Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
PhotoKB Home
Discussion Groups
Digital Photography
Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot Cameras
Film Photography
35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther Equipment
Photo Technique
Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique General
General Photo Topics
General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK Photography
DirectoryPhoto Clubs

Photo Forum / Film Photography / Medium format / February 2007

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Sharpness - Mamiya C330

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Peter Chant - 05 Jan 2007 00:56 GMT
Chaps,

I've got a Mamiya C330f which I am mostly very pleased with.  However, I
have noticed that a number of images - though reasonable were not as sharp
as I was expecting.  This was highlighted when on a recent film there was
one exceptionally sharp print.  Does this sound to you like I need to get
someone to look at the focusing screen / mirror alignment?

I almost exclusively handhold (I can hear the protests now) but zooming in
on the negs / scans does not indicate any symptoms of shake.

I suppose another option is to buy another body off of ebay (bodies on their
own seem to go for much less than lens + body) and see how that is, perhaps
having a go myself on the least good camera.

Pete

Signature

http://www.petezilla.co.uk

RolandRB - 05 Jan 2007 04:22 GMT
> Chaps,
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> own seem to go for much less than lens + body) and see how that is, perhaps
> having a go myself on the least good camera.

It could be due to camera shake. To eliminate this as a possibility
then I would advice you to shoot a roll with the camera tripod mounted
and inspect the results closely using an 8x lupe or higher. If you
still have soft images then post back here as there are other factors
that could be involved such as the focussing screen spacing needing to
be adjusted.
Peter Chant - 06 Jan 2007 12:51 GMT
> It could be due to camera shake. To eliminate this as a possibility
> then I would advice you to shoot a roll with the camera tripod mounted
> and inspect the results closely using an 8x lupe or higher. If you
> still have soft images then post back here as there are other factors
> that could be involved such as the focussing screen spacing needing to
> be adjusted.

Will try - today or tomorrow - will take a while to get the film back
though.

I'm wondering if I ought to set something up on a table so I a target to aim
at that is say 2m away and a few more in front of and behind of, just to
see if the area of sharp focus is somewhere other than where it should be.
Of course - this is all table top which is close and I usually shoot
landscapes - OTOH it should be more sensative of focus problems.

Pete

Signature

http://www.petezilla.co.uk

Duncan - 05 Jan 2007 05:11 GMT
The 330 is much lighter than the 33's I used to use that helped cradle the
camera as you do with the rack focusing. So it could be shake but then it
would show over all the image.

I'd check the lens fitting as it may not be fitting correctly and may just
show signs of image softening due to poor registration. I found the lenses
to be crisp and sharp albeit contrasty. But then I like that.

Duncan

> Chaps,
>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> Pete
PRO SHOW_SS - 05 Jan 2007 06:08 GMT
you know i have kinda the same problem....at 2.8 and slow shutter my
pics are blurr..at f8 or f11 @60th...they are ok...sharp and
clear....was told nothing was wrong with the camera when i took it
in....any ideas on that one from you guys....the camera now just
sits....any help would be great...........thanks

wayne
RolandRB - 05 Jan 2007 07:48 GMT
> you know i have kinda the same problem....at 2.8 and slow shutter my
> pics are blurr..at f8 or f11 @60th...they are ok...sharp and
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> wayne

You shouldn't expect the lens to be sharp at full aperture. Why not
continue to use it at f8 or f11 if it gives you results that you like?
PRO SHOW_SS - 07 Jan 2007 06:35 GMT
my other C330 works just fine...not this one....i use 2.8 i churh for
natual lght....one camer blurrr other sharp as can be
RolandRB - 07 Jan 2007 07:33 GMT
> my other C330 works just fine...not this one....i use 2.8 i churh for
> natual lght....one camer blurrr other sharp as can be

Then you need to have the spacers changed for the viewing screen. These
heavy cameras are prone to having the top lens of the pair of lenses
knocked backwards when the camera is dropped (it nearly always lands on
the top lens - you can tell from the filter ring being bent on a lot of
these lenses). This reduces the distance from the top lens to the
focussing screen and also the angle so spacers need to be put on the
focussing screen to get it to agree with the focus on the film.
RolandRB - 07 Jan 2007 07:47 GMT
> > my other C330 works just fine...not this one....i use 2.8 i churh for
> > natual lght....one camer blurrr other sharp as can be
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> focussing screen and also the angle so spacers need to be put on the
> focussing screen to get it to agree with the focus on the film.

Just to expand on that, it is not the lens itself that gets shortened
by an impact (it will just get the filter ring dented) but rather it is
the lens housing that gets knocked back. You will be able to see this
if you look carefully at the affected camera because at infinity the
edge that makes contact with the camera body will touch the housing at
the top before the bottom of the lens housing does. To my way of
thinking, this is a design fault as this is way too easily damaged
considering the rest of the camera is so heavy and prone to being
dropped. Nearly all these camera have added spacer washers and strips
to move the focussing screen up so as to compensate. I think they are
great cameras (I have a few) but you have got to be aware of this
weakness with them and to be on the lookout for a problem with it.
Peter Chant - 07 Jan 2007 11:42 GMT
> dropped. Nearly all these camera have added spacer washers and strips
> to move the focussing screen up so as to compensate. I think they are
> great cameras (I have a few) but you have got to be aware of this
> weakness with them and to be on the lookout for a problem with it.

I think they are screws on the C330f?

Signature

http://www.petezilla.co.uk

RolandRB - 07 Jan 2007 20:30 GMT
> > dropped. Nearly all these camera have added spacer washers and strips
> > to move the focussing screen up so as to compensate. I think they are
> > great cameras (I have a few) but you have got to be aware of this
> > weakness with them and to be on the lookout for a problem with it.
>
> I think they are screws on the C330f?

I haven't got that model but I think that would be a good idea.
PRO SHOW_SS - 08 Jan 2007 04:21 GMT
camera has never been dropped...next idea?
RolandRB - 08 Jan 2007 07:13 GMT
> camera has never been dropped...next idea?

Not that you know of. You can't be certain of this unless you had it
from new and if you did then why didn't you take it back when you
noticed the problem?

Check the edge oif the lens housing like I said and see if the top
touched the camera body before the bottom does when you move it to
infinity focus.
PRO SHOW_SS - 09 Jan 2007 06:11 GMT
iT happen like 4 years ago..took it in to get checked...they said
nothing was wrong with it...so i just let it sit.. and this thread got
me thinking of it again...i've owned it since new...its a C330
Professional S
RolandRB - 09 Jan 2007 07:30 GMT
> iT happen like 4 years ago..took it in to get checked...they said
> nothing was wrong with it...so i just let it sit.. and this thread got
> me thinking of it again...i've owned it since new...its a C330
> Professional S

It's a shame it was not sorted out while under guarantee but then what
can you do if they say the camera is OK when they checked it? Take the
WLF off and see if you can take out the focussing screen. Find out if
it is using spacers or adjusted by screws. You need to make sure that
when the taking lens is focussed at infinity then the image is also in
focus over the whole of the viewing screen. Once that is done they you
shouldn't have any more trouble with sharpness, assuming this is not a
lens problem.
PRO SHOW_SS - 10 Jan 2007 04:13 GMT
whats the chances of the lens needing to be shimmed.......?........when
i took the oics last time i remember them being shrp in the
screen....just at wide open and 1/60th the pics are blurred when
printed....but i can shoot f8-f11@1/60th and the pics are clear as a
bell.
i though maybe the sync was out...the shop said it was off a little but
nothingto worry abot...showed them the pics and they just scratched
there heads.....maybe i'll put the C330 Professional S on ebay and let
someone else play with it......i'm lost ....but i have my C330 f
....and my Hasselblads to use.....someday someone will figure out the
problem and i'll have a like new camera again.

wayne
PRO SHOW_SS - 10 Jan 2007 04:15 GMT
what kind of lens problem might it have.....i should try switching lenes
once and shoot a rool at the same conditions........

wayne
RolandRB - 10 Jan 2007 05:43 GMT
> what kind of lens problem might it have.....i should try switching lenes
> once and shoot a rool at the same conditions........
>
> wayne

Before you do that, has it got a door problem? The doors can sometimes
shut and lock and seem properly shut but when you press hard at the top
in the corners you will get the extra clicks that tell you the door is
truly closed and locked and therefore giving the pressure plate the
correct pressure. If the pressure plate is not at enough prressure then
you are quite likely to get soft results, except at the smaller
apertures.

As for it being a lens problem, you should try out a roll using a lens
you know to be reliable from use on your other camera body. If that
gives consistently good results then you would have to suspect the
original lens that gave you the unsharp pictures. Maybe somebody has
taken the rear lens group apart and put it back together wrong.
RolandRB - 10 Jan 2007 07:40 GMT
> > what kind of lens problem might it have.....i should try switching lenes
> > once and shoot a rool at the same conditions........
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> original lens that gave you the unsharp pictures. Maybe somebody has
> taken the rear lens group apart and put it back together wrong.

And if you are sure the door closes properly and you use a lens you
know always gives sharp results on the other camera body and you are
sure the lens seats properly on your problem camera and you still get
soft results at wider apertures then it is almost certainly due to the
viewing screen needing its spacers adjusted so that sharp focus in the
film plane coincides with sharp focus on the viewing screen. You should
be able to adjust this yourself with the help of a spare viewing screen
(or even a broken one like I use) taped to the film rails and the use
of a good lupe.
RolandRB - 10 Jan 2007 10:12 GMT
> > > what kind of lens problem might it have.....i should try switching lenes
> > > once and shoot a rool at the same conditions........
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> (or even a broken one like I use) taped to the film rails and the use
> of a good lupe.

I take it you have already checked the pressure plate on the faulty
camera body (you could compare it to the pressure plate on the good
camera body by pushing it down to see if it gives roughly the same
amount of return push). I'd be amazed if the camera shop missed such a
fault but you never know.
PRO SHOW_SS - 11 Jan 2007 04:47 GMT
just checked the plate....she's tight.....they didn't miss that......i
might try my good lens on this body and run a roll thre it....i shoot it
tomorrow thursday and get the film back fri...i'll let you know the
results......
RolandRB - 11 Jan 2007 05:59 GMT
> just checked the plate....she's tight.....they didn't miss that......i
> might try my good lens on this body and run a roll thre it....i shoot it
> tomorrow thursday and get the film back fri...i'll let you know the
> results......

Did you try pushing the door in hard using your thumbs in the top two
corners to see if it had further to go?
PRO SHOW_SS - 11 Jan 2007 06:37 GMT
yep....didn't move..so i'm going to switch the lens and shoot a roll
thursday
RolandRB - 11 Jan 2007 13:27 GMT
> yep....didn't move..so i'm going to switch the lens and shoot a roll
> thursday

When you scratch the top of the viewing screen with your nail, is it
the smooth side or the rough side?
PRO SHOW_SS - 13 Jan 2007 05:44 GMT
well the pics are cak...what idid was  put a piece of news paper on the
wall and ytook a light meter...2.8 @60.....they came out blurred....then
gave it more light...8@60..sharp and clear..then tooh the camer
outside...8 @60 infinity....sharp and clear as well.....same peoblem as
before at wide open.....
RolandRB - 13 Jan 2007 06:11 GMT
> well the pics are cak...what idid was  put a piece of news paper on the
> wall and ytook a light meter...2.8 @60.....they came out blurred....then
> gave it more light...8@60..sharp and clear..then tooh the camer
> outside...8 @60 infinity....sharp and clear as well.....same peoblem as
> before at wide open.....

Then the focussing screen washers and spacers need to be adjusted. I
can't think what else could be wrong if you are sure the pressure plate
is OK and the door is properly closed and not just seeming that way and
your eyes are OK. It won't be out by much but enough to throw it out at
full aperture. At f8 you have enough depth of focus to get away with it
but at f2.8 not.

I think your camera shop people must be useless in that they did not
sort out this problem for you, especially considering you bought the
camera from new.

Do you have a viewing screen or even a piece of one that you can tape
to the film rails?
RolandRB - 14 Jan 2007 08:08 GMT
> > well the pics are cak...what idid was  put a piece of news paper on the
> > wall and ytook a light meter...2.8 @60.....they came out blurred....then
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> Do you have a viewing screen or even a piece of one that you can tape
> to the film rails?

Maybe you can take it back to the shop and explain that you had bought
it in before when it was under guarantee to fix it and they didn't find
out what was wrong with it but now you know for certain that the focus
screen is not positioned correctly so can they fix it properly this
time as if still under guarantee for this one fault.
RolandRB - 14 Jan 2007 08:15 GMT
> > > well the pics are cak...what idid was  put a piece of news paper on the
> > > wall and ytook a light meter...2.8 @60.....they came out blurred....then
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> screen is not positioned correctly so can they fix it properly this
> time as if still under guarantee for this one fault.

There was one other possible cause but you have eliminated it without
knowing. That is if it were a hot day then if you leave the film wound
on ready for the next shot then the heat could get to the film over the
film rails and it might get bent slighty out of shape. This would throw
the focus out but the problem would only be seen at wider apertures.
But this was never much of a problem for these cameras as the film
doesn't go over much of a bend before being drawn onto the film rails
which would be the major reason for the film "remembering" the bend and
going out of shape if left in the heat.
RolandRB - 14 Jan 2007 12:04 GMT
> > > well the pics are cak...what idid was  put a piece of news paper on the
> > > wall and ytook a light meter...2.8 @60.....they came out blurred....then
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> screen is not positioned correctly so can they fix it properly this
> time as if still under guarantee for this one fault.

Another possible cause is that your eyes are crummy and you are not
aware of it or your brain is refusing to accept it. I am 52 so my eyes
are well crummy even though I regard my vision as quite good. I have
come across people who are my age who say they "don't need glasses"
which can't be true. They think they have got sharp vision but it is
just their brain or their pride lying to them. At that age the lenses
in the eye have become solid and do not move at all to change their
focus. So what you might term "sharp" could be only "sort of sharp" in
the viewfinder and when magnified, the print might show up the
shortcomings. At smaller apertures then the depth of focus would cover
up the shortcomings but not at wider apertures. That would fit in with
what you are describing.
PRO SHOW_SS - 16 Jan 2007 04:52 GMT
No i don't...but i'm taking the camera in tuesday to have temlook at
what you said about the screen wshers....
RolandRB - 16 Jan 2007 07:49 GMT
> No i don't...but i'm taking the camera in tuesday to have temlook at
> what you said about the screen wshers....

Every time those cameras were taken in for a service I think they
checked and realigned the spacing if need be. They used something
called a collimator, I think, when testing it.
PRO SHOW_SS - 19 Jan 2007 05:35 GMT
well.....i got the camera back today......the problem
was........nothing...they say they went over the whole camera and found
not one thing wrong with it....even though i had pics that showed
something wa wrong with it....they say do....so i have 3 choices
here....
1-take camera and send to someone else to look at it....
2-put camera in plastic bag and put in closet and forget about it....
3-sell it on ebay and let the buyer figure it out....
RolandRB - 19 Jan 2007 06:28 GMT
> well.....i got the camera back today......the problem
> was........nothing...they say they went over the whole camera and found
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> 2-put camera in plastic bag and put in closet and forget about it....
> 3-sell it on ebay and let the buyer figure it out....

They can "go over the whole camera" as many times as they like but
unless they have checked the focussing using testing equipment then
they have done you no favours. If it were me, I would fix it myself. If
this is beyond your current confidence limit for such a thing then I
would recommend taking it to another shop and specifically asking them
to correct the focussing of the camera.

They don't fetch very high prices on ebay if without the lens. 100 quid
if in top condition both cosmetically and functionally but carrying a
problem like the one you describe, maybe you will get only 50 quid for
it. So I would suggest getting it fixed. If you do sell it on ebay then
I hope you explain the problem to the potential buyers.
RolandRB - 19 Jan 2007 06:41 GMT
> > well.....i got the camera back today......the problem
> > was........nothing...they say they went over the whole camera and found
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> it. So I would suggest getting it fixed. If you do sell it on ebay then
> I hope you explain the problem to the potential buyers.

Here's a little test you can do. I assume the focussing screen has a
split prism. Firstly, do you always use the split prism alignment for
focussing? It is more accurate to do this if indeed the prism is
accurately made (on some occasions it is not). To determine this, focus
the camera on something and use the magnifying lens so that you are
sure it is sharp on the focussing screen. Then check the prism
alignment without changing the focus. Your straight edges should stay
in one line in both halves of the prism. If not then the prisms are out
and you need a new focussing screen.

If the focussing screen is OK regarding the prisms, then focus the
camera to infinity on something that is a long way off using the
distance scale (it would be better to tape a piece of viewing screen to
the film rails and use that to get your infinity focus). Now check the
viewing screen prisms to see if you have a straight line on the two
halves of the prism for the distant object. I think you will find that
it is ever so slightly out and that you have to change the focus by
about a millimetre to get the two halves of the line to be straight.
Make a note of how far you have to shift the focus. This will be the
average distance for adding or removing the spacers and washers for the
viewing screen.
RolandRB - 19 Jan 2007 09:33 GMT
> > > well.....i got the camera back today......the problem
> > > was........nothing...they say they went over the whole camera and found
[quoted text clipped - 39 lines]
> average distance for adding or removing the spacers and washers for the
> viewing screen.

I just thought I'd add that this shows up better if you use a telephoto
lens that you trust.
PRO SHOW_SS - 20 Jan 2007 05:34 GMT
we have no other camera repair shops in the area........just this one
which is a 45 min ride for me as is
RolandRB - 20 Jan 2007 05:50 GMT
> we have no other camera repair shops in the area........just this one
> which is a 45 min ride for me as is

Then at least you can test it the way I described (although it is
better to use a focussing screen taped to the film rails rather than
the distance scale as this may be out).
PRO SHOW_SS - 20 Jan 2007 06:48 GMT
we'llgive it a try your way..otherwise...onthe shelf with it...not like
i need to use it....
RolandRB - 20 Jan 2007 07:17 GMT
> we'llgive it a try your way..otherwise...onthe shelf with it...not like
> i need to use it....

Good. I think you will find it is a millimeter out. But before you take
it back to the shop then it has to be tested using a viewing screen
taped to the film rails rather than the distance scale. Any chance of
you getting hold of one? Even a broken one might do so long as you can
tape it to the rails. A piece of ground glass might just do. The rough
side should be nearest the lens.

This is a known problem. Here is a quote "Symptoms are that a lens just
doesn't seem quite sharp unless stopped down somewhat" from the
following page.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~aue/mamiya/calibr.html

When you have tested it and find out that it is not set properly then
take it back to the shop, explain exactly what is wrong, and *tell*
them to fix it.
Tony Polson - 19 Jan 2007 07:26 GMT
>3-sell it on ebay and let the buyer figure it out....

Remind us of your eBay UserID so we can all avoid your auctions?
PRO SHOW_SS - 20 Jan 2007 05:38 GMT
like i would really sell it on ebay...get a grip...the camera goes in a
bag and on the shelf till i find another repair shop to send it to....
PRO SHOW_SS - 09 Jan 2007 06:14 GMT
just checked it hits even...its so like new the bellows still makes the
cracklin sound when you open it
Neil Gould - 08 Jan 2007 10:54 GMT
Recently, PRO SHOW_SS <PRO_SHOW_SS@webtv.net> posted:

> camera has never been dropped...next idea?

Disclaimer: I don't own a C330 (but my dad did).

I think your best shot is to take the advice given regarding checking your
focus by comparing the focal plane view against the focusing screen view.
It is a good, simple method to verify whether the camera is in adjustment.
If it isn't, then your options become a matter of "do it yourself" vs.
CLA. Frankly, I'd just do the latter and get back to shooting photos.

Best regards,

Neil
PRO SHOW_SS - 09 Jan 2007 06:21 GMT
i would let it take pics again, but i just don't trust it....to be
honest i have my Hasselblads  to fall back on all these years...so the 2
-330's i have will end up on ebay if i can't figure the one out...
hate to see them go , the one i do use is a work horse and has not let
me down since 1987 when i got it new in the box....the problem one was
also bought new in box.....you can't beat them when they work right...no
one can argue that statement..........
Vincent Becker - 06 Jan 2007 11:50 GMT
PRO SHOW_SS a écrit :
> you know i have kinda the same problem....at 2.8 and slow shutter my
> pics are blurr..at f8 or f11 @60th...they are ok...sharp and
> clear....was told nothing was wrong with the camera when i took it
> in....any ideas on that one from you guys....the camera now just
> sits....any help would be great...........

All  lenses are beter when stopped down, this is perfectlly normal.  The
80mm is no exception. I.t is quite soft à f/2.8 but can be very sharp at
f/8.

Signature

Vincent Becker
Photographie et appareils anciens - Photography and classic cameras
http://www.lumieresenboite.com
Contact direct : http://www.lumieresenboite.com/contact.php

PRO SHOW_SS - 07 Jan 2007 06:37 GMT
but my other C330 works fine at 2.8..this one don't.............
Peter Chant - 06 Jan 2007 12:54 GMT
> The 330 is much lighter than the 33's I used to use that helped cradle the
> camera as you do with the rack focusing. So it could be shake but then it
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> show signs of image softening due to poor registration. I found the lenses
> to be crisp and sharp albeit contrasty. But then I like that.

I change fairly frequently between the 80 and 55mm lenses and have not
noticed problems with them bedding down.  I also for various reasons have
two 80mm, so I can try a selection - that might show up any problems.

Pete

Signature

http://www.petezilla.co.uk

Jim Hemenway - 05 Jan 2007 23:14 GMT
>>> This was highlighted when on a recent film there was one
exceptionally sharp print. <<<

Peter:

Do you wear glasses, especially bifocals?

Perhaps you're old enough to have prespyopia... the inability of the eye
to focus sharply on nearby objects, resulting from loss of elasticity of
the crystalline lens with advancing age.

If one of the twelve frames was sharp then prespyopia may be the cause,
and I think that if that's the case then all you need is a minus lens in
your waist level finder.

I get around the problem by using a prism on my 220F.

Jim Hemenway

> Chaps,
>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> Pete
Peter Chant - 06 Jan 2007 12:48 GMT
>  >>> This was highlighted when on a recent film there was one
> exceptionally sharp print. <<<
>
> Peter:
>
> Do you wear glasses, especially bifocals?

Yes, but not bi-focals.

> Perhaps you're old enough to have prespyopia... the inability of the eye
> to focus sharply on nearby objects, resulting from loss of elasticity of
> the crystalline lens with advancing age.

I hope not I'm thirty five so I consider myself just leaving my late
teens...

> If one of the twelve frames was sharp then prespyopia may be the cause,
> and I think that if that's the case then all you need is a minus lens in
> your waist level finder.

> I get around the problem by using a prism on my 220F.

The porroprism I assume.  I've never had a problem on my 35mm cameras,
including notably my Pentax MZ-5n which I usually use as manual focus and
has no focusing aids on the screen (ie split prism, microprism) - though it
does have dioptre adjustment.  

I can see that putting a rather large -ve lens on top the waiste level
finder gives you a problem, either it does not fold - or you need somewhere
to put the lens you have folded it.

Signature

http://www.petezilla.co.uk

David J. Littleboy - 06 Jan 2007 14:13 GMT
>>  >>> This was highlighted when on a recent film there was one
>> exceptionally sharp print. <<<
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> I hope not I'm thirty five so I consider myself just leaving my late
> teens...

You've got about 5 years before your ability to focus begins to go. (I was
quite shocked at 41 or so (a long time ago now) to be told I had "rogan",
the Japanese for prespyopia, since "ro" means "elderly" and "gan" means
"eyes".) It's a real pain. Someone let me play with a Hasselblad 500C/M with
a digital back on it the other day, and I couldn't focus the thing. Yuck.

FWIW, Mamiya makes nice lenses. With the 55/2.8 and 110/2.8 for the Mamiya
645, I found that I could maybe persuade myself that there was some slight
degradation in sharpness at f/2.8 and f/22, but that (in the plane of focus,
of course) they are lovely sharp from f/4.0 to f/16 when shooting Provia
100F. I suppose there might be some slight problems in the corners, but I
never noticed.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Jim Hemenway - 06 Jan 2007 22:07 GMT
Hi Peter:

Actually it's a solid prism made by Mamiyaflex.

Had I thought more about my response, then I would have added that I
find the chimney finder with its adjustable lens even better for my 65
year old eyes.  It also has a CDS light meter inside which is luckily
exactly one stop off, so is easily compensated for.

Jim, "I shouldn't have ended that sentence with a preposition" Hemenway

P.S. My prespyopia began at around age forty.

>> >>> This was highlighted when on a recent film there was one
>>exceptionally sharp print. <<<
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
> finder gives you a problem, either it does not fold - or you need somewhere
> to put the lens you have folded it.
Jim Hemenway - 06 Jan 2007 22:28 GMT
Shot several days ago with the C220F:

http://www.half-fast.com/CapeAnn-C220F-12282006/

> Hi Peter:
>
[quoted text clipped - 40 lines]
>> somewhere
>> to put the lens you have folded it.
Peter Chant - 07 Jan 2007 11:45 GMT
> Shot several days ago with the C220F:
>
> http://www.half-fast.com/CapeAnn-C220F-12282006/

Nice, need to get out and take some myself!

Where is Cape Ann?

Pete
Jim Hemenway - 08 Jan 2007 04:32 GMT
Hi Peter:

Cape Ann is on the coast of Massachusetts abot 30 mikes north of Boston.
 It includes the towns of Gloucester and Rockport.

Jim

>>Shot several days ago with the C220F:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Pete
Stefan Patric - 07 Jan 2007 04:49 GMT
> Chaps,
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> own seem to go for much less than lens + body) and see how that is, perhaps
> having a go myself on the least good camera.

I doubt if your sharpness problem is equipment related, since it doesn't
occur on every image.  My guess would be it's something you are or are not
doing.  I'll pose some questions to further your investigation.

Do you need glasses?  Bifocals?

Do you use the pop-up magnifier when focusing?  You should.  All the time,
every time.

Is your focusing screen, mirror and focusing lens clean or loose, etc?
Do you use filters?  If you do, the filter needs to be on the focusing
lens when you focus.  A filter with 2 air/glass surfaces changes the
optical path which can affect the focus point.

Are any of the "unsharp" pictures shot with the lens wide open or fully
stopped down?  This can affect apparent image sharpness due to lens
aberrations, which mostly disappear after stopping down 2 stops, or image
diffusion, which begin to occur as you approach the higher f-stop numbers.
Try to use a moderate f-stop range from at least 2 stops down to 2 stop up
from minimum aperture.

Lastly, here's a quick test you can do to check if focus is out due to
problems in the camera.  Mount the camera on a tripod facing a blank wall,
level the camera so it is parallel to the wall, place a focusing target of
sufficient size that it fills the viewfinder entirely.  I use a page of a
newspaper, which is mostly fine print.  Make sure it's absolutely flat to
the wall.  No sags or bulges.  Evenly illuminate the target either with
natural or artificial light. A large north facing window opposite the
wall, behind the camera will work.  You just want the light even and
diffuse.  With no film in the camera, open the back and tape a piece of
fine ground glass over the film gate. Make sure the textured side is at
the film plane and pointed toward the lens. If you don't have any ground
glass, substitute any smooth media that will hold the image. Rear screen
projection material is good. In a pinch, I've used a smooth piece of
heavy waxed paper.

Now, with the taking lens wide open, focus on the center of the
focusing target as you normally do.  And use the focusing magnifier.
Remove the focusing hood and place it over the film gate to make it easier
to view the projected image. Is it sharp or out? Now, refocus on the film
gate image making it as sharp as you can.  Examine the image focused on
the normal viewing screen. Is it in focus?  In both cases, if everything
is working properly, the images should have been in focus for both
procedures.

Repeat the test with the taking lens stopped down to a mid-f-stop, f8 is
good.  Compare the results.

Now, without changing the set up, make a test carefully focusing in
the normal manner using medium speed b&w film shooting wide open, stopped
down mid-way, and stopped down all the way.  That chromogenic b&w film
that can be processed in color chemistry is fine. You just want to check
if things are in focus on film when they are in the viewfinder. Don't make
prints. Examine the film directly with at least an 8X loupe.  If images
are out, take your camera and lens to a tech and have it checked it out.

I know that the Mamiya TLR lenses give excellent results having owned a
C-220 and a couple of lenses years ago, that I shot with professionally --
glamour, advertising, editorial, PR, etc.  Never received any complaints
from any ADs or editors about "soft" or out of focus images, unless, of
course, they were suppose to be.  ;-)  The lens(es) you're using are the
black barrel type? Right? Not the chrome ones?

Stef
Peter Chant - 07 Jan 2007 19:50 GMT
> I doubt if your sharpness problem is equipment related, since it doesn't
> occur on every image.  My guess would be it's something you are or are not
> doing.  I'll pose some questions to further your investigation.

Its a bit hit and miss but I note on the last couple of films that more are
slightly soft than those who arn't.

> Do you need glasses?  Bifocals?

Yes, got them, eyes tested regarly and my perscription has barely changed in
years.

> Do you use the pop-up magnifier when focusing?  You should.  All the time,
> every time.

Yes.  In fact (and this might be part of the problem) when it is too light
out to get a really good idea of what is on the view finder - I put my eye
really close to the magnifier - using it as a crude viewfinder.  Hmm, on
reflection - is this it?

> Is your focusing screen, mirror and focusing lens clean or loose, etc?
> Do you use filters?  If you do, the filter needs to be on the focusing
> lens when you focus.  A filter with 2 air/glass surfaces changes the
> optical path which can affect the focus point.

Focusing screen can move, but it seems to rest by defalt on the three small
adjusting screws.

Lately I've been using identical filters on both lenses.

> Are any of the "unsharp" pictures shot with the lens wide open or fully
> stopped down?  This can affect apparent image sharpness due to lens
> aberrations, which mostly disappear after stopping down 2 stops, or image
> diffusion, which begin to occur as you approach the higher f-stop numbers.
> Try to use a moderate f-stop range from at least 2 stops down to 2 stop up
> from minimum aperture.

I try and stay somewhere in the middle of the f-stop range unless there is
good reason not to.

> Lastly, here's a quick test you can do to check if focus is out due to
> problems in the camera.  Mount the camera on a tripod facing a blank wall,
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> projection material is good. In a pinch, I've used a smooth piece of
> heavy waxed paper.

That look like a plan - just got to get hold of some ground glass - a friend
had to make some so I'll have a word with him.

> Now, with the taking lens wide open, focus on the center of the
> focusing target as you normally do.  And use the focusing magnifier.
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> course, they were suppose to be.  ;-)  The lens(es) you're using are the
> black barrel type? Right? Not the chrome ones?

Yes - black barrel.  Some light scratches on the lens elements of the 135mm
but not on the others and I can't see a difference.  I was sold the 55mm
lens cheap because it had a small scratch on one of the elements - well -
I'll go back to that supplier - it was immaculate and after a lot of very
fine inspection it had a really, really small scratch.  I'd have not seen
it if I'd not been told.

Some homework for me now.

Thanks all.  I need to do some testing.

Pete

Signature

http://www.petezilla.co.uk

Stefan Patric - 08 Jan 2007 04:48 GMT
>> I doubt if your sharpness problem is equipment related, since it doesn't
>> occur on every image.  My guess would be it's something you are or are not
>> doing.  I'll pose some questions to further your investigation.
>
> Its a bit hit and miss but I note on the last couple of films that more are
> slightly soft than those who arn't.

If the frequency of "soft" shots has been increasing over time, this
could be indicative of hardware problems.  I'd recommend taking the camera
to a tech, and having it checked out as well as cleaned, adjusted and
lubed.

>> Do you need glasses?  Bifocals?
>
> Yes, got them, eyes tested regarly and my perscription has barely changed in
> years.

Any astigmatism?  Have friend who has it (and really bad sight anyway),
and he has problems getting a good focus because of it.  And he's a pro.
Graduated from Brooks with a degree in photography.  He thanks God
everyday for autofocus.

>> Do you use the pop-up magnifier when focusing?  You should.  All the
>> time, every time.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> put my eye really close to the magnifier - using it as a crude
> viewfinder.  Hmm, on reflection - is this it?

This is the way -- really close to the magnifier -- I always focused my
C-220, so I could see almost the entire field, not just the center.  Never
had any focusing problems doing that way.  Images always in focus.

>> Is your focusing screen, mirror and focusing lens clean or loose, etc?
>> Do you use filters?  If you do, the filter needs to be on the focusing
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Focusing screen can move, but it seems to rest by defalt on the three
> small adjusting screws.

Have a camera tech check that the screen is properly aligned.  My C-220
had a fixed screen.  So, I never had to worry about it going out of
adjustment.

> Lately I've been using identical filters on both lenses.

Okay.  Optical paths should be the same for both lenses.


>> [snip]
>>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> after a lot of very fine inspection it had a really, really small
> scratch.  I'd have not seen it if I'd not been told.

Good.  The black lenses were much better than the older, original chrome
ones.  And the 135 was my favorite, most used focal length when I used the
Mamiya TLR.  Shot a lot of magazine covers with it.

That small scratch on the 55, if it was off to the side, should not affect
image quality at all.  Probably wouldn't even it were dead center on the
front element.  Might if on the rear.  Keep the lens.

Stef
Peter Chant - 24 Jan 2007 02:14 GMT
Small update since I've been largely quiet after getting all this good
advice.   Bit of a delay due to having some other stuff to do as a higher
priority.

> Lastly, here's a quick test you can do to check if focus is out due to
> problems in the camera...

Just been making a ground glass screen.  OK - not the best in the world as
there are some larger scratches but certainly functional.  Loosely taped in
place it looks like it will work fine - though I think a bit more grinding
is in order to tidy it up a bit.  Using a 50mm lens as a loupe (I'm not a
pro - so I have an excuse here) it is clear that I'm properly seeing the
image on the ground glass as if I deliberately take it out of focus on the
camera I see only a blurred image using my "loupe".  I.e. I'm definitely
forming an image on the ground surface.

Looking at the camera and net if I do have to adjust I only need turn the
three studs on which the focusing screen rests.  I presume from my web
searches and inspection that they only "lock" by means of friction and that
needle nose pliers are a suitable tool.

Will check a number of lenses before making any adjustments - and pause to
reflect what I am doing - no point in rushing and messing it up.  I note
that the mirror had slipped a bit in its mounting - I doubt if it would
cause loss of focus looking at it but it can't help.

Pete

Signature

http://www.petezilla.co.uk

RolandRB - 24 Jan 2007 05:24 GMT
The mirror can slide down or up within the plane intentioned for it
without causing a problem but if it came out of the plane it was
supposed to be in then that is certainly a problem and the likely cause
of the problem you have.

> Stefan Patric wrote:Small update since I've been largely quiet after getting all this good
> advice.   Bit of a delay due to having some other stuff to do as a higher
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
>
> --http://www.petezilla.co.uk
Peter Chant - 24 Jan 2007 19:58 GMT
> Just been making a ground glass screen.  OK - not the best in the world as
> there are some larger scratches but certainly functional.  Loosely taped
> in place it looks like it will work fine - though I think a bit more

OK, preliminary tests with ground glass screen on the film rails focusing on
a table lamp about six feet distant - small adjustment needed to the focus
to make the image sharp on one screen / glass when focused on the other.
Appears to be of the same order of magnitude as a very small adjustment I
would  make when finely adjusting the focus.  Suspect rather less than 1mm
travel - but still noticeable.  Time to use a better target (such as the
suggested newsprint) and have a careful tweek.

It appearsthat there are small wear marks on the bottom of the focusing
screen where it resets on the three studs - I wonder if this wear is the
problem? I only have the one screen so I can't cross check.

Pete

Signature

http://www.petezilla.co.uk

Neil Gould - 24 Jan 2007 21:40 GMT
Recently, Peter Chant <pete@petezilla.co.uk> posted:

> It appearsthat there are small wear marks on the bottom of the
> focusing screen where it resets on the three studs - I wonder if this
> wear is the problem? I only have the one screen so I can't cross
> check.

Why not check it against the screen in your other C330 camera?

Neil
Peter Chant - 24 Jan 2007 23:44 GMT
> Why not check it against the screen in your other C330 camera?

It was the other chap who had two C330s, I've only the one.

Pete

Signature

http://www.petezilla.co.uk

PRO SHOW_SS - 25 Jan 2007 05:08 GMT
i might have an extra screen.....
PRO SHOW_SS - 25 Jan 2007 05:13 GMT
yep i do have a extra focusing screen......it's not a split screen
....but it is brand new...i took it out of my camera when i got the
split screen....let me know if you need it....

wayne
PRO SHOW_SS - 25 Jan 2007 05:30 GMT
and to answer an old qustion...my screen is rough side up so you can
read the number scale on the left side of the screen....

wayne
RolandRB - 25 Jan 2007 11:06 GMT
> and to answer an old qustion...my screen is rough side up so you can
> read the number scale on the left side of the screen....
>
> wayne

If fitted in the camera then it should be rough side down and so this
is the cause of your problem.
PRO SHOW_SS - 25 Jan 2007 14:11 GMT
but if i flip it...i can't read the numbers on the side,,,they will be
upside down....correct?
RolandRB - 25 Jan 2007 14:27 GMT
> but if i flip it...i can't read the numbers on the side,,,they will be
> upside down....correct?

How is it on the other "C" body?
PRO SHOW_SS - 25 Jan 2007 18:33 GMT
on my f body it is smooth and to can read the numbers on the left
side.......the s body seems to be different.....the screens are
differenat as well......i believe the s is the top ine of them all....i
may be wrong...but it sems that way...

wayne
Peter Chant - 25 Jan 2007 19:06 GMT
> but if i flip it...i can't read the numbers on the side,,,they will be
> upside down....correct?

Now I'm confused, surely if you have rough side up the numbers are a mirror
image.  On mine the lettering is correct with the rough side down in the
screen.

Actually, do the numbers matter?  I don't think I have ever used mine close
enough up for exposure correction due to lens extention be relevant.

Signature

http://www.petezilla.co.uk

PRO SHOW_SS - 25 Jan 2007 22:02 GMT
on mine the C330 Professioonal S when you take off the waist level view
finder you can read the numers on the left side of the screen and it's
rough side up...on my C330 f you take off the same and you read the
numbers as well on the left side but the screen is smooth.....so which
is right and which is wrong....you have to read the numbers when you
look through the view finder...so hey are both right , just that one
camera has smooth side up while the other is smooth side
down.......mamiya made the cameras....maybe we should ask an expert on
this....also if i flip my C330 S SCREEN....IT WON'T FIT RIGHT IN ITS
SLOTS........SO WHICH IS CORRECT.......at this point no one
knows..........

wayne
RolandRB - 25 Jan 2007 22:26 GMT
Well, if it will only fit one way in its slots then that is the correct
way.

> on mine the C330 Professioonal S when you take off the waist level view
> finder you can read the numers on the left side of the screen and it's
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> wayne
PRO SHOW_SS - 25 Jan 2007 23:27 GMT
so i figured....now were back to square one...camera gets put away.....

pete if you need a new screen....let me know

wayne
RolandRB - 26 Jan 2007 05:39 GMT
> so i figured....now were back to square one...camera gets put away.....
>
> pete if you need a new screen....let me know
>
> wayne

No you are not back to square one. With the screen taped to the film
rails you make sure you have it in focus and then you adjust the screws
of the viewing screen so that the image is in focus on that
simultaneously with being in focus on the screen taped to the film
rails and your camera is now in proper adjustment.

Keep the spare screen because you have to check focus with these bodies
every year or so.
RolandRB - 26 Jan 2007 09:25 GMT
> > so i figured....now were back to square one...camera gets put away.....
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> Keep the spare screen because you have to check focus with these bodies
> every year or so.

It sounds to me that somebody changed viewing screens and didn't bother
to reset the focussing.
Peter Chant - 26 Jan 2007 17:45 GMT
> so i figured....now were back to square one...camera gets put away.....
>
> pete if you need a new screen....let me know
>
> wayne

That's a kind offer - though to be honest I think that adjusting the screws
with my current screen out to fix things.

Signature

http://www.petezilla.co.uk

Peter Chant - 26 Jan 2007 17:55 GMT
> on mine the C330 Professioonal S when you take off the waist level view
> finder you can read the numers on the left side of the screen and it's
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> SLOTS........SO WHICH IS CORRECT.......at this point no one
> knows..........

Hmm, I'm just wondering - have you a duff screen?  Did they make it with the
rough side on the wrong side.  Perhaps something went wrong during
manufacturer.

Signature

http://www.petezilla.co.uk

RolandRB - 26 Jan 2007 18:21 GMT
> > on mine the C330 Professioonal S when you take off the waist level view
> > finder you can read the numers on the left side of the screen and it's
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> rough side on the wrong side.  Perhaps something went wrong during
> manufacturer.

Whatever, but if a new screen has been fitted then the focussing needs
to be reset. It sounds like this was not done so a focussing problem
should be expected.
Peter Chant - 27 Jan 2007 01:17 GMT
> Whatever, but if a new screen has been fitted then the focussing needs
> to be reset. It sounds like this was not done so a focussing problem
> should be expected.

Hmm, does not say anything about that in the handbook.  Perhaps in an ideal
world you should not have to - but not saying its not necessary.  Anyway,
on my side it looks like my job for tomorrow is to replace the foam on the
screen mount, have another check of the focus and see how it looks.  Always
wondered why the screen mounting seemed loose - unfortunately I had nothing
to compare it with.

Pete

Signature

http://www.petezilla.co.uk

RolandRB - 27 Jan 2007 07:01 GMT
> > Whatever, but if a new screen has been fitted then the focussing needs
> > to be reset. It sounds like this was not done so a focussing problem
> > should be expected.Hmm, does not say anything about that in the handbook.  Perhaps in an ideal
> world you should not have to - but not saying its not necessary.  Anyway,

This distance can even be out in an SLR camera with no means of
adjusting it.

> on my side it looks like my job for tomorrow is to replace the foam on the
> screen mount, have another check of the focus and see how it looks.  Always
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> --http://www.petezilla.co.uk
Bandicoot - 28 Jan 2007 01:27 GMT
> > > Whatever, but if a new screen has been fitted then the focussing
> > > needs to be reset. It sounds like this was not done so a focussing
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> This distance can even be out in an SLR camera with no means of
> adjusting it.

It is usually adjusted by shifting the stops that the mirror sits on, to
make the path iris-mirror-focusing screen equal the path iris-[no
mirror]-film.  Certainly all the 35mm and MF SLRs I've ever owned allowed
this adjustment.

Peter
PRO SHOW_SS - 27 Jan 2007 07:22 GMT
i'd like to get a hand booh/manual for the C330 PROFESSION S......any
ideas....

wayne
Peter Chant - 27 Jan 2007 10:59 GMT
> i'd like to get a hand booh/manual for the C330 PROFESSION S......any
> ideas....

Try:

http://www.propellerheads.com/technical/c330s/

Someone like oldtimer cameras might sell reprints.

Pete

Signature

http://www.petezilla.co.uk

PRO SHOW_SS - 28 Jan 2007 04:23 GMT
thanks pete.......wayne
Michael - 27 Jan 2007 11:40 GMT
> i'd like to get a hand booh/manual for the C330 PROFESSION S......any
> ideas....
>
> wayne

C330S manual can be found using this link.

http://www.craigcamera.com/ib_m.htm
PRO SHOW_SS - 27 Jan 2007 07:19 GMT
it has the origanal screen it fromnew....never relced it...my C330f i
did ...put a split screen on..never reajusted anything...just unscrewed
the old one and put on the new one and tighted the scrw..good to go....
PRO SHOW_SS - 27 Jan 2007 07:16 GMT
well if they did make it wrong...where do i get another screen for a S
they are different then the C330 f...with the f you unscrew and pull the
old screen off and put a new one on and tighten the screw...with the S,
you slide the button and it flips open and the screen comes out...a
seperate piece of glass......so they may got the numbers right on the
theleft side side, but poured the glass wrong?.........who makes the
screen for the S?any ideas for that, thereuse to be a cmpany, butican't
emember the name...but they were brighter then the origanal one...was
going toget one for my blads ,but they were big bucks....mamiya don't
have them anymore...the S was stopped in what year....1985?...i belive
it was the last model they made.....i may be wrong , but i think that is
correct

wayne
Peter Chant - 27 Jan 2007 14:21 GMT
> screen for the S?any ideas for that, thereuse to be a cmpany, butican't
> emember the name...but they were brighter then the origanal one...was

I think the company is Beattie - however, the cost more new than my C330f
and 80mm cost s/h!  Try ebay and dealers used equipment on line.

> going toget one for my blads ,but they were big bucks....mamiya don't
> have them anymore...the S was stopped in what year....1985?...i belive
> it was the last model they made.....i may be wrong , but i think that is
> correct

I recal reading 1994 somewhere.

Signature

http://www.petezilla.co.uk

PRO SHOW_SS - 25 Jan 2007 14:14 GMT
you can rub your nail lightly on the screen and it skips...so that side
is up...if i turn it around like i just did.....you can't read the
numbers on the side of the class.....which yo need to read withthe red
pointer being used in the camera????
PRO SHOW_SS - 25 Jan 2007 05:25 GMT
i just noticed that it is differant then my C330 S screen...so it must
be from my C330f...the C330 S has a slide that pops and flips the screen
open....the f you just use the screw to loosen and pull off...so it f
you can use it ...let me know....

wayne
Peter Chant - 26 Jan 2007 18:01 GMT
> It appearsthat there are small wear marks on the bottom of the focusing
> screen where it resets on the three studs - I wonder if this wear is the
> problem? I only have the one screen so I can't cross check.

OK, to follow up myself yet again - on close inspection when I removed the
screen I found that these marks were just marks - no indentation.  However,
the foam - which I had never noticed before is deader than a dead thing.
Screen is loose - that cannot help matters.

Not too surprising - light seals are rotten - though that does not seem to
cause any light leak whatsoever.

Pete

Signature

http://www.petezilla.co.uk

Peter Chant - 03 Feb 2007 15:04 GMT
Yet again replying to myself.  Just got test film back from the lab -
replacing the foam around the screen and adjusting the focusing screen
seems to have done the job.  From close inspection of the film with a 50mm
lens indicates that things are sharper.

I'm make a few scans and put them on the web.

Pete

Signature

http://www.petezilla.co.uk

Peter Chant - 04 Feb 2007 00:15 GMT
> Yet again replying to myself.  Just got test film back from the lab -
> replacing the foam around the screen and adjusting the focusing screen
> seems to have done the job.  From close inspection of the film with a 50mm
> lens indicates that things are sharper.
>
> I'm make a few scans and put them on the web.

OK

http://www.petezilla.co.uk/c330-testpics

Not the most inspiring collection - but they had to be shot mainly at
lunchtime.  A small amount of unsharp mask applied as the scanner - an
Epson 4990 seems to need a little.  Interesting to note that the
fence-slats are the sharpest - along with the detail on the vase - they
were with the lens I used to adjust the focusing screen, 135mm.  The rest
of the photos looked find when using a 50mm lens as a loupe, but some
seemed soft on the scan - though that may be the scan rather than the
adjustments.

Perhaps I should re-do the adjustments using the more often used 55mm or
80mm lenses?

Perhaps I am being overcritical.  With scans I always seem to zoom to 100%
to inspect the detail.  Well, slightly fuzzy MF could well be better than
pin sharp 35mm depending on print and scan size.

Pete

Signature

http://www.petezilla.co.uk

RolandRB - 04 Feb 2007 03:53 GMT
> > Yet again replying to myself.  Just got test film back from the lab -
> > replacing the foam around the screen and adjusting the focusing screen
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
>
> --http://www.petezilla.co.uk

You are better off using the longest focal length lens that you know
you can trust when it comes to adjusting the focussing screen.
Peter Chant - 04 Feb 2007 11:22 GMT
> You are better off using the longest focal length lens that you know
> you can trust when it comes to adjusting the focussing screen.

Is that the one that is most critical for focus?

Signature

http://www.petezilla.co.uk

RolandRB - 04 Feb 2007 14:00 GMT
> > You are better off using the longest focal length lens that you know
> > you can trust when it comes to adjusting the focussing screen.
>
> Is that the one that is most critical for focus?
>
> --http://www.petezilla.co.uk

Yes
Peter Chant - 04 Feb 2007 16:13 GMT
>> > You are better off using the longest focal length lens that you know
>> > you can trust when it comes to adjusting the focussing screen.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Yes

I'm just wondering if I ought to have checked with the more often used 80
and 55mm lenses - I work on the wider end far more often.  Perhaps, when I
have no film in the camera - it would be a useful check.  That said I
believe that the lenses should not alter - I believe they were adjusted
with shims.

But like I said, perhaps I am now being overcritical - I should not zoom too
far into the scans.

Pete

Signature

http://www.petezilla.co.uk

Bandicoot - 04 Feb 2007 15:55 GMT
> >> > You are better off using the longest focal length lens that
> >> > you know you can trust when it comes to adjusting the
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> But like I said, perhaps I am now being overcritical - I should
> not zoom too far into the scans.

They should be the same, and the longest lens will have the shallowest Depth
of Field  for a given subject distance so should be the easiest one with
which to determine precise focus.  However, the widest lenses will have
shallow Depth of Focus, so while harder to adjust using them, the adjustment
may be more critical.  Maybe it's worth checking them all just to be certain
that all your lenses are correctly shimmed.

You could try shining a light through a tiny pinhole in a piece of black
foil at a distance of about 20x the FL of the lens as the subject to focus
on.  Take a piece of plain glass and a high power loupe or low power
microscope and put the glass on a slide or negative that is emulsion side up
on a light box and focus the loupe through the glass - it is now focused on
the far side of the glass.  Put this glass in the camera's focal plane and
check the image of the point of light with the loupe.  This way you are
focusing on the aerial image of an artificial star, which is basically how
the factory would have adjusted focus originally.

It is a lot of trouble to go to, but will tell you if all your lenses are
calibrated properly.  Once you know that they are, you can use the same
trick to get the adjustment of the focusing screen to match the lenses as
accurately as possible.

Peter
Peter Chant - 04 Feb 2007 17:57 GMT
> It is a lot of trouble to go to, but will tell you if all your lenses are
> calibrated properly.  Once you know that they are, you can use the same
> trick to get the adjustment of the focusing screen to match the lenses as
> accurately as possible.

Thanks, will try that.

Pete

Signature

http://www.petezilla.co.uk

PRO SHOW_SS - 08 Feb 2007 04:50 GMT
peter, i'll send you my 330S  and you can fix it for me...seems you do a
better job then the idiots i'm dealing with here..

wayne
Peter Chant - 11 Feb 2007 12:43 GMT
> peter, i'll send you my 330S  and you can fix it for me...seems you do a
> better job then the idiots i'm dealing with here..
>
> wayne

Given that I suspect you are in the states and I'm in the UK I think the
postage (and customs annoyances) would probably kill off that idea.  If
adjusting the S is as simple as the F I would be willing to give it a go -
provided that you did not complain if I made matters worse (not likely by
the sound of things).

Actually, once the ground glass is sorted it is actually quite a simple job.
Just takes a little patience.  I took probably an hour - including changing
the foam on the screen mount - but I could have done it in less time if
time was tight - I did not feel the need to rush.

What does the screen rest on on the S?

Pete


Signature

http://www.petezilla.co.uk

MIRROR IMAGE PHOTOGRAPHY - 12 Feb 2007 06:04 GMT
it flips out....it slips between two peices of metal...you snap
down...if you want screen out...you slide this lever and it flips
out.....the only 330 that is that way.....

wayne
RolandRB - 12 Feb 2007 06:14 GMT
On 12 Feb, 07:04, WaynesIm...@webtv.net (MIRROR IMAGE PHOTOGRAPHY)
wrote:
> it flips out....it slips between two peices of metal...you snap
> down...if you w