Canon P flippy crank annoyance

[djon]

Maybe I'm the flippy crank...but I'm annoyed by the tendency of my new P's lovely rewind crank to flip out of its hiding place...I'm afraid it'll snag on something and get broken (though it's evidently not done that yet, in 50 years).

It holds itself in place relatively well if I just wear or hold the camera...the problem comes when I pull it out of my compact padded camera bag (great small bag...Eagle Creek digital bag from REI).

Looks to me like there's a weak spring that operates the crank's detent...for the time being I'm going to use a piece of properly photographic black tape to keep it out of the way...it'll re-stick a few times so I won't have to replace it with every roll...

...but is there a better solution? ...some special trick that old-time Cannoneers know about?

Is beefing-up the hidden spring as big a challenge as I suspect...involving removing the top? :bang:

 

[jlw]

Mine stays in place pretty well, but I can see how this would be an annoyance if the spring lost some of its oomph.

Most cameras use a simple flat spring in the crank hub to provide a detent for the crank -- but as you would expect, the P has something a bit more complicated and elegant. There's a tiny spring-loaded, shouldered pin that runs vertically down the center of the crank hub. The hinged end of the crank has tiny 'cams' cast into its shape. When you flip the crank, these cams press down on the shoulders of the pin, providing the detent action.

Frankly, I didn't want to try this on my P this morning just to find out -- but I am guessing that if you removed the two tiny setscrews at the sides of the knob that form the pivots of the crank, you would be able to lift off the crank; this would free the pin to let you lift it out; and then you could extract the spring that provides pressure on the pin so you could stretch it a bit. If my guess is correct, this wouldn't require top-cover removal -- just careful handling of several very tiny parts.

Maybe if I'm feeling brave later today, I'll try it. Meantime, look at your P and see if you think this guess might be correct.

 

[djon]

I think your suggestion is a good bet...

Question: when returning tiny screws like this, is Loctite or another stickum a good idea? Any specific brand suggestions? Do it? Don't?

Your dance photos are breathtaking. Post more!

 

[jlw]

I think your suggestion is a good bet...

Question: when returning tiny screws like this, is Loctite or another stickum a good idea? Any specific brand suggestions? Do it? Don't?

I generally use a sealer only if the screw originally had sealer. I don't think tiny setscrews like these usually were sealed at the factory. I've never had one back out, but if in doubt, you might keep an eye on it for a few weeks and see if it shows any signs of coming loose.

Thinking out loud about this... Usually, the screws in cameras that I've seen with sealer are flat-headed ones on which the sealer can be applied to the head (nail polish works pretty well as a replacement sealer on these.) That means it's easy to remove the sealer with a drop of solvent before loosening the screw.

I'd be a bit nervous about using sealer on setscrews because there's no head per se, so you'd have to apply it to the threads. That means it would be much more difficult to "unseal." And the slots in these tiny screws are often fairly delicate, so I wouldn't want to try loosening one without unsealing it, for fear of buggering up the slot and rendering it impossible to remove. (Hands up, everyone who has a camera, lens, or other gizmo that can't be disassembled because of a torn-up setscrew...)

So if I were going to do it, I'd use the blue Loctite and put just a tiny drop at the top of the screw, where I'd stand a chance of being able to dissolve it out again later.

Any more-expert repairpersons with more-expert opinions to offer?

Your dance photos are breathtaking. Post more!

Thank you. I'm gradually working on a project to scan some of my old negatives (now that I've finally learned how to get decent results scanning conventional silver films in a film scanner) so more will be turning up as I get them done. But it's a slow process with the scanner I have (Canon FS-4000) -- it takes about four minutes for ONE scan pass at 4000 ppi, and my scanning method requires at least two two-pass scans! I know, I should get oneathemthar Konica/Minolta 5400 II scanners that can do a full 5400 ppi pass in 25 seconds, but that's money I'd rather save to spend on lenses and whatnot...

 

[djon]

Avoid that Minolta 5400II...for one thing its "5400ppi" is probably 4000ppi, just like the Nikon.
For another thing, mechanically it's junk by comparison to the Nikon. I had two Minoltas fail before I decided to switch to Nikon. Happily I was dealing with Amazon.com, so the whole thing took only 3 wks. Minolta's national service manager told me it'd take two months to get repairs on my days old 5400II.

I'm not convinced about multiple passes. Are you? You might also want to download Vuescan...it's infinitely better than Nikonscan for B&W (no better IMO for color). I've read various Minolta users preferring Vuescan for B&W but I have no theory about how it applies to the Canon. There's a free test download, although the image is watermarked.

I like the fingernail polish idea. Thanks!

 

[jlw]

I'm not convinced about multiple passes. Are you? You might also want to download Vuescan...it's infinitely better than Nikonscan for B&W (no better IMO for color).

Thanks for the heads-up about the 5400 II scanner. Guess I'll just stick witih my slow-but-solid Canon. One good thing about those slow scans -- I can go away and do something else while they're happening.

I've had a VueScan license for donkey's years -- hadn't been using it much lately, but once I got into this project of scanning old b&w negatives, I went back to it. I agree it's the way to go for b&w -- lots of flexibility.

I'm not totally sold on the multiple-pass idea, but I do find that I get slightly more detail in high-density areas if I use VueScan's 'long exposure pass' option. This still isn't quite enough to get the full range out of a conventional b&w negative -- I still have to do one "highlight" scan, one "shadow" scan, and blend them in Photoshop. This is a tedious process, but it works, it gives me lots of control, and I'm reasonably happy with it.

Now if only I could find a totally satisfactory solution to the 'grain aliasing' problem! (I think I've tried them all: multiple passes, defocusing the scanner, noise reduction plug-ins -- all help, but not quite enough to match a traditional wet print.

I like the fingernail polish idea. Thanks!

Just be sure you choose a shade becoming to your P's complexion! Let us know how it works out...

 

[djon]

Whew! You're obviously more demanding of your negatives than I am! Guess I've always been more interested in the graphics or events in the image than in exquisite B&W tones.

How are you printing those Canon scans?

My ancient B&W negs never had it so good with Durst etc as they do now with the NikonV and 2200...HOWEVER for my current B&W I'm currently enthusiastic about Neopan 400@800 with Emofin...I'm giving Rodinal a vacation.

 

[jlw]

Whew! You're obviously more demanding of your negatives than I am! Guess I've always been more interested in the graphics or events in the image than in exquisite B&W tones.

Nah, it's not so much that I'm demanding as that I shoot a lot of photos under really awful lighting conditions, with bare lights in the frame, murky shadows, etc. So a scanner setting that will punch enough exposure through the overexposed highlights will black out the shadow detail, and vice-versa. Ergo, two scans: one for the lights and one for the darks.

How are you printing those Canon scans?

I've been through several Epson Stylus Photo models and currently am using an R800. I'm not totally happy with it for b&w -- you do pick up some slight tints in transitional tones -- but it isn't bad. I'm thinking I may want to spring for the new 2400, to get back to being able to print 11x14s and for the three-black-ink printing. But I'm not going to want to lay out that big chunk of money until I can see some of my OWN files printed on one -- so have to wait until this model turns up at the photo dealer, not just at the computer store.

 

[djon]

I agree about 2400 caution, though there are some great reports on the highly-knowledgable B&W inkjet Yahoo site...also about the 4800 (or is it called a 4400?).

From what I've read, the 2400 may not beat the 2200 on matte paper, assuming you do Black-Only printing or use QTR (or QTRgui)...both of those have been totally neutral for me with Epson's pigments. But Black-Only does seem in keeping with my kind of rfdr photography...simple. However I think I'm reading that the 2400 does a good job of B&W on semi-gloss and matte using Epson's native driver...

I don't think QTRgui will work with the R800 or R1800...not sure...can you do Black-Only?

 

[djon]

I guess I've drifted the topic...sorry, I hope nobody's irritated.

I'll do an update on flippy irritation etc when I solve the problem.

 

[back alley]

wish you well with that!

both mine are firmly in there.

the focus is off again on the repaired p.
i think from the plane maybe.
this time not the vertical but horizontal - vertical is still ok.

damn!

joe

 

[djon]

Joe...time to take a walk. Forget about it for a while. Quit. Come back to it after you forget about it. You'll win.

 

[back alley]

i adjusted it last night after an evening walk!
not perfect but close.

i fear that fall may have left some permanent after effects.

joe

 

[djon]

I hate to mention this sure fix: Superwide.

 

[back alley]

i got it about perfect i think.
i had to adjust both vertical & horizontal and now it looks good again.

joe