New to Rangefinders - Zorki Advice

[Xmas]

a pair of needle nosed pliers and a file will do instead of a spanner wrench, big pliers for large rings, small pliers for small rings.

You file the pliers ends for exact fit in ring...

And take great care

 

[q_x]

yups, I know the method. For what I have to cope with, it's not sufficient, the ring is really stubborn. I've damaged it already trying to remove it, fortunately the glass is OK and I'm not in any kind of hurry to get the lens cleaned.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

a pair of needle nosed pliers and a file will do instead of a spanner wrench, big pliers for large rings, small pliers for small rings.

You file the pliers ends for exact fit in ring...

And take great care

A piece of sheetmetal ground/filed to clear the glass and fit into the spanner notches is a far better solution. I'll forgo taking something apart rather than use the pliers approach, it's no substitute for a spanner and a very good way to ruin both the pliers and whatever you are trying to take apart.

 

[q_x]

The camera, that my I61 L/D came with (FED 5), got a pool of water corroding the rear plate and rangefinder arm. In the rear plate there was a flake of rust pretty much like an ice on a pond when the water escapes or evaporates from underneath. So about a tablespoon of water slowly evaporated fro the camera. I was able to get the body into working condition and I've made a pinhole camera out of it and sold it as a post-apocalyptic marvel.

The lens got a fungus inside, grub-screws are so badly corroded, I can't unscrew any but one. The ring holding the rear element rotates smoothly, but the front now looks like a pile of scrapings from under a lathe. The glass is still unharmed, which amazes me. I must have already damaged the thread the ring sits in. I've tried tapping and lubing.

I've tried both methods, that is pliers and sheet metal, to undo the front ring. Pliers were otherwise never used, and they're not ruined by any means. And the tool I've made myself just bent in the very second it was confronted with the ring.
I was able to clean the fungus from underneath the rear element, that's a good news. So now either it'll be sharp, or not, I'm not going to mess around with it. With the fungus inside it was a tiny bit better in ters of resolution, than collapsible I-22, but I've expected more.

I'd rather hear more from Lamar, than babble myself

 

[Xmas]

A piece of sheetmetal ground/filed to clear the glass and fit into the spanner notches is a far better solution. I'll forgo taking something apart rather than use the pliers approach, it's no substitute for a spanner and a very good way to ruin both the pliers and whatever you are trying to take apart.

The method used in a factory is a special pipe tool with two pins ground or inset to fit the ring notches and a handle at other end. Much less likely to slip when the piece is an inner ring as the pipe is sized to be constrained by the side walls. Similarly on an outer ring the pipe is just sized to clear the ring internally.
A spanner wrench is a poor substitute.
Not damaged anything yet with pliers.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

The method used in a factory is a special pipe tool with two pins ground or inset to fit the ring notches and a handle at other end. Much less likely to slip when the piece is an inner ring as the pipe is sized to be constrained by the side walls. Similarly on an outer ring the pipe is just sized to clear the ring internally.
A spanner wrench is a poor substitute.
Not damaged anything yet with pliers.

Yes, I'm aware of that. But I'm not going to make a tool like that to use it once, unless it's for something important. I tried the pliers when I was a kid, ruined something, and now use simple improvised tools (for one-time applications) which have yet to leave a mark, much less damage anything. I also file screwdrivers to properly fit the slots in screws.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

-snip-

I'd rather hear more from Lamar, than babble myself

Yes, I wonder what he's up to... perhaps taking pictures and developing film.

We'll have to talk him into getting some more cameras and lenses...

 

[Lamar]

I wish I was taking more pictures.......... Actually today I had to catch up with all the work that I got behind on the last two days because I was playing with my cameras. Real life intervenes with playtime yet again...... Based on yours and q_x's advice earlier (thank you to both of you) I decided it was best to keep the 3C. The seller gave me half the price I paid back since the slow speeds don't work. I think it is a fair deal. I did manage to work with the shutter enough to get everything from 1/25th and faster plus B working reliably. I actually put it in front of a little space heater fan to get it warmed up and that seemed to help even after it cooled back down to room temperature. I have a roll of film in it now but have only managed to get a few shots so far. I'm going look for a good repair service and price having it CLA'ed. I believe that is my best option, stick with these 2 bodies and maintain them. I feel a case of Russian GAS coming on though...... I ordered a Universal turret viewfinder last night........ Looking at 35mm lenses now too...... does it only get worse?????

Yes, I wonder what he's up to... perhaps taking pictures and developing film.

We'll have to talk him into getting some more cameras and lenses...

 

[q_x]

Lamar, nopes, it doesn't get worse in my case. Only if you realize you're into photography, not photography gear history/service/collecting, you may be saved. There's nothing wrong with any hobbies though, so it's not a bad thing not to be saved in this regard

10 or 20$ discount wouldn't make me happy about spending $75 to have a camera serviced, but if it's a good service, it's worth it, you'll feel the difference. I've once bought a cheap body for spare parts and was able to get 50% off, so it was 6$ in the end for a corroded Ricoh XR-1 - still working well at 1/8s and faster.

I've recently sold nearly half of my gear, no regrets. Bodies, lenses, accessories, it was all gathering dust, so I've cleared the shelves, leaving only one operable SLR (plus body for spare parts) with it's lenses, one RF, one MF camera and I bought cheap backup SLR and RF.

In my case, I've shot with every popular (= "I could try working with that") camera type on small and medium format, minus box cameras. Somehow I miss that single experience... If there's a box camera with tessar-like lens available very cheaply that I could work on, I'd be happy to read about it. Selling one camera to buy another, it took me some years, but after purchasing Moskva 5 I can say I've seen all I ever wanted, and then some... From plasticky amateur level and worse (Smena) up to pro, manual and AF SLRs... TLRs, M/AF viewfinder cameras, 35mm and MF rangefinders, 6x9 folders with frame and brilliant finders, pinhole cameras with no composition aids etc, etc... 90% of the time I can say "been there, done that" and I'm not curious any longer in the sense, that I think pushed you to check FSU RFs.

Regarding MF, I haven't found a proper tool so far, but knowing what I know, I'd say Texas Leica will do the trick. I'm stuck with Moskva 5 till my life gets better - I still feel like it won't happen in Poland though, but I don't feel like it may happen for an immigrant in the west either, so I'm doing my best with what I have, where I am, and if I'm pissed off enough, I'm leaving to a place like Madagascar, Sumatra or even Tuva... I can't frame precisely with that soviet badass, that's the only real problem with Moskva. The shutter needs CLA, but it gets the job done as it is. And filters - well, I can hold a Cokin filter with my hand, it's not a big deal.
I've sold Pentacon Six that needed to be serviced, to buy a Moskva and a tripod - eat a cookie, have a cookie...

With 35mm film, I've finally settled on a simple set of cheap SLR bodies and lenses (I was afraid to get expensive gear out), mounts or brands doesn't matter at all, I'm rather interested in certain set of features and good tactile feel. I need tools unobtrusive and primitive enough to dream with, and haptic features, like the right tension on the shutter button or the right amount of force needed to wind the film, help here a lot. I'm feeling better with 410g (or 14.5 oz) of simplistic, mechanical body, than with ~700g of full-blown AF SLR, for example.

If what I own won't cope with what I need it to do, I'm not addicted to luxury, I have a multitude of options. What's most important, I know quite well what photos I want to make. I keep FSU rangefinders as a trustworthy, but oversimplified backup.

If I may put my 2 cents, Zorki 1, C or Fed 1 are worth checking out. Being a Leica clones, those are really smooth and compact cameras, completely different feel from Zorki 4, plus their tiny, dismal, 0.7x viewfinder actually helps to frame the image correctly. I've also had my adventures with a collapsible Industar, which is brilliant lens, though it surely retro or vintage in terms of IQ (but I've never left a lens cap on!). I've checked all major body types (Leica, Contax, hybrid FED and Zorki, fixed-lens Minolta, folding Moskva...). Zorki C feels best of all RFs, but I think I'll try Fed 2 someday, as it gathers all the failures of all the models: it's big, heavy, has fast shutter times only and it comes with an unhandy, large rangefinder and smallest shutter dial imaginable. If not this rude boy, I'm back to Kievs, as it's even more of a failure, I miss slow speeds doing strange tzzzz... and loose parts making clunk-clunk.

I lack 35mm lens myself - not much in case of rangefinders (for the price I'd rather buy Oly XA and play with it), but with SLR. I have 35-80 and 24-55mm zooms and 50 and 28mm primes, so I'm not in a hurry to buy 35mm prime, even though I know it'll be my go-to lens. Now I'm taking more care to chose the right set of accessories and peripheral equipment properly and I'm shooting a lot of photos, so getting out when the light is right is my main concern. External viewfinder would be one more thing to fiddle with, a no-go for me. I know there's a proper Leica body for 35mm lens, so it's a matter of finding more things to be paid for...

If you're thinking about Jupiter 12, be sure to ask about scratches on the rear element and buy only a lens, that comes with proper rear cap. The rest is a matter of good fortune.

Cheers!

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I wish I was taking more pictures.......... Actually today I had to catch up with all the work that I got behind on the last two days because I was playing with my cameras. Real life intervenes with playtime yet again...... Based on yours and q_x's advice earlier (thank you to both of you) I decided it was best to keep the 3C. The seller gave me half the price I paid back since the slow speeds don't work. I think it is a fair deal. I did manage to work with the shutter enough to get everything from 1/25th and faster plus B working reliably. I actually put it in front of a little space heater fan to get it warmed up and that seemed to help even after it cooled back down to room temperature. I have a roll of film in it now but have only managed to get a few shots so far. I'm going look for a good repair service and price having it CLA'ed. I believe that is my best option, stick with these 2 bodies and maintain them. I feel a case of Russian GAS coming on though...... I ordered a Universal turret viewfinder last night........ Looking at 35mm lenses now too...... does it only get worse?????

You're correct about getting good gear and maintaining it, it's the only way - as long as you find a competent tech. The J-12 35/2.8 is a clone of the prewar Zeiss Biogon, and can be very good. I'm keeping an eye open for one myself. For me one of the attractions of Soviet gear is the lenses, many are clones of classic prewar Zeiss designs, albeit recalculated for Soviet glass types and given more-or-less modern coatings. As I indicated, I'm very happy with my J-8.
Properly cleaned, lubricated with modern synthetic lubricants, and set up properly these Soviet cameras should perform as well and reliably as any camera. All you really need is an accurate shutter, accurate rangefinder, a decent lens and you're there. You can even buy a Summicron and screw it on, or any other screwmount lens - although you'll have to recalibrate the RF for non-FSU lenses if you want the Nth degree of accuracy from the RF at close focus & wide aperture. I'm sure I'll end up with at least one FSU screwmount body to compliment my Canon SIIb.

 

[Lamar]

Once again it is a busy work day so not much time for cameras.

q_x,
I do want to try the oil on my 3C you mention as soon as I get through this roll of film. I have some good gun oil and I could apply it using the tip of a small screwdriver as you suggest and put off the CLA for a bit. I think the CLA will cost more than the camera. Will gun oil work just as well? If not I will need to buy some good machine oil.

As both of you indicate the Zorki's seem to have a great cost / performance ratio. I prefer low cost to luxury so I'm more than willing to put up with a few anomalies. I have two bodies, two lenses, and two cases for less than one BGN condition Nikon F body only and way, way less than the price for one of the Nikon rangefinders. Those things are priced high.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Once again it is a busy work day so not much time for cameras.

q_x,
I do want to try the oil on my 3C you mention as soon as I get through this roll of film. I have some good gun oil and I could apply it using the tip of a small screwdriver as you suggest and put off the CLA for a bit. I think the CLA will cost more than the camera. Will gun oil work just as well? If not I will need to buy some good machine oil.

As both of you indicate the Zorki's seem to have a great cost / performance ratio. I prefer low cost to luxury so I'm more than willing to put up with a few anomalies. I have two bodies, two lenses, and two cases for less than one BGN condition Nikon F body only and way, way less than the price for one of the Nikon rangefinders. Those things are priced high.

Well, I wouldn't go as far as to compare them to an F. Do you realise that a new F in say 1970, with a meter prism and f1.4 lens was 1/4 the cost of a new small car? Fs are one of the greatest bargains out there, so are F2s. But again, these will need a CLA too. It's part of using this equipment. Any camera I get, I assume that no matter how nice it's cosmetic condition, it will need a complete overhaul.

 

[q_x]

Lol, no clues about gun oil, I've never had such thing in my hands. My guess is it would work, but maybe someone else will know better. Watchmakers may supply you with the quantity you need - 1-2 ml should be enough to attempt to lubricate whole camera.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Watch oil - http://www.ofrei.com/page246.html It will be an absolute waste to use this oil on anything you haven't cleaned - and by cleaned, I mean disassemble, brush with solvent, zap it in the ultrasonic. Oil only works as it should on clean surfaces.

For your purposes, use something like "Break Free" or "TriFlow" and consider what you are doing as a temporary (very temporary, for evaluative purposes only) measure at best.
The trouble with oiling contaminated/dirty mechanisms is that the oil you apply mixes with the dirt, spreading it everywhere, and causing greatly accelerated wear if any abrasive particles are present. You may also be creating more work for whomever does the CLA. The two products I mentioned are intended for use on dirty mechanisms, but they are not a substitute for cleaning.

Edit -
Do NOT use WD 40, it dries to a waxy residue that is very difficult to remove. 3-in-1 oil sucks too.

 

[Lamar]

I'll just stay away from any oil for now until I can get it cleaned. I knew not to use the WD-40. As far as the CLA, half of me wants to dig into it and the other half says to send it off.

I had no idea the F's were that expensive new. I bought an F Photomic FTN a couple of years back for $140 in great condition, meter works great and everything. Since then I've shot more frames with it and my F2 than any of my other bodies combined, including digital if you don't count paid work. F2's are a different story. I went through several F2's before I actually found one I didn't send back. Most were badly worn or had issues with the power switch or meter. I finally kept an F2SB that was fairly clean. The meter didn't work so they cut the price to $79. I had to send the meter off to Sover Wong to get fixed but it works like new now. All totaled I paid the average going price for an excellent condition F2SB but the fact that the meter is essentially new makes it a good deal. I wonder how many of these new digital cameras will be around and working in 40 or 50 years........ Will there still even be file support for them?

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I'll just stay away from any oil for now until I can get it cleaned. I knew not to use the WD-40. As far as the CLA, half of me wants to dig into it and the other half says to send it off.

I had no idea the F's were that expensive new. I bought an F Photomic FTN a couple of years back for $140 in great condition, meter works great and everything. Since then I've shot more frames with it and my F2 than any of my other bodies combined, including digital if you don't count paid work. F2's are a different story. I went through several F2's before I actually found one I didn't send back. Most were badly worn or had issues with the power switch or meter. I finally kept an F2SB that was fairly clean. The meter didn't work so they cut the price to $79. I had to send the meter off to Sover Wong to get fixed but it works like new now. All totaled I paid the average going price for an excellent condition F2SB but the fact that the meter is essentially new makes it a good deal. I wonder how many of these new digital cameras will be around and working in 40 or 50 years........ Will there still even be file support for them?

I had a black F/ FTN, 50/1.4 made in 1972, it still had the bill of sale in the case - $460~. In '72 you could drive home a new Toyota for about $1800.

A modern top line DSLR is still about a quarter the cost of a new car, in 40 years it will be a useless curiosity - an F can be kept going as long as you want it to.

If you don't have experience working on small mechanisms, as well as the proper tools and a decent work area, send it off. Get some junk cameras like old SLRs to learn on

 

[q_x]

Today's digital cameras getting into their 40? None, not even a single one will make that long. The reason being all the crucial electronic components will simply get old, and there will be no replacement parts to salvage in 10-15 years. And it's not "old camera", when it's crucial 30% was replaced. Does anyone make replacements for late 90-s CCD sensors? Not a single model is being produced more, than a couple of years without revision. In 40 years, however, I expect the gear to have adaptable qualities. You want T50, it becomes like T50, you want D3000, it becomes like D3000, just add water... It kinda starts now, with 3D printing and flexible electronics.

Modern, computerized society lives on a very thin and temporal hologram. This occasionally breaks, like when to run a drum scanner, you need to set up a VM with Win 95 on it and purchase SCSI interface card. Wait for PCI and PCIMCIA to become our past and it's all done. Same with USB, memory cards...

We live without much attachment to items and permanence, caring more about comfort, quality of service and high performance - this is what you are as a society, and this is where we're going as well. Which is all wrong and wasteful, but we kinda accept the fact, that this is how we want to live, and this is how fast the world turns. Noone curses scientists for their discoveries or engineers for making things perform better. So, I think, apart from museums, there will be no 40 years old digital cameras in working condition.

I think Zorkis are good cameras to start learning to service such stuff: crucial elements, like slow speed escapement, are "encapsulated", mechanisms are fairy simple compared to any advanced SLRs. And this is what will survive next 50 years or so. One indeed needs some strange materials and esoteric knowledge: curtain cloth, ribbons, adhesives, lubricants, solvents, and how to use it all... But isn't that the case for other cameras too? Maybe Smenas would be better to start indeed, but what to CLA in a Smena, huh? There's hardly anything in it.

Since you have one camera working, if money is not the problem, I'd rather put some lube into the rollers and pay to have the other camera thoroughly serviced in a couple of years. 5-10 years of peaceful photography is what you pay for. And this is exactly what I've done (not to justify myself, I just think it's reasonable).

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Today's digital cameras getting into their 40? None, not even a single one will make that long. The reason being all the crucial electronic components will simply get old, and there will be no replacement parts to salvage in 10-15 years. And it's not "old camera", when it's crucial 30% was replaced. Does anyone make replacements for late 90-s CCD sensors? Not a single model is being produced more, than a couple of years without revision. In 40 years, however, I expect the gear to have adaptable qualities. You want T50, it becomes like T50, you want D3000, it becomes like D3000, just add water... It kinda starts now, with 3D printing and flexible electronics.

Modern, computerized society lives on a very thin and temporal hologram. This occasionally breaks, like when to run a drum scanner, you need to set up a VM with Win 95 on it and purchase SCSI interface card. Wait for PCI and PCIMCIA to become our past and it's all done. Same with USB, memory cards...

We live without much attachment to items and permanence, caring more about comfort, quality of service and high performance - this is what you are as a society, and this is where we're going as well. Which is all wrong and wasteful, but we kinda accept the fact, that this is how we want to live, and this is how fast the world turns. Noone curses scientists for their discoveries or engineers for making things perform better. So, I think, apart from museums, there will be no 40 years old digital cameras in working condition.

I think Zorkis are good cameras to start learning to service such stuff: crucial elements, like slow speed escapement, are "encapsulated", mechanisms are fairy simple compared to any advanced SLRs. And this is what will survive next 50 years or so. One indeed needs some strange materials and esoteric knowledge: curtain cloth, ribbons, adhesives, lubricants, solvents, and how to use it all... But isn't that the case for other cameras too? Maybe Smenas would be better to start indeed, but what to CLA in a Smena, huh? There's hardly anything in it.

Since you have one camera working, if money is not the problem, I'd rather put some lube into the rollers and pay to have the other camera thoroughly serviced in a couple of years. 5-10 years of peaceful photography is what you pay for. And this is exactly what I've done (not to justify myself, I just think it's reasonable).

With the exception of the mirror box, many early & very inexpensive - Yashica Tls, for instance, or pre-Spotmatic Pentaxes, are no more complex, and can be had (at least in the rural northern New York section of the US) cheaper than the FSU cameras. I bought a Yashica TL Super for $ 2.15, the seals had turned to goo and deranged the shutter. The lens is a 50/2 Yashinon, and a very good lens. This will be overhauled and either put to use - it's M42 mount - or given to some interested young person, I have too many M42 bodies. I see cameras like these at thrift shops in the $5 range a few times a year, they would be a good way to familiarise yourself rather than on a camera you value as a user.

 

[Lamar]

Just developed the first roll out of the Zorki-3C. Exposure for shutter speeds 1/25th thru 1/1000th all look good. I didn't even try the slower speeds, I know they are bad. Frame spacing is good too. The roll is drying now. I will scan tomorrow and post some pics. The 3C is my favorite of the two. They are essentially the same but somehow the 3C just feels a little bit more solid in the hands...... I really like these little beasts....

 

[Lamar]

Scans from the Zorki-3C with the Jupiter-8. Kodak Tri-X 400 developed in XTOL.








And the only thing that bothers me about this camera is the film offset. The 4 wasn't too bad but the film is really offset in the 3C. q_x, i believe you mentioned the older ones were worse about this. I have seen it first hand now.

 

[q_x]

Lamar, Welcome to the world of imaging without a ground glass!
The photos look OK, there's something wrong with corner sharpness (there's a twig disturbing the frame in the upper right corner for example), but it's maybe me being picky. This is how I see a Jupiter should work, it's even too sharp sometimes, mine is way softer.

Frame offset, well, looks serious this time. This is what I've got in my Kiev, plus uneven spacing every third frame or so - one just about to overlap, another one twice wider, than it should. The Kiev is no longer here...

If you can live buying bulk film and loading it into modded/vintage cassettes, this may solve the issue cheaply. Also, there should be something like 0.6mm of washers in the film chamber, removable, but it's usually not enough to fix this issue. I've also seen something about cutting the corner of a lightseal from a canister, tension the spring in the back plate, magick like that, and you're using Kodak already... People have same issues with Leicas and Contaxes, again it's an issue worth of a separate thread in this forum, as I'm curious myself (and I have an old Soviet reloadable cassette in my Zorki C, but I won't process it in a month or two).

Common prices in Poland: 30USD+ for the simplest TLR or folder, 100USD+ for Yashica/Rolleicord/Moskva(!!!), 200-300USD for a Contax, 300-400 for a cheapest Leica, 80 for a Flexaret or a Seagull, 25USD+ for any Pentax body, 15 USD for FSU RFs with a lens on, twice more for a Kiev with a lens, FSU SLRs for under 10USD, sometimes with a body cap (Helios type) on, 5-7USD for a Smena. Beaten up but working, "buy now", not auctions. My old Praktica went for under 50 cents (broken plate around the lens mount, shutter needing CLA), Zenits, Smenas etc. are basically perceived as rubbish here, cause maybe in some sense it is like so.

I'm still looking for service manuals (free, downloadable) for "local" models of M42 SLRs, Prakticas are of most interest, being abundant, reliable and cheap where I live. Meizenberg book and few Pentax manuals is pretty much the only thing I've found, which is a pity, but it will have to suffice for a while (checked here already: http://www.4photos.de/camera-diy/index-en.html ). M42 mount is kinda native to his part of Europe, Pentax gear is just better in terms of IQ and service manuals, so this is where I landed. There are Zeints with K-mount... Not sure about how sturdy my cameras will be, but it always depends on a given item, not only a brand or a model.

 

[Lamar]

I can explain the corner softness. It comes from the lens on my scanner. It is noticeable in every scan I make that should be sharp in the corners. When I first discovered it I was blaming the lenses until I noted the pattern was the same regardless of aperture or lens. If I remember correctly I made some marks on a negative at the corners that should have been sharp but they were a bit fuzzy when scanned. Also the grain goes soft there as well which indicates the softness is not from the camera lens. Another scanning problem I have encountered is a small hint of a double image / softness in very sharp, high contrast areas. It comes from internal reflection related to the glass plate over the ccd. The ghosting is worse on reversal film though and is barely noticeable with negative film. I sent the scanner back to Nikon for cleaning and service but there was no change. I feel certain the lenses are good in the corners.

Here's a full uncropped scan from a 35mm f/1.4 Nikkor at f/11. It shows that same problem.





Also for the rangefinder type shooting in general I have found framing requires a bit of a different approach as well. Most of my shots were not framed well, requiring more cropping than I would have been doing with my SLR shots of the same. It will just take a bit of practice.

Lamar, Welcome to the world of imaging without a ground glass!
The photos look OK, there's something wrong with corner sharpness (there's a twig disturbing the frame in the upper right corner for example), but it's maybe me being picky. This is how I see a Jupiter should work, it's even too sharp sometimes, mine is way softer.

 

[q_x]

My super-cheap scanner is providing me with images of limited palette, flat, black shadows and one edge is a bit darker, than the other. At least it's quick. But I'm not serious about scanning, I'd rather print, but I need to make a selection somehow, contact prints are a no-go for me.
So I guess one may live with soft corners...

Yups, diopter-adjustable combined viewfinder/rangefinder of those cameras is not the best tool to determine frame contents. I've had serious problems also with Kiev - horizontally it was all OK, but vertically I was sometimes wrong, even by about 20% of the frame, that's with landscapes, framed carefully on a tripod. This still puzzles me. I've been writing about sketching what goes into every frame and what's left outside. That's the fastest method to learn I know of to get a grip on that issue, at least to some degree. I've found what I see is slightly more, than what goes onto the film, it's better than the other way around, cause if needed, I can even make a mask and slide it behind the top cover.

Cheers!

 

[Lamar]

I found three washers you mention and removed them. I think maybe this is enough to help. I did mess up though and did not see where the one, very small, thin washer goes. it fell off without me noticing it. I re-assembled with it between the set screw collar and the diopter adjuster on the top of the body. Is that correct?

Also, there should be something like 0.6mm of washers in the film chamber, removable, but it's usually not enough to fix this issue.

 

[Lamar]

Removing the washers looks to have resolved the film track angle in the 3C. It seems to sit in the body just as it does in the 4. I'll shoot another roll to see. Thanks for the advice!!!!


Edit: I'm too used to metered bodies. I loaded the film and put the back on the camera then started to set the ISO. It took a second to realize I couldn't do that...........