Vintage Old Camera Download

I have two old cameras - a Baldessa 1 and a Voigtlander Vito B - both were sticky in operation and the Baldessa refused to fire in cold weather. In both cases - the problem didn't appear to be with the shutter, but with the mechanisms that activated it.

So I did infuse some ED into the cameras - not in any way where it would reach the shutter and it appears to have freed up the attendant mechanisms - which appear to be somewhat heavier than the actual shutters. A lot of the Baldessa's running gear is in the base of the camera - and it sounds - from placing an ear to it - quite heavy. Watch this space - anyone have an idea how hard a Baldessa is to take apart ?

11:25PM, 29 December 2008 PDT(permalink)

It works pretty well, but often temporarily. WD40 has two main components; a high viscosity, low-volatility oil, and a low viscosity, volatile one. Mix the two together, and they get into crevices, dissolve whatever old grease/dirt is there, and free things up a bit. Then the volatile component evaporates, leaving the sticky oil. Which is great at preventing rust, but has a tendency to attract dust, and in the long run makes fine mechanisms quite a bit worse off than if cleaned with a something more suitable.

And depending what you mean by "cold weather" (I'd call it -20C) WD40 has a tendency to bind up or freeze.

As to the next question, I don't know about the Baldessa in particular, but most vintage cameras it's relatively easy to get the case off; a decent set of jeweler's screwdrivers and possibly a spanner wrench will usually do it. Some of the classic camera repair forums may have instructions or even repair manuals, so it's worth a look around.

Originally posted ages ago. (permalink)

matt edited this topic ages ago.

Vintage Old Camera Download

DOWNLOAD 🔥 https://urlgoal.com/2yGAPQ 🔥

Evergreen,

WD-40 was originally a water displacement substance (hence the "WD" in "WD-40"). I'm guessing it was their 40th try. Everything I had heard is that WD-40 and cameras generally do not mix well.

The solvent characteristics can be better handled by Naphtha...usually in the form or Zippo or Rodensol lighter fluid. It can dissolve and flow away old lubricants nicely. It leaves no residue, so there is nothing to gum up later on.

Lubrication should be used very sparingly so it does not attract dust and grime and also does not offgass and cloud optical surfaces. Flooding with lube is not looked kindly upon in camera repair circles.

If you already did the WD-40 thing...its OK, you are not a bad person. However, I'd work Naphtha into the mechanism to try and get rid as much of the oil as possible.

One thing I have had some success with is making a suspension of finely ground graphite lube in naphtha. After flooding the mechanism, the naphtha evaporates and leave a thin film of graphite evenly distributed on the components. It works nicely on the shutter blades of old folders. They are designed to work absolutely dry, but some corrosion on the blades can make them stuck open or sluggish. I use this as a last ditch sort of thing. Usually just cleaning works.

If you do have to lube mechanical parts, a high quality lube that does not tend to migrate or get gummy is preferred. Micro tools has a nice variety of high quality lube from what I remember.

ages ago(permalink)

It's real good for spraying on circuit boards of darkroom processors. I used it on a 40" Pako processor. Circuit boards were in the feed end, which is inside the darkroom, thus exposed to more moisture. Sold the processor 10 years ago, don't have a darkroom, and I don't use it on cameras.

ages ago(permalink)

I would say vintage means 'pre electronic' - so before about 1980 or a bit earlier. Other people will give you different answers. I suppose any camera that makes older people say "Wow -I had one of those when I was a kid, teeneager etc." is vintage. Definitely anything from the 60s. Does anyone make TLRs now? I suppose they are vintage almost by definition.

Originally posted ages ago. (permalink)

seriykotik1970 edited this topic ages ago.

Clearly, a vintage camera is one that's been picked from a vine, squashed, casked, and left to age before being bottled and marketed to as just the thing to go with that cheese course at the next dinner party.

More seriously, I have t-shirts I bought new that are older than what I see in 'vintage' stores around East Vancouver; I'm not sure age has anything to do with it compared to the notion of authenticity. E.g., if I'm using my dad's camera, that's probably more 'vintage' than buying the same model on eBay.

In other words, it's a pretty flexible idea, so just bend it until it suits you.

Originally posted ages ago. (permalink)

matt edited this topic ages ago.

I don't consider my Spotmatics etc vintage, but I realise those half my age might. How soon is a OM2s vintage? After the Spotties, but before plastic/AF SLRs? To be honest, the OM is starting to look vintage to me.

There is a technology and look n feel aspect to vintage - something that is an early example of still current design trends has a harder time making vintage, for me at least. Obsolete technology or design defintiely makes it, while modern, even mechanical/metal era, SLRs have a slower descent. So all those '70s heavy metal non-interchangeable lens rf's - vintage.

I suppose for each of us, this question is tied into when we consider ourselves vintage. If I let those 25 year old cameras in, then I'm definitely getting vintage... pushing antique soon. OMG no!!!

(you may read that as [olympus] OM-G no!!!)

Originally posted ages ago. (permalink)

Nesster edited this topic ages ago.

Maybe there should be a set definition in the group description as to what is considered "Vintage". Seems like there are quite alot of "Vintage looking" photos on here taken with digital cameras......

ages ago(permalink)

This spring I had a meetup-type situation. We met to have a picnic and shoot some cherry blossom photos. I brought a Kodak Retinette 1b (with a coldshoe rangefinder and a Kodak Series V push-on hood) and a Minolta SRT-202 (aka SR-505 in Japan) with a few Rokkor lenses. It really made me stop and think when someone said something about me bringing my "vintage cameras". Partly because except for a couple digitals (Lumixes) I don't have anything much newer than the SRT-202 and partly because I don't think of them as "vintage". I suppose I DO think of my Rolleicord IIc (1939 - 1949) as "vintage" though, now that I think about it.

ages ago(permalink)

Nowadays, anything that uses film/non-digital seems 'vintage'!

Vintage has a "Good Ol' Days" feel about it, where cameras 'back in my day' were [insert superlatives here].

People today will regard a Canon T-50 as vintage, perhaps. Others will point to their Olympus Pens; other still will hark back to their Miniature Speed Graphics, etc.... It kinda depends on the age of the person talking!

I reckon 'vintage' as an adjective applies at around 25 years since this is a reasonable measure of a 'generation'; each generation defines their History of Old Things as that time before they were born. Anything made (cameras included) before they were born is their definition of 'vintage'.

Originally posted ages ago. (permalink)

physical leg edited this topic ages ago.

I consider my 1960's rangefinder vintage but my k1000 is classic. I think the difference is as much in the way the camera is used when it comes to borderline dates and such. As a students camera the k1000 is ideal which elevates it to classic as well as it's age, although no one would think of recommending a vintage camera to a bunch of 16 year olds.

ages ago(permalink)

Hi, just to chime in-Some people have suggested that any film camera will be vintage soon, but film cameras are still being produced, most notably by lomography.com. (I know you're probably aware of that and were most likely being ironic.) A good case in point for this group would be the Diana-if you had an original Diana from the 60s that would be a vintage camera. However, if you bought the reissued Diana from lomography or freestyle photo (I have this one), it produces the same "vintage" looking effect (with essentially the same parts, plus a few new features) but I would not include it in this pool since it is a new camera. I tend to agree with a loose guideline, other than age, being whether or not you can still buy it new or get parts for it.

I have not posted here yet, mostly for the reasons above-I haven't shot anything with an obsolete camera in a while. I have a Polariod Land cam but haven't yet produced any decent images with it. When I get around to modifying my old Duaflex or Twindar cameras to accept 120 film, I will definitely post the results here.

ages ago(permalink)

I can see I have way too tough on myself here - I always figured a vintage camera was at least 80 years old, you know, pre 1930s. But it seems someone has moved the goalposts.

Ok, pretty much all my non-Lomo film photos are from vintage cameras then... Sorry, I don't buy that. Vintage has to be as old as your granddad or grandma or older.

ages ago(permalink)

I have vintage cameras that were new when I got them, or available new during my life.

My grandfather was born in 1875. How many in this group are using a camera that old? I don't see a lot of wet plate work here.

ages ago(permalink)

Love to read everyones opinions on this topic. Before reading these I wouldn't have considered most of my 1980's compact 35 mm cams vintage but I guess maybe they are now.

ages ago(permalink)

"Vintage has to be as old as your granddad or grandma or older."

I've got a Voigtlnder Avus which is five years younger than my (still living) grandad... yet I think the Avus is pretty definitively a vintage camera.