Hi

I was doing a walk around with the TL120 in central London shooting rolls in total.

From previous experience I now load fresh batteries on every shoot I do - the semi used ones go into laser pointers, flashlights etc.

The 2nd roll I shot is massively under exposed. The First and 3rd and 4th are perfect.

Still no idea why but I don't want this to happen again.

Cheers

Mark

Mark wrote:

> Hi
>
> I was doing a walk around with the TL120 in central London shooting rolls in total.
>
> From previous experience I now load fresh batteries on every shoot I do - the semi used ones go into laser pointers, flashlights etc.
>
> The 2nd roll I shot is massively under exposed. The First and 3rd and 4th are perfect.

There have been many anecdotes regarding very short battery life in the
TL120. I have measured the power draw on my two TL120s on several
occasions and posted the results here. Have you ever measured the
voltage of the batteries you have removed from the camera to see how far
gone they are?

Are you using silver-oxide batteries, or alkaline? I strongly recommend
the use of silver oxide for normal shooting as the power draw of the
camera matches its power output curve pretty well. alkaline are less
expensive, but offer significantly less capacity and a less stable
output curve.

The fact that roll 2 was way underexposed makes me think that the
problem is not your batteries, but maybe a roll of ISO400 which was slid
into your stack of 100 speed film.

John Thurston
Juneau, Alaska

> > The 2nd roll I shot is massively under exposed. The First and 3rd
> and 4th are perfect.

----- "John Thurston" <juneau3d@thurstons.us> wrote:

> The fact that roll 2 was way underexposed makes me think that the
> problem is not your batteries, but maybe a roll of ISO400 which was
> slid
> into your stack of 100 speed film.

Wouldn't that hypothetical 400 speed roll have then been OVERexposed? Perhaps you did have one bad battery, or an intermittently bad battery connection that worked OK on the other rolls? -Linda

Linda Nygren wrote:

>>> The 2nd roll I shot is massively under exposed. The
>>> First and 3rd
>> and 4th are perfect.
>
> ----- "John Thurston" <juneau3d@thurstons.us> wrote:
>> The fact that roll 2 was way underexposed makes me think
>> that the problem is not your batteries, but maybe a roll
>> of ISO400 which was slid into your stack of 100 speed
>> film.
>
> Wouldn't that hypothetical 400 speed roll have then been
> OVERexposed?

Yeah, I wasn't thinking right that night. But maybe it was a
roll of 100 mixed in with some 400. My point is that if the
boundary of the error condition is a single roll of film, I
suspect something to do with the roll before I suspect the
camera. The ISO speed dial on the camera is almost impossible
to change accidentally. We haven't heard if this is all the
same speed film.

It could also have been an error in processing. Could your
lab have accidentally processed a roll as a pull?

> Perhaps you did have one bad battery, or an intermittently
> bad battery connection that worked OK on the other rolls?
> -Linda

Again, it seems unlikely to me that the battery condition
changed precisely on the roll change.... and then changed
back on the next roll change.

Here's a new question... Did you change anything on the
viewfinder for that roll? Could you, say, have removed the
prism and installed a waist-level finder? Could the prism
have slid a bit off its mount?

________________________________________
John Thurston
Juneau, Alaska
http://stereo.thurstons.us

> > Perhaps you did have one bad battery, or an intermittently
> > bad battery connection that worked OK on the other rolls?
> > -Linda

John Thurston wrote:

> Again, it seems unlikely to me that the battery condition
> changed precisely on the roll change.... and then changed
> back on the next roll change.

John, I thought he said that he changed the batteries for each roll. -Linda

> > > Perhaps you did have one bad battery, or an intermittently
> > > bad battery connection that worked OK on the other rolls?
> > > -Linda
>
> John Thurston wrote:
> > Again, it seems unlikely to me that the battery condition
> > changed precisely on the roll change.... and then changed
> > back on the next roll change.
>
> John, I thought he said that he changed the batteries for each roll.

What he actually said, of course, was that he changed batteries for each "shoot". -Linda

I usually get at least 20 rolls of film from a pair of batteries. You should send your camera back to the factory for service.
Nik

--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, Linda Nygren wrote:
>
>
> > > > Perhaps you did have one bad battery, or an intermittently
> > > > bad battery connection that worked OK on the other rolls?
> > > > -Linda
> >
> > John Thurston wrote:
> > > Again, it seems unlikely to me that the battery condition
> > > changed precisely on the roll change.... and then changed
> > > back on the next roll change.
> >
> > John, I thought he said that he changed the batteries for each roll.
> What he actually said, of course, was that he changed batteries for each "shoot". -Linda
>

"sekharni" wrote:
I usually get at least 20 rolls of film from a pair of batteries. You should send your camera back
to the factory for service.
Nik


I wouldn't send it back for service unless I could duplicate the problem. You would be wasting time
and money shipping it. Watch what the camera is doing as you shoot. Watch what F stop and shutter
speed it uses with what light you have. You need more info.

Chuck Holzner

per shoot is anytime I go out with it for a day or an event.

I'll double check my battery type and make sure its the silver oxide ones.

See what happens next time I shoot in that format.

M