Doesn't look like a leak to me. Something is obscuring the film during exposure. No fingers in front of the lens?
Could this cause the marks?
Something about a "a slow up or early down going mirror." was mentioned elsewhere if that makes sense as a cause?
Nope. That would just cause over- or underexposure and slightly funny bokeh shapes. The latter is probably unnoticeable. The former may be an issue at small apertures.
I don't expect so; the blocked area would have a straight edge to it. This is decidedly curved.
Given the fact that it's very blurry, it's likely to be close to the lens.
You mention having tried different lenses on this camera. Does the problem occur with more than one lens?
You don't have a hood installed on the lens that happens to be deformed or fitted incorrectly?
Another post eons ago talked about the "braking mechanism" for the shutter as a cause. The thread was never resolved, so I don't know if that is or isn't relevant here?
Link to Other post
What happened there?
Well, it really does look very comparable or identical to that photo.net thread you found. If that was the mirror somehow remaining in the optical path, which does sound plausible, then it's time to do a check up of the mirror mechanism. You could consider posting a thread about it in the Camera Repairs forum or the 35mm Cameras forum; perhaps some people with knowledge of the F3 will chime in and offer their advice.
Looks like a major transportation issue combined with multiple exposure of the same scene.
Sounds like this camera is due for a CLA.
Forgive me for the obvious, but could there have been anything else that got in front of the lens? It’s just that the OOF blob looks so very like what happens if you get a flap of something in the way, whereas I’d expect the mirror to make a sharper outline.
Another thought, could holding the DOF button and taking the shots be doing this?
Heres a look at the inside - all seems fine. The foam on the second mirror is crumbly, but not sticky.Just from looking at the negs I would have guessed a curl of torn film is trapped between the mirror and the shutter.
To reiterate - what do you see with the lens removed and the shutter set to B?
The Nikon F3 uses a relay mirror for the photocell of the light meter (attached to the rear of the reflex mirror holder). See page M11 and M13 in the F3 repair manual in the following link.
[F3 owners might want to save a copy of this file for further reference.]
http://ss-it.de/data/servicemanuals/F3 (V. 1).pdf
I suspect that the relay mirror intermittently intrudes into the light path between the bottom of the scene and the area along the top of the film gate casting its shadow upon the film. If so, this would show along the bottom edge of the developed film frame. That’s what we see in the some of the photos displayed by the originator of this thread. (The repair manual refers to it as the "metering mirror.")
This could happen if the mirror sometimes rebounds upon striking the stop pad surrounding the viewing screen mount, possibly sticking in this position as the shutter cycles. It could also happen if the mirror occasionally fails to fully come to rest against the pad. That this happens intermittently suggests sticking due to dried or oxidized lubricant.
Some of the frames I viewed also seemed to exhibit differential exposure across the long dimension of the frame. That would not be related to the relay mirror. This seems to be the case in the two photos shown in post #4. That might also be the case with negative frames #22, 23. If so, this problem is likely related to the uneven travel of one of the shutter curtains. This too can be intermittent.
The film transport problem is a separate issue. As others have commented, this camera needs the attention of a qualified technician experienced in the servicing of the Nikon F3 camera.
It likely would have shown up at least once if it was the mirror etc?
It didn't happen every shot in the last roll. And, if the camera had been sitting around unused, maybe exercising it will make it happen less frequently. But it probably was that mirror - the profile is too consistent with other examples.
I can't see any light leak in your photos - maybe it's the screen I'm viewing them on. There doesn't appear to be any evidence of a light leak on the photo of the negative (in the unexposed areas).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?