Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,692   Posts: 1,548,957   Online: 761
      
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 35 of 35
  1. #31

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,459
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom1956 View Post
    What kind of camera were you working on that had shims in it? I've worked on a number of Japanese 35's and have not run up on any shims yet. Thanks.
    A Yashica TL Super. My Pentax H1a has them too, between the chromed brass front and the body casting. (although I didn't mix these up). You can find shims under the mount flange, IIRC my Nikkormat has them; and often associated with the mirror box.

  2. #32

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,459
    Quote Originally Posted by AOCo View Post
    Not too sure about this one. If I can get the image nicely focused on the ground glass, won't it be in focus on the film plane ? After all my view camera focuses past infinity and is very usable.
    Then it's only a question of film advance and shutter speed, which both seem unaffected.
    Yes, if: a) the mirror and focus screen have not been knocked out of position and b) the flange to film distance is correct.

    Your view camera is useable because the film when inserted takes the place of the groundglass. An slr relies on the alignment of the filmplane with the focussing screen via a mirror to provide accurate focus - they're completely different animals.

  3. #33
    AOCo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Bretagne
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    69
    Images
    5
    Good point. I shall see very shortly with the development of the first "after crash" film. It is quite obvious that the camera is no longer suitable for critical work anyway, my only concern would be to keep it for casual shooting.

    Quote Originally Posted by E. von Hoegh View Post
    Yes, if: a) the mirror and focus screen have not been knocked out of position and b) the flange to film distance is correct.
    I am still not understanding how the flange to film distance is important here : suppose the flange is pushed inside (and kept perfectly parallel, which we know is not true of course), if the helicoid movement compensates this, the geometry is the same as previously, only the focusing distance indicates, say 3m where in fact we are at infinity, but that would not be a problem if we use the ground glass for focusing (and here I agree with you that we must assume it has not moved). I don't mean to stir pointless contradiction here, I'm just trying to understand where I missed your point.

  4. #34

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,459
    Quote Originally Posted by AOCo View Post
    Good point. I shall see very shortly with the development of the first "after crash" film. It is quite obvious that the camera is no longer suitable for critical work anyway, my only concern would be to keep it for casual shooting.



    I am still not understanding how the flange to film distance is important here : suppose the flange is pushed inside (and kept perfectly parallel, which we know is not true of course), if the helicoid movement compensates this, the geometry is the same as previously, only the focusing distance indicates, say 3m where in fact we are at infinity, but that would not be a problem if we use the ground glass for focusing (and here I agree with you that we must assume it has not moved). I don't mean to stir pointless contradiction here, I'm just trying to understand where I missed your point.
    If the flange is still parralel to the filmplane, and if the screen is still properly placed and aligned, and if the problem is isolated to the camera body and the lens is unaffected, your assumption will be correct. That's three "ifs", which is three too many.
    Did you read my previous post about what I had to do to verify the correct distance and parralelism of the flange on one of my cameras? I went to all that trouble because flange placement is the "foundation", you must get that correct before you can get anything else correct - all depends on the proper placement of the flange. And this was on a camera body I couldn't sell for more than say $30, and will probably use a bit and then give away. If a job's worth doing it's worth doing properly.
    Last edited by E. von Hoegh; 07-09-2013 at 11:50 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  5. #35

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    US
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    2,060
    I'd say the camera is trashed. And I'm somebody who doesn't accept that easily. I would not shoot another picture with it.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin