Ruben Arce

I'm good Andres, thanks. As I probably mentioned before I have had 5 of these cameras. In my experience when the aperture controls don't work they are not going to work even if you try to repair the camera. The system they used is very delicate. It's a paper thin piece made out of copper that at some point doesn't have the strength to move the mechanism. You can bend it slightly to apply more pressure but sometimes it works, some times it doesn't. Du-All serviced a camera for me but they told me they could not guarantee the camera. The technician told me the aperture was working intermittently. When I got the camera the camera was quiet, but the aperture was not working. I didn't have anything to lose, so I opened the camera and bent the mentioned part and it started working again. It has been working since then, but the mechanism is weak and not reliable. I have a camera in like new condition. That one works fine, auto and manual. When you find a camera that works they work fine, but buying an R10 is very risky in my opinion.

Thanks for sharing my items Gregg! Just to clarify, the Throat Cover is made out of flexible polyurethane casting resin, not 3D printed. It' almost identical to the original one, including the imperfections that the original one I used as master have.

The way I see it, it would be almost a non destructive modification. As Heikki pointed the port would have to be widened, then replace the existing mount with the modified M43 one. You could always go back to the original mount. With the array of adapters in the market for M43 I don't see a reason to go back, but it would be possible.

I don't think an adapter per se is possible. The idea that I have which is a concept a lot of people know and that I have proved with other cameras is to replace the entire mount. As Raymond said there are a lot of possibilities when it come to lenses designed for the M43 format. Some of those lenses like the DZO Film zoom ones are parfocal and beaufifully constructed among others. I wouldn't mind having a permanent M43 mount on my camera. Even when the C mount offers lots of possibilities the M43 would be a game changer. As mentioned before PL mount lenses are scarce, expensive and even when they compare to or surpass modern lenses they were built 30 years ago or more. Lenses that cost $500 today can look better or at least the same as lenses that cost $80k 30 years ago. No glass is required. The FFD is very close and it goes in the right direction, but an adapter is not possible because of the close distance. The M43 mount is still protected by a patent, but that is not a big deal. There is a workaround for that. Also there is no need to have electronics involved when there are tons of great manual "cinema" lenses for the format.

I've been playing with this idea for some time. As you guys mention it is perfectly doable. Some lenses may protrude, but I think there is enough distance for that. According to the specifications of the MFT mount it fits fine on the port of the ACL. Things get a little more complicated if you want to re-center the image for a S16 camera, because the M43 mount sits tight on the place were the ACL mount is. This should not be complicated at all. I have a working 3d printed prototype on a different 16mm camera and it basically can be used on any camera if the FFD allows it. I've been trying to contact manufacturers to do some modifications to lenses that would make them work with film cameras too. The piece can be precisely machined and then adjusted by a technician, not a big deal. The problem is everybody like the ideas until you try to sell the actual product. People just want .stl files to print the stuff for free.

I'll contact them and send my camera to be converted and serviced.

I hope Paul Scaglione sees this thread and considers getting the parts they need to convert cameras. I have an ACL that I acquired a few months ago and I wanted to send it to VP to be converted to S16. I would commit to getting the camera converted this year. I know they used to charge around 2.5k and I wouldn't mind paying that to get the camera properly converted here in the US. Maybe if they have a few people committed to getting their cameras converted they would consider getting the parts made.

You can remove the back of the lens and block the mechanism so the lens can be controlled manually, but that may affect the collimation. I used to have that lens and I just applied a drop of crazy glue around the pin, kept it pushed for a minute and it stayed there. It worked fine without having to disassemble the lens.

Thanks a lot for sharing this and thanks for scanning them at high res!

That's a late serial number. The motor is an early one. Those motors were heavily modified, so it's very difficult to say if it is in the original condition. It makes sense that the XLR connector on the sides carries pilotone signal, but is that helpful today? Several motors were converted to crystal sync back in the day and AZ spectrum can convert them today, but the guy is always busy. I don't see anything wrong with the base. It was a modular camera, there were several motors, viewfinders and bases available, so it may not be a Perfectone one, but looks like it is for Perfectone. I've never seen an original battery per se. I mean there was not a case like the ones used on the Eclair ACL. People used battery belts and big batteries back in the day because cells were not as efficient as they are today. I use lead acid batteries to power my camera (4 & 7Ah) but you can use pretty much any 12v battery with 4Ah or more.

Thanks for sharing !

That's true! I was thinking about the director's viewfinder on the side only. My bad.

The viewfinder of a non reflex Bolex will let you see an approximation of the framing that is going to be captured on the film. That's it! The viewfinder won't tell you anything about focus, exposure or depth of field. Actually I don't think there is any Bolex with internal light meter. You have to calculate your exposure using a light meter. You can use a light meter app. There is no prism on the non reflex Bolex so you don't lose any light and you can use any lens. You don't need RX lenses and no the shutter angle of the Bolex is not 180° so do your research for the appropriate shutter angle for your camera. When it comes to getting images in focus you have to measure, yes. You measure the distance from your subject to the focal plane and you set the lens to that distance. A Depth of Field Calculator chart or app can help you to get a close estimation of the area that is going to be in focus. In order for a lens and a camera to perform well under those circumstances the lens must be collimated and the flange focal distance of the camera has to be right on the spot. If you have lenses that came with the camera you can use those and expect to have good results. Using Nikon lenses with the camera would require the adapter to be perfectly set to the correct flange focal distance of Nikon lenses (46.5mm) Still photography lenses were not designed to be used this way, so you cannot assume that the witness marks of a Nikon or any other still photo lens is perfect. That means, the image may not me in focus when you set the lens to a given distance even if the adapter was set properly. It's not impossible filming with a non-reflex camera. It has its limitations, but it is possible. You have some points and termsthat can help you to continue your research and testings.

It looks great! I'm glad to see you are making your projects a reality. I have a CP-16r that may benefit from new electronics and I'm sure other cameras and users will find it beneficial as well. Keep up the good work!

Thanks Robert, That could be the case with this camera. O own other cameras and none of them has battery leaking damage, but this one does. I'm going to send the camera to VP at some point, and I have the electronics from another camera. I hope they can replace the part and bring it back to life so I don't have to sacrifice a camera on good working condition.