adjustment tolerance for a 1/1000 nominal shutter speed.
Now, you may imagine a photographer with an EM with dead batteries or failed electronics wanting to take a picture of a fast moving subject, using the highly precise sunny-16 rule, saying to himself, "Wait, I don't think that speed is exactly 1/1000 sec. I better not take the chance." Somehow I doubt it.
Before I made this information available, the vast majority of EM owners simply did not know that there was a fully usable manual high shutter speed built into their camera. If you think Nikon was protecting them from making inaccurate exposures, you may be right. I consider it somewhat more likely that Nikon was protecting the FE, F3, and FG from competition from a "cheap" camera with a superior mechanical backup capability. |
Glenn Middleton
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - 06:01 am: |
|
Haig,
Having read various posts about the FE, F3, and FG I guess that your surmise about Nikon's reasoning may be the major factor in this tale. The profit god always being to the forefront in anything, where large companies are concerned.
As I have stated before on this Forum, I am a Canon man. This came about because in my home town there were two dealers, one was the Nikon agent and the other the Canon agent. The Canon agent was a family friend, so the choice was made very early in my photographic life and at a great help to my wallet over the years. However where this is leading - If I was into Nikon kit the little bit of information about the factory manual is the really interesting bit and that would have made your Wikipedia entry complete. If it had been for Canon kit I would have certainly checked to make sure my data was up to date.
Glenn. |
Haig Hovaness
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - 07:50 am: |
|
When I began to devote effort to camera repair and restoration, my first subject of study was the Nikon EM, because it was one of my first SLRs. Over several years I learned a great deal about the EM, but the deeper knowledge I gained was the difference between what Nikon and the photo industry press disclosed about the EM and facts that were omitted. Here are some significant omissions:
1. The usable fast mechanical backup speed
2. The deliberate design of the screen holder to prevent mounting of FE-compatible focus screens (easily corrected).
3. The relatively poor optical quality of the pentaprisms, resulting in a high incidence of ripple distortion and reduced sharpness of the finder image.
We live in an era of tremendously enhanced access to information about all aspects of the world, including classic cameras. Tools like the Wikipedia allow everyone to share information in a dramatically better way. I am going to contribute what I know about classic film cameras to the Wikipedia so as to make everyone better informed. I hope that others on this forum will do the same. |
Henry
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - 09:44 am: |
|
Terrific, now we have both official repair documentation and real world test results. My FG20 and FG were both within Nikon's numbers, that is with .49 being 1/2000 second. They were .78 and .53. That is like having an extra shutter speed!
Wonder why the EM was so far off? All three of these cameras came to me not working, so it might be something I did. Although the curtain speeds are on the high end of the spec, they are still within.
Haig, adding that little Nikon quote would be perfect for the Wiki. I wouldn't mind you mentioning my test results either...no need to give credit. Having an extra high speed is great knowledge for EM/FG users. Especially if the speed is close to 1/2000 like mine were.
They are super little cameras!
Henry |
Haig Hovaness
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - 10:25 am: |
|
I have updated the Nikon EM Wikipedia entry to state that the undocumented high shutter speed is "approximately" 1/1000 sec and added a reference to the repair manual. I am a bit puzzled by your observations on FG shutter timing, since my own FG shutter will fire only on M90 and B without batteries. |
Mark
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - 11:03 am: |
|
"I consider it somewhat more likely that Nikon was protecting the FE, F3, and FG from competition from a "cheap" camera with a superior mechanical backup capability"
Too bad they didn't also protect the customer by sparing the EM the stupid, non-cancelable 'beep' signal. And taking the money they wasted on Giugiaro and designed a higher quality film advance mechanism. They might have sold more cameras. |
Haig Hovaness
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - 12:10 pm: |
|
I like the Guigiaro EM design. Guigiaro did a fine job on the F3 too. The beep is unfortunate, but it can be disabled by unsoldering one wire. Regarding the EM film advance mechanism, I have never seen a broken one (apart from busted rewind knobs). If you want an unreliable film advance design, take a look at the Pentax ME/ME Super.
The EM has a few weaknesses, but there are plenty of them around in working condition. Not a bad record for a camera of this vintage. |
Henry
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - 06:34 pm: |
|
Haig, your FG doesn't have the fast, no battery speed? Weird. I got all three of these Nikons in a large box of Nikon bodies two or three years ago. All where in various states of disassembly. I pieced them and a few other Nikons (long gone now) back together without a manual. I kept the three because they were worth less on the market. Friends are always borrowing cameras from me and they make good loaners. In fact my son took the FG to college for a year. Then I bought myself a Panasonic FZ20 and he took the old Olympus C-4040.
Anyone else want to test their Nikons and let us know which of our cameras is functioning normally.
Henry |
William Tarnes
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, January 19, 2006 - 02:26 pm: |
|
An interesting thing about the EM is that it is one of the first 35mm SLR cameras designed specifically for women, then entering the new photographer market, and was originally marketed as such. It was supposed to be easy to use and uncomplicated, hence the absence of the full manual exposure mode.
Years ago, as a young photo clerk, I attempted to sell many of these to budding photographers of all sexes, usually without success. After handling the high end Nikons, the film advance and features of the EM usually brought an expression of distate and a request to see 'something else'. Back then, many entry-level customers either splurged on a Nikon body or they went Canon or Minolta.
Unfortunately, the internals of the EM are anything but uncomplicated. The insistence on a design that positions the winding lever between the winding spool and the sprocket, and a rather complicated fractional winding mechanism was probably not a smart idea given the materials budget, and I have seen a lot of broken ones. |
