[LargeFormat] Bad Kodak Lens

[Jim Hemenway]

Hi Richard:

I have a camera like yours which is in good shape with nothing wrong. 
but I also have the newer model with the 105mm f3.7 Ektar and also with 
both focal plane and between the lens shutters.  The rangefinder was in 
such a twisted, screwed up condition that even after I had replaced the 
mirror, I was unable to make it work properly... and the front standard 
was warped.

Without your kind of persistence, I gave up and brought it to Mike Zak 
in Providence... all was fixed for $80 and was well worth it to me.

Jim, "I fear that I'm turning into a camera collector" Hemenway



Richard Knoppow wrote:

> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Mike Kirwan" <mkirwan@pacbell.net>
> To: <largeformat@f32.net>
> Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2004 8:49 PM
> Subject: RE: [LargeFormat] Bad Kodak Lens
> 
> 
> 
>>Richard:
>>
>>I repaired and refurbished my Baby G about 2 years ago.
> 
> The effort was
> 
>>well worthwhile and it is a truly flexible camera capable
> 
> of excellent
> 
>>results. I did make one modification and that was to
> 
> reverse the front
> 
>>standard so now I have a downward tilt. Great for
> 
> extending depth of field
> 
>>in landscape work.
>>
>>I have the 105mm f3.7 Ektar and the results are
> 
> outstanding. I also have a
> 
>>number of other Ektars and Commercial Ektars and they are
> 
> also excellent
> 
>>and can pretty much keep up with more modern lenses. I
> 
> wonder if yours was
> 
>>damaged (dropped?) that may the causing the problem, I
> 
> wonder as Kodak for
> 
>>its time had really good quality controls in place.
>>
>>There is a little secret about these Baby's, you can now
> 
> easily buy sheet
> 
>>film for them, and at least two emulsions are available,
> 
> both giving
> 
>>excellent results. Shh, keep this quiet as I am looking
> 
> for more film
> 
>>holders :-)
>>
>>- Mike
>>
> 
>   Mine is the earlier Miniature Speed Graphic. These were
> built from 1938 to 1948 when it was replaced by the camera
> you have, one of the Pacemaker series. The Mini S.G. was a
> sort of mixture of the "pre-Anniversary" and Anniversary
> models having some features of both. This is a very nice
> size and makes negatives large enough to have much of the
> large format quality with low weight and bulk.
>   I suspect the lens may be a mix of cells parts from two
> lenses. For one thing, its problem would be apparent to
> anyone trying to set it up with a rangefinder. It would have
> had to get through Kodak's evidently good Q.C. _and_
> Graflex's Q.C. In any case, I can probably find another, or
> a good Optar, at one of the local camera sales. I will bring
> my magnifier and pencil flash to the one this coming Sunday
> at Buena Park.
>   I had to replace the beam splitter mirror on the
> rangefinder, plus the ground glass in the camera. One of the
> buttons that the bed support struts runs on had been moved
> and had a very crude patch made of wood filler under it. I
> was able to remove most of the filler and put an inlay of
> thin Mahogany in its place and remount the button. The
> Mahogany came from a hobby shop in Pasadena that specializes
> in model railroad supplies. This is stuff you can get for
> less than a dollar to maybe a couple of dollars. The reason
> for moving the button is that the misplacment caused the bed
> to be twisted slightly and unstable.
>    It turns out that replacing the beam splitter mirror is
> not difficult. I used the material from Edmund Scientific
> recommended by Ed Romney in his article on the Graflex web
> site. The blanks used to cost about $30, they are now $15.
> You can make many mirrors from one. I used a carbide scriber
> from Home Depot, about $8.00. The scriber works a lot better
> than the ususal wheel type glass cutter, which should not
> even be tried on the mirror material. I also used it to cut
> the ground glass. Cutting glass is not difficult but takes a
> little practice. You must be very definite about scoring.
>   The beam splitter mirror is held in place by two flat
> spring clips. The assembly is held in the rangefinder by two
> screws. Its much simpler to remove the assembly. In my
> rangefinder the mirror was not cemented in place but there
> were signs that it probably was. I suspect the cement is
> canada balsam but don't know for certain. In his article
> Romney says he has to break out the old mirrors, I don't
> thing this should be necessary. The spring clips did seem to
> have some adhesive at their ends. This came off with
> Isopropyl alcohol. Canada Balsam or other light cements
> should come off with either alcohol or Acetone. In any case,
> the clips slip off the ends of the mirror frame and the
> mirror just falls out. The old mirror is useful as a pattern
> for cutting the new one. The new mirror is simply placed in
> the frame and the clips put back. I fastened the ends of the
> clips and the edges of the mirror with airplane cement. Some
> care is necessary to make sure that the mirror side of the
> beam splitter faces the peep sight window of the
> rangefinder. Since it is a 50% mirror this requires a
> careful inspection. You can tell the correct side by holding
> a bright object near the mirror. There will be two
> reflections on either side but on the correct side the first
> or nearest reflection will be significantly brighter than
> the other. From the back the two will be about the same. The
> mirror bracket must be re-installed so it makes an exact 45
> degree angle with the body of the rangefinder. One can make
> a simple protractor to line it up.
>   This all worked pretty well. The new mirror produced a
> well differentiated center image where, with the old one, I
> could hardly see it. This applies to late Kalart type-E
> rangefinders, with a prism at the bottom but probably also
> applies to the lower cost version with a flat mirror at the
> bottom.
> 
>  I will post more later.
> 
> ---
> Richard Knoppow
> Los Angeles, CA, USA
> dickburk@ix.netcom.com
>