The only camera i have that needs shimming is my DigiflexII wich is off calibration. I simply used some fine cut tin-foil sheets and within 20 minites it was perfectly sharp.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136918\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I expect to leave the CF on the Contax most of the time. If there is a problem, I will have the camera's checked first and then order the shim kit if it persists.
I was concerned after searching the forum for "shim" and seeing comments...
"(Quote: Dustbak) I also found the distance tolerance of the back/camera combination is much more critical with the CF. I need to shim one of my cameras to get it to focus on the CCD. The same camera never had this problem with the Leaf back. [...] I do believe the problems I have encountered with the Hasselblad are due to the fact it is a CF which works with the adapter plates. Truly they are not so much problems but probably just me not knowing the quirks of the system yet."
"(Quote: SeanFS) I'm using a 132c with V series hasselblads. It works very well for me but did take a bit of messing about with the shim kit to get the focus operating correctly at first, and it seems to change depending on which V series camera used as I have tried it on a couple of other models[...]"
"(Quote: Steve Hendrix) Hasselblad and Sinar offer the option of shimming, although it appears there is less precision of the focus plane with those digital backs if for no other reason than the end user might tighten their camera plate screws a turn or so different than another end user, introducing a variable."
Well, you get the idea. I would still prefer a fixed Contax mount and a Contax to RZ adapter plate but photography is all about trade offs so why should this be any different
GC