The hazards of buying brand new old cameras

[Huss]

Sometimes we think that buying a NOS camera (new old stock) is the way to go to get the dream camera we did not get back in the day. Because they are brand new, never been molestered, ready to go, needs nothing.
But.. gear is meant to be used. Not left sitting on a shelf (in the box or not) for a decade or two. Lubricants dry out, things get stuck. So what may look perfect on the outside may be a lot less perfect inside than a camera that has been regularly used.

Case in point. I just picked up a brand new Minolta Prod-20's. This is an art deco style P&S camera based on some super cheap Minolta. But it looks pretty. While shooting a test roll of film through it I noticed that often it sounded like it just advanced the film, but I did not hear the shutter fire or see the lens focus. After dropping off the film, I checked it over again dry shooting it, and again noticed that sometimes I would see the lens move and see/hear the leaf shutter click before the film (if there was any in it) advanced.
The more I did it, the more it would work correctly but it seems that definitely things have become gummed up with age.
Interestingly I have noticed this phenomena much more (exclusively?) with leaf shutter cameras. I had read about this with fancy stuff like Nikon 35ti cameras etc. People bought NOS ones, then had all sorts of issues because they had sat unused for a few decades.

While my camera seems to have improved - a session of dry firing seems to have cured it - the moment I put another roll of film into it, it of course started to do this again... So I'm thinking back it goes. The bummer is that I broke the seal on the camera strap etc, so now it is a used camera. But the seller needs to be aware that it can no longer be claimed to be perfect etc. I guess I did the testing for him.

 

[Timmyjoe]

Hey Huss,

Sorry to hear about your trouble.

This reminds me of when I used to service motion picture cameras for university film programs. The most common cameras were the Arriflex 16S and all it's variations. These cameras were designed and built in Germany from right after the war until about 1975. I would occasionally also service these cameras for individuals.

Numerous times I would get a camera that looked brand new, but wouldn't function properly. This was because these cameras, like so many others designed in Germany in that period, were "wet" cameras, meaning some of their lubricants were in somewhat of a liquid or gel form. These lubricants dried up and the cameras needed to be serviced, whether being used or not. Folks had a hard time understanding that, because again, the cameras looked brand new, and some of them even were.

Best,
-Tim

 

[Steve M.]

Your camera just needs the front or rear lens element taken out and the shutter blades cleaned off with lighter fluid and Q tips.

A "new" camera that has been sitting around unused for some time is unfortunately not really a new camera. I always carefully inspect a new-to-me camera before putting film in it. First thing is to look for anything obvious that looks wrong like bad light seals, good batteries and an accurate meter (if it has that), and listen to the shutter to see if it sounds right. Any camera with a bellows gets checked for pinholes. After a while you learn to do this w/o even thinking about it.

With lenses, I always ck for fungus or haze w/ a magnifying glass and a bright light on the other end, and look at the aperture blades to see if they are clean and open and close properly. I make sure that it focuses easily, and ck that it mounts properly on a camera. At that point it's ready to have film put in it and see how it goes. TLR's get checked for all that, as well as looking to see if infinity is really infinity, and film is put in it to see if the advance mechanism and frame counter are working properly. I just advance the film and fire the shutter with the lens capped to the last frame, unload it in a film change bag, and roll it back up for when I go out w/ the camera to take photographs.

 

[Huss]

Yeah, when I first 'tested' the camera w/o film, albeit briefly, I did not have the back open to see if the shutter actually fired. It made all the noises.. But also I noticed that the lens did not move into position to focus for some of these shots.
I really doubt I will work on it, think I will just ask for a refund. While it has a fancy shell, it really is a cheap plastic thing underneath and may not be suitable to be taken apart.

Just a heads up for people buying NOS cameras. I do think that it's these little autofocus point and shoots with leaf shutters that are affected the most.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

Hey Huss,

Sorry to hear about your trouble.

This reminds me of when I used to service motion picture cameras for university film programs. The most common cameras were the Arriflex 16S and all it's variations. These cameras were designed and built in Germany from right after the war until about 1975. I would occasionally also service these cameras for individuals.

Numerous times I would get a camera that looked brand new, but wouldn't function properly. This was because these cameras, like so many others designed in Germany in that period, were "wet" cameras, meaning some of their lubricants were in somewhat of a liquid or gel form. These lubricants dried up and the cameras needed to be serviced, whether being used or not. Folks had a hard time understanding that, because again, the cameras looked brand new, and some of them even were.

Best,
-Tim

This is why I love Filmos.
I have two of them, one from ~1948 the other from ~1956 as far as I can tell. Both were dirty and noisy when I got them. A few days of soaking and cleaning then lubing them up with a good new synthetic watch oil brought them back to purring like cats.
If I found one that was NOS I would figure I'd have to strip the camera down or at least immerse it in naptha for a few days to loosen up the old lubricants before winding it and letting it run.
Phil Forrest

 

[zuiko85]

I think this is the reason used Leica M film cameras often need service right after you buy them, even if they are mint cosmetically. They have been sitting in a sock drawer for 20+ years. If they had been in continued use throughout that time they would probably still be ok.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I think this is the reason used Leica M film cameras often need service right after you buy them, even if they are mint cosmetically. They have been sitting in a sock drawer for 20+ years. If they had been in continued use throughout that time they would probably still be ok.

Very true. See Five Leicas, none of which is working properly.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Timmyjoe]

This is why I love Filmos.
I have two of them, one from ~1948 the other from ~1956 as far as I can tell. Both were dirty and noisy when I got them. A few days of soaking and cleaning then lubing them up with a good new synthetic watch oil brought them back to purring like cats.
If I found one that was NOS I would figure I'd have to strip the camera down or at least immerse it in naptha for a few days to loosen up the old lubricants before winding it and letting it run.
Phil Forrest

The thing I loved about the Arriflex cameras is that even after probably miles and miles of film had been run thru them, I could take them all apart, ultrasonically clean everything, put them back together with the original factory lube from Germany, and they ran like brand new. I also liked the idea that they were all hand built cameras, no "production line", and each camera was slightly different, but if you knew how they were designed and made (I was trained by an old German technician who built the cameras in the German factory in the late 1950's and early 1960's), and had the proper tools (had a factory tool kit from Germany) you could totally break them down, and rebuild them, and they were like fine Swiss watches.

Those were the days. It's a shame that digital video cameras came along and replaced almost all of the 16mm motion picture cameras in film schools.

Best,
-Tim

 

[Huss]

I think this is the reason used Leica M film cameras often need service right after you buy them, even if they are mint cosmetically. They have been sitting in a sock drawer for 20+ years. If they had been in continued use throughout that time they would probably still be ok.

Yup.
Not the fault of the camera. But something to be aware of.

From the Leica M-A manual:

All mechanically operated bearings and sliding surfaces on your Leica are lubricated. Please remember this if you will not be using the camera for a long period of time. To prevent the lubrication points from becoming gummy, the camera should be wound on several times and released with every shutter speed with no film loaded every three months. It is also recommended that you repeatedly move and use all other controls, such as the image field selector.

 

[jsrockit]

On a side note, I had forgotten about this camera completely and it was cool to look into it again.

 

[Robert Lai]

That's usually been the rule. Beautifully preserved cameras on the outside have been so little used that they need service by the time I buy them. I've had only one exception.

About 1 year ago, I purchased a double stroke M3 from a fellow RFF member here. This particular member shoots medium format almost exclusively. I had purchased my Tele-Rolleiflex from him. I saw the ad here on RFF, and I immediately asked about the camera. His pictures showed that the camera looked mint.

He replied, "I bought it only because it looked so pretty".
However, on second thought, he decided not to get into Leica, given the high cost of lenses. So, I bought it and had him send it directly to Don Goldberg. I assumed that this was going to be a super stiff, dried up camera.

Don calls me up.
"What do you want me to do with this camera?"

"Don, it looks unused. I assumed it was going to be stiff and dirty".

Don said, "this camera is dead mint. Not a mark anywhere. The original L seal is still there. It's clean, the RF is adjusted, it's smooth to wind, and even the shutter speeds are accurate. The glass pressure plate looks intact, as if very few rolls were ever shot in this camera. Gus Lazzari must have overhauled this camera already".

I called Gus. The camera was not in his list of serial numbers that he had overhauled.

I called back to Don. "What if it had been serviced by Leica in the past ?"

"Rob, I trained at Leica. When Leica serviced a camera, we put a DIFFERENT L seal on the camera. This one has the original L seal. Gus is one of the few that I know of who has the original L stamp for the wax."

And so it is. The camera is still with Don, awaiting service. Since it may still contain 50+ year old lube, I want Don to fully overhaul it before I use it.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I purchased never used Moskva 5. The reason why it was never used... dead RF prism and film plate upside down.

 

[maigo]

I bought a new Bessa R4M in Jan 2018.
Rangefinder out of alignment on delivery.
Exposure counter self-reset stoped working after 5 rolls.
Factory batteries died after 15 rolls.

Is (was) the typical new Bessa owner experience?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Huss]

Well, this is kinda embarrassing. Even though I coulda sworn that it wasn't making the right noises, that the shutter seemed like it wasn't firing consistently, the negatives said otherwise.
No missed exposures, perfect frame spacing. Akshully this cheap POS I mean P&S has better frame spacing than my F6.
But I think the point here is still valid, an old like new camera may only look new.

 

[Sumarongi]

Well, this is kinda embarrassing. Even though I coulda sworn that it wasn't making the right noises, that the shutter seemed like it wasn't firing consistently, the negatives said otherwise.
No missed exposures, perfect frame spacing. Akshully this cheap POS I mean P&S has better frame spacing than my F6.
But I think the point here is still valid, an old like new camera may only look new.

Was the Minolta PROD-20's actually *cheap*? I would have guessed in 1990 the price was say at least USD 600 or more?

 

[David Hughes]

It's heart breaking to see all those Arriflex cameras being sold off now the film problems have been forced on us. Especially the Super-16 ones, the BBC shot a lot with them...


Regards, David

 

[B-9]

All this Arri talk has we wondering..

Is it even economical to have 8/16mm film developed these days?

Maybe I should load up the old Filmo.

 

[Huss]

Was the Minolta PROD-20's actually *cheap*? I would have guessed in 1990 the price was say at least USD 600 or more?

It was a very cheap Minolta dressed in fancy clothes with the price bumped up.
Case in point - while the top and bottom are metal, the back door is super cheap plastic and when u open the camera it is like looking at a $50 new camera inside. The only information in the VF is a flash charging light. There is no focus confirmation light, not even parallax correction marks!
There is no way to rewind the film before it is done (most cameras have a little button you can push). There is no way to turn off the flash (it comes on whenever the camera thinks it needs it). It reads DX film as either 100 or 400 speed, depending on what you put in it. i.e. ISO 50-200 =100. ISO 400 and above =400.

But... it is fun to use. And compared to my recently sold Olympus Mju (which had focus lock, rewind etc) it actually takes a pic when u want it to. That Mju would just sit there, and wait, and wait while you pushed on the shutter button harder and harder, before it decided the time was right.

Anyway, you can get a Prod 20-s for $100-ish.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

All this Arri talk has we wondering..

Is it even economical to have 8/16mm film developed these days?

Maybe I should load up the old Filmo.

Its not economical to shoot a single 100ft roll then have it developed and telecined. But after about 400ft the scale of economy starts to kick in. Even cheaper if you don't have it telecined. Cheaper still if you know a student who can buy at the 30% discount through the Education purchase program. This is how I do it. I'm just going to save up a bunch of exposed rolls of TriX then have them developed when I can afford it. The cost per 100ft isn't too bad but last march they raised the price by about $7 a roll for either XX 7222 or TriX 7266.
I just finished my first roll and I'll be starting some new shooting soon.

Phil Forrest

 

[bluesun267]

All this Arri talk has we wondering..

Is it even economical to have 8/16mm film developed these days?

Maybe I should load up the old Filmo.

I would say, yes, it's economical. But it depends on your perspective. Comparing to digital video, no, it's hugely expensive. But if shooting film has some meaning to you, consider this: I was perusing some old Popular Photography ads from 1947, and saw several ads for 16mm Kodachrome (with developing) for about $8-$9. That was no small change for 1947!

Nowadays you can shoot 100' of 16mm color negative with developing and a work-print for around $80-$100 bucks. The US inflation calculator says $8.00 in 1947 dollars is equivalent to $90.40 in 2018...so...

And yes, agreed with above posting, it won't make sense to shoot a single roll, as most labs have a 200-400' minimum per order anyway.

BUT--when Kodak FINALLY comes out with Ektachrome, I happen to know Dwayne's will process a single 100' roll for about $30