Do you destroy the village to save it?? - modifications

[Dan Daniel]

OK, dramatic headline. But I'd be curious to hear how people think around the issue of 'authenticity' and original designs, etc. I'll give two examples, both on Rolleiflexes.

You'll see Rolleis, usually from late '40s into the '50s, with bolts used for attaching a flash solenoid, brackets scabbed onto side panels, etc. I just dealt with a cold flash shoe riveted onto a focus hood assembly. To me, these things point to a willingness to make something work. To overcome design limits, to deal with special circumstances and needs. The camera is a tool and you make tools work for you. Something much more common 50 or more years ago, of course. So what is a special object to us today was a useful object to be made more or less useful as you needed it. Were these people modifying Rolleis at that time destroying them?

Second example: Rolleiflex MX-EVS, early model. This has an EV lock system. But no permanent cut-out for the EV lock; you need to press a small button on the aperture dial to temporarily uncouple the shutter and aperture. Later models had a permanent cut-out so obviously Rollei had to accommodate people who didn't like the older design. So not liking the EV system at all, I decided to simply grind the gear teeth off of the two gears that do the coupling. Put the toothless slugs back in. Voila!! No EV coupling, gone, never to return. As I see it, the tool was flawed and making it hard to use as I wanted. I know full well that I will never want the EV feature. Removing it permanently makes sense. At most, I could have made slugs for the gears and put the gears in a corner of the camera in case someone wanted to rebuild the EV system. But phooey... Have I desecrated a temple? Am I going to hell? Is it wrong to have a camera that works as I want (and works very very smoothly!) even though I have altered its original design? Do I owe it to 'the future' to not modify a camera?

 

[Andreas Thaler]

You should be awarded because you create the product that you actually need

 

[Don_ih]

Were these people modifying Rolleis at that time destroying them?

No - they were making them do what they wanted (or needed) them to do. You're completely right when you mention the camera was a tool - quite often used to make money - and it had to do what the user needed it to do. Sometimes, these Mickey-Mouse hacks are quite bad and didn't work that well, though. I've seen Leica IIIs with a two-prong flash attachment sticking out the front below the slow-speed dial. I find it more interesting than destructive, even if it is (at this point) practically useless.

As for destroying that irritating EV coupling (which never should have been done ever on any camera) - good job.

 

[ic-racer]

I almost never do permanent, non-reversible modifications.

Frequently, after a few years I change my work methods and put things back.

For example I might defeat the EVS, then later discover a tiny digital built-in light meter mod with a display in the viewfinder showing only EV.

 

[ic-racer]

Actually, as I sit here taking a break, I’m using my Rolleicord. Rather than permanently stapling a cold shoe to the pop-up hood, i got a lenshood with a built in cold shoe for the meter.

 

[campy51]

You corrected a problem that Rolleiflex later realized that they were wrong to begin with.

 

[mshchem]

Some future being can put it back if so desired. Sounds like you are happy with the results, good job !

 

[AnselMortensen]

I see both sides of this coin...

On one hand, Antiques Roadshow, etc. have shown us that originality is key for retaining resale value...having original packaging, etc.
Also, we are just caretakers of this gear for future generations, museums, etc.

On the other hand, as mentioned above, the camera is a tool.
Whatever modifications were necessary to make it work better than designed were often done, without regard to resale value, etc.
I have had numerous antique view cameras with Depression-era modifications...some well done, some ghastly...all quite clever.

Given the option, I tend towards reversible mods when possible.

I hate the EV lock system on my Hassy lenses, so I can sympathize. Well done!

 

[Donald Qualls]

If you dig deep enough into history, modifications made to tools by the user become part of the provenance. An 18th century musket with an improved method of holding the flint, perhaps -- especially if the modification can be traced to someone who later introduced a similar or better method built into new guns.

Adding an accessory shoe, converting a camera with failed film counter to red window, etc. can be neutral or even increase the value of a collector piece, if it's been long enough since the modification was made. Originality is mainly prized in rarities in any case -- Rolleiflex were common enough that modified models are likely to have special interest, as opposed to being decried as the work of heathens.

 

[kl122002]

I 'd rather say it's buyer's role to know what he is buying and what he is doing( modification) .

Let's say the Rollei mx-evs, there is known later model that has the coupling override mech , so why one doesn't get the later model but modify the old one?

And the other thing is, if that gear was originally modified for it's purpose, like reporter's old Rollei could always have an external flashblub coupler, or even a rangefinder at the base , then it's another story since it was modified for it's duty needs.


For many cases I have experienced , it is like person A first modified the for his own use, after a while A sold this camera to B, and B would ask technician to fix because he thought it was something wrong in his camera.l, or just don't want the modification.

Plus , the technician would be definitely swearing on his table after seeing all modification that done poorly, or looking for parts to restore.

 

[Dan Daniel]

All in all, kl122002, I'd agree with your thinking. A certain discomfort with what I did led me to ask for others' opinions. If I had the chance, I would go back and simply pull the gears, make slugs to keep the basic operations, and put the original parts inside the mirror box or focus side panel space for someone to reuse if they wanted to down the road. I don't change basic functionality or design lightly.

Then again, as others point to, it's a tool, not a precious relic of a lost civilization (well, quality machining and design in quality materials does seem to be relics from the past, a reason I like working on these cameras in the first place).

Yes, Rollei made a version with a kill switch built in. But these days, swapping cameras out and such has so many variables with condition ,etc., that having a clean functioning camera in hand that is great except for one issue is hard to send out hoping to find a comparable one at the same price, etc.

Thanks to everyone for their thoughts.

 

[Pioneer]

First, it is not a village, it is a tool.

I bought it and paid good money for it so It is my tool. I'll make it work for me. That may require a temporary mod for a special situation or it may require a permanent mod.

If I resell it I will be sure to include the mod in the description. It then becomes the buyer's responsibility to decide whether they do or do not want that camera with that modification.

 

[Bill Burk]

When I take in a Weston Master II the first thing I do is check for signs of having been opened. Some screw head slip is factory but there are signs like the matt finish of the black screw at the top under the cover which is easily marred.

I used to take the cell out for evaluation but discovered empirically that opening the compartment accelerates the cell’s demise. So now I paint a seal and leave it sealed unless absolutely necessary to open.

It’s a lot easier to work on cameras that have not been opened.

 

[Kino]

If done reasonably well, I find the personal modifications of equipment both interesting and indicative of the user's mindset.

For instance, I bought a Kodak Recomar 33 from user of this board and it came with some fascinating modifications. The shutter had been rotated to place the top at about the 4 O'clock position so that an old style flash synchronizer could be bolted to the top of the lens board. An after market flashgun bracket was installed and a "Feather-Lite", all aluminium adapter for 3.25 x 4.25 "American films" put in place of the typical ground glass.

In essence, the original owner/modifier made a good miniature press camera from a typical folding plate camera.

I don't feel the changes have diminished the camera, but in fact have enhanced it's historical and functional value.

 

[Saganich]

Sometimes the task a tool was designed for changes and modifications are necessary. I had Dan convert a Medalist for 120 film. I don't think it destroyed the value but just made it more seamless in the current world. A tool should never become more eminent then the task it was designed.

 

[summicron1]

Yes, you have destroyed a temple and you are going to hell, but let's be reasonable. The resale value of any common Rolleiflex -- and the EVS is not rare - is not so huge that you should give a rat's patoot. AS you note, it's a tool and you make tools work for you.

Should you ever wish to sell it, the modification is something you will -- assuming you are honest -- note to the buyer who, if the buyer is a collector, will promptly knock $50 off their offer.

If that is hell, well, it is a hell I suspect you will survive.

 

[AnselMortensen]

A tool should never become more eminent then the task it was designed.

Well said.

 

[MarkS]

The purpose of any camera is to make photographs. If it is necessary to modify it to achieve the photos you want to make, so be it.

All the cameras that we use were mass-production items, not individual works of art. That Minolta, or Deardorff, is not the only one of its kind. Cameras designed as collector's items, where the collector's value is greater than the user value, probably should remain stock and stored in a locked glass case.
You might make a case for not modifying a Leica owned by Jim Marshall, a Rollei used by Avedon, etc; there the historical value might be greater than the user value.
And I'll admit that any such mods are better when made in a craftsmanlike manner, as a good repairman might do (think of the late Marty Forscher) and not cobbed together by a ham-handed hack like me.

The picture is the bottom line. Did a modification help you get the picture?

 

[Donald Qualls]

Another point in this line: I have a pre-WWII Anniversary Speed Graphic in 4x5, and wanted to use it with Grafmatic film magazines and a LomoGraflok -- but mine was sold with the common Graphic back (aka spring back), and the one time I slipped a Grafmatic under the ground glass panel, I broke one end off one of the springs (fortunately, I had a spare).

So, without regret (again, with a very common camera, no special collector value) I purchased and installed a 3D printed Graflok conversion back so I can use the film products I want to use.

I did keep the old spring back and its original mounting screws, and it can be reinstalled without any damage to the (pretty ratty) camera if I want/need to restore it to its original state, but I don't know any reason I'd want to do that.

 

[warden]

If done reasonably well, I find the personal modifications of equipment both interesting and indicative of the user's mindset.

For instance, I bought a Kodak Recomar 33 from user of this board and it came with some fascinating modifications. The shutter had been rotated to place the top at about the 4 O'clock position so that an old style flash synchronizer could be bolted to the top of the lens board. An after market flashgun bracket was installed and a "Feather-Lite", all aluminium adapter for 3.25 x 4.25 "American films" put in place of the typical ground glass.

In essence, the original owner/modifier made a good miniature press camera from a typical folding plate camera.

I don't feel the changes have diminished the camera, but in fact have enhanced it's historical and functional value.

View attachment 366057 View attachment 366058

That’s cool!

 

[retina_restoration]

I avoid/discourage modifications that cannot be undone later, if desired. But ultimately, the camera owner gets to decide what is right for them.

 

[MattKing]

Dramatic thread title tweaked slightly, to make it easier for people to find.

 

[awty]

Im a creator, I've destroyed many a village to rebuild something else.

 

[JPD]

I both collect and use classic cameras prefer them the way they were made, so added flash sync, modern fresnel screens or other modifications make, for example, an early Rolleiflex less interesting to me.

But at the same time, every camera has a history and that can be interesting too. They were made to be used, and some owners modified the cameras to get more use out of them. Adding flash sync, coating the taking lens and adding a fresnel screen on a 1930s Rolleiflex in the 1950s was cheaper than buying a new camera.

One modified camera I would like to have is an original (1929) Rolleiflex modified to use 120-film and with a mechanical frame counter. These are early modifications, quite interesting, and it makes the camera much easier to use today.

My eyes aren't getting any younger, but if I replace the groundglass in a Rollei with a fresnel screen, I wouldn't throw away the original screen... Finding an original groundglass for the Rolleiflex Standard with the clear spot for the bubble level isn't easy.

 

[Alex Varas]

I avoid/discourage modifications that cannot be undone later, if desired. But ultimately, the camera owner gets to decide what is right for them.

+1