Strange. I'll have a look in a couple of days, but I'm sure there is no foam and certainly no clear glass there. I have an early C330 if that makes a difference, and pictures made with the 180mm lens are sharp, even wide open.
First Medium Format Purchase! Advice!!
-
A
- Thread starter KidA
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Nikon s2 with 50mm 1.4
- Started by Gram Nylén
-
Sold Fujifilm 4x5 Fujichrome Veliva 100 and Fujifilm 4x5 Fujichrome 64T. EXPIRED
- Started by Renato Tonelli
-
Sold Fujifilm Neopan 100 Acros 120 and 4x5
- Started by Renato Tonelli
-
For Sale Nikkor 5cm f2 ltm
- Started by Gram Nylén
Forum statistics
Strange. I'll have a look in a couple of days, but I'm sure there is no foam and certainly no clear glass there. I have an early C330 if that makes a difference, and pictures made with the 180mm lens are sharp, even wide open.
This rot happened to my C-33 but I didn't know the C-330's were susceptible to it. I bought the repair manual and learned how to do it, but when I opened it up it had all these microscopic screws and washers that had to be put back together so very precisely that I just couldn't do it. I stewed on this, real pissed off, for almost a year before sending it to a guy in Boulder. It came back perfect and is a joy to use now. I've read that the C-330 GG mount design is different and not as difficult to re-align as the C-33.
Definitely. I own two C330 cameras and about three or four focusing screens and ALL of them had that issue. Sometimes the foam goes away so much that you think there isn't supposed to be any foam there.
This pic illustrates well:
There is a gap between the "platform" that supports the focus screen and the base of the focusing screen. This gap is where the foam should be, so the "platform" has a "springy" effect when pushed. No gap = rotten foam. No "springy effect" = rotten foam.
It's just four tiny screws, there are no washers to loose. Not so difficult.
Attachments
Yes, that has a very different look from the C-33. Now I understand the difference and it does look a lot easier to do. Do you need to get dedicated material or have you found something that works?
You buy a rubber mouse pad and then cut small rubber pieces as needed with scissors or knife. Works pretty well.
This is getting very off topic now, but I guess KidA will benefit from this information when he buys his first Mamiya TLR (he SHOULD...)
Yes, he should. They are heavy, industrial-strength cameras, but reliable and very stable photo platforms. The lenses are wonderful performers and the interchangeability gives them a flexibility like no other tlr.
Exactly ... AND the lenses are smaller and lighter (in the camera bag) than the lenses of many SLR medium format systems.
I'm bias towards Hasselblad, and therefore, suggest aHasselblad 501c with 80mmf/2.8 and then in time a 50mmf/4 and a 150mmf/4 for wide and portrait from Carl Zeiss.This makes for a vwery practical and flexible set, which can last you a lifetime.My reason is hat the 501c was still made relatively recently and they are available in decent shape 2nd hand.For the extra lenses, I suggest the CF versions for the samereason.Older C -series lenses are hardwer to service and often spare parts are hard to find.
I dislike all battery-dependent equipment but for the hand-held meter, I make an exception.My Gossen Luna-Star F-2 does all I need from ambient to flash and 9V block batteries are available almost anywhere
It's a ver reliable meter.For spot metering I got a Pentax,because it was simpler with the Zone System.Also,other brands andmodels of light meters are available for any size budget.I'm just partial to Gossenbecause, I'm German and my Dad always wanted one. In a way ,I fulfilled his dream for me;Coming to think of it,That's ho I ended up with the Hasselblad too;good thing,He never wanted a Lear JetI dislike all battery-dependent equipment but for the hand-held meter, I make an exception.My Gossen Luna-Star F-2 does all I need from ambient to flash and 9V block batteries are available almost anywhere
Ralph, I completely agree with you about the Pentax spot meters. They are so simple to use. I own two digital spot meters and the Spot Meter V analog. I also own a Minolta Flash Meter lV. It does ambient to flash like your Gossen. Liking German products is completely understandable. Germany has always been synonymous with quality. I'm not German but my wife is of German descent.
I've just never had a problem with batteries for cameras. I've always taken spares with me just in case. My Wehman 8x10 is of course battery free and so is my Stereo Realist 35mm but my Fujifilm X100s takes a rechargeable battery so I carry a spare for it. All I can say is if anyone hates batteries they better stay away from digital capture. Of course that's probably not hard for most APUG members
Funny you should say that. I have noticed that my backpack is no heavier when filled with the C-33 and lenses than the Minolta 35mm and lenses.
Always? I'm not so sure, after having dissasembled for example a Thorens TD166 turntable. It looks quality from the outside, but not on the inside. On the inside is horrible stuff except for the main bearing.
Another "quality" example: Zeiss Ikon SL706. How the mighty have fallen. Or the singapore-built Rollei SL35E. Those are german products as well.
It seems that during the 70s the build quality of german consumer electronics went down the drain.
Well, it used to be at one time.
It's sad how quality has gone down the tubes on a lot of things because the masses want cheap. I wonder what is going to happen when all the land fills are full and there is no where to put the crap.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2015
- Messages
- 1,983
- Format
- Plastic Cameras
There's always going to be some compromises: You want through-the-lens framing accuracy, film backs and onboard light metering, it's going to become kind of large and heavy and won't be as much fun for more spontaneous, hand-held shots.
Hasselblad 500-series is not really the macro monster that the SL66 is, but as a tradeoff that's well-supported and somewhat smaller, it's very nice. Although you can accessorize it with features such as TTL metering, you may want to think twice given the bulk and weight that it adds versus just dealing with a small handheld light meter.
If I were to buy a medium format camera for everyday use today? I might take a close look at the Fujifilm GS645W. Which doesn't offer macro focusing or TTL viewing, but IME, with practice a person can get very good framing accuracy with a rangefinder camera. And unless I were also carrying a tripod, I'm not going to get great MF macro results anyway: The small digital camera really is the king of handheld macro shots. Depth of field is typically shallower with larger formats, and that doesn't always work to your benefit with macro. 6x4.5 is a very good choice when you want a big jump up from 35mm quality but you still want the freedom to shoot casual snaps. While you can do this with say a 6x9 rangefinder camera, you'd kind of be wasting film as camera shake tends to negate the added quality potential.
Hasselblad 500-series is not really the macro monster that the SL66 is, but as a tradeoff that's well-supported and somewhat smaller, it's very nice. Although you can accessorize it with features such as TTL metering, you may want to think twice given the bulk and weight that it adds versus just dealing with a small handheld light meter.
If I were to buy a medium format camera for everyday use today? I might take a close look at the Fujifilm GS645W. Which doesn't offer macro focusing or TTL viewing, but IME, with practice a person can get very good framing accuracy with a rangefinder camera. And unless I were also carrying a tripod, I'm not going to get great MF macro results anyway: The small digital camera really is the king of handheld macro shots. Depth of field is typically shallower with larger formats, and that doesn't always work to your benefit with macro. 6x4.5 is a very good choice when you want a big jump up from 35mm quality but you still want the freedom to shoot casual snaps. While you can do this with say a 6x9 rangefinder camera, you'd kind of be wasting film as camera shake tends to negate the added quality potential.
medium 6x6 and 4x4
Ralph, I completely agree with you about the Pentax spot meters. They are so simple to use. I own two digital spot meters and the Spot Meter V analog. I also own a Minolta Flash Meter lV. It does ambient to flash like your Gossen. Liking German products is completely understandable. Germany has always been synonymous with quality. I'm not German but my wife is of German descent.
I've just never had a problem with batteries for cameras. I've always taken spares with me just in case. My Wehman 8x10 is of course battery free and so is my Stereo Realist 35mm but my Fujifilm X100s takes a rechargeable battery so I carry a spare for it. All I can say is if anyone hates batteries they better stay away from digital capture. Of course that's probably not hard for most APUG members
It actually were the Brits who demanded German import products to be labeled with 'made in Germany' to deter the British public from buying them but, that backfired.
Here is some good German quality! http://www.festoolusa.com/
I only see it with the 250mm lens, not on the 150mm lens. Again it is barely noticeable and does not show up on film.
Definitely. I own two C330 cameras and about three or four focusing screens and ALL of them had that issue. Sometimes the foam goes away so much that you think there isn't supposed to be any foam there.
This pic illustrates well:
There is a gap between the "platform" that supports the focus screen and the base of the focusing screen. This gap is where the foam should be, so the "platform" has a "springy" effect when pushed. No gap = rotten foam. No "springy effect" = rotten foam.
It's just four tiny screws, there are no washers to loose. Not so difficult.
I did have a look at my mamiya and there is indeed foam between the frame and the subframe hodlding the focusing screen in place. When the foam rottens nothing happens as the correct distance between the two frames is maintained by the four screws seen in the picture provided by flavio. It is however possible that when the camera is turned upside down the frames come together when there is no foam in between to keep them apart. So if the foam rottens, something shoud be put between the two frames to keep them apart (the distance is maintained by the screws mentioned before) when gravitation works agains it (the camera is turned upside down, for instance). I hope my explanation was clear enough.
Last edited by a moderator:
This is not correct.
The problem is not the distance between the two frames. That distance, per se, does not matter at all since it does not have any effect on focusing.
The problem is that the ground glass (aka "focus screen") needs to make perfect, flat, and consistent contact with the three focusing screen posts, which you can see in this pic ("locating lugs"):
Gravity alone isn't enough, it needs some pressure, and the foam provides it.
I'm not writing anything new, this problem is well known in the internet, for example in this thread in other forum, from which I took away the pictures. This thread contains step-by-step images and it's very good:
http://photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/00N8kt?start=0
Again, you need thick, pliable foam. The springier and taller, the better.
If this service is not done to your Mamiya, it will not be able to fully realize the potential of the MAMIYA-SEKOR lenses, some of which (like the 180/4.5) are just superb, and a focal length Rolleiflex owners can't enjoy.
Attachments
Last edited by a moderator:
This has to be very precise. I went to the trouble to calculate how far mine was off. Not knowing about the Mamiya-recommended procedure, I put pieces of tape at carefully measured distances on a brick wall and shot at a 45 degrees, using all 4 lenses from 3 different distances (12 shots), focusing on the same point every time. With the 180mm lens at 15 feet, it was so far off that the actual in-focus area was outside the field of view and did not appear on the film. After doing the math, every photo agreed that the distance from the lens to the focus screen was 1mm less than the distance to the film plane.
Last edited by a moderator:
It is correct, gravity alone is enough to keep the right distance between the two frames, foam in between is of course better. The three poles undernath are just stopping the inner (smaller) frame at the correct distance when in contact.
I seriously disagree. I had focus problems with the 180mm that were solved after replacing the foam. Check out the forum thread i cited above, i'm not alone in claiming the foam is necessary for corrext focus.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |