Mamiya repairs

[TJV]

Hello.
My camera was part of a car accident the other day and took a massive hit, smashing the lens hood in the process. On inspection it seemed ok. The rangefinder patch lined up perfectly at infinity, the focus seems smooth and the speeds sound ok. Now, I've never photographed a ruler or a wall with my camera before, but the results alarmed me a little. I did the ruler at 45 degree angle trick and it looks like it back focuses about 6cm to 12cm at 1.2m. The weird thing is the line of focus doesn't seem to be correct, like instead of being parallel to the film plane, it runs on a diagonal. It's maybe 25 degrees out, give or take.
Also, photographing a brick wall (I know! It sounds painfully nerdy!) there is also more vignetting than I've ever noticed (it's a 65mm) and weirdly it doesn't seem to be in the center. The vignetting seems to be off center, if this makes sense. Not a lot off center, but definately off.
My experience tells me that the lens elements have perhaps been knocked out of alignment and the lens needs to be checked on a colomator (sp?)
All of these things can be noticed on boring test shots quite easily but I've never tested my cameras / lenses like this before.

Has anyone else had such an experience or noticed their M7 65mm lens exhibiting such a trait?

For those of you who have sent things to Mamiya Japan for service, what is the turn around usually like and how expensive are they?

Cheers.

T

 

[oftheherd]

I thought someone would have come up on this before. It might help if you showed some of the photos you took. It does sound reasonable that some elements has misaligned. Is there no chance for insurance to cover costs of repair?

You mentioned Mamiya Japan. I don't know your location, but if in the USA, have you called Mamiya USA?

Hope you were not injured in the accident.

 

[TJV]

Thanks for your reply.
I live in New Zealand, so the camera will probably have to go to Japan. The national suppliers are very good but I'm not sure they have the gear to properly fix lenses.
I'll try dig out the test shots today. I left them at work.
Insurance will cover costs, except a $250 excess, but it's like a baby to me and I want to make sure it's going to recover!

T

 

[Gumby]

Thanks for your reply.
I live in New Zealand, so the camera will probably have to go to Japan. The national suppliers are very good but I'm not sure they have the gear to properly fix lenses.
I'll try dig out the test shots today. I left them at work.
Insurance will cover costs, except a $250 excess, but it's like a baby to me and I want to make sure it's going to recover!

T

Here in California we have "at fault" insurance. If the other party were the cause of the accident, I'd try to put a property damage claim against their insurance rather than my own, demanding (in the legal sense of the word, not the arrogant sense) that they replace or professionally repair the camera. This may or may not suceedd but if it does it avoids the deductable (which I assume is the same as what you call 'excess') of putting a claim with my own insurance company. Is that a possible option in NZ?

 

[TJV]

Thanks again.
In short, I think the other person may have to pay my excess (which I think is what you Americans must call 'deductible.') My insurance company is a bit vague on details.

Actually, today I got my negatives from my tests home and scanned one that I shot wide open head on of a brick wall. I makes me realize why I don't get things scanned or printed at any local labs anymore. The scans they did for me had awful colours and contrast that really emphasized what I thought were flaws. In their scans the vignetting was really bad and I'm assuming their neg holder wasn't keeping the neg flat as what looked like a weird angle of focus didn't look so when I scanned them myself. I scanned this image in my Nikon 8000ED using a glass carrier and the results look ok. Going off another neg where I shot at a ruler, the camera is back focusing
by about 13cm inches at 1.2m, which is weird because the rangefinder lines up perfectly at infinity. The vignetting can be seen, and I'm still a bit weireded out by it not seeming to be 'central' when I look closely, but it's probably just an optical illusion. I'm not in the habit of shooting brick walls, after all!

Here are the two samples. One full frame, and the other a 100% crop from the 4000dpi scanned original. No sharpening applied. I will still send the camera and lens to get checked and calibrated but from what I can tell, things are ok.

Moral of the story - don't get test shots processed at a commercial lab from c41 film!