Yashica-44 close focus problem

My recently acquired Y-44 LM seems to have a problem. I cannot focus closer than 1.1m. The focus knob stops with a solid clunk at this distance.
I have been inside the mechanism and the outermost cams (which push the lens assembly back to the infinity position) are, at the close focus end of rotation hitting the spring-loaded cam follower with the point of their tear-drop shape before 1m and a long way from an indicated 0.9m.
I have set the knob on infinity (looking at a pylon 1 Km away) and cannot understand why this is happening.
Do these cams wear down with useage in a well-loved camera or is it an undocumented 'feature'? My memory of my first Yashica-44 of the mid-60s does not include any problem with focussing up close.
Most puzzling. Any help appreciated.
Murray
Brisbane, Oz

That's where my Y-44 LM stops...

A-ha! As I wondered - an 'undocumented feature'. Seems curious they should go to all that trouble to print a scale they didn't think would be achievable.

There is a stop on the side plate intended to prevent the focus knob pins turning too far either way and at close-up the pin/stop are way apart. Doesn't even get close. Wonder if the knob and scale are from another model?

I'd try grinding a little off the cam but it'd probably cause probs. at the infinity end then.

Thank you for that bit of info.

Murray

Kino said:

That's where my Y-44 LM stops...

Click to expand...

Hold on, hold on, I was looking at a simple 44 last night, the LM part I absentmindedly missed.

You may very well have an internal "issue" with your focus.

Shouldn't do the Internet when drowsy...

After shooting and developing a couple of Maco (Efke) 100
rolls I decided to scan them even tho the scanner really
only takes 35mm. I read somewhere that you put a mirror
behind the film and just scan like a regular piece of paper.
Works sorta but certainly I will look into it more. A plain white
background would work as well or batter.

The scans were at 1200 dpi but I noticed they were somewhat fuzzy.
Put that down to the 1200 dpi. I could do better with 35mm
or even the 16mm, dammit!

THEN I looked at the negatives more closely with a loupe.
They were fuzzy too - nothing to do with the scanner.
I thought to myself - I've bought a lemon. :-(

With a ground glass at the film gate sure enough the images were
fuzzy. Took quite a while to return to the negs and decide that
the foreground was acceptibly sharp - like 4' at 6' focus!

Took out the lenses' front elements in case someone had been and put
elements in back to front - nope - looked OK - but there had
been someone in there. Scratched my head and wondered if the
focus was so clear how come the pictures weren't? How do they
set it up so they show the same thing?

Took off the hood to look at the focus lens' mount inside
(the mirror fell out but landed on the table!) and I pondered the
system they use to get the lenses in register. Very awkward
and I wasn't about to do anything rash with that from the angle
I was at.

Polished the mirror and put it back - quite hard to clip in actually
- so - how come it just fell out? Then the penny fell. It was loose
all the time! Sure enough - checked infinity and it wasn't.
Focussing way closer now in the screen just like the film gate.
Wouldn't even go to infinity now.

Went through the focus knob realignment very cautiously this time,
remembering the diabolicals I got into the first time. and with it
all back in place rechecked the film gate - spot on! Nice and
sharp and agreeing with the finder.

To my amazement, the focus now goes to 0.9m (3') - can you
believe that? The loose mirror must've been jamming the works
but not out of place enough to draw attention to itself.

Murray

I'm pretty sure that's as close as it goes, to my reccollextion this was NOT a close up portrait camera.

S.M.A.R.T.answer after 9 years

I'm smarting under that one!

Murry, would you happen to have a layout if the cam position. I have the same problem but in my case the top cam was floating in the shaft. I can't seem to get the cam back in timing.