Clint:
Thanks so much. Some of this I had surmised (including the clutch for the
double exposure, which is a feature I REALLY like; the OM double exposure
mechanism is not optimally implemented, IMHO. The ability to do either shutter
or aperture preferred auto exposure is great; I had thought it was only shutter
preferred.
I will try and figure out the wind problem. The (round) cover of the rewind
knob has two little holes for a wrench, and there are marks on it as if someone
tried to take it off without the proper tool. If I can't make progress, I'll
contact you off-list.
Again, thanks a lot for doing the research. For some reason I am attracted to
this camera and would love to make some exposures.
Earl
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 10/13/2003 at 3:39 PM clintonr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>The illustration in Vision Age #4 differs from the one on your link as
>well. The right side of the meter window on top has three symbols -- at
>the rear a red circle, in the middle a yellow semicircle, at
>the top a black box with a "-" through it, whatever those mean. I suppose
>"full sun", "half-sun", and "low light"?
>
>To quote the relevant portion of the article verbatim (pay particular
>attention to paragraph 4):
>
>PERFECT LIGHT VALUE
>In 1958, Olympus announced one more pioneering high-performance 35mm lens
>shutter camera. This was the Olympus Auto. First, let's take a look at
>its highly individual design.
>
>The top of the camera is dominated by the light meter and the viewfinder,
>with the rewind crank relegated to the camera bottom. The explanation is
>that the designers wanted to lengthen the base length of
>the rangefinder and get the maximum possible viewfinder magnification in
>order to fully exploit the fine performance of the newly developed 42mm
>F1.8 G Zuiko lens.
>
>At that time, Olympus gave the new camera's exposure meter system the
>title of "Perfect Light Value System." In justification, we should point
>out that the camera's exposure selection system permitted a
>free choice between aperture preferred and shutter speed preferred, what
>is now known as a programmed exposure system. In other words, at a time
>when people were still bumbling along with awkward linked
>exposure meter and shutter systems, Olympus offered the generous choice of
>setting either the aperture or the shutter as desired. After that it was
>merely a question of aligning the moving indicator line
>with the meter exposure indication in order to be sure the exposure would
>be all right. Furthermore, when extreme lighting conditions rendered the
>initial aperture or shutter speed settings unsuitable,
>there were automatically corrected to ensure a perfect exposure.
>
>"Perfect" was clearly more than just the usual advertising hype. There is
>not space here to go into a detailed explanation of the newly developed
>mechanism adopted in the construction. Suffice it to say
>that when the shutter speed dial was rotated, the aperture was also
>changed in order to maintain the same light value, but when the aperture
>dial was rotated, only the aperture setting was changed. In fact,
>the Olympus Auto was then the only coupled exposure meter-type camera in
>the world with this kind of versatility. But the spirit of the times was
>drawn more to developing a simple, basic type of exposure
>automation rather than pursuing this kind of perfect picture-taking
>technology. Consequently the ambitious Olympus Auto was unavoidably
>discontinued only a year after its first appearance."
>
>The article also contains a box titled "Olympus Auto Specifications",
>which notes that the camera has an intentional multiple exposure mechanism
>-- I suspect that the slide under the wind lever activates
>this function. This mechanism may be damaged, causing the wind problems
>you note, though if the camera is similar to many of the era, the fault
>may lie inside the bottom cover. If it is like cameras like
>the SP, etc, there is a large clutch gear and arm inside the bottom, and a
>winding crank, either on which may have come loose. Unless the rewind
>mechanism is in the way, you might want to try opening it to
>check for loose parts.
>
>
>Earl Dunbar wrote:
>
>> The top plate of my camera does not look exactly llike
>http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/kb/ The meter indicator is different... larger
>with more markings.
>>
>> Other differences from from the views on that site:
>>
>> Front
>> * Lens -- G.Zuiko f1.8 f=4.2cm SN 104797
>> * Meter cell is covered with a metal flap, in which there is a slit,
>)apparently for varying lighting conditions?); the flap swings up
>revealing the cell
>> Top
>> * As noted meter indicator is different; wider, with more graphics
>> * SN of body is 106198
>> * If you crank the wind lever to the right, a small slider button is
>revealed that has two positions. There is no writing/markings and no
>apparent way of determining its purpose.
>> * All other markings/ labelling are the same; there is no change in
>model name to indicate it is a different lens and shutter
>> Bottom
>> * No differences
>>
>> The inside of theis camera is really clean. The sprocket spindle is a
>very nicely machined piece of aluminum. This is not a super-compact Oly,
>nor particularly lightweight. Probably typical of the era.
>>
>> I'll see if I can get some digital pics and post them somewhere.
>>
>> Earl
>>
>
>
>< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
>< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
>< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|