MJU1 debacle

joxby

joxby

Messages
8,757
Name
John
Edit My Images
No
So I dunno what's going on with this camera, it sounded like it was winding on ok, the same note/whirring and length of time for every frame, to the best of my knowledge it only wound on 36 times although I did shoot it over a period of months.
It seems to have double exposed every single frame with a pano, and not always in line with the frame numbers, its like this for the entire film.
I can't get my head around the mechanical circumstances that this could occur, its like every shutter actuation produces 2 exposures, one full 35mm and one cropped pano, which sounds feasable (its just borked) were it not for the misalignment of the pano.
For that to happen it would have to expose during a wind on......or something???
Interesting tree growth in York station though....:D

10ql5e9.jpg


2irswzl.jpg


aw5yc.jpg
 
First, I'm gutted for you, not about the camera itself but because the photos (as you took them) look worthy of proper rendition, and are of interest.

If I was to make light of it, I could suggest that you've accidentally discovered a new form of automated creativity.
 
I had the same thing when shooting a roll of APX on an Olympus Newpic my dad gave me last year along with a couple of films. The film canister indicator was showing as all frames unexposed, so I shot the roll, only to find all my shots double exposed atop photos from a trip to Niagra Falls my parents took in the late 90s. I didn't get the pano thing, but that might be because the camera had been set to the standard framing setting both times the roll had been shot.

I wonder if there's something that can cause APX canisters to spontaneously reset the indicator mark?
 
I really like the results! I'd assume it's a roll you've previously exposed? Do you recognise any of the scenes in the mystery panoramas?
 
droj said:
First, I'm gutted for you, not about the camera itself but because the photos (as you took them) look worthy of proper rendition, and are of interest.

If I was to make light of it, I could suggest that you've accidentally discovered a new form of automated creativity.
Click to expand...

Thanks droj, I'm making light of it, its the first roll in a charity shop camera of unknown origin, its about par for the course, its shot for fun and there's nothin on it that isn't duplicated on 6x6........which I haven't souped yet cos I ran out of sleeves..:D


stevelmx5 said:
Silly question, you haven't picked up an exposed roll of film instead of a new one have you? Other than that, I agree with droj that the results look like you meant it ;0)
Click to expand...

Nope, my 35's all wind the leader in after they are shot, I've not fished any leaders out in a long long time, I snap the canister lid off with a bottle opener for processing, a shot roll would have no leader, I'd notice that when trying to load it.


FishyFish said:
I had the same thing when shooting a roll of APX on an Olympus Newpic my dad gave me last year along with a couple of films. The film canister indicator was showing as all frames unexposed, so I shot the roll, only to find all my shots double exposed atop photos from a trip to Niagra Falls my parents took in the late 90s. I didn't get the pano thing, but that might be because the camera had been set to the standard framing setting both times the roll had been shot.

I wonder if there's something that can cause APX canisters to spontaneously reset the indicator mark?
Click to expand...

I didn't even know canisters had exposure indicators...lol
I didn't shoot any panos, the camera did, its just a mask so fairly pointless to chop half your frame off.


mothdust said:
I really like the results! I'd assume it's a roll you've previously exposed? Do you recognise any of the scenes in the mystery panoramas?
Click to expand...

Well there are another 30 frames of exactly the same thing..:ROFLMAO:
I recognize all the scenes, even the pano's that were never selected to be panos.
7. is york station in portrait with the ny moors pano across it
8. is york station in landscape with a ny moors pano scape across it
9. is a combination of 7 and 8
10. is my so and a ny moors sheep pano
3. looks like the riverside and a street scene both york
4.....I dunno, maybe holmfirth and something else
 
joxby said:
I didn't even know canisters had exposure indicators...lol
Click to expand...

On the top of the APS film cansister are four holes which indicate the status of the film:

Circle - film is completely unexposed
Semi-circle - Film is partly exposed
Cross - Film is fully exposed
Square - Film has been developed

You can see them on this page (about halfway down): http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/APS

In my case the canister showed the circle indicator, so I used it, but on getting the double-exposed results back, it was clearly LYING! :D
 
I'm begining to think that..
a. the pano function is borked, just flappin about in there and panoing when it feels like it.
b. its not winding on properly, either a camera fault or the canister did not allow free and easy transport.
c. because this camera was shot sporadically, I really did shoot nigh on 72 frames on to a 36 frame roll....and didn't notice....:cautious:

Either way, so certain was I that all was well with it, I went and loaded it up again before I souped this roll...duh
 
FishyFish said:
On the top of the APS film cansister are four holes which indicate the status of the film:

Circle - film is completely unexposed
Semi-circle - Film is partly exposed
Cross - Film is fully exposed
Square - Film has been developed

You can see them on this page (about halfway down): http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/APS

In my case the canister showed the circle indicator, so I used it, but on getting the double-exposed results back, it was clearly LYING! :D
Click to expand...

Its not APS, its ordinary 135 AGFA APX 100....:)
 
stevelmx5 said:
I didn't think a Mju1 had a panorama function? If you've got a panoramic mask floating around behind the lens I reckon that's come from another part of the camera.
Click to expand...

Camerapedia - 1992 saw the release of the Olympus µ[mju:] PANORAMA. This utilized tiny magnets to move a mask in front of the film in the middle of the roll, while keeping the body and basic spec unchanged.

I dunno how it works, I would have a look now but like a right donk, I reloaded it with APX.
coulda been worse, I have portra...
Though I think there might be a ball pen button on the front that rewinds the film back in to the canister mid roll, not sure
anyway, its probably gonna end up in your junk box, I've got your address now and know how to use it, your junk mail pizza and window cleaning flyers may become a little bulkier......:p
 
Last edited:
And you've pitched the camera so well ;0). I've learned something new there, never realised there was a panoramic version of the Mju. It seems odd that it shot 72 images but the overlapping shots don't look like they've been taken in the same places/time? It's as if the camera has wound the film back at the end of the roll but not actually pulled it right back into the canister so it's automatically reloaded it onto the takeup spool. Very strange!
 
stevelmx5 said:
It seems odd that it shot 72 images but the overlapping shots don't look like they've been taken in the same places/time? It's as if the camera has wound the film back at the end of the roll but not actually pulled it right back into the canister so it's automatically reloaded it onto the takeup spool. Very strange!
Click to expand...

o_O

I never thought of that, you're right, It shot 36 full frames and then 36 panoramics over the top.....

bugger

y'know, I ended up with all these olympus compacts looking for a decent back pocket camera and I thought, I'll shoot em off against each other and do a bit of a test.
well, I gotta say, its been tough going, I mean I have enough trouble shooting 12 squares with one camera, never mind 3 36's and remembering to pack em and carry em and all the rest of it.
At the end of it all, both mju's have pulled my pants down cos the mju2 looks like its got a light leak, (unconfirmed but likely) so that leaves me with only the XA's thoroughly decent contribution, which I didn't even pay for and came with the warning that the meter might be goosed..:confused:...out of all of em, that was the one I tipped to be junk.
Its a minefield out there, this plastic compact throw back lark.
 
So a follow up with MJU2 scans
The film was shot over a period of months at different places in a variety of conditions
Only 4 out of 36 have no light leak, most of them have this flash shown in frame 11 in exactly the same place, 3 or 4 have a big flash and reflected crapness shown in 32 and 34.
The leak does not cross the perforations or frame edges, its all inside the window.


frame 11 NY moors with light leak-

2s8gya0.jpg



frame 12 Saltburn with light leak-

nbq9av.jpg



frame 15 Saltburn no light leak ??-

2r2c380.jpg



frame 32 East Res spectacliar light leak-

205ftb5.jpg



frame 34 East Res god knows what light leak-

2zeikp4.jpg



The perils of buying plastic compacts.
Clearly both these cameras are capable of recording excellent pictures, even with all the nonsense of double exposures and light leaks you can see that.
Unless they are cheap, I won't be buying anymore "untested with film" compacts regardless of their reputation, they're just too expensive to take a chance on.
 
joxby said:
So a follow up with MJU2 scans
The film was shot over a period of months at different places in a variety of conditions
Only 4 out of 36 have no light leak, most of them have this flash shown in frame 11 in exactly the same place, 3 or 4 have a big flash and reflected crapness shown in 32 and 34.
The leak does not cross the perforations or frame edges, its all inside the window.


frame 11 NY moors with light leak-

2s8gya0.jpg



frame 12 Saltburn with light leak-

nbq9av.jpg



frame 15 Saltburn no light leak ??-

2r2c380.jpg



frame 32 East Res spectacliar light leak-

205ftb5.jpg



frame 34 East Res god knows what light leak-

2zeikp4.jpg



The perils of buying plastic compacts.
Clearly both these cameras are capable of recording excellent pictures, even with all the nonsense of double exposures and light leaks you can see that.
Unless they are cheap, I won't be buying anymore "untested with film" compacts regardless of their reputation, they're just too expensive to take a chance on.
Click to expand...

A real shame about the light leak as this is a cracking set of images, nicely seen and well recorded by the Mju lens. I agree the risk is high with these good reputation compacts. I have a Mju 1 that performs very well, but it took 4 to get a good one. I spent under a fiver on each so the working one is in effect a £20 camera.
 
Last edited:
Pretty much any of these could be entered into the "shaft of light" new old film challlenge, aprart from the one without the light leak obviously.
 
I just sold an mju-1, 10 of 25 pictures were out of focus. No idea if that camera was just crap at focussing or if it was just the one I had. I kind of like the double exposures - very abstract.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top