Yesterday I squashed my camera ...

[John Koehrer]

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.

LTM Leicas for one. Between the lens mount and body sleeve. Also some Pentax. they're usually glued to the front plate and may not discombobulate themselves when they're taken apart.

 

[Tom1956]

Thanks for the link. I have a couple of very good shape Spotmatic F's that I should wear out before I get another camera on the shelf, maybe I won't live long enough for that... I will try to be careful, these being as old as me deserve some precautions. Pentax SVs are not that frequent though. I found that the film rewind is so much smoother that the spotmatics, I might still try to find another one.

Those SPF's were nice cameras. I bought one of the first ones back in 74 as a teenager. But I was always put-off by the lens cap as your meter switch.

 

[ambaker]

Was wondering pretty much the same thing here...

I have a MIR-1 M39 lens that does not have an infinity stop. Normally a M39 lens will not focus to infinity on an EOS body. But this one will, because of the missing stop. Unless the focusing screen is off, I've always found whatever is sharp in the viewfinder, to be sharp on the film...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[AOCo]

LTM Leicas for one. Between the lens mount and body sleeve. Also some Pentax. they're usually glued to the front plate and may not discombobulate themselves when they're taken apart.

The SV has some too, precisely to adjust the lens mount. I found that my camera only had one mounted, though. I don't think I will embark into trying to add some, since I believe you it's not an easy thing.

 

[AOCo]

Those SPF's were nice cameras. I bought one of the first ones back in 74 as a teenager. But I was always put-off by the lens cap as your meter switch.

Yes, that is a real pain, but mostly when the lens has a hood that you need to unscrew before to put the cap back on.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

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.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

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.

 

[AOCo]

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.

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.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

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.

 

[Tom1956]

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.