dmr
Registered Abuser
I'm gonna post this both here and on the "other" system, as I know there's an incredible pool of expertise both here and there. 
Here's the issue, to make a long story long ...
My "main" camera for decades has been a Pentax K1000. This is a first generation 1980s vintage Japanese model, all metal, well broken in and until a couple of years ago performing flawlessly. It's the one I feel very comfortable with and I can shoot it instinctively. It's never been physically damaged or even dropped onto a hard surface that I know of.
A few years ago some of the slides I shot on a trip to some of the National Parks came back disappointingly soft. This was shooting with an Ozunon 28-135 zoom of 1990s vintage which until then had been tack sharp. I did a quick test roll at the time which was really inconclusive.
To be sure, I picked up a Takumar 28-80 zoom at a local camera show, shot with that for a while with what I considered good results, and blamed the issue on the Ozunon zoom.
Fast forward to a couple of months ago. A roll I shot with the Pentax zoom came back with some disappointingly soft images, mainly those with images off in the distance where I would have focused on infinity.
I decided to do some more rigorous testing and I would like to hear what the gang here thinks.
First of all, two "control" images are at the very bottom of the post. These were taken of the same subjects but not at the same time. I'm including them to show what I consider "normal" and what I'm expecting. The control images were shot with the Mamiya SD rangefinder but well before the test roll on the Pentax.
All of these images were (re)scanned with the KM SD IV at full 3200 resolution, absolutely no sharpening or photoshopping at all. These are all 500x500 full size crops and all show the grain very well. For the real-world shots on all but the control, I centered on what I and the neighbors call "the big honking nest" in the trees in the woods to the rear. The nest was center-left in the control image.
K1000 with 50mm f2.0 prime lens f16:
This one above was taken with the lens set hard to infinity. When comparing with the control image below it appears a wee bit softer to me, but when viewed as a whole image on the screen, there's really no difference. The image appears normal when viewed normally.
Test target 50mm f2.0 prime lens f16:
This is the test target at maybe 6' or so, f16, daylight, manually focused (I did wear my glasses!). It looks very normal to me.
. . . . . . . . . .
K1000 with Takumar-A 28-80mm zoom:
28mm f16:
The shot above was at 28mm with the focus set hard to infinity. Comparing it to the control photo and the prime lens photo above, it appears to be to be somewhat softer. When viewed at a normal size on the monitor it still looks quite normal.
80mm f16:
This shot above was zoomed out to the max with the focus set hard to infinity, f16. To me, this looks unacceptably soft. When viewed on the monitor it's normal or near-normal, but a 8.5x11 print does appear soft to me.
80mm f5.6:
This is overexposed. I wanted to see what it would do in the middle of the f stop range so it was f5.6 at 1/1000. The softness is REALLY showing here!
. . . . .
K1000 Ozunon 28-135 zoom:
I'm not posting the 28 or 50mm Ozunon shots since they look near normal but when I zoom it way out to 135, the softness is unacceptable at f16 and UGLY at f5.6!
135mm f16:
135mm f5.6:
Test target:
The shot immediately above is with the Ozunon zoomed out to 135 at about 10' from the target. It looks normal to me. It was carefully focused while wearing glasses.
. . . . . . . . . .
I'm not really sure what my conclusion is, and I would appreciate other opinions. I'm leaning toward thinking I might have a bad body but I'm not sure. The prime kit lens, which I really don't shoot with that much, appears to be near-normal at worst but both zooms are producing unacceptably soft images.
. . . . . . . . . .
"Control" photos:
Not the same roll, obviously, not the same light, and not the same day. These were taken with the Mamiya SD rangefinder, match-needle exposure on the outside shot, exact exposure not remembered but something like 1/500 between f11 and f8 or so. The test target was done indoor with fllash some time before.
Thanks for any advice or opinions, gang!
Here's the issue, to make a long story long ...
My "main" camera for decades has been a Pentax K1000. This is a first generation 1980s vintage Japanese model, all metal, well broken in and until a couple of years ago performing flawlessly. It's the one I feel very comfortable with and I can shoot it instinctively. It's never been physically damaged or even dropped onto a hard surface that I know of.
A few years ago some of the slides I shot on a trip to some of the National Parks came back disappointingly soft. This was shooting with an Ozunon 28-135 zoom of 1990s vintage which until then had been tack sharp. I did a quick test roll at the time which was really inconclusive.
To be sure, I picked up a Takumar 28-80 zoom at a local camera show, shot with that for a while with what I considered good results, and blamed the issue on the Ozunon zoom.
Fast forward to a couple of months ago. A roll I shot with the Pentax zoom came back with some disappointingly soft images, mainly those with images off in the distance where I would have focused on infinity.
I decided to do some more rigorous testing and I would like to hear what the gang here thinks.
First of all, two "control" images are at the very bottom of the post. These were taken of the same subjects but not at the same time. I'm including them to show what I consider "normal" and what I'm expecting. The control images were shot with the Mamiya SD rangefinder but well before the test roll on the Pentax.
All of these images were (re)scanned with the KM SD IV at full 3200 resolution, absolutely no sharpening or photoshopping at all. These are all 500x500 full size crops and all show the grain very well. For the real-world shots on all but the control, I centered on what I and the neighbors call "the big honking nest" in the trees in the woods to the rear. The nest was center-left in the control image.
K1000 with 50mm f2.0 prime lens f16:
This one above was taken with the lens set hard to infinity. When comparing with the control image below it appears a wee bit softer to me, but when viewed as a whole image on the screen, there's really no difference. The image appears normal when viewed normally.
Test target 50mm f2.0 prime lens f16:
This is the test target at maybe 6' or so, f16, daylight, manually focused (I did wear my glasses!)
. It looks very normal to me.. . . . . . . . . .
K1000 with Takumar-A 28-80mm zoom:
28mm f16:
The shot above was at 28mm with the focus set hard to infinity. Comparing it to the control photo and the prime lens photo above, it appears to be to be somewhat softer. When viewed at a normal size on the monitor it still looks quite normal.
80mm f16:
This shot above was zoomed out to the max with the focus set hard to infinity, f16. To me, this looks unacceptably soft. When viewed on the monitor it's normal or near-normal, but a 8.5x11 print does appear soft to me.
80mm f5.6:
This is overexposed. I wanted to see what it would do in the middle of the f stop range so it was f5.6 at 1/1000. The softness is REALLY showing here!
. . . . .
K1000 Ozunon 28-135 zoom:
I'm not posting the 28 or 50mm Ozunon shots since they look near normal but when I zoom it way out to 135, the softness is unacceptable at f16 and UGLY at f5.6!
135mm f16:
135mm f5.6:
Test target:
The shot immediately above is with the Ozunon zoomed out to 135 at about 10' from the target. It looks normal to me. It was carefully focused while wearing glasses.
. . . . . . . . . .
I'm not really sure what my conclusion is, and I would appreciate other opinions. I'm leaning toward thinking I might have a bad body but I'm not sure. The prime kit lens, which I really don't shoot with that much, appears to be near-normal at worst but both zooms are producing unacceptably soft images.
. . . . . . . . . .
"Control" photos:
Not the same roll, obviously, not the same light, and not the same day. These were taken with the Mamiya SD rangefinder, match-needle exposure on the outside shot, exact exposure not remembered but something like 1/500 between f11 and f8 or so. The test target was done indoor with fllash some time before.
Thanks for any advice or opinions, gang!
Pioneer
Veteran
If you have been shooting the K1000 regularly all this time then you could be due to have your mirror adjusted, the springs replaced and some judicious lubrication applied in the right spots. Something could be preventing the mirror from returning all the way to full rest position causing your focus to be off just a bit. You appear focused in the viewfinder but the film is seeing things differently.
I had Eric go through mine just last year for the first time since 1984 (when I bought it used) and was quite impressed with how much my M50/2 lens had sharpened up when the camera was returned. I had replaced the mirror bumpers and felt by myself, but that was the grand total of service provided over a 30+ year period.
I think for a few of us who use these old cameras for years on years, the softness issues kind of creep up on us unawares until we finally look at something we photographed and say; "that doesn't look right at all...". I never kept track but I wouldn't be at all surprised if it turned out that mine had gone through over a thousand rolls of film documenting a growing family, vacations, hunting trips, etc. over the years. Yours may need similar attention.
Sometimes the problem can be intermittent, dependent on things like temperature, humidity, or even camera positioning, so they aren't always evident.
I had Eric go through mine just last year for the first time since 1984 (when I bought it used) and was quite impressed with how much my M50/2 lens had sharpened up when the camera was returned.
I had replaced the mirror bumpers and felt by myself, but that was the grand total of service provided over a 30+ year period.I think for a few of us who use these old cameras for years on years, the softness issues kind of creep up on us unawares until we finally look at something we photographed and say; "that doesn't look right at all...". I never kept track but I wouldn't be at all surprised if it turned out that mine had gone through over a thousand rolls of film documenting a growing family, vacations, hunting trips, etc. over the years. Yours may need similar attention.
Sometimes the problem can be intermittent, dependent on things like temperature, humidity, or even camera positioning, so they aren't always evident.
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
Things shot up close seem ok. But things far away are soft. Maybe it is the lens not reaching infinity?
We can't really diagnose the camera when you're switching lenses up a bunch. And it's of no help to have a "control" shot with an entirely different camera and lens either.
What you need to do is just select one lens, a prime lens, do the focus chart, do close and far objects, and see what happens. If that prime lens delivers good results then we can point the finger away from the camera and to the zooms.
We can't really diagnose the camera when you're switching lenses up a bunch. And it's of no help to have a "control" shot with an entirely different camera and lens either.
What you need to do is just select one lens, a prime lens, do the focus chart, do close and far objects, and see what happens. If that prime lens delivers good results then we can point the finger away from the camera and to the zooms.
johnf04
Well-known
Is it focus problems, or camera shake? What sort of shutter speeds are you using? Are the shots hand held, or is a tripod used?
zuikologist
.........................
My bet would be on a mispositioned or slipped mirror or focusing screen. One way to test is to focus on an object at a known distance using the focusing scale on a prime lens and at a fixed aperture preferably as that takes out some variables. You can test using tape or ground glass on the film gate or a test roll. If the shots are still out of focus then it is likely to be a misaligned or loose mount, if they are in focus then focusing screen or mirror need attention.
Tim Murphy
Well-known
You can't make chicken salad out of chicken poop
You can't make chicken salad out of chicken poop
Dear dmr,
Seriously, a 30 year old camera isn't tack sharp anymore?
As if it ever was?
I know I'll catch hell for these comments but I sort of had to make them because I find great humor in people complaining about the results they get from their pride and joy when anyone could whip out their phone and do better.
I'm not trying to be a dick. Anyone that knows me knows that I'm a dick. I just enjoy irony.
Regards,
Tim Murphy
Harrisburg, PA
You can't make chicken salad out of chicken poop
Dear dmr,
Seriously, a 30 year old camera isn't tack sharp anymore?
As if it ever was?
I know I'll catch hell for these comments but I sort of had to make them because I find great humor in people complaining about the results they get from their pride and joy when anyone could whip out their phone and do better.
I'm not trying to be a dick. Anyone that knows me knows that I'm a dick. I just enjoy irony.
Regards,
Tim Murphy
Harrisburg, PA
mdarnton
Well-known
The shots where you focus are in focus. Those where you don't and trust infinity aren't. The answer is to focus. I would go so far as to say that distance settings on lenses can just about never be trusted, and "real" infinity for the type of testing you are doing is like two or three miles. Were the trees three miles away? I'm betting no.
If you want something in focus, then focus the lens.
If you want something in focus, then focus the lens.
Larry H-L
Well-known
Diffraction is really kicking in at F16. Try testing at f8.
Use the "hard stop" of the lens focus ring. Make sure "infinity" is at least one mile away.
Make sure the rear lens element is clean.
If it passes muster using the hard stop, as others have said it could be mirror misalignment.
Use the "hard stop" of the lens focus ring. Make sure "infinity" is at least one mile away.
Make sure the rear lens element is clean.
If it passes muster using the hard stop, as others have said it could be mirror misalignment.
dmr
Registered Abuser
Thanks.
I got an off-line reply giving the opinion that the infinity stops of BOTH zooms may be off. I also got this response on "the other network" which I think gives a good next step.
Thanks. This makes sense to me as a good next step. An off-line reply also opined that the infinity stops on BOTH zooms may be off.
Tomorrow I'll do some kind of a focal plane test. I don't know of a good long brick wall (my office building is block and neutral in color) but I do know a railroad track where I can focus right on a signal light and then count the track tie planks in front or in back of it where the focus is sharpest. If we have good light I'll try that tomorrow afternoon.
I got an off-line reply giving the opinion that the infinity stops of BOTH zooms may be off. I also got this response on "the other network" which I think gives a good next step.
Thanks. This makes sense to me as a good next step. An off-line reply also opined that the infinity stops on BOTH zooms may be off.
Tomorrow I'll do some kind of a focal plane test. I don't know of a good long brick wall (my office building is block and neutral in color) but I do know a railroad track where I can focus right on a signal light and then count the track tie planks in front or in back of it where the focus is sharpest. If we have good light I'll try that tomorrow afternoon.
radi(c)al_cam
Well-known
Could you check the camera's pressure plate? Perhaps the springs don't have enough tension anymore, and the film isn't really flat?
ChrisPlatt
Thread Killer
Faulty mirror stops could cause focusing error. The Pentax LX is known to suffer this defect.
AFAIK it's not common in the K1000, but after 30 years it is possible some parts are worn.
For about $75.00 Eric Hendrickson http://pentaxs.com can make your K1000 work like new.
Chris
AFAIK it's not common in the K1000, but after 30 years it is possible some parts are worn.
For about $75.00 Eric Hendrickson http://pentaxs.com can make your K1000 work like new.
Chris
Steve M.
Veteran
Tim, what on earth are you talking about? Are you a photographer? A camera's age has nothing to do w/ whether or not it can focus sharply. I did need a chuckle today though, so thanks for the laugh. Funny, my 1937 Zeiss folder always took sharp photos. Must have just been luck. Maybe it was dreaming that it was a phone.
The usual drill on something like this is to visually look to see if the focus screen looks like it's in there properly. If it were my camera, I would put the camera on a tripod w/ the shutter held open, focus on infinity, see if it looks sharp in the viewfinder, and place a piece of ground glass on the film rails and use a loupe or a 50mm lens to see if you have sharp focus on the GG.
The usual drill on something like this is to visually look to see if the focus screen looks like it's in there properly. If it were my camera, I would put the camera on a tripod w/ the shutter held open, focus on infinity, see if it looks sharp in the viewfinder, and place a piece of ground glass on the film rails and use a loupe or a 50mm lens to see if you have sharp focus on the GG.
dmr
Registered Abuser
Thanks again, everybody.
I just did. I examined it with the door open and watched it as I closed it. It does seem to hold securely.
I may just do that. Thanks for the link. I know that I can probably get another body on That Auction Site for about that amount, but I would then have a another body whose condition is questionable. If I spend the $$$ for a CLA, I know it would be good.
I wondered about that one too! I have older Canon and Mamiya rangefinders which I know are incredibly sharp, and I know that even older Leicas and Contax cameras and such do so as well.
Thinking critically, however, ("To question is the answer.") the question might be along the line of if I'm expecting too much for a 30 year old camera and lenses, and my answer to that is no, I am not. I do know that the zooms will never be as sharp as the prime, but I know they have both taken very sharp photos over the years.
I gave it a look-see with the lens out and the rattle test and nothing in there seems loose or misaligned.
I'll do some plane of focus test shots tomorrow and see how those turn out.
Thanks again everyone!
I just did. I examined it with the door open and watched it as I closed it. It does seem to hold securely.
I may just do that. Thanks for the link. I know that I can probably get another body on That Auction Site for about that amount, but I would then have a another body whose condition is questionable. If I spend the $$$ for a CLA, I know it would be good.
I wondered about that one too! I have older Canon and Mamiya rangefinders which I know are incredibly sharp, and I know that even older Leicas and Contax cameras and such do so as well.
Thinking critically, however, ("To question is the answer.") the question might be along the line of if I'm expecting too much for a 30 year old camera and lenses, and my answer to that is no, I am not. I do know that the zooms will never be as sharp as the prime, but I know they have both taken very sharp photos over the years.
I gave it a look-see with the lens out and the rattle test and nothing in there seems loose or misaligned.
I'll do some plane of focus test shots tomorrow and see how those turn out.
Thanks again everyone!
Try the lens on another camera to see if it's the camera or lens, perhaps. To take the shots at f16 and still have them 'soft' is not right I feel, and the 'overexposed' shot wouldn't affect the focus .
As regards the age of the camera, all here with old Canon, Leica and Nikon cameras find they still focus etc just fine, even after 70 or 80 years!
That nest is a long way away, so perhaps mirror bounce and the push of the shutter button add to the problem of the camera staying still.
Also wondering about the scanner; the pictures are hard edged, even though not focussed properly
As regards the age of the camera, all here with old Canon, Leica and Nikon cameras find they still focus etc just fine, even after 70 or 80 years!
That nest is a long way away, so perhaps mirror bounce and the push of the shutter button add to the problem of the camera staying still.
Also wondering about the scanner; the pictures are hard edged, even though not focussed properly
Last edited:
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
If you do send the camera to be checked etc, then could I suggest the zoom goes with it? There's a lot of bits to a zoom lens and no reason why (say) a lens retaining ring couldn't loosen a little but enough to cause the problem. Especially if the lens then twists slightly off axis.
Regards, David
If you do send the camera to be checked etc, then could I suggest the zoom goes with it? There's a lot of bits to a zoom lens and no reason why (say) a lens retaining ring couldn't loosen a little but enough to cause the problem. Especially if the lens then twists slightly off axis.
Regards, David
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
Relative to the grain (and relative to the control images), the pictures, as evident on the test charts, do not appear to be lacking in sharpness, but in contrast. That could be a matter of exposure, or of fungus or other haze in the lens. The poor results on the trees might even be a matter of poor focusing (perhaps even of you growing a need for glasses) or increasing tremor of the holding hand. But we will not be able to spot the problem off a colour scan, as the scanner will compensate for exposure. Try again with black and white, and try to compare the negatives itself rather than scans...
Hi,
This afternoon put a film through my new- to me- Canon11D2 with a Canon 35/f2.8 lens on it. Neither checked or anything and the film came out pretty well.
The developer is at least 7 years old, the fixer the same, the lens is about 70 years old and the camera the same. Lenses don't age and I think that if cameras 'age' something falls off inside and they stop working temporarily!
In relation to the scans you posted; I'm guessing these are small sections of a 35mm print, or is it a slide? Whichever they are, to imagine it full size would be asking a lot for the level of detail and so on.
Please post up with a bit more info.
This afternoon put a film through my new- to me- Canon11D2 with a Canon 35/f2.8 lens on it. Neither checked or anything and the film came out pretty well.
The developer is at least 7 years old, the fixer the same, the lens is about 70 years old and the camera the same. Lenses don't age and I think that if cameras 'age' something falls off inside and they stop working temporarily!
In relation to the scans you posted; I'm guessing these are small sections of a 35mm print, or is it a slide? Whichever they are, to imagine it full size would be asking a lot for the level of detail and so on.
Please post up with a bit more info.
Last edited:
Ronald M
Veteran
Lens internals can wear or need service as can the camera parts.
If close shots are sharp, then it is a lens issue and not mirror which you need to make sure is going down fully or it may be going down to the proper position slowly indicating a camera problem..
Open the back and put a piece of ground glass or matt acetate between on the film rails. Keep shutter open with B and locking cable release. Film rails are the narrow pair.
Use a tripod and blanket for dark cloth.
If close shots are sharp, then it is a lens issue and not mirror which you need to make sure is going down fully or it may be going down to the proper position slowly indicating a camera problem..
Open the back and put a piece of ground glass or matt acetate between on the film rails. Keep shutter open with B and locking cable release. Film rails are the narrow pair.
Use a tripod and blanket for dark cloth.
dmr
Registered Abuser
Thanks everyone. Here's an update. I just got back from shooting a test roll and I did have a couple of "ah-ha" incidents and I think I have a MUCH better handle on this.
I was alone, no distractions, bright afternoon sun, and several hours after my breakfast club champagne brunch so I was alert and bright-eyed and bushy-tailed and no distractions. Just me and the camera. I wore my regular glasses and not my prescription sunglasses, which are, technically, an older prescription.
Now let's see if my test roll verifies what I saw in the viewfinder. I'll probably get that back Tuesday. Here are the high points:
1. First the 50mm prime, which I don't use that much. When very carefully focusing, using the center ground glass, on some trees more than a mile away, the prime lens most definitely focuses THROUGH infinity very slightly. No visible change in the viewfinder or the focus point between shots.
2. Second was the Takumar 28-80 zoom. I first set it at about 50mm for a good comparison between it and the prime, and at first it most definitely did NOT come into clear focus at infinity. I could, however, focus easily on the tracks about 15 feet ahead of me.
THEN I exercised the zoom and the focus a bit and when I put it into and out of "macro" mode, which I never use, something kinda "clicked" and from that point on it would very clearly focus slightly through infinity. I could not get it to "click back" to the bad mode but I'lll play with it a bit more after I watch the news and get something to eat.
3. Third was the Ozunon 28-135 zoom. This is DEFINITELY wonky! At 28 it appeared that I could BARELY get the switch light tower down the track a bit in focus right at the infinity stop but at 135, looking closely, it was bad. The point of clear focus at 135, hard against the infinity stop, was maybe 20-25 feet on the track in front of me! I unmounted and remounted to be sure I had it securely in place but it would not clearly focus at infinity when zoomed out. Let's see if the test roll agrees with what I saw in the viewfinder.
I know the local camera shop has a place they send lenses for service and tomorrow I'm gonna ask how much it would be to have both of the zooms looked at. Unfortunately, I have a feeling that service will cost more than the lenses are worth.
Thanks again everyone.
I was alone, no distractions, bright afternoon sun, and several hours after my breakfast club champagne brunch so I was alert and bright-eyed and bushy-tailed and no distractions. Just me and the camera. I wore my regular glasses and not my prescription sunglasses, which are, technically, an older prescription.
Now let's see if my test roll verifies what I saw in the viewfinder. I'll probably get that back Tuesday. Here are the high points:
1. First the 50mm prime, which I don't use that much. When very carefully focusing, using the center ground glass, on some trees more than a mile away, the prime lens most definitely focuses THROUGH infinity very slightly. No visible change in the viewfinder or the focus point between shots.
2. Second was the Takumar 28-80 zoom. I first set it at about 50mm for a good comparison between it and the prime, and at first it most definitely did NOT come into clear focus at infinity. I could, however, focus easily on the tracks about 15 feet ahead of me.
THEN I exercised the zoom and the focus a bit and when I put it into and out of "macro" mode, which I never use, something kinda "clicked" and from that point on it would very clearly focus slightly through infinity. I could not get it to "click back" to the bad mode but I'lll play with it a bit more after I watch the news and get something to eat.
3. Third was the Ozunon 28-135 zoom. This is DEFINITELY wonky! At 28 it appeared that I could BARELY get the switch light tower down the track a bit in focus right at the infinity stop but at 135, looking closely, it was bad. The point of clear focus at 135, hard against the infinity stop, was maybe 20-25 feet on the track in front of me! I unmounted and remounted to be sure I had it securely in place but it would not clearly focus at infinity when zoomed out. Let's see if the test roll agrees with what I saw in the viewfinder.
I know the local camera shop has a place they send lenses for service and tomorrow I'm gonna ask how much it would be to have both of the zooms looked at. Unfortunately, I have a feeling that service will cost more than the lenses are worth.
Thanks again everyone.