Yesterday I squashed my camera ...

[AOCo]

... and now I know why I must not buy an expensive leica...

Yesterday afternoon, I suppose the heat has really taken its toll on my overall awareness. I was stepping back to take a wide angle shot of a building, and I stepped into the void of a flight of steps. I completely lost my balance, was getting ready to feel myself hurting, when I heard the sound of my Pentax SV (+ mint SMC Takumar 3.5/24 Takumar) hitting the pavement.

I have not suffered any injury luckily, but my camera was badly affected : the lens mount was ripped off, still attached to the lens. The top plate now had a big bump in the corner (not the first one, mind you), and was bent to the extent of preventing the back to open, and raising the prism housing, leaving some space underneath. Lens itself only suffered a filter ring being bent, the glass seems not impacted.

Dammit, can't I just pay attention ? I was mad at myself, and so sorry, since I thought this must be the end of a 50 years old camera.

Anyway, later in the day I managed to dismount the front part of the camera, and eventually fix most of the damage ! These cameras are just plain incredible ! I have noticed that the camera now focuses pas infinity, although there is no sign of the lens mount being pushed in. This I hope will not affect pictures.

I will keep this as my battlefield camera, I guess. Pentax made such amazing products by then... Unbelievable.

 

[elekm]

Buy another body and keep this one for telling stories. If your interest is taking photos, get a reliable camera. A Spotmatic isn't rare or expensive, so replace it.

 

[darkosaric]

Nikon F2 - they don't call it the tank for no reason.

 

[Salem]

I usually go farther than I need too then move forward for final composition. Mainly because I had few close misses and would hate to break a leg over a photo.

 

[Karl K]

If the lens is optically and mechanically OK, then by all means, keep shooting!
I agree with elekm, replace the body.
They are very inexpensive and not worth spending a lot of time and/or money to repair it.
Your lens is worth 5X to 10X the price of a body.

 

[summicron1]

yeah, an F2 or Leicaflex SL would have dented the floor....i agree with the others, glad you were not hurt, find another body and proceed. It will set you back maybe $30, max.

 

[Vilk]

F2

 

[jeffreyg]

If you stick with that lens test it for focusing accuracy before photographing something important. Several years ago a friend had me photograph his visiting family with his camera and all the photographs were out of focus even though I carefully composed and focused each frame with the camera on a tripod. He happened to be an ophthalmologist and suggested that I make an appointment to have my eyes checked. They were fine and he happened to remember having dropped the lens but it showed no damage. He sent it back to Nikon and they found a lens element had shifted.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

 

[Jeff Kubach]

Look up KEH.

Jeff

 

[pen s]

Yeah, get another SLR. The digital onslaught has made for some real bargains. If you have a lot of m42 mount glass a clean Spotmatic is reasonable. Just this April I picked up a near perfect Fujica ST605n body for $20, all it needed was foam replacement. A SLR where the screen focus does not agree with the film plane focus is useless, hope your 24mm f3.5 Takumar survived. It would be very expensive to replace.

 

[ToddB]

\Aahh yes.. the durabilty of real camera. If that would of been a digital camera, would cost a fortune for repair work.

Todd

 

[E. von Hoegh]

\Aahh yes.. the durabilty of real camera. If that would of been a digital camera, would cost a fortune for repair work.

Todd

Durability??? The camera's trashed, there's a good chance the lens is too. How is that "durable"?


No camera and lens can go through an event like this without sustaining some damage/misalignment, anyone who thinks otherwise is indulging in fantasy.

 

[ToddB]

My bad.. I thought he said it was ok?

Todd

 

[E. von Hoegh]

My bad.. I thought he said it was ok?

Todd

"...the camera now fucusses past infinity" which means it's unuseable.
Todd, the camera sustained enough damage that the lens with the mount still attached was separated from the camera. There's a high probability that the lens is now internally misaligned, and who knows what else is wrong with the body.
This is why I won't get any gear with any sign of impact damage, not even a dented filter ring - actually especially a dented filter ring, even if it appears to be OK. There are too many things that can be lurking.

 

[Peter Simpson]

F3 story

Before heading out with my wife in her Jeep, I opened up the back, saw her fleece, and wrapped my F3 in it so it wouldn't get bounced around.

She wanted to wear the fleece. As I was doing something else, she opened the back of the Jeep, grabbed part of her fleece, pulled it out of the Jeep, and dumped my F3 from a height of 2 ft onto the driveway.

After a moment of panic, I realized it had landed on a bottom corner, and that everything was working normally. Lens wasn't even scratched. I had to look hard to even even see the scratch on the body.

It's my "beater" F3 anyway, I have two more in nicer condition

 

[ToddB]

Thanks EVH for the clarification.. That is sad. Must admit, I skimmed over his posting and saw the word OK.

 

[Tony-S]

Nikon F2 - they don't call it the tank for no reason.

Yes, that's safer than a Canon F-1n because the F-1n would have damaged the pavement.

 

[Tom1956]

I've got a Piper Cub RC plane hanging from my ceiling. A few years ago the nitro engine went dead after takeoff. The plane was smashed into absolute smithereens. I mean particles. Determined not to let that be the end of it, I rebuilt it. It's still holding up. There's a good bit of wood holding all that glue together.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Thanks EVH for the clarification.. That is sad. Must admit, I skimmed over his posting and saw the word OK.

Once when I was working on a camera I mixed up the shims which ensure that the lens mounting flange is the corrrect distance from and parralel to the filmplane. Here's what I did: The flange is mounted on a diecast plate which is fastened to the main body casting by four screws. The shims went between this plate and the main casting.
I set the body (with the back removed) on a granite surface plate, supported by .5000" gauge blocks on the film rails. Using a .0001" resolution dial indicator set to zero at the flange distance + .5000, I shimmed the front plate until it was parralel to and the correct distance from the filmplane, taking the time to rub the shims on a stone until the flange was spot on, within the ability of my measuring tools - say within .000020".
Then, I put a groundglass at the filmplane and adjusted the focussing screen until the focus at the filmplane matched the focus in the viewfinder, using a viewfinder magnifier.

My point here is, once a camera becomes misaligned it's no small job to put it right - and one needs special tools; I did this in the gauge room of a machineshop which I am very lucky to have access to, using tens of thousands of dollars worth of tools and equipment which most people don't have access to.

 

[AOCo]

"...the camera now fucusses past infinity" which means it's unuseable.

Not too sure about this one. If I can get the image nicely focused on the ground glass, won't it be in focus on the film plane ? After all my view camera focuses past infinity and is very usable.
Then it's only a question of film advance and shutter speed, which both seem unaffected.

 

[Sirius Glass]

It may be 50 years old, but I will not cost you much to replace it as it originally costs adjusted for inflation.

 

[gleaf]

Definition - Flatulance- ambulance for things run over by road rollers......
I am so glad you did fail to topple down the stairwell.
I'm have a nice Nikon digital telephoto with dangling camera ribbon cables and parts on my lab desk.
It's my be careful reminder.
Best wishes for your further shooting with the new body.

 

[Tom1956]

Here's a genuine Honeywell H3v here.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/HONEYWELL-P...249860118?pt=Film_Cameras&hash=item338384f216

 

[AOCo]

Thanks for the link. I have a couple of very good shape Spotmatic F's that I should wear out before I get another camera on the shelf, maybe I won't live long enough for that... I will try to be careful, these being as old as me deserve some precautions. Pentax SVs are not that frequent though. I found that the film rewind is so much smoother that the spotmatics, I might still try to find another one.

 

[Tom1956]

Once when I was working on a camera I mixed up the shims which ensure that the lens mounting flange is the corrrect distance from and parralel to the filmplane. Here's what I did: The flange is mounted on a diecast plate which is fastened to the main body casting by four screws. The shims went between this plate and the main casting.
I set the body (with the back removed) on a granite surface plate, supported by .5000" gauge blocks on the film rails. Using a .0001" resolution dial indicator set to zero at the flange distance + .5000, I shimmed the front plate until it was parralel to and the correct distance from the filmplane, taking the time to rub the shims on a stone until the flange was spot on, within the ability of my measuring tools - say within .000020".
Then, I put a groundglass at the filmplane and adjusted the focussing screen until the focus at the filmplane matched the focus in the viewfinder, using a viewfinder magnifier.

My point here is, once a camera becomes misaligned it's no small job to put it right - and one needs special tools; I did this in the gauge room of a machineshop which I am very lucky to have access to, using tens of thousands of dollars worth of tools and equipment which most people don't have access to.

What kind of camera were you working on that had shims in it? I've worked on a number of Japanese 35's and have not run up on any shims yet. Thanks.