Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,222   Posts: 1,532,374   Online: 1073
      
Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 98
  1. #31
    q_x
    q_x is offline
    q_x's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Poland
    Shooter
    Pinhole
    Posts
    165
    To rewind the film in mid-cocking, I put the lens cap on and fire the shutter. It shouldn't stress the shutter too much. Later - as usual: rotate the collar, rewind. No need to waste the film this way or another. If you don't have a "test" roll, I think it's easy to make one, some film and an old canister is all one needs to check things or practice.

    I don't quite understand the part about overexposure. Is only 1/30 time affected? Or all or all the slow or fast speeds? Constant 1,5 stops off is almost unimaginable with this type of shutter, but if it's 1/30 only and it doesn't look like "lazy shutter", my guess would be the flash issue we've been talking about earlier has indeed something to do here. Lazy shutter curtain would also affect the slower speeds, at least you should be able to see it spoiling 1/15 also.

    Cheers!
    Use the Force, Luke!

  2. #32

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    2,636
    It has just been in the repair shop and they did not repair it proper, you should not have adjusted the speed dial...

    Give them a ring and see if they will fix your camera and pay return postage.

    You also need to save for a 40.5 mm screw in filter and lens hood. They might have such in their junk bin.

  3. #33

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    211
    I ran a whole set of tests in the same lighting from 1 second to 1/125th so I could evaluate the slow shutter speeds since I suspected an issue with the slow speeds. The exposures are all identical for every shutter setting with the exception of 1/30th. When watching the shutter curtain close at 1/30th you can see the curtain travel speed appears slow and is not always constant. It seems to slow toward the end of it's travel when flash sync is in M and it may not even close at all when the flash sync selector is in X. Otherwise all looks to be great with this camera. I moved to a brighter area to test the higher speeds and they appear to be working correctly too so it's only 1/30th. Perplexing......


    Quote Originally Posted by q_x View Post
    I don't quite understand the part about overexposure. Is only 1/30 time affected? Or all or all the slow or fast speeds? Constant 1,5 stops off is almost unimaginable with this type of shutter, but if it's 1/30 only and it doesn't look like "lazy shutter", my guess would be the flash issue we've been talking about earlier has indeed something to do here. Lazy shutter curtain would also affect the slower speeds, at least you should be able to see it spoiling 1/15 also.

    Cheers!

  4. #34
    q_x
    q_x is offline
    q_x's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Poland
    Shooter
    Pinhole
    Posts
    165
    Well, if you feel adventurous, you may as well try to undo the grub-screw in the X-M sync dial, rotate the dial a bit and tighten the screw back to allow the sync dial to be set past the M setting. Just remeber how much have you moved it to revert the change if needed. But yes, something is not OK, and I'm not sure if this method will work. Sync and slow speed escapement are pretty nasty creatures on their own, and someone combined both right under the dials. Here Rick described how to check if the sync dial is set correctly: http://rick_oleson.tripod.com/zorkip2.gif - using PC socket, rather than lifting the top, it should not be that hard to do.

    I'm sure though, that starting another thread here on APUG and asking for help with this specific issue is a better idea.

    How's the lens, BTW?

    (the camera didn't came from anyone knowlegable, Xmas, not from a repair shop, as any sane person would simply fix the speed dial in no time trying to sell the camera)
    Use the Force, Luke!

  5. #35

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    211
    I've only scanned a few shots so far. They look good though. Focus appears correct although I haven't gotten to my f/2 shots yet. Lens is sharp in the center, perhaps a little less so around the edges but seems really good for the price.

    2 shots with no cropping. I see what you were talking about with the film alignment. Not a problem for me though. No much is lost.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	20131209-01 HP5 Zorki-4 02.jpg 
Views:	15 
Size:	502.3 KB 
ID:	78240 Click image for larger version. 

Name:	20131209-01 HP5 Zorki-4 03.jpg 
Views:	14 
Size:	361.4 KB 
ID:	78241

    A few more snap shots from around the house. My glasses definitely get in the way of trying to frame due to the "low" eye-point. I need +3.5 correction. The diopter will adjust it clear for me so that is good. However when it is adjusted the magnification is higher so I have to shift it back blurry to frame more accurately. A bit of a nuisance but I can cope with it.

    Straight Scan:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	20131209-01 HP5 Zorki-4 12.jpg 
Views:	18 
Size:	876.3 KB 
ID:	78242

    Balanced with a touch of selective contrast adjustment:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	20131209-01 HP5 Zorki-4 08.jpg 
Views:	20 
Size:	1.08 MB 
ID:	78245

    Straight Scan:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	20131209-01 HP5 Zorki-4 07.jpg 
Views:	16 
Size:	531.9 KB 
ID:	78246

    Balanced with a touch of selective contrast adjustment:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	20131209-01 HP5 Zorki-4 06.jpg 
Views:	18 
Size:	1.18 MB 
ID:	78247



    Forgot to mention details: Zorki-4 with Jupiter-8 50mm f/2 lens. Ilford HP5 Plus developed in XTOL. Scanned with Nikon CoolScan V ED using VueScan 9. No grain reduction.
    Last edited by Lamar; 12-10-2013 at 10:27 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  6. #36
    q_x
    q_x is offline
    q_x's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Poland
    Shooter
    Pinhole
    Posts
    165
    The last photo shows pretty good definition/contrast/sharpness in the upper right corner. Certainly better, than some modern zoom lenses. The dog doesn't look that good, but the landscapes are pretty sharp, at least it seems so. What strikes me, however, is rather low overall contrast. IDK if that was your idea, I wouldn't blame the lens entirely for that, but it may need a lenshood indeed, as Xmas said.
    Use the Force, Luke!

  7. #37

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,364
    Take the lens off the camera and shine a flashlight through it. Move the light around, check from both sides, look for haze. It takes very little haze to lower the contrast of any lens, and the haze can be surprisingly hard to spot. A lenshood also helps, with any lens, haze or no haze
    What year was your lens made? (First two digits of the serial, usually).

  8. #38

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    211
    I altered that last scan and bumped up the contrast in certain areas. I thought contrast was a bit low as well. I'm using old pretty XTOL so maybe it's the developer. I need to mix up a new batch to be sure. The lens looks clean. I'll post some pics of the lens later. I building a list of things to get so perhaps a lens hood needs to be on the list.

    Quote Originally Posted by q_x View Post
    The last photo shows pretty good definition/contrast/sharpness in the upper right corner. Certainly better, than some modern zoom lenses. The dog doesn't look that good, but the landscapes are pretty sharp, at least it seems so. What strikes me, however, is rather low overall contrast. IDK if that was your idea, I wouldn't blame the lens entirely for that, but it may need a lenshood indeed, as Xmas said.

  9. #39

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    211
    As suggested, pics of the lens with a light shining through. I see some specs and I added the fingerprint as I removed the lens. Is this enough to cause reduced contrast? I wouldn't think so but then I'm no optics expert either. I'm using pretty old XTOL so perhaps that could be the issue.


    From the front:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_2254.jpg 
Views:	16 
Size:	523.5 KB 
ID:	78255 Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_2252.jpg 
Views:	13 
Size:	506.0 KB 
ID:	78256 Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_2251.jpg 
Views:	14 
Size:	472.5 KB 
ID:	78257


    From the rear:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_2255.jpg 
Views:	13 
Size:	523.7 KB 
ID:	78258 Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_2247.jpg 
Views:	16 
Size:	390.9 KB 
ID:	78259


    A few of the body:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_2244.jpg 
Views:	14 
Size:	691.0 KB 
ID:	78260 Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_2245.jpg 
Views:	12 
Size:	510.2 KB 
ID:	78261 Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_2246.jpg 
Views:	11 
Size:	708.3 KB 
ID:	78262

  10. #40

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,364
    The one picture, #5 of 8, suggests that the lens is in need of cleaning. The fingerprint right in the center will certainly reduce contrast and resolution.
    It doesn't matter whether you can get a photo of any haze, what matters is that you get rid of it. As i said, haze can be hard to spot - sometimes you need to really work at it, altering the angle of the light until it appears. It takes very little haze to reduce contrast, and the J-8 is a contrasty lens when clean; at least mine is - and so was it's uncoated ancestor, the 5cm/2 Zeiss Sonnar as long as you shaded the thing. If you disassemble the lens to clean it, beware!! I had to strip mine twice because the haze was not visible immediately after cleaning, all I can think of is hydration from the cleaning fluid made it less visible. When it dried out again, the haze was still there somewhat. Let it sit at least overnight before reassembling, the less you dis- and re- assemble these the better.

    The serial of your J-8 is on the side of the focussing ring, from the looks of yours the number might begin '0' or '00' in which case it will not date the lens. For instance, mine is #7518177 made in 1975. The body was made in 1971, which means it's 42 years old and should be CLA'd if it hasn't already.
    Last edited by E. von Hoegh; 12-10-2013 at 01:34 PM. Click to view previous post history.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin