Mackinaw
Think Different
I don't believe Youxin Ye works on the Canon 7 or 7s. His website suggests he only works on earlier Canons.
Jim B.
kb244
Well-known
Though the P is mentioned. Which aside from the light meter, in theory could be addressed in a similar manner to checking shutter accuracy and RF coupling.
But course I'll find out soon enough when he returns my inquiry.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
Mark Hama is the go-to canon RF guy, right? Is he still active?
nukecoke
⚛Yashica
Both my 7 and L2 came with working and accurate shutter, despite that they haven't been serviced for decades, that's what I like about those Canon RF. For shutter speed accuracy you can do the display test if you can find Andy old CRT display/TV.
The only problem those two cameras had was fungus in finder, which is quite common in unserviced cameras from Japan. I opened top plates and cleaned myself, and in the end they became fine shooters and were joy to use. 7's finder is easier to clean than the V series models. There are detailed images showing how to remove top plates on 7 somewhere on Flickr if I remember right.
For rangefinder focus accuracy test you can do the ground glass/matte-finish tape + magnifier trick.
The only problem those two cameras had was fungus in finder, which is quite common in unserviced cameras from Japan. I opened top plates and cleaned myself, and in the end they became fine shooters and were joy to use. 7's finder is easier to clean than the V series models. There are detailed images showing how to remove top plates on 7 somewhere on Flickr if I remember right.
For rangefinder focus accuracy test you can do the ground glass/matte-finish tape + magnifier trick.
kb244
Well-known
I have a split/micro focus screen out of an old Minolta X7000 (shutter all froze up etc, I also stole it's lug rings for the 7), I did check that briefly (with gaffer tape to hold it) against the two russian lens I have that seem to coincide with the double image though the matte fresnel isn't' that easy to see depending on my angle of view with my 30X loupe.
I'm wondering though, if I get my viewing angle just right on the tripod, if the split/micro ring would function as intended to checking focus.
edit: The Serenar 35/2.8 should be here tomorrow.
kb244
Well-known
Not much distance in here, but I figured I would try the close focusing check (the Industar-61L/D can focus a little closer than it's 1M mark).
I stuck the camera on a tripod, bought it up to about eye level (sitting), leveled it,
measured off exactly 100cm (from black surface to the film plane line on top of the camera).
For the first bit I focused on "4x5" on the magazine since I could clearly see the font's edges and adjusted the vertical double image.
I didn't mess with horizontal because it seems that the RF merged image coincides with the ground glass.
Then I focused on the left edge of the ruler since it was the easiest to see for horizontal merging (and flatter up against the black) roughly near the corner of the magazine.
While the focus screen and RF seem to match up, the focus scale on the lens is a little off seeing as it's supposed to be 1M.
I know I can adjust it, I just can't remember the details on how, only that it required disassembling the lens a bit just to correct the helical, but I'm not going to worry about it since the RF coupling seems to be accurate. (it'd be another matter if it was correctly at 1M, and showed focused in the RF... but then was actually out of focus).
And a comparison to a purposely out of focus screen, where it shows two rulers side by side in the rangefinder, and can see the split/micro prism at work.
My guess is when I get the 35/2.8 Serenar tomorrow, I'll get the same results, but at least the focus scale on the lens will match up with what I see.
I stuck the camera on a tripod, bought it up to about eye level (sitting), leveled it,
measured off exactly 100cm (from black surface to the film plane line on top of the camera).
For the first bit I focused on "4x5" on the magazine since I could clearly see the font's edges and adjusted the vertical double image.
I didn't mess with horizontal because it seems that the RF merged image coincides with the ground glass.
Then I focused on the left edge of the ruler since it was the easiest to see for horizontal merging (and flatter up against the black) roughly near the corner of the magazine.
While the focus screen and RF seem to match up, the focus scale on the lens is a little off seeing as it's supposed to be 1M.
I know I can adjust it, I just can't remember the details on how, only that it required disassembling the lens a bit just to correct the helical, but I'm not going to worry about it since the RF coupling seems to be accurate. (it'd be another matter if it was correctly at 1M, and showed focused in the RF... but then was actually out of focus).
And a comparison to a purposely out of focus screen, where it shows two rulers side by side in the rangefinder, and can see the split/micro prism at work.
My guess is when I get the 35/2.8 Serenar tomorrow, I'll get the same results, but at least the focus scale on the lens will match up with what I see.
mcfingon
Western Australia
If the focus scale on the Canon doesn't match up with the actual distance, and the rangefinder is wrong too, then the problem may be that there is a shim missing from inside the lens. My 50/1.9 Serenar was missing a 0.28mm (from memory) shim, presumably lost when the lens was cleaned before my ownership. I replaced it with a shim from a Jupiter-8 lens which was surprisingly exactly the right dimensions.
kb244
Well-known
Well here's to fingers crossing when I get the Serenar tomorrow.
It seems that the distance on both the I10 and I61L/D appear to be the same when focused in the rangefinder with a confirmed distance of 1 meter from the focus plane (the I10 doesn't have a 1,1m mark, but it's a little over 1m, but not yet 1,25m, the I61L/D shows as above).
Since it's two russian lens that have nearly matched scale readings, but the RF and ground glass match (which means if focused with the RF it'll be focused on the film), then I'm wondering if it's an FSU thing. Basically means when scale focusing I would be off from accurate.
It'd be easier to check if I had a 50/1.8 or 1.4 when doing the ground glass method. Down the road I guess.
Edit:
Just thought I'd try the same thing on my old 1955 Fed-2A. Though a little harder to do since there's no tripod mount when you take the back of the camera off. So I used the tripod as a guide to how fall away I should have the camera, focused on the ruler in the rangefinder (much smaller rangefinder spot to see), then louped the ground glass.
Seems the lens when RF focused , the lens shows exactly 1M as expected... but the focus on the ground glass is slightly off. Seems my FED might actually be off and when it was serviced they simply matched the RF to the lens distance (probably assumed the lens scale was already accurate), rather than checking the result off the ground glass.
Are there local places that sell strips of decent quality frosted glass that can be used as a ground glass? (probably higher quality than the fresnel rings around the minolta focus screen).
edit #2:
My 135mm framelines are off. When trying my jupiter-11 (which doesn't correctly focus compared to the rangefinder double image, ie: RF focus = ground glass not.) I noticed that the edge of the frame line in the viewfinder don't match the image I get on the ground glass. Seems like the 135mm frame is about 20% too far to the right, and 15% too far down. meaning if I put something at the top left corner of the frame line, it'll be 15% further into the picture vertically and 20% further into the picture horizontally.
I noticed the same framing issue with the I61 (55mm using 50mm frame lines) and I10 (50mm), the shift isn't as bad as the 135 frame line but noticeable that it doesn't match up to what's on the film plane.
presspass
filmshooter
Confirming Jim B's comments on Youxin Ye's work on Canon 7s. Just had an internet chat with him about this earlier this month. He will not work on 7s.
kb244
Well-known
To visually illustrate what I was saying in my last post :
I was curious if the seller had experienced this (Since it arrived to me selected to 135, so thought *maybe* he could have used it with a 135) I asked mainly three questions, 1) what lens was usually on the camera when he was using it, 2) if he noticed that the frame in the viewfinder was off by about 25%-ish meaning someone on the edge of the frame would be cut in half. and 3) if he knew anyone in the US that could CLA a 7.
His answer to all three was : "I'm really not sure on any of your questions. I'm sorry. "
Yep, he responded to my inquiry a little bit ago stating such.
I was curious if the seller had experienced this (Since it arrived to me selected to 135, so thought *maybe* he could have used it with a 135) I asked mainly three questions, 1) what lens was usually on the camera when he was using it, 2) if he noticed that the frame in the viewfinder was off by about 25%-ish meaning someone on the edge of the frame would be cut in half. and 3) if he knew anyone in the US that could CLA a 7.
His answer to all three was : "I'm really not sure on any of your questions. I'm sorry. "
Yep, he responded to my inquiry a little bit ago stating such.
kb244
Well-known
Got the 35/2.8 Serenar today. Seems rather clean, not too heavy, kind of tiny looking (compared to what I would normally have). Only issue I saw when I got it is the geared ring right next to the focus knob was loose where it was freely rotating/unscrewing, til I tightened it back clockwise. So in theory I could do two finger focus on that ring, but if it gets stiff (like it does around 10-15 feet on the scale) it could start unscrewing instead of continuing to turn.
I also picked up a set of screwdrivers for the smaller precision heads, and decided to go ahead and adjust the rangefinders horizontal alignment to the Serenar's. (since I trust that more than I trust two russian lens that sort of wobble when turning the focus).
Final results (based on the focus screen/ground glass off back):
Canon Serenar 35/2.8 : spot on when focused in rangefinder
Industar-61L/D 55/2.8 : spot on
Industar-10 50/3.5 : off a little (requires a slight counter-clockwise turn to get it spot on, making the RF double image slightly slivered)
Jupiter-11 135/4 : nada, too much out of focus to use on the 7. Wondering if it's one of those FSU oddities where it was designed for a LTM-mount SLR or something.
After the horizontal adjustment, also went back over and re-did the vertical alignment. The Serenar isn't *perfect* in terms of what shows up on the distance scale, but it's within margin. For example focused to something exactly 3.5 feet away, it shows up on the scale as closer to 4 feet. Or something about 25 feet it shows as roughly 20 feet on the scale. But at least the focus screen check is spot on when the RF is focused.
Which the combination of horizontal and vertical alignment may have adjusted the parallax at the same time.
Cell phone shots of the frame lines versus the coverage out of the film window.
The ground glass above is tad fuzzy only because I set the ground glass into the opening rather than flush against the chrome rails (which puts it closer to the lens than the negatives would be), so it was only to check the composition versus the frame lines. Can see they're still off, but not too terribly bad.
A shot of the focus screen as I would normally have it when checking the focus, angled so that it's level against the chrome lines making it the same distance from the lens as the negatives would be. (I need to get a ground glass strip, or make something bigger).
Managed to find a store local to develop the test color rolls I shot previously, so will have those tomorrow. (mostly tested off the FED and Mercury, with two rolls of the 7... which I expect will be out of focus especially on the jupiter-11 before I realized just how off it was).
Side Note : I noticed that the Serenar when adapted to my Olympus via a LTM to Micro-4/3rd adapter (same one I use for my J-11) kills off my close focusing capabilities, the shortest distance I can focus is about 6 to 7 feet from a subject. And something that is off to infinity shows up as around 25 feet on the scale (or saying something 20 feet away is 5 feet from me).
At least
I also picked up a set of screwdrivers for the smaller precision heads, and decided to go ahead and adjust the rangefinders horizontal alignment to the Serenar's. (since I trust that more than I trust two russian lens that sort of wobble when turning the focus).
Final results (based on the focus screen/ground glass off back):
Canon Serenar 35/2.8 : spot on when focused in rangefinder
Industar-61L/D 55/2.8 : spot on
Industar-10 50/3.5 : off a little (requires a slight counter-clockwise turn to get it spot on, making the RF double image slightly slivered)
Jupiter-11 135/4 : nada, too much out of focus to use on the 7. Wondering if it's one of those FSU oddities where it was designed for a LTM-mount SLR or something.
After the horizontal adjustment, also went back over and re-did the vertical alignment. The Serenar isn't *perfect* in terms of what shows up on the distance scale, but it's within margin. For example focused to something exactly 3.5 feet away, it shows up on the scale as closer to 4 feet. Or something about 25 feet it shows as roughly 20 feet on the scale. But at least the focus screen check is spot on when the RF is focused.
Which the combination of horizontal and vertical alignment may have adjusted the parallax at the same time.
Cell phone shots of the frame lines versus the coverage out of the film window.
The ground glass above is tad fuzzy only because I set the ground glass into the opening rather than flush against the chrome rails (which puts it closer to the lens than the negatives would be), so it was only to check the composition versus the frame lines. Can see they're still off, but not too terribly bad.
A shot of the focus screen as I would normally have it when checking the focus, angled so that it's level against the chrome lines making it the same distance from the lens as the negatives would be. (I need to get a ground glass strip, or make something bigger).
Managed to find a store local to develop the test color rolls I shot previously, so will have those tomorrow. (mostly tested off the FED and Mercury, with two rolls of the 7... which I expect will be out of focus especially on the jupiter-11 before I realized just how off it was).
Side Note : I noticed that the Serenar when adapted to my Olympus via a LTM to Micro-4/3rd adapter (same one I use for my J-11) kills off my close focusing capabilities, the shortest distance I can focus is about 6 to 7 feet from a subject. And something that is off to infinity shows up as around 25 feet on the scale (or saying something 20 feet away is 5 feet from me).
At least
AlwaysOnAuto
Well-known
You're going to like that little 35mm Canon lens. I have one like it and use it all the time on my Sony's. Great little lens.
kb244
Well-known
On my Olympus the focusing distance is much too great of practical use unless all my subjects are further than 7 feet from me (it won't focus closer than that). Though not quite as bad as my Jupiter-11 which can't do closer than 12 feet (the lens minimum focusing distance is 2.5 meters, roughly 8ft, so not getting closer than 10~12 adapted seems normal... but going from 3.5 feet to 8 seems off-ish).
Funny thing is when I was doing some non-scientific testing of it earlier today in a car ride. Focusing on something way off in the distance (ie: something that infinity should have caught on the lens), anything past 20 feet is out of focus, seems like 20 feet is the infinity mark when adapted.
For example focusing on this trash can while waiting for them to pick up chinese food, the lens said it was 8 feet away... that would only be to the front of the hood at best.
Rather crisp though.
Attachments
kb244
Well-known
... shutter clicks makes my framelines jump. Made my 50 jump a bit to the left on one of the test clicks.
edit: if I look thru the viewfinder and slowly rotate from landscape to portrait frame lines (all of them) will sort of jitter over a little, and getting over into portrait mode (right side of the camera facing down), I saw the 35mm frame line shoot up towards the left.
added video :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGmnMZIx2sI
EDIT
I self repaired it. It was a prism knocked loose as shown at the end of this thread. http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=159013
I also went ahead and fixed the shutter selection knob so that the film speed doesn't slide when trying to set it. (it was missing one of the two short screws, so I stole one of the three screws off of the A[dot]R dial).
edit: if I look thru the viewfinder and slowly rotate from landscape to portrait frame lines (all of them) will sort of jitter over a little, and getting over into portrait mode (right side of the camera facing down), I saw the 35mm frame line shoot up towards the left.
added video :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGmnMZIx2sI
EDIT
I self repaired it. It was a prism knocked loose as shown at the end of this thread. http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=159013
I also went ahead and fixed the shutter selection knob so that the film speed doesn't slide when trying to set it. (it was missing one of the two short screws, so I stole one of the three screws off of the A[dot]R dial).
kb244
Well-known
Still need to find someone to CLA the Canon 7. After I used the shutter-speed app (along with a photoplug addon) I'm getting about these readings (flashlight on back of the camera, photo plug sticking into the opening of the lens mount to keep it out of the light)
Set = actual
1 second = 1/1.3
1/2 = 1/2.1
1/4 = 1/3.3
1/8 = 1/6.1
1/15 = 1/17.5
1/30 = 1/26.6
1/60 = 1/47.4
1/125 = 1/92
1/250 = 1/153.9
1/500 = 1/227.6
1/1000 = 1/289.5
Assuming I'm charting it correctly (Start of the first peak, to the start of the second peak)
My other rangefinder which I was probably going to use for class if not the 7 doesn't fare well was my Fed 2A (Which I know was serviced in 2012), but it's speeds are off too :
1/25 = 1/18.9
1/50 = 1/37.1
1/100 = 1/55.5
1/250 = 1/98.5
1/500 = 1/135.5
Mercury II also tests slow/off (though wondering if it's the plug or if everything I can use is just off)
1/20 = 1/15.8
1/30 = 1/24.5
1/40 = 1/32.1
1/60 = 1/46.6
1/100 = 1/173.5
1/200 = 1/107.0
1/300 = 1/125.5
1/1000 = 1/188.1
Edit: even my Pentax MZ-6 (an electronic shutter SLR) seems off at higher speeds... perhaps I'm not getting a good reading? (has 1/109 for 1/125, 172.4 for 1/250, and 1/307.5 for 1/500, but has 1/2 for 1/2 and 1/59.1 for 1/60)
Set = actual
1 second = 1/1.3
1/2 = 1/2.1
1/4 = 1/3.3
1/8 = 1/6.1
1/15 = 1/17.5
1/30 = 1/26.6
1/60 = 1/47.4
1/125 = 1/92
1/250 = 1/153.9
1/500 = 1/227.6
1/1000 = 1/289.5
Assuming I'm charting it correctly (Start of the first peak, to the start of the second peak)
My other rangefinder which I was probably going to use for class if not the 7 doesn't fare well was my Fed 2A (Which I know was serviced in 2012), but it's speeds are off too :
1/25 = 1/18.9
1/50 = 1/37.1
1/100 = 1/55.5
1/250 = 1/98.5
1/500 = 1/135.5
Mercury II also tests slow/off (though wondering if it's the plug or if everything I can use is just off)
1/20 = 1/15.8
1/30 = 1/24.5
1/40 = 1/32.1
1/60 = 1/46.6
1/100 = 1/173.5
1/200 = 1/107.0
1/300 = 1/125.5
1/1000 = 1/188.1
Edit: even my Pentax MZ-6 (an electronic shutter SLR) seems off at higher speeds... perhaps I'm not getting a good reading? (has 1/109 for 1/125, 172.4 for 1/250, and 1/307.5 for 1/500, but has 1/2 for 1/2 and 1/59.1 for 1/60)
radi(c)al_cam
Well-known
That's IMHO not bad at all. It's unlikely that it can be substantially improved, unless you spend quite a lot of money. I would leave it alone.
kb244
Well-known
What's confusing me is with the phototransistor, and 3 other cameras, It's like I'm unlucky in that I have speed variations as far off as 3 stops. Especially on the Pentax MZ6 which is an electronically timed shutter.
Basically my top three speeds are not accurate, off by a stop at 250 and 500, and off by well 2 stops at 1/1,000th.
Was kind of hoping my Mercury II would have fared better but doesn't seem to be able to get up above 1/160th-ish even at 1/1,000th setting.
Least the Holga 120 is near spot-on for it's 1/100th (
)I need to get some "normal" film, kind of bummed out cuz the old Tri-X bulk roll I had was already shot, whoever had it before me actually shot the whole bulk roll in some kind of bulk camera and stuck it back into the tin (as in has actual images frame by frame on it). So was testing before I started dropping any money to actually get new film (I prefer experimenting with the older stuff if it's unexposed).
kb244
Well-known
Tested each shutter speed 4x (for checking consistency versus erratic). App is only designed for up to 1/500th, though I can see the waveform clearly at speeds above. (it just won't let you save a camera profile above 1/500th)
1/1,000 = 1/193, 1/230, 1/211, 1/221
Set Speed (Average Deviation) = Actual Speed
1/500 (+4/3) = 1/191.1 (+4/3), 1/170 (+5/3), 1/180 (+4/3), 1/185 (+4/3)
1/250 (+1) = 1/135.6 (+1), 1/150 (+2/3), 1/133.6 (+1), 1/140 (+1)
1/125 (+2/3) = 1/81.6 (+2/3), 1/85.6 (+2/3), 1/88.2 (+2/3), 1/84 (+2/3)
1/60 (+1/3) = 1/46.9 (+1/3), 1/45.5 (+1/3), 1/49.9 (+1/3), 1/46.4 (+1/3)
1/30 (~) = 1/26.8 (~), 1/26.8 (~), 1/26.8 (~), 1/26.2 (+1/3)
1/15 (-1/3) = 1/17.6 (-1/3), 1/18 (-1/3), 1/17.6 (-1/3), 1/17.8 (-1/3)
1/8 (-1/3) = 1/6.2 (-1/3), 1/6.3 (-1/3), 1/6.2 (-1/3), 1/6.2 (-1/3)
1/4 (+1/3) = 1/3.4 (+1/3), 1/3.3 (+1/3), 1/3.3 (+1/3), 1/3.3 (+1/3)
1/2 (~) = 1/2.2 (~), 1/2.2 (~), 1/2.2 (~), 1/2.2 (~)
1" (-1/3) = 1/1.3 (-1/3), 1/1.3, 1/1.3, 1/1.3
Least it's consistent and I know where it's at. Guess as you said, not *that* bad when you consider all the speeds under 1/500th are within a stop of deviation, most of them within a third. Kind of sucks though I don't really have a 1/1,000th to work with, since it's essentially the same speed as 1/500th, just ever so slightly faster.
Are there different springs/mechanism of the Canon 7 for the 'fast' and 'slow' speeds? Like their target? Since those seem to be both the 1/30th and 1/2 nearly spot on.
1/1,000 = 1/193, 1/230, 1/211, 1/221
Set Speed (Average Deviation) = Actual Speed
1/500 (+4/3) = 1/191.1 (+4/3), 1/170 (+5/3), 1/180 (+4/3), 1/185 (+4/3)
1/250 (+1) = 1/135.6 (+1), 1/150 (+2/3), 1/133.6 (+1), 1/140 (+1)
1/125 (+2/3) = 1/81.6 (+2/3), 1/85.6 (+2/3), 1/88.2 (+2/3), 1/84 (+2/3)
1/60 (+1/3) = 1/46.9 (+1/3), 1/45.5 (+1/3), 1/49.9 (+1/3), 1/46.4 (+1/3)
1/30 (~) = 1/26.8 (~), 1/26.8 (~), 1/26.8 (~), 1/26.2 (+1/3)
1/15 (-1/3) = 1/17.6 (-1/3), 1/18 (-1/3), 1/17.6 (-1/3), 1/17.8 (-1/3)
1/8 (-1/3) = 1/6.2 (-1/3), 1/6.3 (-1/3), 1/6.2 (-1/3), 1/6.2 (-1/3)
1/4 (+1/3) = 1/3.4 (+1/3), 1/3.3 (+1/3), 1/3.3 (+1/3), 1/3.3 (+1/3)
1/2 (~) = 1/2.2 (~), 1/2.2 (~), 1/2.2 (~), 1/2.2 (~)
1" (-1/3) = 1/1.3 (-1/3), 1/1.3, 1/1.3, 1/1.3
Least it's consistent and I know where it's at. Guess as you said, not *that* bad when you consider all the speeds under 1/500th are within a stop of deviation, most of them within a third. Kind of sucks though I don't really have a 1/1,000th to work with, since it's essentially the same speed as 1/500th, just ever so slightly faster.
Are there different springs/mechanism of the Canon 7 for the 'fast' and 'slow' speeds? Like their target? Since those seem to be both the 1/30th and 1/2 nearly spot on.
Fixcinater
Never enough smoky peat
Since you have taken the top plate off and the bottom plate is easily removed (couple of screws and the black ring around tripod mount, IIRC), you should be able to clean up any old hardened grease and replace with new lubricants at the shutter pivot/rotating points.
I wouldn't adjust the tensions on the shutter springs, just clean out well with naptha or lighter fluid and replace with very little amounts of correct grease/light oil where appropriate and see where the shutter speeds end up after cycling it through quite a few times to work the new lubricants in.
As for 1/1000th, I doubt it was ever actually that fast even when brand new. It should be faster than what yours is currently but I'd be very surprised if it was 1/900th or faster from the showroom. Just like most leaf shutters are never actually good for their fastest speed and large format photographers will relabel their shutter dials according to the actual tested speed.
I wouldn't adjust the tensions on the shutter springs, just clean out well with naptha or lighter fluid and replace with very little amounts of correct grease/light oil where appropriate and see where the shutter speeds end up after cycling it through quite a few times to work the new lubricants in.
As for 1/1000th, I doubt it was ever actually that fast even when brand new. It should be faster than what yours is currently but I'd be very surprised if it was 1/900th or faster from the showroom. Just like most leaf shutters are never actually good for their fastest speed and large format photographers will relabel their shutter dials according to the actual tested speed.
kb244
Well-known
Getting it off isn't the problem, getting it back on and keeping the shutter/asa and meter configuration the same as before is where it's a PITA.
I developed the P3200 roll that was in it earlier today, aside from the old expired roll (expired in 2004, and was not refrigerated) having a darker base fog, it appears the last couple frames I shot (parking garage), which I know to be 1/30th as I just shot them the night before last, and they were based off the meter reading, appears to be spot on for the target of ISO 1600 (I developed at the usual 3200 intending to overexpose since it was an old roll).
Used HC-110 Dil. B, 68F for 10.5 minutes, brisk agitation once every minute. Gritty. But least usable, relatively speaking.
All were with the Canon 50mm f/1.8 Type 6 (Serenar optics, 8 blade aperture with a curved-inward octagon shape, newer alloy body).
Focus point on next two at the square arrangement of bricks.
Focus point was on the "V" in Devos.
Focus point was the far wall at the top of the ramp.
Focus point was the printed paper above the card swipe.
I'll either try FP4+ or some Kodak Ultratec (ISO 10, ektar base orthochromatic film) next.