If you had a circuit that would be of great advantage: In cases like that I will fire up the AutoCad & layout the idiograms of the Valves & transformers (pin numbers on the valves): Then play join the dots. In other words reverse engineer it.

It is not surprising that It works better. I have a Healing 552A ready to ship out & that had been worked on by a serviceman. There is now a large collection of caps that are now in a tray beside it. The non resonant osc coil was open & a 12V Electrolytic I checked for the hell of it on a 12V Battery, sat there with the series globe glowing (probably would of exploded otherwise). If 50Meg is the limit for decoupling & 200Meg for coupling caps, there is a warning: Some were 3K.

Those sort of figures are probably why the 1K7 failed: Coil was a corrosive break.

The can may have two paper caps in it and these should be replaced. Often the pitch is only in the top. It may have a value on it & could be 0.1mfd or more. If you indicate which pins of the valves it is hooked to, we may be able to work out its purpose?

Further to Steve's comment and it has been mentioned before. Whilst a lot of digital cameras have an "anti-shake" feature & auto focus, a tripod can still be useful and auto focus can still get it wrong. You can always step back, zoom in, or by getting a sharp picture: Crop it.

Depth of field works a little differently on a digital camera, but still brings people unstuck. Use the settings for flowers & close objects*. You may need to manual focus & that's were the tripod comes in. With the internals: Focus on an item that lies midway between the base of the pan & the top. *Alternate use aperture priority & do not use numbers below f8.

Yes Marcc it actually is .1μF! I'll have to replace it, I might just leave it there, but relieve it from the circuit, as the other can is already. It is a ?Hydra" brand, made in Germany, being 1934, I'm sure very good quality, but not ultimately trustworthy due to it's age. There was one .5μF electrolytic I had to replace with a .47 as I didn't have a .5, was wondering whether or not to put a .03 or .02 polyester in parallel to make up the value, But I didn't and it doesn't seem to make a difference.

You can always step back, zoom in, or by getting a sharp picture: Crop it.

I've said this a lot when having a moan about the quality of some of the pictures that get submitted to the site. Sometimes I get the impression that I'm not being heard. That one little piece of advice would solve about 80% of the quality issues, the other being a lack of sufficient light.

In the next month or two, providing I have the time, members will have access to a new version of the file upload feature. (The old one was turned off about ten years ago for a few reasons). When this feature comes fully available I will no longer be accepting photos for upload - all members will need to do this themselves and it will not be difficult. I am yet to make a final decision on how this will work but that is only a formality. The preparations to be made to the database will take place this coming weekend, as has been announced elsewhere.

With this freedom comes some extra responsibilities for members. Most of the photos I receive get touched up before resizing in one way or another. It might be colour balancing, brightness/contrast or sharpening blurry images. Whilst I will not expect members to submit the sorts of photos that do finally go up after reprocessing I will maintain the policy where outright blurry, over-exposed or under-exposed images will not get published. If members upload a photo that I cannot see properly then I will delete the link to it without notice.

I'll have some more to say on the subject as the time for member image submissions draws closer.

Some other things to remember:-

As has also been said, some cameras have image stabilisation technology. Like with many camera features, optical is better than digital. However neither system is perfect and it is not intended to replace the need to hold the camera still. Image stabilisation is for 'action' shots, allowing the photographer to capture images whilst on the move. Taking a photo of a radio is not an action shot. It's a simple portrait. For DSLR users, a lens of 100mm or less should be selected and if using the built-in flash, take the lens hood off if a silhouette of the hood appears in the photo. If you aren't up on what aperture, ISO and shutter speed achieves, just switch to auto and let the camera do the work. If you haven't got a VERY steady hand, as Marc suggested, use a tripod. Small table tripods can be had for less than $40.00.

Photos need not be works of art. They just need to illustrate clearly what one is saying in their comments.

Yes, understandable but my camera takes film which needs to be developed! Lol
I only have my phone, which does take good photo's provided there is good lighting and my hands are steady, but most importantly, I am wearing my glasses when editing and choosing the best photo's otherwise even the good ones are blurry, but at least with my glasses on I can see that it's the photo that is blurry not just my eyes!

I still have my father's Praktica, an East German camera from the 1960s (I think). 35mm film is still readily available but for how much longer is anyone's guess. My camera is a Canon 7D. Phone and tablet cameras are okay and will do the job but yes, good light from two separate sources (or take the photo in direct sunlight) is important.

As a guide, the photos in the OP do the trick. The shot of the topside of the chassis is borderline for sharpness though if the shot of the inside of the chassis was the same it wouldn't serve a purpose.

Yes, the difference there is the lighting! I really lit it up well to get the detail visible (inside of chassis) You can see the shadow in the others.
I think the 35mm camera's like 620's will always be around, especially for artistic and hobby photography, so definitely hang on to the cannon!

I still have one of those Practica's but it is one of two, the other a Nikon that are totally mechanically worn out. I started filming a reference book, for an acquaintance, in 1988 & that has not totally finished; However, in that time it has seen the changing of a Mamiya that started out doing weddings to a Zenza Bronica (with Bellows attachment) and that pair alone could chew through 120 roll film like it was going out of fashion (and it has) they alone have chewed through over 200 rolls of film just on the book.

The digital camera is less dependent on flash, in low light, however, in a chassis flash fill is often desirable to show everything & has the ability, in providing more light, enabling a higher f stop (smaller aperture).

There is absolutely no excuse for what I call "still life with daisies" to be out, of focus, un-sharp & lacking sharpness in depth. The Nikon 5100 I have has provision for a tripod, albeit that it also has auto focus & anti shake. The closer you are to an object the more critical is movement.

The viewfinder like many these days has an adjustable dioptre what you do is auto focus (tripod desirable) on a flat object like a pattern on a wall and auto focus; at which point, & all being well it will produce an in focus photo. You then adjust the dioptre so that your eye also sees it clearly.

For the forum: Set the camera for maximum image quality. You can crop it, that will reduce its size, but with jpeg you can change the compression by using "save as" & changing it before you save. The higher the compression the crappier it looks.

If you print on glossy paper you can scan it (some tablets can(?). I have a stand alone scanner that can scan documents, reversal film, and negative film.

Marc