View Full Version : RC glitch

07-18-2009, 16:08
I have finally figured out that the 1/125 setting produces the same aperture as 1/15 (or thereabouts). The other speeds seem reasonable. Anyone hear of such a thing? I opened up the top, but I can't make any sense of it and I'm not going to experiment! I think I'll just have to remember to not use the 125 setting. (Maybe I should print it on a sticker and stick it to the top so I don't forget! :o) On the positive side, I've only run one roll through, and probably only ruined a handful of photos. :bang: (Need to get this to the store to develop!) I rather like 1/125... :( Oh well.

I did go ahead and clean the rangefinder window a bit. Not a perfect job, but I wanted to go lightly. I'm happier with it, and it's not perfect, but I'm quitting while I'm ahead. The thing is, the camera is pretty worn, I didn't pay much for it, and it's probably not worth getting a pro cleanup and repair.

I also replaced part of the foam light seals near the hinge, which looked like a gap, but I'm not sure I need to replace any other.

Replacing the seals is a fairly easy job. I would not recommend opening up the top and cleaning the rangefinder unless you're used to working with small things like this. Although, I read a post where someone said at least that is doable and not to try anything further. I'll heed that advice, but I'd say that most people shouldn't try what I did -- it's just too easy to slip up and ruin something. (For one example, I read one post where someone just about ruined their mirror because the alcohol & q-tip treatment they gave it took off the finish! Yikes.)

Best thing, though -- the lens looks great. I expect some great photos. The poor camera has been through a lot, but it looks like it has some life left.

My plans for the camera are to have something small for times where I don't want to take a big DSLR, and when I want higher quality than the small digital cameras. Or maybe just to have an extra camera handy. Well, maybe. :) We'll see if it grows old, but for a while, I'm enjoying re-discovering film and discovering rangefinders for the first time.

Oh, if you've managed to read this far, I have a bonus tip. ;) I read where you could use a #9 rubber o-ring as an adapter for a 675 battery. Not a perfect solution, but a cheap one that seems to work. It's a bit too snug, so it may be tricky when it comes time to replace the battery, but it beats an expensive adapter!

07-18-2009, 17:07
Is there a question here? Or are you just relating your experience with the camera?

07-18-2009, 17:35
Yes. Both.

The question is, has anyone heard of where just one shutter speed was incorrect? Is there a fix? My assumption is that there's not much I can do myself, but it's such a specific error, I wondered if anyone had more info. about it.

As for relating my experience, there might be something in there of interest. If nothing else, at least about the o-ring!

John Hermanson
07-20-2009, 13:00
35RC production ended in 1978. A 30+ year old camera that's never been serviced may have multiple problems. A dirty governor will produce shutter speed errors that are erratic and unpredictable. Around the back, there is foam in all the slots and around the perimeter inside the back cover. If hinge foam is bad, it's all bad. John, www.zuiko.com

07-22-2009, 19:26
Thanks for the comments, John. When I develop this roll, hopefully I'll be able to figure out what or if there is anything major wrong.

There is still visible foam on the latch part of the back, but it is deteriorating. The hinge was really bad, though (and is an area that easily can leak light), so I figured that demanded immediate attention. I've got a bunch of foam, so maybe I'll make a project to replace the rest of the foam, one day. Kind of a tedious job.

Rather than replace the foam, for some reason, it bothered me more that there was dirt/dust in the rangefinder. Really, I probably should have ignored that, but I'm somehow happier having cleaned it. :-) (Even happier that I didn't ruin it! :-D )

07-26-2009, 20:08
I got my first roll developed, finally. (I wanted to scan the negatives, but I can't seem to find my adapter... :bang:)

As I expected, some photos were horribly underexposed -- probably when set to the "125" setting. Although, it turns out that "some" ended up being "two", so that was good. :D No sign of light leakage.

Some of the photos look maybe slightly underexposed, or maybe it was the processing. (Probably can tell better when/if I get my scanner going.) But most seem fine. There seems to be a very slight vignetting -- not sure.

Anyway, the detail is great. This confirms what I expected -- this would make a nice travel camera in a small package. I guess the real test would be to try to blow up the negatives, though.... (Only so much you can conclude over 4x6s!)

The worst problem is that developing the photos costs as much as the camera! :eek: