Univex Mercury II or Universal Mercury CX or Universal Mercury II

P

pinkarmy

Well-known
Local time
1:58 PM
Joined
Sep 14, 2010
Messages
535
may be it's just me:
i have a thing for "ugly" thing.
that happened before -- thing i found "ugly" at first just haunted me and i would eventually love it later.
(perhaps "ugly" is not the correct word, "characteristic" is more like it.)

i am talking about the Mercury II.
i read about it in every article on half frame cameras collection --and more often, articles on "the ugliest cameras on earth etc".



it looks like a kitschy prop from a low budget sci-fi cult movie.
people call it from "parking meter" (right here in RFF i think) to "mickey mouse", hardly a compliment.

that said, i can't help getting one recently.
and i LOVE it!
i even love the oxidization of the untreated aluminum camera body, looks and feels just like a Herman Miller made Eames "aluminum group" chair!

everything about this camera is different: the look (i mean THE look), the operations, the shutter sound.

mine costs me US$20+postage (not sure if it is a good buy, but the prices on the Bay keeps moving upward these days...)
the body is solid, the leatherette intact, all the buttons smooth...the high speed is doubtful (1/100, 1/200, 1/300, 1/1000 sec looks the same in bare eyes observation) but other speed including B & T are good.

i just popped in a Tri-X and will fool around a bit, just hope it will give good results --"characteristic" ;-) i hope, at least.
anyone share some thoughts (--or even better, your photo by a Mercury)?

 
Last edited:
I had one, but I've forgotten which one. As far as I recall, it was the original model with the Mercury-unique film loading. I cobbled together a roll and exposed it, and that was enough. As I recall, the shutter speed dial rotates during the exposure: keep fingers and hair away from it. Lots of reading matter on the camera, though!

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
I had one and might still have a selfie in a mirror from years back (man, I looked young then).

The shutter mechanism at the time of production was claimed to be as accurate as that of a Leica, and scientific tests proved the manufacturers to be right. (don't know where I read that, might have been on Rick Olesons site).

Mine (a Universal Mercury II, the standard film canister type) produced scratches on the negatives, probably from built-up gunk in there. These little beauts are probably difficult to get serviced, though...

Enjoy yours, would like to see shots!
 
this one cost me $12.00.
4141514981_d17fc21996_z.jpg
 
first roll

first roll

:D it really is fun to use and i am happy about the result.

i noticed that the frame size is a little wider than standard half-frame's usual 18x24, (my Olympus Pen EF measures 17mm W, Canon Demi C measures 17.5mm)
the dimension is almost 19x24,
so is the gap between frame, also slightly wider.
that caused some problems for my lab to scan 2 frames into one--hence the crop.

but above all the lens is surprisingly great :cool:
the shutter mechanism is incredibly stable even at slow speed.

i'm gonna use it more!

">
">
">
">
">
Kodak Tri-X, HC110 dil. B
one-hour lab scan-in


PS. the Rick Oleson link is a good read! thanks to you guys.
 
Last edited:
I finally got around to shooting with my CX, and was pleasantly surprized at the output. Mine has a couple of issues though, as the shutter hangs up when pointing the camera down, and I'm not too sure the speeds are all that accurate. I shot three exposures in a row using 1/100, 1/200, and 1/300 all at f16, and it's hard to see a difference. But that Tricor lens is a beauty. Now I need to find some filters for it, and do a shutter overhaul.

I posted the results at: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=109433
or you can just look for "Practicing With The Mercury II".

PF
 
farlymac said:
I finally got around to shooting with my CX, and was pleasantly surprized at the output. Mine has a couple of issues though, as the shutter hangs up when pointing the camera down, and I'm not too sure the speeds are all that accurate. I shot three exposures in a row using 1/100, 1/200, and 1/300 all at f16, and it's hard to see a difference. But that Tricor lens is a beauty. Now I need to find some filters for it, and do a shutter overhaul.

I posted the results at: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=109433
or you can just look for "Practicing With The Mercury II".

PF[/quote

I had a similar experience with my Olympus half-frame: it wasn't even working as consistently as yours, but it gave me hope. After I had it serviced I found that the up close (1 to 2 ft) and color film is a special look that I really like.
Click to expand...
 
Today I finally got tired of looking at the CX sitting on my desk, and decided to do a teardown on it. Broke out the Tomosy's book for some pointers, and everything was going fine until I had to take the pin out of the shutter speed selector shaft. It just won't budge, at least not with the tool I was using.

What got me going was, after I did a bit of lubing at the points that Rick Oleson recommends, I thought it was working good. That is until I turned it back right side up. Then it started to sound like it was grinding again. Upside down, fine . Right side up, not good. So I think there may be a wear problem with the casting. But I won't be able to tell until I get the stinking pin out of the speed shaft.

Or I could just shoot it upside down. I mean, it looks weird already, why not expand on that? And maybe I could leave the coverings off, and paint it Kelly Green.

PF
 
Finally got a proper punch to drive that pin out, and finished the disassembly. Cleaned a lot of little bits of film and gobs of grease out of it. While reassembling the shutter, a small spring came out, and it took a while to get it back in place, as it was in a blind spot.

As it turned out, the reason the spring fell off the post was that the post had backed out of it's mounting hole, being just staved in. After twenty minutes of frustration, I was able to figure out a way to get the spring to go back where it belonged. After that, the rest of the shutter reassembly was a piece of cake.

While testing the shutter mechanism to determine if I had the speed setting correct (very easy to be off a speed or two), the shutter began to hang again, as it was doing before the teardown. Since having the thing completely apart gave me some insight as to how it all operated, it didn't take long to find the culprit. That post had backed out again, and the lever it was supporting was dragging on the shutter. Which also means the spring on the other side of the casting can now fall off again.

Unless I figure out a way to securely fasten the post to the casting, it's going to be a shelf queen. To that point, I am going ahead with the cosmetic restoration (cleaning all the oxidation off the body and sealing it), and will post everything when I get finished.

PF
 
I finally identified the two main problems with the CX, and have them fixed, and the shutter running smoothly now. The body restoration is coming along nicely too. BTW, here is a photo before I started the restoration:


Mercury II Front by br1078phot, on Flickr

I must say, it is a much lighter camera than it could have been if Universal had not used an aluminum alloy for the main body castings. Without the shutter mech installed, it feels very light. I'll put further posts in the Repairs forum.

PF
 
farlymac;1820924...it is a much lighter camera than it could have been if Universal had not used an aluminum alloy for the main body castings...[/quote said:
...but i found the aluminum casting a sensual to touch...it is almost "sexy" to me:rolleyes:, may be it is that i am a big admirer of Charles Eames' Herman Miller aluminum group chairs.
no other camera gave me the same sensual.(well, Vitessa is sexy to my eyes)
Click to expand...
 
Other than the shutter hump, the main body of the camera is actually shorter than my Yashica YF. And I like the knurling underneath the synthetic coverings. I'm half tempted to leave it naked, but then it might get too warm to handle in the summer, and too cold in the winter. But it does fit the hand very well. And after a sanding to get rid of the corrosion, the bare parts do have a nice feel to them.

PF
 
I finally got the repairs and cosmetic restoration finished, now I need to run a roll of film through it. Since it has the coated Tricor, I might as well use a 24 shot roll of color, so I don't have to take so many photos before taking the film in for developing. And it is springtime, so plenty of color around to shoot.

Before and After

Mercury II Repair and Restoration by br1078phot, on Flickr

I've got over 60 photos and half a dozen videos to go through and edit before I post on the Repair forum.

PF
 
Thanks, Pink. I had a few difficulties getting it back together, but nothing major. I didn't get one of the retainers tight enough, and I had the speed selector off a couple of notches. It's close enough now.

PF
 
At the moment I have two of the Univex II's - both have lenses that are stuck. The alloy threads will oxidize and jam the focus. Occasional application of brute force will release it and then a liberal application of lubricant will help.
Great looking camera too - more complex exposure table on the back than even a DSLR menu!
The rotary shutter is pretty well bullet proof - and if you sharpen the edge of the blade, you could possibly cut veggies with it!
 
Tom A said:
At the moment I have two of the Univex II's - both have lenses that are stuck. The alloy threads will oxidize and jam the focus. Occasional application of brute force will release it and then a liberal application of lubricant will help.
Great looking camera too - more complex exposure table on the back than even a DSLR menu!
The rotary shutter is pretty well bullet proof - and if you sharpen the edge of the blade, you could possibly cut veggies with it![/quote]

As long as you remember to take the lens off first.

PF
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom