Shimming news for critical focus

[claudefiddler]

This post on diglloyd.com, http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/index.html, discusses shimming a Nikon 700 to fix sensor alignment and resulting focus problems. Might be a technique that could be used with mfdslr.

Claude Fiddler
www.wildernesslight.com

[francois]

This post on diglloyd.com, http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/index.html, discusses shimming a Nikon 700 to fix sensor alignment and resulting focus problems. Might be a technique that could be used with mfdslr.

Claude Fiddler
www.wildernesslight.com

Joe Holmes wrote a couple of articles about a similar issue on medium format.

http://www.josephholmes.com/news-medformatprecision.html
http://www.josephholmes.com/news-sharpmediumformat.html

[Rob C]

Yet another illustration of what the manufacturer should be doing as standard procedure before delivery! It used to be called final inspection.

Oh well, maybe they base their standards now on the car trade.

Rob C

[ced]

For MF the back manufacturers are given tolerances for old and new cameras by the camera manufacturers and these tolerances are fine for film but for digital one could fall at the extreme ends of those and you then have an an issue to sort out.  It is then always the back producer that gets the critics going...

[archivue]

For MF the back manufacturers are given tolerances for old and new cameras by the camera manufacturers and these tolerances are fine for film but for digital one could fall at the extreme ends of those and you then have an an issue to sort out.  It is then always the back producer that gets the critics going...

the think is, you check 3 P45+, i'm pretty shure that none of them will have the same registration !
So, in this case, that's the back producer that sell irregular product !

I still can't undertand why the alpa shims system isn't incorporate in the back itself !

[darr]

I still can't undertand why the alpa shims system isn't incorporate in the back itself !

Would this not cause a problem when the back is used with different camera bodies?

[David Grover / Capture One]

Yet another illustration of what the manufacturer should be doing as standard procedure before delivery! It used to be called final inspection.

Oh well, maybe they base their standards now on the car trade.

Rob C

Rob,

Every H4D is calibrated at factory.

Mechanically by setting the focus point of each digital back to camera body and electronically by calibrating the AF system on each body to digital back.

So Joe Holmes comments do not apply to the H2D/H3D/H4D line.

David

[Rob C]

Rob,

Every H4D is calibrated at factory.

Mechanically by setting the focus point of each digital back to camera body and electronically by calibrating the AF system on each body to digital back.

So Joe Holmes comments do not apply to the H2D/H3D/H4D line.

David

I never had real manufacturing problems with any of my 500 series cameras - in fact the only glitch was mirror bonce, which I eventually accepted as being mechanically unavoidable; even Hass leaflets informed users on the benefits of MU usage! Which was realistic and, in a way, brave of the company but honest.

Rob C

[archivue]

Rob,

Every H4D is calibrated at factory.

Mechanically by setting the focus point of each digital back to camera body and electronically by calibrating the AF system on each body to digital back.

So Joe Holmes comments do not apply to the H2D/H3D/H4D line.

David

does it means that you can't swap backs and bodies ?

[eronald]

does it means that you can't swap backs and bodies ?

They sell you a spare calibrated body if you want one. I'm not sure the back will otherwise consent to work on another body.

Edmund

[jduncan]

I never had real manufacturing problems with any of my 500 series cameras - in fact the only glitch was mirror bonce, which I eventually accepted as being mechanically unavoidable; even Hass leaflets informed users on the benefits of MU usage! Which was realistic and, in a way, brave of the company but honest.

Rob C

My understating is that hasselblad has a program to calibrate the backup system. 

For me, sooner or later, products like the HxD will need to drop the separated back and build integrated systems. The pure backs will be used for LF. I will like to know what the tolerances will be for 100mpixels backs. Even if calibrated at the factory a micro dust between the back and the body could end up in a miss alinement. The other option is let software deal will the problem. Of course the separated back is a plus not only in terms of LF and backups but also in terms of cleaning the sensor etc. But you lose weather sealing and the backup units needs to be custom calibrated.

[jduncan]

I really value the factory calibration and the modular system of the H Series but can also see an advantage in terms of weather proofing in non-modular systems. I would prefer to continue to have choice based on need.

me too .
 Both Phase One and Hasselblad sale backs (just backs) and cameras that are modular. That is the best for the users. I fully agree with you.
 
What I was trying to ask was:
Is this model sustainable from the economical point of view as the tolerances become more stringent and the prices become lower?
I also believe that the answer is no. I don't like that answer, but is my expectancy according with my experience in technology. But maybe (i hope so) Phase or Hasselblad can find a way to build them (modular) with good margins ( in the long run).

[Rob C]

Yes, tolerances are only going to get more exacting with the introduction of higher resolution backs.

As individuals perhaps we should be asking if there is a need for higher resolution backs?

Keith, don't go there! It's an invitation to the top-end 35mm format owners to say you proved their point.

;-)

Rob

P.S. After my travails with recent scannings, you can believe that I'm finally off the film mantra.

[fredjeang]

Yes, tolerances are only going to get more exacting with the introduction of higher resolution backs.

As individuals perhaps we should be asking if there is a need for higher resolution backs?

I guess that for many it will be way too much, or not necessary, but for the little sphere of art photographers who print really big, it will be welcome.

[yaya]

There are many, many applications for which bigger+more will always be desired. This board does not represent the whole market for digital backs, far from it actually...

have a nice weekend

yair

[archivue]

while even my 22mp back is enought for 90% of my professional work,
i will buy a 80mp or so if i had the cash for my personal work and large prints !

[jduncan]

I guess that for many it will be way too much, or not necessary, but for the little sphere of art photographers who print really big, it will be welcome.

Agree.  Even more now that the other problem, that is moire, appears to be taking care of with the 80mpixels back.

Eventually we will fall into the diminishing returns mode. But, for many, we are not there yet.
The fact that there is a relation between dynamic range, signal to noise ratio and pixel pitch can be solved P65+ wise.
In the case of a 120mpixels sensor you still get a 30mpixels back. Not bad.

A lot of applications for high resolution do not have more than 9 bits of dynamic range (for years we use 8 bit PSDs and TIFFs). Pros will try to control the environment (light including).  When both high resolution and high dynamic range are needed we can do with stitching. (most of the time).

Vendors must be prepared to invest a lot in next generation systems if there are going to survive. There are a lot of challenges to meat (including performance). So interesting times coming our way

[fredjeang]

If the MFD manufactures ever want to cater to anything more than a niche market and avoid squabbling amongst themselves over few thousand sales they'll need to offer far more than a mega-pixel race.

Correct.

Maybe we should do a manifest or a thread where each MF user would write what he/she expect (well she in MF does seems more rare than a print of Ansel Adam on the moon) those welcome improvement be.

They would have a free study of what a very representative photographer community are waiting them to do.

[Rob C]

Rob, if those top-end 35mm format owners are really convinced that there is no advantage to MFD then I'm content to leave them in peace in their little world.

From what I've read your travails weren't exactly caused by film. It seems more likely the cause is perhaps not being entirely computer savvy?  

Hi Keith

I’ve just lost the lengthy reply to your post, so this time it’s going via Word! And shorter.

Yes, computer savvy isn’t my strongpoint, if anything really is, and I’d thought about that but ruled it out for the simple reason that I have never, to my knowledge, made a folder called Photoshop. Neither does such a folder appear within My Documents.

When a scan is completed, you are presented with two options: File name and Destination. I always send scans directly to My Images, where they get copied and turned into Work files. The scan files are then switched into a second folder called Original Scans, never to be touched again. Usually. The file called Scan that was first sent to My Images is then deleted from My Images to save space. Why have it in two folders?

I tried going to the All Programmes part of the computer and opened Adobe and there I found another part of the Adobe package that I wasn’t aware I had: Image Ready. What the hell is that for? Anyway, I opened it and to my surprise there were the missing files. But, they no longer appear there after that initial discovery. Sadly, neither does Photoshop (the fantasy) folder appear anymore either.

So, from twenty files I lost I have saved two. I can’t bear rescanning, so Sea can just friggin’ drown in itself with the gallons it already has.

I suspect that the computer is on its way to the knacker’s yard. On the other hand, the Glenn Miller CD I found in the vaults has some nice sounds to soothe the less than savage beast, or breast, as the case may be.

;-(

Rob C

[Rob C]

Rob, I suspect the folder "photoshop" was a temporary file, but whatever, the fact is you've lost images.

The best advice I can give, if you haven't already done so, is to do a search for the files. Click on Start then go to Search. If, as is likely, you saved your scans as TIF files then search for TIF files. If it finds any of the missing files then right click on the file, go to Properties and make a note of the destination folder.

In the past I've erroneously saved files to the wrong folder and this process has got me out of jail. It's worth a try.

Good luck.

 

Thanks, Keith, but no luck! Gone with the wind.

Rob C