Eric Niemi Posted August 19, 2021 Share Posted August 19, 2021 Greetings everyone, I was talking to a retired camera operator the other day and he mentioned that some of the viewfinders on the Eclair ACL are in fact now radioactive due to thorium decay. He warned that while this is sometimes seen in older lenses it really isn't an issue because the radiation is low and blocked by the camera body. But he said it is a very grave issue for viewfinders because there isn't anything to block the particles and because of this it can cause eye damage or worse. Can someone elaborate on this somewhat? Does anyone know if it's the Angenieux or Kinoptik viewfinder.... or possibly both? Thanks! -Eric Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Aapo Lettinen Posted August 19, 2021 Premium Member Share Posted August 19, 2021 16 minutes ago, Eric Niemi said: Greetings everyone, I was talking to a retired camera operator the other day and he mentioned that some of the viewfinders on the Eclair ACL are in fact now radioactive due to thorium decay. He warned that while this is sometimes seen in older lenses it really isn't an issue because the radiation is low and blocked by the camera body. But he said it is a very grave issue for viewfinders because there isn't anything to block the particles and because of this it can cause eye damage or worse. Can someone elaborate on this somewhat? Does anyone know if it's the Angenieux or Kinoptik viewfinder.... or possibly both? Thanks! -Eric I don't know how anyone could elaborate on that unless them having a ton of various eclair acl viewfinders and a geiger counter with a pancake detector. We just talked about this exact same topic on this forum just a while ago. The main conclusion was that everyone on this forum is radioactive by nature and you can's shoot with the camera without using the viewfinder so there is nothing you can do about it whether something being slightly radioactive or not ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Aapo Lettinen Posted August 19, 2021 Premium Member Share Posted August 19, 2021 https://cinematography.com/index.php?/forums/topic/88461-arriflex-history-with-thorium-glass/&tab=comments#comment-547523 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Niemi Posted August 19, 2021 Author Share Posted August 19, 2021 (edited) Thanks, Aapo for the response ? Yes. I saw the Arriflex thread and I mentioned that to the camera operator and he said he heard some lenses in the viewfinder optical system were radioactive on some of the Arri S models but reiterated the situation was more of an issue with some of the Eclair cameras because it was the actual eyepiece. Which sits right up to your eye. Where the Arri 'S' has other optical elements in the way and more importantly distance that protects. Maybe somebody will chime in knowing specifically which Eclair finder is the offending party. Probably should buy a geiger counter anyways though! Edited August 19, 2021 by Eric Niemi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Aapo Lettinen Posted August 19, 2021 Premium Member Share Posted August 19, 2021 there is no way to know without a geiger counter so it would be wise to purchase one anyway ? there is couple of types of viewfinders for the Eclair cameras and I think the CP16R finders fit them too. All of them cannot be radioactive ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robino Jones Posted August 19, 2021 Share Posted August 19, 2021 (edited) I just bought an Angenieux viewfinder for my CP16R and it's yellowish when looking through it. Reading this thread I'm not liking the situation.. If it is radioactive, is there a way to de-radioactive it? Edited August 19, 2021 by Robino Jones 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruben Arce Posted August 19, 2021 Share Posted August 19, 2021 2 hours ago, Robino Jones said: I just bought an Angenieux viewfinder for my CP16R I have used viewfinders created for the CP-16r on the NPR and they work fine but not the other way around. How did the Angeniuex work for you? 4 hours ago, aapo lettinen said: I think the CP16R finders fit them too Viewfinders for the Eclair NPR and the CP-16r can be used interchangeably, but they don't fit the Eclair ACL without modification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heikki Repo Posted August 19, 2021 Share Posted August 19, 2021 I just ordered from Amazon the same radiation meter Aapo uses. It might arrive next week. I'll check my ACL 1.5 Angenieux viewfinder (and other vintage glass I own) then and post my findings. Still, I find it difficult to believe that the viewfinder would have radioactive elements. After all, thorium hasn't turned radioactive only now, it has been that always, right? ACLs were popular cameras for documentary makers -- countless hours of eye on that viewfinder! I tried to find out about cameras having radioactive eyepieces. Thus far I have been unable to find anything on Google. Such eyepieces have been used in old military equipment, which has been repurposed by some for use on microscopes or telescopes. Some sources say that using those elements in eyepieces is against regulations. How long those regulations have been in use I don't know, but I'd like to think already in the 1970s one wouldn't have been allowed to put radioactive elements right next to camera operator's eye. Then again, asbestos wasn't banned in many countries until 90s... But we'll see. I'll post my findings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aren Madsen Posted August 19, 2021 Share Posted August 19, 2021 6 hours ago, Ruben Arce said: Viewfinders for the Eclair NPR and the CP-16r can be used interchangeably, but they don't fit the Eclair ACL without modification. Although the Angeniex Eclair NPR viewfinder does fit the CP-16R, from my experience, it doesn't work properly on that camera and isn't optically suited to it. Has anyone had better luck with it on that camera? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aren Madsen Posted August 19, 2021 Share Posted August 19, 2021 9 hours ago, Robino Jones said: If it is radioactive, is there a way to de-radioactive it? I don't know that it'll reduce radiation but I've heard of people reducing yellowing in optics, particularly lenses by having them in sunlight for prolonged periods. Maybe leave it in windowsill for a few weeks... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruben Arce Posted August 19, 2021 Share Posted August 19, 2021 3 hours ago, Aren Madsen said: Although the Angeniex Eclair NPR viewfinder does fit the CP-16R, from my experience, it doesn't work properly on that camera and isn't optically suited to it. I know, I own the same viewfinder that you have on the picture and a couple of the nice and orientable viewfinders for the CP-16r. The CP viewfinders work fine on the NPR, but the Angenieux doesn't work properly on the CP-16r. 3 hours ago, Aren Madsen said: I don't know that it'll reduce radiation but I've heard of people reducing yellowing in optics, particularly lenses by having them in sunlight for prolonged periods. Maybe leave it in windowsill for a few weeks... That's a reality. I used to have a Super Takumar 50mm f1.4 that had a yellow tint. You can put the lens under the sun rays, but you have to wrap it using aluminum foil so it doesn't heat. In my case I used an Ikea desktop lamp that is known to have a lot of UV rays and it did clean it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robino Jones Posted August 19, 2021 Share Posted August 19, 2021 11 hours ago, Ruben Arce said: I have used viewfinders created for the CP-16r on the NPR and they work fine but not the other way around. How did the Angeniuex work for you? It works great, brighter and slightly bigger image. Also keeps the image up right in any orientation. But now I'm not sure I want to look through it ? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heikki Repo Posted August 19, 2021 Share Posted August 19, 2021 6 hours ago, Heikki Repo said: I tried to find out about cameras having radioactive eyepieces. Thus far I have been unable to find anything on Google. Such eyepieces have been used in old military equipment, which has been repurposed by some for use on microscopes or telescopes. Let me revise myself here: apparently some Pentax 6x7 viewfinders do have thoriated glass. Which seems utterly incomprehensible. https://www.flickr.com/groups/328006@N25/discuss/72157675944465082/ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robino Jones Posted August 19, 2021 Share Posted August 19, 2021 (edited) I forgot to add. There is one issue. For my eyesight I can't get it to focus correctly using the diopter range -5, 0, +5, but if I put my contact lenses then it's fine. I also had a friend look into it and he has perfect 20/20 vision, he was able to focus it but had to be +5. I'm ok with this since I wear contacts, also it might be my viewfinder that needs an adjustment.. Edited August 19, 2021 by Robino Jones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Niemi Posted August 19, 2021 Author Share Posted August 19, 2021 20 hours ago, aapo lettinen said: there is no way to know without a geiger counter so it would be wise to purchase one anyway ? there is couple of types of viewfinders for the Eclair cameras and I think the CP16R finders fit them too. All of them cannot be radioactive ? 11 hours ago, Heikki Repo said: I just ordered from Amazon the same radiation meter Aapo uses. It might arrive next week. I'll check my ACL 1.5 Angenieux viewfinder (and other vintage glass I own) then and post my findings. Still, I find it difficult to believe that the viewfinder would have radioactive elements. After all, thorium hasn't turned radioactive only now, it has been that always, right? ACLs were popular cameras for documentary makers -- countless hours of eye on that viewfinder! I tried to find out about cameras having radioactive eyepieces. Thus far I have been unable to find anything on Google. Such eyepieces have been used in old military equipment, which has been repurposed by some for use on microscopes or telescopes. Some sources say that using those elements in eyepieces is against regulations. How long those regulations have been in use I don't know, but I'd like to think already in the 1970s one wouldn't have been allowed to put radioactive elements right next to camera operator's eye. Then again, asbestos wasn't banned in many countries until 90s... But we'll see. I'll post my findings. Thanks for checking this out. It's appreciated. We should all buy a geiger counter and make a list of sorts and keep it updated! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Niemi Posted August 19, 2021 Author Share Posted August 19, 2021 4 hours ago, Heikki Repo said: Let me revise myself here: apparently some Pentax 6x7 viewfinders do have thoriated glass. Which seems utterly incomprehensible. https://www.flickr.com/groups/328006@N25/discuss/72157675944465082/ Yup. For sure it's bothersome. Who thought this was a good idea ? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Palmer Posted August 20, 2021 Share Posted August 20, 2021 (edited) 8 hours ago, Eric Niemi said: Yup. For sure it's bothersome. Who thought this was a good idea ? Exactly. I can only think they were ignorant then about the effects of radiation on humans. I had thought that ended in about 1960. I have memories as a kid of having my feet Xrayed in shoe shops, sometimes 3 in one day ? Edited August 20, 2021 by Doug Palmer remove word Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Aapo Lettinen Posted August 20, 2021 Premium Member Share Posted August 20, 2021 (edited) 16 hours ago, Eric Niemi said: Yup. For sure it's bothersome. Who thought this was a good idea ? surely they knew about the radioactivity. but the issues caused by the thorium use are limited to the manufacturing of the glass unless someone really wants to grind down photographic lenses to dust and inhale it. making high refractive glass is not that easy and one needs this type of glass for at least some of the lens elements for the design to be effective and practical enough to manufacture. it was the same with why asbestos was used so extensively: it is a wonderful building material (great thermal and acoustic insulation, tolerates lots of heat, has good strength and can be used to reinforce many types of materials like ceramics and plastics. it is even relatively cheap and easy to mine and process) . It only becomes an issue when it starts to generate fine dust and people inhale it. I would be perfectly happy having a huge chunk of asbestos on my kitchen table if it would be sealed in glass so that it could not spread any dust around ? I actually collected some uranium glass beads some years ago, mainly for their nice green fluorescence under UV light. Uranium glass is safe too unless one grinds it down to dust and inhales it... Edited August 20, 2021 by aapo lettinen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heikki Repo Posted August 20, 2021 Share Posted August 20, 2021 According to some information I read, thorium use has been restricted in the US since 1963. For lenses it has been authorized but for eyepieces not. Some unauthorized use has been, but I also read a comment online from a camera enthusiast who had measured hundreds of cameras and only that Pentax VF has had this issue. Considering this I find it highly unlikely that Angenieux would have done it in the latter part of 1970s. Had cinematographers developed cataracts due to radiation, that would have been a real mess in courts, I'd guess. And would French laws on radioactive materials have been any more permissive than US ones at that point? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aren Madsen Posted August 20, 2021 Share Posted August 20, 2021 23 hours ago, Eric Niemi said: Yup. For sure it's bothersome. Who thought this was a good idea ? Surely someone has a Geiger Counter and can test some eyepieces to enlighten us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Aapo Lettinen Posted August 21, 2021 Premium Member Share Posted August 21, 2021 ok I can volunteer purchasing all those 'radioactive and highly dangerous' Eclair ACL cameras from you with their viewfinders. I have just the right garage to store them in a lead lined box of sand with all my uranium glassware and hydrochloric acid bottles. Let's say, 100 USD a piece for the camera body and the viewfinder plus some mags? It's a good deal for you all really because you won't shoot anything with the cameras anyway now when having the slightest suspicion that there MIGHT be something radioactive in them ? #videotapsavestheday 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heikki Repo Posted August 21, 2021 Share Posted August 21, 2021 Yeah, perhaps this rumor is finally able to bring down those Ebay prices ? My geiger meter should arrive on Tuesday or more realistically later next week. I'll post the information here... unless, of course, I want to buy a cheap second unit ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Niemi Posted August 21, 2021 Author Share Posted August 21, 2021 12 hours ago, Heikki Repo said: Yeah, perhaps this rumor is finally able to bring down those Ebay prices ? My geiger meter should arrive on Tuesday or more realistically later next week. I'll post the information here... unless, of course, I want to buy a cheap second unit ?? Nice! Thanks so much and keep us posted! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Palmer Posted August 22, 2021 Share Posted August 22, 2021 (edited) Look forward to your findings. I think probably the only danger to health may lie in the eyepiece lenses, if they are found to be radioactive. And radioctivity basically lasts forever.... I hope others in the still-photography community do their tests as well. A good subject for a documentary perhaps ? For a lengthy time following the banning of atmospheric nuclear tests (Kodak eachtime warned ?) many businesses didn't think small amounts of radioactivity presented any danger maybe. Even now, I do wonder if airport xray operators are safe. Edited August 22, 2021 by Doug Palmer add word Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Palmer Posted August 22, 2021 Share Posted August 22, 2021 Thinking about the cameras and lenses, surely the manufacturers would have considered the detrimental effect on the film itself ? Even if no thought for camera operators ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now