Minolta 16 QT Repair

Brentwood Kebab!

A
Brentwood Kebab!

  • 1
  • 1
  • 46
Summer Lady

A
Summer Lady

  • 0
  • 0
  • 51
DINO Acting Up !

A
DINO Acting Up !

  • 1
  • 0
  • 31
What Have They Seen?

A
What Have They Seen?

  • 0
  • 0
  • 44
Lady With Attitude !

A
Lady With Attitude !

  • 0
  • 0
  • 42

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
198,764
Messages
2,780,589
Members
99,701
Latest member
XyDark
Recent bookmarks
0

hospadar

Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2024
Messages
51
Location
Michigan, USA
Format
35mm
Recently got my hands on a cheap roll of 16mm microfiche to shoot through the Minolta 16 QT I've had kicking around for a while and decided to attempt repairing the meter.

I have a real sweet spot for this camera - it has a focusing lens, a meter, and a larger-than-usual frame size. Old minolta plastic casettes are relatively easy to find and reload (compared to some of the more exotic casettes for other high quality sub-minis). Generally, it works fine, I've shot a couple rolls of Kodak 250D through it (fun, but I rarely have color chemicals mixed up) and it makes images, but the meter has always been busted. The meter on this is a kind of electronic-match-needle style. The camera has two shutter speeds, 1/30 and 1/250, lens goes f/3.5 - f/22. There's a button next to the aperture dial which you press while rotating the dial, that closes a contact and lights up one or two LEDs in the viewfinder to tell you if you're over/under/right-on. Mine has always reported that some aperture between f/16 and f/22 is right-on regardless of the film or shutter speed. The metering circuit generally is working (lights come on, and turning the dial all the way to 22 reports under-exposure, and less than 16 reports over), but it's apparently totally non-responsive to actual light changes.

This camera is pretty cheap and ordinarily I might just grab another and hope for the best, but a) seems like a fun project and b) I found some evidence that this is possibly a common problem on these cameras (so I might be in the same boat with another unit).

The service manual has an EXCELLENT very detailed explanation of the meter circuit - it uses a differential amplifier which is basically a voltage comparator implemented with a pair of darlington transistors.
qts_a07.jpg

A voltage divider is created by a potentiometer built into the aperture dial and the CdS photocell. When the resistance of the CdS cell matches that of the aperture dial, the circuit will alternate blinking the over/under exposure LEDs in the viewfinder to indicate correct exposure.

2025-02-25 13.00.37.jpg
The potentometer built into the aperture dial. The round metal disc on the bottom has a finger (7 o'clock) which contacts a carbon (i guess) resistive strip that wraps around the inside of the dial (can't see it in the photo, it's black). The funny shaped metal prongy thing is the other contact (the wiper). The wiper has a small bundle of whiplike contacts starting at 3 o'clock which contact the resistive strip around 11 o'clock. When installed, the dial rotates, but the wiper is stationary. It appears to me that the meter is intended to be calibrated by rotating the fixed position of the wiper slightly using the two prongs (currently pointing at 3.5).

2025-02-25 12.57.37.jpg
This board is normally attached to the inside of the front panel and holds the CdS cell and the aperture dial/potentiometer (dial is removed in this photo). The dial screws into the middle of the metal donut at 9 o'clock (which is a contact that connects the wiper to the large square solder blob). The dogleg shaped contact above the donut makes contact with the disc-like contact at the bottom of the aperture dial.
2025-02-25 14.53.00.jpg
The other side of that board. This is normally obscured by a plastic bit with a rotating mask over it that is interfaced with the ISO selector on the front of the camera to change how much light hits the CdS sensor (the little can-with-a-window-in-it).

My current theory is that the CdS sensor has gone bad. It does respond to light, but currently the maximum resistance of the sensor (when I block all light from entering the sensor) is about 3kOhm. Minimum resistance (when I shine a fairly bright light at it) is a couple hundred ohm. The variable resistor in the aperture dial goes from about 1.6kOhm to 22kOhm. If my read of the service manual is correct, for the metering circuit to work correctly the CdS cell would need to vary over the same range because it needs to match resistance with the dial at the appropriate aperture.

It appears that the CdS cell typically has ~2kOhm resistance when installed behind the ISO mask (varying by a couple hundred ohm either way depending on light and setting. That corresponds roughly to the resistance of the aperture dial/potentiometer when set somewhere in the vicinity of f/16 -f/22, so I feel reasonably confident I've got the culprit. The couple hundred ohm variance under different lighting conditions would be barely noticeable on the dial (the next stop smaller[numeric] is over 1kOhm more).

I have no idea what sensitivity min/max resistance CdS cell the original circuit design might have called for (nor, if I'm honest, do I really fully understand how CdS photoresistors are even specified). To start with, I ordered a smattering of photoresistors with different values from digikey and plan to install them one at a time and see which ones appear to generate reasonable when I shine a normal amount of light through the sensor opening. Doesn't have to perfectly match whatever the factory sensor would have been, just needs to be close enough that I can calibrate the meter to be good enough (I hope, never done this before, just having fun).
MFG_NSL-6112_web(640x640).jpg

The original sensor is in a hermetically sealed housing that appears to my calipers to be a TO-52 can (5.5mm dia, 3.4mm height). I couldn't find any new CdS cells in a TO-52, and all the other hermetically sealed cells came in bigger packages that wouldn't have fit inside of the housing. Instead I just ordered (cheaper) ceramic/epoxy cells which should fit in the housing (they're about 4.5mm dia).

Will provide more updates as parts come in and I try stuff out!
 
Last edited:

xkaes

Subscriber
Joined
Mar 25, 2006
Messages
4,791
Location
Colorado
Format
Multi Format
Good luck and keep us posted. Did you mention what battery you use?
 
OP
OP
hospadar

hospadar

Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2024
Messages
51
Location
Michigan, USA
Format
35mm
Good luck and keep us posted. Did you mention what battery you use?
I'm using a 3v lithium coin cell and a stack of quarters. I'm 99% sure that the way the circuit is designed it doesn't need a battery with a specific voltage (and I think the original battery is alkaline so wouldn't have been stable). Battery works fine although It seems like the stack of quarters doesn't always do a great job of maintaining contact (I frequently have to give them a little jiggle). If/when I get the meter working I'll probably take the time to make a slightly nicer spacer, maybe a chunk of wood/plastic with a brass screw down the middle or something.
 

xkaes

Subscriber
Joined
Mar 25, 2006
Messages
4,791
Location
Colorado
Format
Multi Format
I've got a left-over 3D printed adapter for TWO 1.5v PX625 batteries designed to fit a PX-30 -- if you are interested.
 

ic-racer

Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
16,544
Location
USA
Format
Multi Format
I did just repair a Nikon FTn finder with a single bad cell. And, yes, the bad cell passed too much current in the dark, so could not be calibrated. So, seems like you are on the right track.


I have two 16QT, got my first one in the early 1980s. I did find that both of them eventually needed the shutter spring to be advanced to the next notch.

 
OP
OP
hospadar

hospadar

Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2024
Messages
51
Location
Michigan, USA
Format
35mm
I did just repair a Nikon FTn finder with a single bad cell. And, yes, the bad cell passed too much current in the dark, so could not be calibrated. So, seems like you are on the right track.


I have two 16QT, got my first one in the early 1980s. I did find that both of them eventually needed the shutter spring to be advanced to the next notch.


Great to hear! I really need to make myself a real optical shutter testing rig (of course forgot to put a photodiode in the digikey order derp). Last shutter I rebuilt was a copal leaf on a petri color corrected super and I just recorded the sound, the opening and closing were pretty distinct snaps in the recording and got me close enough but other shutters seem to make less distinctive sounds (the synchro-compur on a retina I cleaned up was mostly discernable but very vague at the faster speeds).
 

Nimbus62

Subscriber
Joined
Feb 11, 2025
Messages
47
Location
France - Rinxent
Format
35mm
Hi,
To define the resistance of the Cds cell you need, you can replace the Cds cell by a 10K pot and mesure the min an max needed. If 10K not sufficient could use 22K.
Then you can adjust the pot according aperture ring and define the relation between aperture and resistance. then define EV resistance needed. Just a suggestion.

Use external 3V DC power supply could help but the design is not sensitive to small variation of the power supply.
 
OP
OP
hospadar

hospadar

Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2024
Messages
51
Location
Michigan, USA
Format
35mm
Hi,
To define the resistance of the Cds cell you need, you can replace the Cds cell by a 10K pot and mesure the min an max needed. If 10K not sufficient could use 22K.
Then you can adjust the pot according aperture ring and define the relation between aperture and resistance. then define EV resistance needed. Just a suggestion.

Use external 3V DC power supply could help but the design is not sensitive to small variation of the power supply.
I actually know precisely the resistance range the CDS cell will need to hit - because of the way the meter circuit is set up it's the same as the range as the potentiometer in the aperture dial (about 1.6kOhm - 22kOhm)

CDS cells seem to be rated mainly by two things: their resistance in total darkness (usually hundreds of kOhm - a few mOhm) and their resistance at some specific (fairly low) illuminance, usually 10 or 20 lux (which I will henceforth refer to as T). While I can calculate lux -> exposure, I don't _really_ know the illuminance on the sensor when it's actually installed in the camera.

I did attempt some very hazy back of the envelope math and I'm really not sure if I'm holding all these equations right, BUT:
  • Assume that when set to 50 ISO (the lowest setting on this camera, where the film speed mask almost completely exposes the sensor), that the illuminance on the front of the camera is the same as on the surface of the sensor
  • if f2 / shutter = lux * iso than 60 lux would be hitting the sensor for a correct exposure at f3.5 and 1/250 because 60=(3.52 / ((1/250)*50)
  • So we need a photocell that will deliver ~22kOhm at 60 lux
  • According to some ai bot I talked to (and based on some graphing calculator investigation compared to charts in the datasheet, I think this is mostly right), the relationship between resistance and illuminance is an inverse power law, so something like R = A * Lux-n where n is the sensitivity of the photocell, based on some datasheets a value between .6 and .9 seems most common. A is some constant we can calculate based on the datasheet's provided resistance at 10 Lux.
  • Assuming a sensitivity of .65 (just cause that seems pretty normal), need to find a photocell with an A value such that 22000=A*60-.65
  • If T is the resistance provided at 10 lux, we can sub in and solve for the T value we hope will maybe be right if any of my math is any good: 22000=(T/(10-.65)) * 60-.65 gives T=(22000 * 10-.65)/60-.65 or T=70505 (let's just call it 70kOhm)
  • Most of the datasheets give T as a range of values with a span of a couple kOhms, so I assume there's quite a bit of variance between individual copies of a cell (hence the need for calibration). The calibration range that the wiper can be wiggled on the aperture dial seems like it would easily cover a few kOhm.
  • The sensitivity number seems like it would impact linearity of the meter if I'm way off, but honestly I don't have a ton of options as far as linearity is concerned (when physical sensor size and T are taken into account) so I'm hoping any error there is small enough that it doesn't really matter. After all we're gonna be shooting snapshots on microfilm developed in experimental soup so I think some exposure error can be tolerated. Also, not all cds photocells even _have_ a sensitivity number in their datasheet (including most of the sensors I actually ordered).
My math could be SO TOTALLY WRONG and also my assumptions about how much light gets through to the sensor could be pretty off.

70 seems kind of on the high end for the range of CDS sensors available, so I'm not extremely convinced I made all the right guesses here
 
Last edited:

Nimbus62

Subscriber
Joined
Feb 11, 2025
Messages
47
Location
France - Rinxent
Format
35mm
Hi,
About calculation of the luminance in LUX for ASA 50, f3.5 and 1/250, for me it is EV11.5 or 7200 LUX ( 7219,2) not 60!!
60 LUX is EV2, very low light level.

second point, the calculation of resistance of Cds cell, named Rcds here after.
for me, Rcds is not equal to Vr. You must take into account the ratio R2/R1

If I ignore Rpf, when both light are on (we have same voltage at TR2 base and TR4 base) the equation is :

(Rcds + Rs) / Vr = (R2 + R'2) / R1

Rcds + Rs = Vr x (R2 + R'2) / R1

Rcds = (Vr x (R2 + R'2) / R1 ) - Rs


It is why I propose to use a pot to simulate Rcds. could be more quickly than to measure all resistances (I do not know of it is discrete components or integrated circuit).
Only a suggestion.
 
OP
OP
hospadar

hospadar

Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2024
Messages
51
Location
Michigan, USA
Format
35mm
ITS ALIVE!!!

I put in the highest-valued of the cells I ordered (an Advanced Photonix PDV-P8005) I think if anything the resistance might still be a bit low but based on very very preliminary testing, the meter is now responding to light (i.e. needs a different setting to read OK when pointed at a window/dark room/light bulb). When I have more free time and better lighting I'll do some more comprehensive testing

@Nimbus62 - it is indeed an integrated circuit, so no way to know the precise values of any of the passives in the circuit diagram, but the service manual does specifically say that R1 and R2 are equal (and furthermore, that when the votage from the voltage divider formed by Rcds and Vr (Vr being the pot built into the aperture dial) is 1.5 that the meter will read that as properly exposed (which would only be the case when Rcds and Vr are equal)

regardless, yeah I don't really trust my math, but it seems like I'm at least in the ballpark (and regardless of whether I can calibrate this photocell correctly, it seems that I've definitely confirmed that a bad photocell was the issue here)
 

Nimbus62

Subscriber
Joined
Feb 11, 2025
Messages
47
Location
France - Rinxent
Format
35mm
If R1 and R2 are equal for sure, when exposure is OK Rcds is equal to Vr. Your math are OK (I did not take time to read the Minolta documentation, really sorry for that).
You are on the right way to give a second life to this meter.
👍
👍
 
OP
OP
hospadar

hospadar

Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2024
Messages
51
Location
Michigan, USA
Format
35mm
Alright! Got it all back together and working.

First cell i installed too much resistance, sencond one was too low, third one seems probably right on. Ultimately installed an Advanced Photonix PDV-P9004. Rated resistance 28kOhm@10 lux, .85 sensitivity.

Meter is reading accurately at at least a couple different light levels, not sure if the linearity is right in but i think it’s close enough to not matter too much.

Couple thoughts about why my math above is wrong:
  • Iso 400 is the setting that causes the sensor to be most exposed to light
  • I think the sensor is probably getting half or less light than is hitting the front of the camera
Also some assembly notes:
  • The pcb is attached to the iso mask by two screws, the mask itself is attached by three other screws to the front frame, and another screw secures the aperture dial to the ISO mask
  • To do this repair, you only need to remove the dial screw and the two pcb screws. If you remove the whole mask, you have to carefully realign the rotating mask so it engages with the plastic slot on the ISO adjustment dial. Furthermore, the mask assembly holds the sliding lens cover assembly in place, this assembly contains a tiny ball bearing and spring that click the cover open and shut which are a hassle to replace. If you must take off the iso mask, wrap some masking tape around the main lens opening in the front frame, this will hold the lens cover assembly in place while the mask is removed
  • I was fiddling around with things quite a bit and broke all the wires off the front Pcb that holds the cds cell. I had to strip and resolder them all. They’re very susceptible to bending so try to minimize the amount of manipulation once you have the front frame off.
  • Getting the top cover back on is kind of a hassle because the speed lever must engage with a little spring loaded pin on the sliding speed control arm. I used a thread wrapped around the pin to pull it towards the back of the camera while placing the top cover on, then pulled the thread out once it was all lined up
 

ic-racer

Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
16,544
Location
USA
Format
Multi Format
Reminds me a little of when I put a replacement slicon cell in a Yashica Atoron. I did get it to work, but putting it back together was a challenge. Just one millimeter here or there and it would not fit.
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom