And as for the late 50's-60's Hammarlunds--there's no better receivers out there. I can align one to where I practically never have to crystal-oscillate.
I know the R-388. It is a remarkable device.There's a companion transmitter to that, also electrically/remotely tuned. There's an "Old Military Net" on (IIRC) Sunday mornings on the 75m ham band, guys are using these sets still. Some are even using the original carbon mikes, which give an "interesting" sound quality.
My main serious SW listening reciever is a Collins R-388. I can tune a sideband signal with the BFO, shut the set off for a day, turn it on and after about 30 minutes it's right back on top of the signal. They just amaze me.
Hurst shifters were used because they were better than stock shifters for performance. Sometimes modifications make sense. Not every car at a car show must be stock. Otherwise there would be no Customs and no Rods. Clean, period-correct modifications are especially valued- Hurst shifters, Cragars, Airheart brakes, Holley carbs, all a testament to a time, type of machine and level of technology.People who modify and destroy factory originality should be taken out and horsewhipped. I don't know how many times I've had to undo some knucklehead's destruction and put it back to factory. I went to great lengths to put my 68 Camaro Convertible back to showroom. ANYBODY can cut holes in the floorboard to install Hurst shifters, and all sorts of destruction like that. Everything has the right to exist the way the factory made it.
People who modify and destroy factory originality should be taken out and horsewhipped. I don't know how many times I've had to undo some knucklehead's destruction and put it back to factory. I went to great lengths to put my 68 Camaro Convertible back to showroom. ANYBODY can cut holes in the floorboard to install Hurst shifters, and all sorts of destruction like that. Everything has the right to exist the way the factory made it.
I would thing the smartest way is just to detail my question, then follow with my qualification level afterward. I hope some Hasselblad-qualified people dive in, just for my edification, as I have no intention to take their knowledge and then compete with them by hanging a camera-repair shingle.Picking back up on this thread at a later date, I have done more study on this problem of inconsistent infinity on the Hasselblads. What I hope is that some other Hasselblad techs will join in--whether factory-taught, or self taught (like me). Having none of the dozens of special tools and test-jigs, I have to rely on a mixture of a dial caliper, and common sense. There's some things I have no business tampering with. I have a rule--don't adjust something if you don't have the fancy factory jig for it. Having said that--I COULD do it with the right tools.
So on with the question: why is there seemingly no point of perfect infinity when I switch lenses across the old 500CM's and ELM-era cameras? I've worked on maybe 20-30 different Hasselblad items. Heck, maybe 50 times by now... I clean and re-lube the lenses or foam the bodies--stuff like that. And you know something truthful?--there's never any meaningful infinity adjustment. Take the 80mm off one and put it on another, and it's never dead-on. Sometimes a downright disappointment. Or maybe I'm just too sensitive. Now that my question is stated, please give due credit to my 45 years of working on cameras as an extremely advanced hobbiest. I know that the Hasselblad repair people have gazillions of dollars of equipment and tolerances to the electron. I know full well what I have no business taking apart or fouling up, without the right test fixtures. Thank you. ***************************************
As far as having the infinity symbol on the lens being all over the place when switching from one body to another--this is something I consider an error-percentage that is completely unacceptable. Downright sorry, actually, at least in my opinion.
I believe I've found at least 1 culprit. I cannot prove it, but I suspect that it is so--I don't have the mirror fixtures and/or jigs. I believe STRONGLY that it is the mirror-hinges more that any other 1 thing. I think all that killer-strong jerking of the whole axle assembly to be yanking these mirror measurements out-of-whack. The one most glaringly disappointing design characteristics is that the C's and CM's all have their mirrors flip up cattywampus. Higher on the right, because that is the side where the spring is. An ELM has a stilt in the left side to keep the mirror supported, and going up straight.
But on a C or CM, I'll be a nickle the reason I can't be made happy with infinity on the ground glass is because these mirrors have beaten themselves silly, to where it's just plain out-of-adjustment. Any input would be appreciated.
I wish I could get my hands on the jigs and fixtures you factory-trained guys have. Fooling around with the 45 angle for me would be foolish. All I can do is approach things another way. I have an 80mm lens with no screwdriver marks on the little screw that holds the distance scale on. From this I deduce that the lens has never been touched or disturbed from the factory setting, 2) A dial caliper shows a nominal 71.4mm from the black front body flange (with the round-cornered rectangular opening) measured from there to the pressure plate of a film back. Measuring this on 2 cameras gives the same reading, so I ASSUME this is not out-of-whack. So that brings me to the focusing screen. So I ask myself why anyone would have fooled with the 4 little pegs the CM screen sits on. Since there is no reason why anyone would have fooled with them, then that leaves me only the mirror. So I as myself why anyone would have bent the bottom stop arm. Once again, there is no reason to believe it's off adjustment. So, I've run out of reasons why infinity never turns up the same when switching lenses across cameras.Henry, I am sure that the mirror hinges are not the problem. The mirrors are slightly higher on the right on the older C, CMs by design. The mirror glass is supported by three foam pads, these can be perished on older cameras, replace these and set the mirror to EXACTLY 45 degrees relative to the image plane.
This is my third attempt to add to this thread but for some reason within this thread my replies do not get posted!!!
Thank you, and I intend to replace them, when I finalize my game plan to address everything I intend to do, having the chassis out of the outer case ONCE.Henry, I cant provide a solution to your problem. Without factory tools it will hard but not impossible. You have misunderstood what I said. The foam mirror cushions are not just important, there are essential to the consistent and reliable alignment of the mirror. If you re-read your own description you can see that you have ruled out everything else. Change them.
Thank you very kindly for your help, guys. I am about afraid you professionals have just shot down my Hasselblad tech "career" in flames. First, those pads look like a very special part--not something I can cut out of the model railroad foam stock I've been using on my foaming projects. Secondly, it appears I'm going to have to take the back plate out of the chassis just to get to it, which opens up a whole new can of worms putting it back together without proper jigs, and a lot of adjustment.You've misunderstood- the mirror is supported by three foam pads between the mirror and the mirror backing plate.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?