Film plane to flange distance is controlled by shims under the lens mounting flange. I think there were spacers of various thickness used to set this, rather than a stack of shims.Thank you for the lead on the Copal manual. I wasn't aware of it. Although I don't relish getting involved with watchworks, which is about the scope of it. My eyesight and tools are lacking. I had hoped to find out if it was OK to switch mirror boxes. But not knowing if it would disturb lens mount to film rail distance, I'm not going to without being better educated. I know you can adjust infinity on the screen with the lower mirror stop adjustment. But that doesn't help the film plane matter. From all that I see, this is entirely dependent on the tolerances in manufacture of the body casting and mirror box. I would have thought that they at least would have used thin brass spacer washers or something for fine adjustment. But no, the mirror box just mounts straight to the body, taking the lens mount and meter contact doughnut with it. From there, what ever measurement to the film plane is what it is. This just seems odd. I wonder if the F and F2 were like that, or did they put more attention to this measurement in them? I wonder if there is another site with more repair people on it than this one. I don't have access to a computer often enough to get into detailed conversations.
The mirror box casting and main body casting may have been machined as a set, eliminating the need for shims as long as tolerances are held. If so, swapping mirror boxes between bodies might not be a good idea.I'm betting the die cast aluminum frame was machined to precise measurements eliminating the need for shims.
Time to get out the caliper and do some careful measurements then order some brass shim stock if needed.The mirror box casting and main body casting may have been machined as a set, eliminating the need for shims as long as tolerances are held.
Thanks for all the replies. Sometimes you don't get exactly the information you had hoped for, but enough to make you think for yourself. As it turns out what I was seeking was called flange distance, which is 46.5mm on a Nikon F. So a Nikkormat would obviously follow suit. Actually both of these bodies are restorable instead of parting one to save the other. Although I don't relish the idea of removing the Copal shutter from one to clean and lube it. That gets into the area of watch and clockmaker's work. Something tells me that simply lubricating a clock mechanism on top of old dried lubricant, instead of disassembly and sonic cleaning is a short term fix. Maybe I'll just put them on ebay as-is and get them out of mind and be glad I have a nice F and a nice FT2 already. I appreciate these replies.Copal square:Other than the clockworks I've never seen anything about lubrication
on any part of the shutter blades themselves.
If you've got the cameras apart why not try it? If you could borrow a depth micrometer you
could make a comparative reading or three.
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?