Loading my IIIc: need help...

[Pfreddee]

I'm doing something wrong, I think, but I can't quite figure it out.

I have the leader cut longer, and I've threaded it onto the take-up reel, and inserted both the cassette and the take-up reel into the camera body. The problem comes when I wind on and trip the shutter twice, and then I'm ready to shoot...except sometimes I'm not. I have had a roll of film with no images on it, I believe the sprocket wheel didn't engage.:bang:

And then, occasionally the sprocket wheel does engage.:bang: I do know that if I can see the rewind knob rotate when I wind on, everything is working as it should.

So, what do I need to do to make sure that the sprocket wheel is doing its job?

When I load the camera, I follow the correct method of loading, no poking the film through the shutter aperture, no business cards to force things, no improper technique, no magic words Sgt. Hughes taught us in Basic. What am I missing?

Thanks to all who reply.

With best regards.

Pfreddee (Stephen)

[colyn]

After loading look and see that the film has in fact engaged the sprockets. You may have to slightly rewind the film a bit to get it to slip home..

[Melvin]

Agreed. You can see the film engage the sprockets as you slowly turn the advance, but you need to peer down into the camera, with good light, e.g. next to a window. They actually load the same as an M, just no back door.

[Shac]

This might help also - a video by Tom Abrahamson on loading LTMs
http://www.youtube.com/profile?gl=CA&hl=en&user=TnTandMrB#p/a/u/1/heMk-4hde9E

[ZorkiKat]

Click for instructions on cutting and loading:

BOTTOM LOADING (http://www.zorkikat.com/entering-from-the-bottom-loading-a-leica-properly-also-for-fed-zorki-and-canon-rf-cameras/115/)

[Leigh Youdale]

[QUOTE=Pfreddee;1287575]I'm doing something wrong, I think, but I can't quite figure it out. I have had a roll of film with no images on it, I believe the sprocket wheel didn't engage.:bang:

The advice about checking sprocket wheels is all good, but I also once had a completely blank film and I found that the leader had not stayed in the clamp on the takeup spool, but had slipped out on the first wind-on and, if I recall, the sprocket teeth had torn the film edge just a little and thereafter continued to rotate but without engaging the holes in the film.

I didn't find this at first as I had fully rewound the film into the can, but when I inspected the film closely after developing it I found the culprit. The clamp was OK - I just hadn't made sure to insert the leader as far as it would go so it was tight. Never had another problem once I realised that

[beyond]

I had the same problem. Now instead of cutting a long lead, I sacrifice two frames of the film. I pre-rolled the film onto the spool. Insert and voila. Done. Shoot.

[john neal]

The spool will never pull the film through the camera, it's not even designed to do that. It is only there to "take up" the loose film driven through the frame by the sprockets.

The only answer is to ensure that the sprockets are engaged correctly, if that means losing an extra shot, I think that's a small sacrifice.

[payasam]

John has explained the role of the take-up spool succinctly.

Strange. Most of the time I'd get an extra frame instead of losing one. All I can suggest is that after replacing the bottom plate, you should take up the slack in the film by using the rewind knob. A tight length of film might be more easily caught by the sprocket teeth.

[ray*j*gun]

I got in the habit of watching the rewind knob on every wind-on. If it is moving each and every time the film is advancing.

[newspaperguy]

Like Raymond said.
Plus - check to make sure the rewind knob is moving BEFORE you replace the bottom plate.
Then, check it as you advance your film two more times.
You don't even have to look at it... just keep one finger lightly on the r/w knob as you wind the advance knob.

[colyn]

I had the same problem. Now instead of cutting a long lead, I sacrifice two frames of the film. I pre-rolled the film onto the spool. Insert and voila. Done. Shoot.

The sprocket is what pulls the film through. The take-up spool only holds the film and is designed to slip if say the film is too tight.

Doing it your way can cause problems if the film is loose on the take-up spool when you insert it into the camera.

The process is very simple...slip the trimmed leader into the clamp on the take-up spool..insert both cassette and take-up spool into the camera..then slightly wind while watching to see if the sprocket engages the holes on the film. Once done replace the bottom cover and wind the rewind knob till the film is snug and advance while watching to see if the rewind knob is turning.

I get 37 frames doing it this way..

[aperture64]

Hi,

I have never had a problem loading a screw mount. I don't cut the film. I push the leader into the spool, set the camera to T, remove the lens, open the shutter and guide the film in place with my finger. I then advance the film to see if everything is moving properly. Total time is under a minute and I have never had a problem.

[sqjaw]

Click for instructions on cutting and loading:

BOTTOM LOADING (http://www.zorkikat.com/entering-from-the-bottom-loading-a-leica-properly-also-for-fed-zorki-and-canon-rf-cameras/115/)
Thanks you very much for your information on Bottom loading ,I have not problems with my FED-2 but have never do a Leica before so your info will help me a lot :sqjaw

[ZorkiKat]

Hi,

I have never had a problem loading a screw mount. I don't cut the film. I push the leader into the spool, set the camera to T, remove the lens, open the shutter and guide the film in place with my finger. I then advance the film to see if everything is moving properly. Total time is under a minute and I have never had a problem.


Yes this may work, but have you thought of the following?-

1. You actually put the camera to more potential of damage or if not damage it altogether. In many of the older bottom loaders I've seen, the pressure plates had finger prints almost permanently etched on them.

2. Cutting the film leader to proper shape is easier. That's all that a bottom loading camera needs.

3. The correct method only needs the baseplate and spool to be removed.
And loading can be done in about 20 seconds. I know people who can do this in 15 sec. My record is 9 seconds.;)

4. You'd need a table, a surface, extra pockets or hands for the removed lens, baseplate, etc. Removing and replacing extra parts whilst on the field or in situations where fast film loading is needed.

5. The 'alternate method' you propose may actually need twice as many steps than the correct method. For instance, shifting the shutter to T, winding to open the shutter, then winding again to close it and finally take the dial off T are already 4 extra steps before the film is even introduced. Guiding the film with your finger is another extra step, and is potentially damaging to the pressure plate.

[ZorkiKat]

Thanks you very much for your information on Bottom loading ,I have not problems with my FED-2 but have never do a Leica before so your info will help me a lot :sqjaw

Welcome, sqjaw. FED-2 load almost conventionally- from the back, and no long leader cut is required. Most FED-2 do have removable spools though which are handled like the spools of the bottom loaders.

[aperture64]

Yes this may work, but have you thought of the following?-

1. You actually put the camera to more potential of damage or if not damage it altogether. In many of the older bottom loaders I've seen, the pressure plates had finger prints almost permanently etched on them.

2. Cutting the film leader to proper shape is easier. That's all that a bottom loading camera needs.

3. The correct method only needs the baseplate and spool to be removed.
And loading can be done in about 20 seconds. I know people who can do this in 15 sec. My record is 9 seconds.;)

4. You'd need a table, a surface, extra pockets or hands for the removed lens, baseplate, etc. Removing and replacing extra parts whilst on the field or in situations where fast film loading is needed.

5. The 'alternate method' you propose may actually need twice as many steps than the correct method. For instance, shifting the shutter to T, winding to open the shutter, then winding again to close it and finally take the dial off T are already 4 extra steps before the film is even introduced. Guiding the film with your finger is another extra step, and is potentially damaging to the pressure plate.

I have loaded my IIIa on a moving NYC Subway train using my method with no problems. It works for me and is fast. I don't touch the pressure plate with my finger and often don't need to touch the film either. I like to leave the shutter open, so I can visually confirm the film is loaded properly. Sometimes the film will need to be guided in place and sometimes not. I have never caused damage to any of my cameras.

I don't think there is really any 'correct' way to load it. I think the method that works the best for you is what you should stick to. As for 'extra steps', I don't considered putting the camera on T and removing the lens to be any real time killer. I could see your point if your method took seconds and mine took minutes, but I can load one of these cameras in under a minute. Probably the same amount of time it would take to load the M. I have never had a problem with the resulting images and have always gotten 36 frames per roll.

You mention that loading the camera in 15-20 seconds. Did you include the time it took to cut the leader?

[ZorkiKat]

I have loaded my IIIa on a moving NYC Subway train using my method with no problems. It works for me and is fast. I don't touch the pressure plate with my finger and often don't need to touch the film either. I like to leave the shutter open, so I can visually confirm the film is loaded properly. Sometimes the film will need to be guided in place and sometimes not. I have never caused damage to any of my cameras.

I don't think there is really any 'correct' way to load it. I think the method that works the best for you is what you should stick to. As for 'extra steps', I don't considered putting the camera on T and removing the lens to be any real time killer. I could see your point if your method took seconds and mine took minutes, but I can load one of these cameras in under a minute. Probably the same amount of time it would take to load the M. I have never had a problem with the resulting images and have always gotten 36 frames per roll.

You mention that loading the camera in 15-20 seconds. Did you include the time it took to cut the leader?

If you consider the documentation (official instructions, originating from the people who designed or made the camera) which came with the camera, or the illustration at the bottom of the shutter crate, the loading method described therein would be the correct one.

I precut the film in batches, long before they're loaded. If I anticipate heavy usage with a bottom loading camera, I just cut ALL my film leaders to the correct shape. So the time spent in cutting is no longer part of the loading process. The timing starts when the film on hand, just as the baseplate is removed.

I do doubt though if an alternative method which involves

1.remove the lens
2. look for place to put lens in
3. take out film, pull out leader
4.set shutter to T
5. pull out takeup spool
6. insert film leader to spool clip
7.cock shutter
8. open shutter
9.shove film with spool through bottom
9. thrust finger into lens mount to coax film in place
10.wind film to see if threads
11. coax further as the film is threaded
12. close shutter
13. move dial from T to facilitate the 2-3 blank firings
14. look for/ retrieve lens
15. remount lens
16. replace baseplate.

can really work in times where you need to really move quickly than the official method which involves

1. remove baseplate, slip in pocket
2. pull out take up
3. pull out film leader
4. insert leader to film clip
5. insert film cassette and takeup in the camera
6. turn the winding knob
7. check if the sprocket holes engage with the teeth
8. replace baseplate

[aperture64]

I've seen here before that there are two groups that debate to cut or not to cut. Both are no longer relevant to me, since I sold my screw mount cameras due to mostly using an M camera.

I offered my approach because the original poster seems to be cutting their film and following the 'correct' method, but they are having problems with their film being correctly loaded. I have never had this problem, so I am offering a solution with an alternate method.

I also did not cut my film because I don't know which film I would be using in any of my cameras, so pre-cutting would not make sense. I also never cut my film because I thought I would attempt to load the camera without doing so and never had a problem since that first time. Speed is also something that I have never really desired when loading or using a camera. If it was, I doubt Leica M or Rolleiflex cameras would be my choice of equipment. I would also prefer to know my cameras are properly loaded than to race through it and set a record. But, again, whatever works for you is the best method.

I have also had 3 trouble-free years of driving my car, since it was new. But, I have never read the manual. Does that mean I am not driving it the 'correct' way?

[ZorkiKat]

The manuals which come with automobiles don't really teach you how to drive. It is an assumption that you already know that. Loading Leicas and driving cars are not in the same vein.

It is really more about efficiency, not speed, which is at the core of the 'correct' vs 'alternative' methods.

The poster in the OP, as I understand it, was asking why his camera still wouldn't load even if he (thought) that he followed the instructions. Quite normal for starters. Bottom loading is a lost art, and largely non-intuitive for those who are unfamiliar with it.

By keenly looking at the steps and noting those which had been missed, the second roll should be successful. And he may master the process by the third.

[Ronald M]

return the rewind lever to advance, take slack up on the film with the rewind crank, wind the advane knob and you should see the film spool being turned from being pulled.

1/4 turn is all it takes to see this.

Now replace the bottom and watch the rewind spool off film as you spoolmoff two blank frames.

Sometimes I have to push the film well into the take up spool although that does not actuall pull it.

I think the KEY is to have no more than 1/8" film outside the cassette when you drop it in otherwise it tends to get stuck.

ALWAYS observe the first 6 frames with the rewind on any 35mm camera.

[aperture64]

the second roll should be successful. And he may master the process by the third.

I think that using the shutter open on the T setting is what helped the M camera evolve into having a read door for loading purposes. People like to have a visual confirmation, whether it's right or wrong, so they can have piece of mind that something is working correctly. 'Seeing is believing.'

I had success on the first roll I loaded this way. If I had waited until the second or third roll, I probably would have stopped using the camera. I have never had the unfortunate problem of finding part of or an entire roll of film to be blank. But I know people who have and could feel their pain and frustration.

Point is if a method works for you, stick with it. In my case, I have never had a need to cut the film. It's quick and painless. But the OP's current method is not working for him, so it may be time to try something new. I'm just offering up some advice. Maybe opening the camera once on T will allow him to see how the inside of the camera 'works' and will answer his problem, which will eventually lead to him loading it without problems or taking the lens off.

[buzzardkid]

I don't cut my bulk loaded film, I do take the lens off, I touch the pressure plate and the film when I feel I need to and both my shots and me are fine.

Keeping your fingers off the film is useless, it's a light exposed leader part you're looking at, why not touch it when needed? How can you damage the pressure plate by touching it? Its made from metal and you're not acid or anything. Etched fingerprints (show me, I'd like to see that!) IMHO mean 'my camera', not 'ruined shots'. It's not like you're stacking cases of beer on top of it, a simple fingerprint will not ruin anything.

If you want to shoot fast, bring a DSLR. Barnacks take time. Watch the world go by as you reload, you'll notice everything has its course, whether you shoot it or not. You'll have fond memories of things you saw, but did not shoot. It does not matter much.

Ricks advice to keep a finger gently along the rewind knob to feel it rotate is a sane one, I feel its almost reassuring to wind on and feel the knob rotate and to know the next frame lines up behind the curtain.

[ZorkiKat]

I don't cut my bulk loaded film, I do take the lens off, I touch the pressure plate and the film when I feel I need to and both my shots and me are fine.

Keeping your fingers off the film is useless, it's a light exposed leader part you're looking at, why not touch it when needed? How can you damage the pressure plate by touching it? Its made from metal and you're not acid or anything. Etched fingerprints (show me, I'd like to see that!) IMHO mean 'my camera', not 'ruined shots'. It's not like you're stacking cases of beer on top of it, a simple fingerprint will not ruin anything.

If you want to shoot fast, bring a DSLR. Barnacks take time. Watch the world go by as you reload, you'll notice everything has its course, whether you shoot it or not. You'll have fond memories of things you saw, but did not shoot. It does not matter much.

<snip>

You miss the entire point here. Where was it that I referred to shooting fast? Or the need to do so? That wasn't the topic in my post. It's about getting the camera ready as quickly as possible through proper and efficient film loading.

1. As mentioned earlier, it's not about speed - it's about efficiency. Removing more parts from the camera than needed- is that really better?

2. It's not about touching the film. No one has asked to be concerned with that exposed leader. It's the risks posed by sticking the finger inside the camera's throat. From where I come from, poking fingers inside cameras is generally not considered as good.

3. You ought to get in a few of these cameras yourself to see what I mean. The pressure plate may be of tough metal. But the springs that support them aren't. Granted that it may take a lot of shoving with fingers to really effect a change in those springs, still the possibility is there. When these springs lose their power to push the pressure plate up, what do you suppose happens to the needed 28,8mm +/- 0,2 mm flange to focal value which must be maintained over an area of 864 mm?

One or two or even three tries may not damage the springs. But do it all the time, and it becomes a possibility. I've seen such flattened springs in two Shanghai-58, and a Canon II.

4. I have restored perhaps 40+ FED, Zorki, Canon, Shanghai, and Leica. A lot of them have tarnished pressure plates. Some have finger-print patterns which can't be wiped off. Oily/acid/salt residue can react with the metal surfaces.

I don't photograph the pressure plates much, but here are two photos of PP's with damaged surfaces. The first one is from a Leica which had (not visible, right, shiny part) such prints on the pressure plate. The round PP (from a FED-1) has two places where finger prints once were. The two springs to its right can be easily flattened with finger pressure alone.

http://pic50.picturetrail.com/VOL467/2929850/5917851/384672822.jpg

http://pic50.picturetrail.com/VOL467/2929850/5917851/384672823.jpg

You can go to my FED Zorki Survival Site if you want to see the insides of a Barnack type http://jay.fedka.com/index_files/Page455.htm

or Leica IIIf restoration at http://www.zorkikat.com/basic-leica-fix-%E2%84%961-bringing-a-leica-back-from-the-dead/157/


If you don't like cutting leaders in the shape they're supposed to be for bottom loaders, would it not be better for you to stick with back-loading cameras instead?:rolleyes:

[payasam]

It's pointless to argue with religion, aperture64 and Johan.

[aperture64]

It's pointless to argue with religion, aperture64 and Johan.

Apparently so. You can't argue with the bottom loader police.

[ZorkiKat]

It's pointless to argue with religion, aperture64 and Johan.

Can't say anything logical, payasam?

[julescasablancas]

i can load my IIIc with both methods, i choose whichever i like on that day and both ways for me take about the same time....since i pre-cut my film leader too. For me there's no correct method, u know its correct when the film loaded properly and u can take picture with the camera and the pictures come out okay

[payasam]

"Can't say anything logical, payasam?"

I will not be judged by your kind, Mister Javier. While I respect knowledge, I have only contempt for the closed mind that often comes with knowledge. Religions are the best example of the unquestionable absolute: they leave no space either for reason or for reality.

[batterytypehah!]

Please folks, can we stay civil? I can't think of anything less worthy of an argument. Both methods work for their proponents.

ZorkiKat, I have tremendous respect for your experience that you so freely share, here and on your website. However, I do not think you have proof that a slight nudge of the film with a finger has ever ruined even one pressure plate or its springs. We're talking spring steel here. That stuff doesn't get permanently flattened that easily. I also think you should count the time it takes you to cut the leader. Whether you do that in batches or one by one, it is time you spend.

aperture64, is it so hard to admit that your way involves more steps, and the need to find a safe place for the lens? Nobody denies that it's working for you, and once it becomes a habit, I bet it's quite fast enough. It should be permitted to point out these potential pitfalls to a beginner, though.

[buzzardkid]

Zorkikat, I'm sorry if my post seemed to be directed solely at you, it wasn't meant to be. The remarks on fast reloading were a response to others' input here.

I agree with you on the chance of flattening springs when pushing the pressure plate, albeit the risk of flattened springs is bigger in Canons and other non-Leica Barnacks than it is with a Leica IIIc like the OP has. But pushing wasn't the issue here, touching was. Still no harm in that, and not in fingerprints either.

To each his own, I think removing the lens and setting the shutter to B before loading isn't that bad an approach, although some frown upon it. In all honesty I think neither is better or worse than the other, since there are no pressing circumstances (pun intended) to dismiss one of either methods.

[Leigh Youdale]

The spool will never pull the film through the camera, it's not even designed to do that. It is only there to "take up" the loose film driven through the frame by the sprockets.

The only answer is to ensure that the sprockets are engaged correctly, if that means losing an extra shot, I think that's a small sacrifice.

I should have been more specific. It's true the take-up spool is on a slip clutch and does not, of itself draw the film through the gate. But it needs to take up the film coming at it from the sprocket drive.

In my case I had not inserted the film properly (i.e. far enough) into the spool clamp and it pulled out as I wound the first frame on. With insufficient tension on the film at that point (another reason to tension the film rewind gently) the take-up spool was able to rotate at a faster rate than the film advanced. The sprockets continued to drive film into the take-up chamber until it bunched up and jammed, thereby causing the film to tear, and after that, of course, the film did not advance at all. I was not watching the rewind knob and did not discover the problem until I took the (supposedly) exposed film out of the camera.

[colyn]

However, I do not think you have proof that a slight nudge of the film with a finger has ever ruined even one pressure plate or its springs.

I have seen one pressure plate that had a finger print etched into it so I do have to agree with him there. Will the springs be damaged? I doubt it..

[colyn]

One mistake I see that many new and some old Leica users make is when slipping the film leader under the slot on the take-up spool they do not look to see if the film is up against the round edge. If the film is not pushed up against it it will not properly line up with the sprocket since it will be feeding at an angle..

In the first photo the leader is fixed wrong (note the angle). In the second photo the leader is fixed on the spool properly.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2688/4459022050_aaaf88ae72_o.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4003/4459022044_1d66f0d8c4_o.jpg

Doing it per the instructions I can be loaded and ready to shoot in under 30 seconds...

[ZorkiKat]

"Can't say anything logical, payasam?"

I will not be judged by your kind, Mister Javier. While I respect knowledge, I have only contempt for the closed mind that often comes with knowledge. Religions are the best example of the unquestionable absolute: they leave no space either for reason or for reality.

AND NEITHER WILL I BE BY YOUR ILK.

Putting religion, or comparing it in the course of the discussion, is non-sequitur. You say "no space for either reason or for reality".

Let's go again to my previous posts. Was anything there unreasonable or unreal? Did what I say sound as if it had been brought down from the mountains by a bearded old man who claimed he was talking to some burning bush? (btw, if there would be a bearded old man who likes to talk to bushes here, that would not be me).

I presented a point by point discussion on why the 'correct' method with its fewer steps is more efficient than the alternative method. I answered with facts, not theories or dogma, the questions posted by both aperture 64 and cle-rf. Timing, speed of loading, proof of etched pressure plates did not start from me; these were first asked.

I referred to Canon, not the canonical.

The Leica's mechanism was designed to take in film in a certain way. That's reality. There is also good reason to heed the instructions given by the various Leitz, Canon, FED, Zorki, Leotax, Reid, Kardon, Zenit,
Nicca, etc. They knew better, and what's good for the machines they made. What better reason could there be?

In contrast, I question the various alternatives presented to the published methods. If there is anything in the argument that comes closer to religion or dogma, it would be this. Why? Because it is based on belief. On belief that it is better. Or that it will do no harm. Or that it is better than what has been already established or proven.

That is not, as you say, 'leaving no space' for anything else. I have seen the consequences of doing the alternative methods. I had been there, having resorted to that in the past before I knew better. I had seen too many damaged parts in Barnack type cameras which may or may not have been caused by this method. I have no absolute proof for that, but seeing the wrecked parts, I can fairly speculate on what could have caused them.

Can you even see the difference between knowing and believing?

[ZorkiKat]

@ batterytype, cle-rf, colyn, regarding the pressure plate springs:

While Leica may have better springs under the pressure plate which may be able to withstand such unorthodox treatment, the other Barnack types don't.

Since this discussion is about bottom loading, it will concern just about every bottom loading camera, including those not from Leitz. The material used by the other manufacturers were not the same type as what Leitz did.

Here are so far what I have seen:

The Shanghai Leica copies used very poor metal springs. These cameras used small springs made of weak metal which easily flattened.

In a well used Canon II, I found the lower of the two PP springs less curved than the upper one. A depth-indicator reading showed that the lower part of the frame had a longer flange to focal distance than the upper one- it was almost 29mm.

Some FED require to have their springs bent before the PP is laid over them because the former goes flat when the latter is pressed in to facilitate the reinsertion of the shutter crate during reassembly. Starting with a well-bent spring compensates for the flattening. The 'straightened' springs aren't quite strong enough tot push the film flat enough, and far enough into the rails to maintain the needed flange to focal distance.

[Leigh Youdale]

AND NEITHER WILL I BE BY YOUR ILK.

Putting religion, or comparing it in the course of the discussion, is non-sequitur. You say "no space for either reason or for reality".

Let's go again to my previous posts. Was anything there unreasonable or unreal? Did what I say sound as if it had been brought down from the mountains by a bearded old man who claimed he was talking to some burning bush?

I presented a point by point discussion on why the 'correct' method with its fewer steps is more efficient than the alternative method. I answered with facts, not theories or dogma, the questions posted by both aperture 64 and cle-rf. Timing, speed of loading, proof of etched pressure plates did not start from me; these were first asked.

I referred to Canon, not the canonical.

The Leica's mechanism was designed to take in film in a certain way. That's reality. There is also good reason to heed the instructions given by the various Leitz, Canon, FED, Zorki, Leotax, Reid, Kardon, Zenit,
Nicca, etc. They knew better, and what's good for the machines they made. What better reason could there be?

In contrast, I question the various alternatives presented to the published methods. If there is anything in the argument that comes closer to religion or dogma, it would be this. Why? Because it is based on belief. On belief that it is better. Or that it will do no harm. Or that it is better than what has been already established or proven.

That is not, as you say, 'leaving no space' for anything else. I have seen the consequences of doing the alternative methods. I had been there, having resorted to that in the past before I knew better. I had seen too many damaged parts in Barnack type cameras which may or may not have been caused by this method. I have no absolute proof for that, but seeing the wrecked parts, I can fairly speculate on what could have caused them.

Can you even see the difference between knowing and believing?

I'm an atheist and tend to go with what works or is proven. Holy writ on anything fails the test unless it can be demonstrably proven to be correct. There is more than one way to do most things.

[batterytypehah!]

However, I do not think you have proof that a slight nudge of the film with a finger has ever ruined even one pressure plate or its springs.

I have seen one pressure plate that had a finger print etched into it so I do have to agree with him there. Will the springs be damaged? I doubt it.

I stand by what I've said and ask that you read my posts closely.

Colyn, you're omitting part of my point (highlighted above).

ZorkiKat, I think you're being unfair to blame bent springs on the loading method. As you said yourself (but almost as an aside), it is far more likely to happen during disassembly of the camera. I have no doubt that this can do all kinds of damage to the pressure plate. But gently guiding the film through the front cannot.

EDIT: And by this I am not trying to say that you damaged the springs yourself. I mean careless disassembly at some point before the camera came to you.