FED 1g first roll...hmmm

[wolves3012]

I just got back the prints from the first roll from a recently-bought FED 1g. Exposure and focus seem ok (it's not the original lens, it's an early uncoated one) but there does seem to be a problem in the film transport. There is an inconsistent and very slight rotation of the exposed area of the film, leading to a black wedge when printed. It's not there on the first couple of frames and it's gone again towards the end of the roll, but the middle 20 or so of a 36-exposure roll are affected to some extent. It look as though the film has ridden up since the exposure even extends just into the sprocket-hole area on some frames. The scan below shows one of the worst frames.

I've checked the obvious, no loose sprockets or play anywhere that I can detect. The film aperture is all-square and the light baffle secure. Has anyone else ever had this issue? If so, what was the cause and how did you solve it? I've loaded plenty of these bottom-loaders before so I don't think it was loaded wrongly. Could a dodgy film do this? Any thoughts appreciated...

 

[wolves3012]

Well, I have half a dozen or so other bottom-loaders and never had this issue. That doesn't mean I couldn't make a mistake I know...but I don't think I did. Frame spacing is not even, I've just noticed.

 

[brachal]

Could be film related, maybe. I've read that many bottom loaders were designed with a slightly different film canister size in mind, which can lead to some slippage. Apparently, and again I'm only going on what I've read here and elsewhere, this situation is why Leica introduce the film-retainer bar on the bottom of the IIIf.

 

[eli griggs]

In another thread on Leicas which predate the IIIf it was suggested that a small conical spring between the film canister and the bottom plate would push up the canister the 2.2mm difference in early Leica canisters and what is now the standard.

As the early Fed was based on the Leica model, it may just be a case of following suit and carrying a spring or two for use with this camera.

By-the-way, I tried this in my '46-'47 IIIc as soon as I received it and it seems to have worked just fine, pushing the film into place on my second try at loading a bottom feeder.

Eli

 

[POSTI-Tuomo]

I have the exact same problem with my Zorki 1! :bang:

 

[ZorkiKat]

Wolves

This happens with some FED-1. I get the same thing, with one (just one) of my FED which happens to be a 1-g as well. Though on mine, the displacement is at the bottom, just like what happens in Leicas. I would suspect that this has something to do with the shutter crate used in later FED-1g. I've noticed that some of the really late ones (starting at around SN 650xxx?) used single-cast crates just like in Zorki.

The previous FED-1 generations always had multi-piece stamped crates. And I never saw frame displacements in these cameras.

The last of the FED may have adapted the crates from Zorki without modifying anything else in the works. Hence the displacement, which happens at times.

Jay

 

[wolves3012]

Wolves

This happens with some FED-1. I get the same thing, with one (just one) of my FED which happens to be a 1-g as well. Though on mine, the displacement is at the bottom, just like what happens in Leicas. I would suspect that this has something to do with the shutter crate used in later FED-1g. I've noticed that some of the really late ones (starting at around SN 650xxx?) used single-cast crates just like in Zorki.

The previous FED-1 generations always had multi-piece stamped crates. And I never saw frame displacements in these cameras.

The last of the FED may have adapted the crates from Zorki without modifying anything else in the works. Hence the displacement, which happens at times.

Jay

Jay,

I haven't had a proper look and I haven't got the camera in front of me to check the serial number. However, I'm pretty sure it *is* a cast crate, 1-piece. Any suggestions as to a cure?

I did try loading a scrap film last night, marking the frames through the open shutter. First attempt at loading left the film not on the sprockets, so I re-loaded it. Marking the frames showed correct spacing and the frames sitting a touch high, very close to the sprocket holes but without the problem I had. Leads me to think that maybe I didn't load it as carefully as I'd thought...maybe!

 

[payasam]

Wolves, I wonder if an imperfectly loaded film would advance and rewind correctly and show a defect only on some frames, not all.

 

[wolves3012]

Wolves, I wonder if an imperfectly loaded film would advance and rewind correctly and show a defect only on some frames, not all.

Yes I know, that's one thing that makes me think I did load it properly. On the other hand the frame spacing isn't even, something that's near-impossible on this type of transport if the film is loaded properly. It's one of those things that you do automatically and then later can't remember if you actually *did* check that it was properly engaged on the sprockets!

I think I'll be taking the shell off and having a good look, then double-checking on the next roll to see it's definitely loaded properly, sitting on the sprocket teeth.

 

[ZorkiKat]

There is only 1 definition for 'properly loaded...'

There is only 1 definition for 'properly loaded...'

Wolves

I don't think that 'proper' or 'correct' loading can be defined beyond getting the film to thread and wind through the camera. As long as it's able to go from supply, past the gate, engage with the sprockets, reel into the spool, and then finally be rewound, then it's correctly loaded. There's just no way really to ensure that the film can be positioned so that the frames register "properly"
on the film strip.

I can not think of a measure or method by which the film is assured to run correctly relative to the film gate. One may look at the film by opening the shutters to see if its properly lined. In case it isn't it could be coaxed to line up properly. But moving the camera, or the movement of the film during winding- as what happens in use- may be enough to shift the strip's position slightly.

I find putting springs on the baseplate to prop the spool in place to be a bit clumsy. Personal tastes would also dictate to ignore the displacement and instead accept it as part of the camera's charm. I do tend to favour distended or misplaced sprocket holes in picture areas at times. 🙂

Going back to the FED-1g. I've been looking at some lately (got 6 "new ones", 4 still waiting to be fixed), particularly the shutter crate. The more I examine them, the more I see that the single cast crates don't seem to fit as well as the older crates. The single cast crates appear thicker/deeper than the original multi-piece stampings. A quick adaptation which involved only fitting the crate, but not making any modification to the top assembly plate, or the body shell for that matter.

When these FED-1g's focal registers are measured, they almost always are close to 28.8, even with hardly a shim in place. The older ones almost had at least two thicknesses and more to get the same measurement.

One rather strange feature in these FED crates is the shallow rails of the film track. These must have been filed down to allow the 28.8 register. The rails are so thin that they are not much better than printed lines. In Zorki with similar shutter crates, the rails are raised.

With thinner rails, it's quite easy for the film strip to go loose and jump the tracks, causing them to misalign with the film gate at times.

Jay

 

[wolves3012]

Wolves

I don't think that 'proper' or 'correct' loading can be defined beyond getting the film to thread and wind through the camera. As long as it's able to go from supply, past the gate, engage with the sprockets, reel into the spool, and then finally be rewound, then it's correctly loaded. There's just no way really to ensure that the film can be positioned so that the frames register "properly"
on the film strip.

I can not think of a measure or method by which the film is assured to run correctly relative to the film gate. One may look at the film by opening the shutters to see if its properly lined. In case it isn't it could be coaxed to line up properly. But moving the camera, or the movement of the film during winding- as what happens in use- may be enough to shift the strip's position slightly.

I find putting springs on the baseplate to prop the spool in place to be a bit clumsy. Personal tastes would also dictate to ignore the displacement and instead accept it as part of the camera's charm. I do tend to favour distended or misplaced sprocket holes in picture areas at times. 🙂

Going back to the FED-1g. I've been looking at some lately (got 6 "new ones", 4 still waiting to be fixed), particularly the shutter crate. The more I examine them, the more I see that the single cast crates don't seem to fit as well as the older crates. The single cast crates appear thicker/deeper than the original multi-piece stampings. A quick adaptation which involved only fitting the crate, but not making any modification to the top assembly plate, or the body shell for that matter.

When these FED-1g's focal registers are measured, they almost always are close to 28.8, even with hardly a shim in place. The older ones almost had at least two thicknesses and more to get the same measurement.

One rather strange feature in these FED crates is the shallow rails of the film track. These must have been filed down to allow the 28.8 register. The rails are so thin that they are not much better than printed lines. In Zorki with similar shutter crates, the rails are raised.

With thinner rails, it's quite easy for the film strip to go loose and jump the tracks, causing them to misalign with the film gate at times.

Jay

Thanks for the thoughts Jay. Ok, I've had the crate out of the shell now. Firstly, the whole mechanism was rather short of lube - the alleged CLA it had had was either a long time ago or a myth! Yes, it's a 1-piece cast crate and I see what you mean about the film rails! Serial number is 640xxx by the way. One thing I did notice is that the pressure plate springs were very flat so I wonder if a previous owner was fond of the credit-card loading method. I've done a little gentle bending on the springs to increase the pressure. Next roll will be loaded with more attention and we'll see what happens. It's certainly smoother now, if nothing else.

 

[ZorkiKat]

Another FED 1g does IT too

Another FED 1g does IT too

Wolves

I just got a test strip from one of the recently repaired FED 1g (SN 705 XXX) and saw that it did that 'thing' too. Frames not well aligned, with some breaching into the lower perf areas. Got similar wedge-shaped black, outside-of-frame areas when frame is lined up against a 'proper' 35mm mask.

Film rails on this FED 1g appear to be shallow too.

Jay

 

[wolves3012]

Wolves

I just got a test strip from one of the recently repaired FED 1g (SN 705 XXX) and saw that it did that 'thing' too. Frames not well aligned, with some breaching into the lower perf areas. Got similar wedge-shaped black, outside-of-frame areas when frame is lined up against a 'proper' 35mm mask.

Film rails on this FED 1g appear to be shallow too.

Jay

Jay,

Out of curiosity then, did you get uneven frame spacing? The middle section of my test film had even spacing and centred frames. Only the beginning and end of the roll showed off-centre frames but the spacing was uneven on these. I suspect that the film wasn't properly engaged on the sprocket teeth at the beginning, then jumped onto them, then derailed again towards the end.

 

[ZorkiKat]

Jay,

Out of curiosity then, did you get uneven frame spacing? The middle section of my test film had even spacing and centred frames. Only the beginning and end of the roll showed off-centre frames but the spacing was uneven on these. I suspect that the film wasn't properly engaged on the sprocket teeth at the beginning, then jumped onto them, then derailed again towards the end.

Wolves,

Frame spacing is even throughout. Test strip was a short roll, about 16 frames long. But the "breached" framing was consistent.

Jay