Mamiya Six V - Focusing problem, help! :(

[r_torc]

I have tried getting help in other forums, to apparently no avail until I found this goldmine of 120 RF Folders! I hope you guys might be able to help me out.

I got this amazing Mamiya Six V, it's in very, very good condition and even the slow speeds are hitting the mark exactly, which is a pleasant surprise!

In case it matters, it has a Seikosha-Rapid shutter and a D. Zuiko F.C. 75mm, F3.5 lens.

My issue is just with the focusing. The focusing scale doesn't match at all the focus on the film plane so 5 meters on disc scale is roughly focusing on something that is about 2.3 meters or so in real life. If I focus on infinity the images that do match at close distances don't match at infinity. Seems as though I can either have it focus correctly at close range or focus correctly near infinity but not both. Ideally, I'd like to be able to match close enough the distance scale since it would help for some street photography and zone focusing for fast shots.

Is there a "proper method" (steps that need to be in order) to adjust the focus with these cameras? I would think perhaps the lens could use some spacers/shims? I checked inside the film chamber and everything seems fine. The camera is absolutely pristine, nothing is missing and it has no dings, any signs of abuse, rust or any mold.

When I move the focusing wheel all the way either direction, the film plane moves the whole range of motion in both directions so I don't think there's anything hindering the motion of that either.

At the moment, it appears as though I can take photos at close distances and be reasonably in focus, but the scale still doesn't match and that kinda bothers me... (I did, to the best of my abilities, make the RF patch match what the lens is REALLY doing, ignoring the distance scale) :bang:

Any help would be greatly appreciated. I'd love to get this camera working correctly, everything on it is pristine condition and I'd love to get many more years of use on it! It's so compact that I find myself reaching out for it more often than any of my other cameras, so if I could just fix that it would be incredible!

EDIT:

So I did this and thanks to @Sarcophilus Harrisii for his detailed response:

I entirely ignored what the distance scale disc said and focused entirely on what the actual lens was seeing, as it was pointed out as well.

I put the camera on a tripod, I locked the bulb mode with a cable release and focused to infinity. To my pleasant surprise, at infinity, buildings around 7 km away from my house were sharp (reasonably at the very least since I have a rather coarse ground glass so it takes some resolution away). This confirmed that in fact my focus was correct at infinity as far as the lens and the scale were concerned.

Then I turned my attention to check my RF patch. I took the lens back to infinity and checked once again to ensure I was indeed right in my initial check, then I aligned the RF patch to match infinity in the rangefinder.

The results are that it APPEARS to be in focus correctly at all distances now and the RF patch is aligned properly to all the the distances. The distance scale is a little off, but totally within an acceptable tolerance. The disc actually is in feet, not meters, so there's that. I took my most reliable cameras and focused on a tripod on the same subject and they all were more or less on the same numerical value, which is a relief to me since all the other cameras are tack sharp.

I will put a test roll and give it a whirl once again.

I appreciate all of your responses and your time, I will edit my original post as it appears that I have managed to adequately calibrate the camera and the RF.

 

[shawn]

Do you have the removable film back in the camera?

Shawn

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

I have tried getting help in other forums, to apparently no avail until I found this goldmine of 120 RF Folders! I hope you guys might be able to help me out.

I got this amazing Mamiya Six V, it's in very, very good condition and even the slow speeds are hitting the mark exactly, which is a pleasant surprise!

In case it matters, it has a Seikosha-Rapid shutter and a D. Zuiko F.C. 75mm, F3.5 lens.

My issue is just with the focusing. The focusing scale doesn't match at all the focus on the film plane so 5 meters on disc scale is roughly focusing on something that is about 2.3 meters or so in real life. If I focus on infinity the images that do match at close distances don't match at infinity. Seems as though I can either have it focus correctly at close range or focus correctly near infinity but not both. Ideally, I'd like to be able to match close enough the distance scale since it would help for some street photography and zone focusing for fast shots.

Is there a "proper method" (steps that need to be in order) to adjust the focus with these cameras? I would think perhaps the lens could use some spacers/shims? I checked inside the film chamber and everything seems fine. The camera is absolutely pristine, nothing is missing and it has no dings, any signs of abuse, rust or any mold.

When I move the focusing wheel all the way either direction, the film plane moves the whole range of motion in both directions so I don't think there's anything hindering the motion of that either.

At the moment, it appears as though I can take photos at close distances and be reasonably in focus, but the scale still doesn't match and that kinda bothers me... (I did, to the best of my abilities, make the RF patch match what the lens is REALLY doing, ignoring the distance scale) :bang:

Any help would be greatly appreciated. I'd love to get this camera working correctly, everything on it is pristine condition and I'd love to get many more years of use on it! It's so compact that I find myself reaching out for it more often than any of my other cameras, so if I could just fix that it would be incredible!

How are you checking the lens focus? What distance is the lens focused to at the infinity stop?

You must understand that the purpose of a camera is to record sharp images on the film of subjects at whatever distance the subject is at. A system is provided for selecting this focus, and for the user to measure it.

To put it another way—the rangefinder is driven by the lens. Not vice versa.

If things are off—your first question to answer is: what's the lens doing?
Not the distance scale.
Not the rangefinder.
The lens.

This means getting the camera calibrated to the point that, when the focus is set to the infinity stop, subjects at infinity are in fact sharp, on film.

Once the infinity adjustment is really well calibrated closer distances should resolve when checked later, unless the lens itself has been tampered with (elements spaced incorrectly, fitted the wrong way, swapped out).

The Mamiya Six folders are an innovative idea, (film plane focus). The geared focus shaft system that actuates the film plane is cool—everything else is not as robust and well finished as it could be. The idea is sound. Parts like the film gate pressing, the bellows, the front standard struts, could have been much better and stronger made. Those things make a Six a PITA to work on.

Your lens focus (unless you've checked it on Bulb through the lens and definitively know it's bad) might be fine. The distance scale disc is on a gear meshed to the focusing wheel. Maybe it's been assembled with the wrong gear mesh?

You don't even worry about the rangefinder until you know the lens itself is bang on. You use the RF to focus the lens correctly, right? There's no point calibrating a RF to a lens that's off at infinity. You're matching it to a badly focusing lens—waste of time.

So—do nothing else until you are certain the lens itself is in good calibration. Then—and only then—look to correcting the distance scale and/or RF until they, too, agree with wherever the lens is set.

If the lens should be off you get to experience the fun of pulling the lens/shutter off the struts, playing with the shim thickness behind the shutter and repeating this, until it's right. Some precision measuring equipment can make this a little easier and quicker. Otherwise it's trial and error cutting shims until infinity is good. Did I mention the Six is a PITA?

You'll find a few photos of a IVb repair here. It's a start.
https://tinkeringwithcameras.blogspot.com/2016/03/mamiya-six-restoration.html?m=1

If you can be a little clearer about exactly what and how you have checked so far can provide more advice.
Welcome to RFF.
Brett

 

[r_torc]

Do you have the removable film back in the camera?

Shawn

Hi Shawn, yes, I do have the pressure plate and the film gate does move back and forth, so both springs are in place.

 

[r_torc]

How are you checking the lens focus? What distance is the lens focused to at the infinity stop?

You must understand that the purpose of a camera is to record sharp images on the film of subjects at whatever distance the subject is at. A system is provided for selecting this focus, and for the user to measure it.

To put it another way—the rangefinder is driven by the lens. Not vice versa.

If things are off—your first question to answer is: what's the lens doing?
Not the distance scale.
Not the rangefinder.
The lens.

This means getting the camera calibrated to the point that, when the focus is set to the infinity stop, subjects at infinity are in fact sharp, on film.

Once the infinity adjustment is really well calibrated closer distances should resolve when checked later, unless the lens itself has been tampered with (elements spaced incorrectly, fitted the wrong way, swapped out).

The Mamiya Six folders are an innovative idea, (film plane focus). The geared focus shaft system that actuates the film plane is cool—everything else is not as robust and well finished as it could be. The idea is sound. Parts like the film gate pressing, the bellows, the front standard struts, could have been much better and stronger made. Those things make a Six a PITA to work on.

Your lens focus (unless you've checked it on Bulb through the lens and definitively know it's bad) might be fine. The distance scale disc is on a gear meshed to the focusing wheel. Maybe it's been assembled with the wrong gear mesh?

You don't even worry about the rangefinder until you know the lens itself is bang on. You use the RF to focus the lens correctly, right? There's no point calibrating a RF to a lens that's off at infinity. You're matching it to a badly focusing lens—waste of time.

So—do nothing else until you are certain the lens itself is in good calibration. Then—and only then—look to correcting the distance scale and/or RF until they, too, agree with wherever the lens is set.

If the lens should be off you get to experience the fun of pulling the lens/shutter off the struts, playing with the shim thickness behind the shutter and repeating this, until it's right. Some precision measuring equipment can make this a little easier and quicker. Otherwise it's trial and error cutting shims until infinity is good. Did I mention the Six is a PITA?

You'll find a few photos of a IVb repair here. It's a start.
https://tinkeringwithcameras.blogspot.com/2016/03/mamiya-six-restoration.html?m=1

If you can be a little clearer about exactly what and how you have checked so far can provide more advice.
Welcome to RFF.
Brett

Thank you for your super detailed response!

I did tinker around with this earlier today. So I did this:

I entirely ignored what the distance scale disc said and focused entirely on what the actual lens was seeing, as you have pointed out yourself as well.

I put the camera on a tripod, I locked the bulb mode with a cable release and focused to infinity. To my pleasant surprise, at infinity, buildings around 7 km away from my house were sharp (reasonably at the very least since I have a rather coarse ground glass so it takes some resolution away). This confirmed that in fact my focus was correct at infinity as far as the lens and the scale were concerned.

Then I turned my attention to check my RF patch. I took the lens back to infinity and checked once again to ensure I was indeed right in my initial check, then I aligned the RF patch to match infinity in the rangefinder.

The results are that it APPEARS to be in focus correctly at all distances now and the RF patch is aligned properly to all the the distances. The distance scale is a little off, but totally within an acceptable tolerance. The disc actually is in feet, not meters, so there's that. I took my most reliable cameras and focused on a tripod on the same subject and they all were more or less on the same numerical value, which is a relief to me since all the other cameras are tack sharp.

I will put a test roll and give it a whirl once again.

I appreciate all of your responses and your time, I will edit my original post as it appears that I have managed to adequately calibrate the camera and the RF.

 

[shawn]

Do you have a digital camera that you can absolutely focus at infinity? If you do put the ground glass in your Mamiya but put a piece of scotch tape on the front and draw Xs on it. Set both cameras at infinity and put it lens to lens with the Mamiya. If the digital is showing you the Xs sharp then you know the Mamiya is focused properly at infinity.

You can do this with a second film camera but with a mirrorless digital that you can zoom in on you can really check how well infinity is calibrated on the Mamiya.

Shawn

 

[r_torc]

Do you have a digital camera that you can absolutely focus at infinity? If you do put the ground glass in your Mamiya but put a piece of scotch tape on the front and draw Xs on it. Set both cameras at infinity and put it lens to lens with the Mamiya. If the digital is showing you the Xs sharp then you know the Mamiya is focused properly at infinity.

You can do this with a second film camera but with a mirrorless digital that you can zoom in on you can really check how well infinity is calibrated on the Mamiya.

Shawn

Hi Shawn,

Yes, I do have a digital camera and I tried that. it does look very sharp. The ground glass (actually it is a frosted plastic card) I have has conveniently some printed text and I can see the ink droplets when the focusing zoom asist appears. I just tried to do it also while aiming the camera somewhere in the horizon too.

One cool thing the mamiya has is that the pressure plate has a hole in the middle which is so that you can read through the red window the frame number if needed. As it turns out, the hole is large enough to also see through it and should be a fair representation of the film as it is being pressed into the film gate the same way the film would under it.

Can't wait to try it out and check the results.

 

[Retro-Grouch]

A while back, there was a thread about the Mamiya Six vs. the Iskra. I have (and love) an Iskra; that thread left me tempted to try a Six. This thread has convinced me not to. The Mamiya focusing system sounds like the re-invention of the wheel: clever, but why? Is there any advantage to designing such a focusing system? I know Contax tried something similar with an AF SLR that used MF lenses, and at the time, I remember thinking that it was too much of a Rube Goldberg arrangement to work well, or continue to work well over time. Sometimes I'm baffled by the over-engineered designs I see in many devices, not just cameras.

 

[shawn]

It works fine on the Mamiya Six. If you think about it it is actually simpler to have the entire focusing/rangefinder mechanism encased within the body compared to having the rangefinder in one place and then the focusing elsewhere along with the ability to fold up and then fit all within the body. Literally all it takes is the film rails moving back and forth about 6 mm and that allows the shutter and lens to be rigidly fixed in one place on the folding mechanism. It is a simpler solution, not more complex.

The Contax was dramatically more complex as it wasn't just moving film rails, but the entire viewfinder, mirror box, shutter, and so on.

Shawn

 

[r_torc]

A while back, there was a thread about the Mamiya Six vs. the Iskra. I have (and love) an Iskra; that thread left me tempted to try a Six. This thread has convinced me not to. The Mamiya focusing system sounds like the re-invention of the wheel: clever, but why? Is there any advantage to designing such a focusing system? I know Contax tried something similar with an AF SLR that used MF lenses, and at the time, I remember thinking that it was too much of a Rube Goldberg arrangement to work well, or continue to work well over time. Sometimes I'm baffled by the over-engineered designs I see in many devices, not just cameras.

Please don't let me put you off getting one. I feel it was a user error more than anything else. I really do think that the camera works very well, I just had never adjusted anything like it before and it may be very possible that I just lacked the experience to overcome a minor adjustment which gave me a headache.

I will post some results when I shoot a roll and develop it 🙂

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

Thank you for your super detailed response!

I did tinker around with this earlier today. So I did this:

I entirely ignored what the distance scale disc said and focused entirely on what the actual lens was seeing, as you have pointed out yourself as well.

I put the camera on a tripod, I locked the bulb mode with a cable release and focused to infinity. To my pleasant surprise, at infinity, buildings around 7 km away from my house were sharp (reasonably at the very least since I have a rather coarse ground glass so it takes some resolution away). This confirmed that in fact my focus was correct at infinity as far as the lens and the scale were concerned.

Then I turned my attention to check my RF patch. I took the lens back to infinity and checked once again to ensure I was indeed right in my initial check, then I aligned the RF patch to match infinity in the rangefinder.

The results are that it APPEARS to be in focus correctly at all distances now and the RF patch is aligned properly to all the the distances. The distance scale is a little off, but totally within an acceptable tolerance. The disc actually is in feet, not meters, so there's that. I took my most reliable cameras and focused on a tripod on the same subject and they all were more or less on the same numerical value, which is a relief to me since all the other cameras are tack sharp.

I will put a test roll and give it a whirl once again.

I appreciate all of your responses and your time, I will edit my original post as it appears that I have managed to adequately calibrate the camera and the RF.

That sounds quite promising. Well done!

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

A while back, there was a thread about the Mamiya Six vs. the Iskra. I have (and love) an Iskra; that thread left me tempted to try a Six. This thread has convinced me not to. The Mamiya focusing system sounds like the re-invention of the wheel: clever, but why? Is there any advantage to designing such a focusing system? I know Contax tried something similar with an AF SLR that used MF lenses, and at the time, I remember thinking that it was too much of a Rube Goldberg arrangement to work well, or continue to work well over time. Sometimes I'm baffled by the over-engineered designs I see in many devices, not just cameras.

The idea is great. And I thought the gearing set up under the bottom cover that connects the focusing wheel with the two shafts for the focusing cams was very neat. But the execution really leaves a lot to be desired. If Mamiya had adopted a cast and machined design for the body and the film rail plate, with decent adjusters for parallelism and hardened pads for the focus cams, I'd be really impressed. You would have something really durable. But having been through one comprehensively there are a number of things I really disliked. The way the cams that push the film rails back slide straight across the underneath of the mild steel rail pressing for instance. It's not exactly Rollei standard of longevity and durability. If you use one enough, unless you are diligent about removing the rails and regularly cleaning and lubricating the cams and springs, eventually the cams and/or plate will wear. Once that has happened your film is sitting cockeyed and there is no provision at all for adjusting and correcting this. I think you would literally have to measure and glue pieces of shim stock under the rails to have any hope of correcting alignment. As I said, great idea, so-so execution.


The quality of the Mamiya bellows seems to be really ordinary. Not just prone to leaks at the corners. Thin leather/paper that falls apart if you try to seal a leak, (because it is so fragile that, no matter how gentle you are, more leaks appear as you are trying to fix the first one). When they get old they do a fair impersonation of tissue paper.

The struts are not exactly made of tool steel quality metal. Soft and easily bent by mishandling. Not given to a high standard of repeatability in their extended positioning either. Register to film plane might be great when you extend them the first time. The second time? Well...maybe, maybe not.

To be fair about it all Mamiya probably didn't really expect anyone to still want to use these cameras so many decades after they were made. And the example I have been dealing with, whilst it looked nice enough, had problems everywhere you looked from the RF to the film advance to the struts to the bellows. If you scored an example which had been owned by the right sort of owner (a careful user blessed with mechanical sympathy) perhaps you'd have a better experience. I see a terrific concept which was clearly built to a price, and unfortunately inherently fragile, instead of what could have been something really special (albeit at in obviously completely different market segment). Shame, really.

 

[r_torc]

The idea is great. And I thought the gearing set up under the bottom cover that connects the focusing wheel with the two shafts for the focusing cams was very neat. But the execution really leaves a lot to be desired. If Mamiya had adopted a cast and machined design for the body and the film rail plate, with decent adjusters for parallelism and hardened pads for the focus cams, I'd be really impressed. You would have something really durable. But having been through one comprehensively there are a number of things I really disliked. The way the cams that push the film rails back slide straight across the underneath of the mild steel rail pressing for instance. It's not exactly Rollei standard of longevity and durability. If you use one enough, unless you are diligent about removing the rails and regularly cleaning and lubricating the cams and springs, eventually the cams and/or plate will wear. Once that has happened your film is sitting cockeyed and there is no provision at all for adjusting and correcting this. I think you would literally have to measure and glue pieces of shim stock under the rails to have any hope of correcting alignment. As I said, great idea, so-so execution.


The quality of the Mamiya bellows seems to be really ordinary. Not just prone to leaks at the corners. Thin leather/paper that falls apart if you try to seal a leak, (because it is so fragile that, no matter how gentle you are, more leaks appear as you are trying to fix the first one). When they get old they do a fair impersonation of tissue paper.

The struts are not exactly made of tool steel quality metal. Soft and easily bent by mishandling. Not given to a high standard of repeatability in their extended positioning either. Register to film plane might be great when you extend them the first time. The second time? Well...maybe, maybe not.

To be fair about it all Mamiya probably didn't really expect anyone to still want to use these cameras so many decades after they were made. And the example I have been dealing with, whilst it looked nice enough, had problems everywhere you looked from the RF to the film advance to the struts to the bellows. If you scored an example which had been owned by the right sort of owner (a careful user blessed with mechanical sympathy) perhaps you'd have a better experience. I see a terrific concept which was clearly built to a price, and unfortunately inherently fragile, instead of what could have been something really special (albeit at in obviously completely different market segment). Shame, really.

I didn't open mine since I have a policy of trying out a camera before I clean or adjust it to see how bad things are if there's anything that need immediate attention so I can't say. Fortunately for me, it appears that my example did have a nice owner with mechanical sympathy and gentle hands. The camera looks pretty much new, with exception of one ding in a corner.

The bellows on mine are not leaking, thankfully. I checked with a flashlight in the dark and the first roll had no leaks. The film advance is a LITTLE stiff, but I attribute that to the plate pressing the film into the film gate so it's expected to cause some resistance. Now that you mentioned the cams, I will clean them and lube them lightly, although inside the camera seems pretty much 100% debris free.

The only other complaint I have is that there is perhaps one spot of fungi or mold or something that I wasn't able to clean when I cleaned the camera. You can't really tell from the photos, but sometimes when your subject is backlit it does seem to give it a bit of a steamy/dreamy aura. Maybe sometimes that's a good thing, shows the age of the equipment used, but in normal circumstances it's not an issue.

Do you know if one were to look for a lens of these type, what are they called? What's the mount name or how would one go about sourcing a new front element? The rear one is clean so no issues there.

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

I didn't open mine since I have a policy of trying out a camera before I clean or adjust it to see how bad things are if there's anything that need immediate attention so I can't say. Fortunately for me, it appears that my example did have a nice owner with mechanical sympathy and gentle hands. The camera looks pretty much new, with exception of one ding in a corner.

The bellows on mine are not leaking, thankfully. I checked with a flashlight in the dark and the first roll had no leaks. The film advance is a LITTLE stiff, but I attribute that to the plate pressing the film into the film gate so it's expected to cause some resistance. Now that you mentioned the cams, I will clean them and lube them lightly, although inside the camera seems pretty much 100% debris free.

The only other complaint I have is that there is perhaps one spot of fungi or mold or something that I wasn't able to clean when I cleaned the camera. You can't really tell from the photos, but sometimes when your subject is backlit it does seem to give it a bit of a steamy/dreamy aura. Maybe sometimes that's a good thing, shows the age of the equipment used, but in normal circumstances it's not an issue.

Do you know if one were to look for a lens of these type, what are they called? What's the mount name or how would one go about sourcing a new front element? The rear one is clean so no issues there.

After having to rehabilitate one very recalcitrant example I have tried to stay well away from them. I cannot suggest alternate lens sources, sorry. Not short of a donor body. I also do not know to what extent (if any) Olympus employed selective assembly of the lenses used, and whether substituting different lens parts would detrimentally affect optical performance. With that in mind, I usually suggest trying to work with a lens original parts if at all possible.

As none of the focusing hardware is related to the lens itself, one of the easy aspects of working on a Six is that the front lens mount merely screws into the front of the shutter. To access the glass you merely need to grip it and twist (counter clockwise of course) to unscrew it.

With a locking cable release securely attached and the shutter set to Bulb, by opening the aperture fully, you may also reach the glass surface of the rear lens group through the shutter itself. Obviously you can clean the rearmost glass from inside the back of the camera with the bellows closed. This won't give you access to every air to glass surface without further disassembly but I don't know your skill level when it comes to camera repairs, and it's a start.
Cheers,
Brett

 

[r_torc]

After having to rehabilitate one very recalcitrant example I have tried to stay well away from them. I cannot suggest alternate lens sources, sorry. Not short of a donor body. I also do not know to what extent (if any) Olympus employed selective assembly of the lenses used, and whether substituting different lens parts would detrimentally affect optical performance. With that in mind, I usually suggest trying to work with a lens original parts if at all possible.

As none of the focusing hardware is related to the lens itself, one of the easy aspects of working on a Six is that the front lens mount merely screws into the front of the shutter. To access the glass you merely need to grip it and twist (counter clockwise of course) to unscrew it.

With a locking cable release securely attached and the shutter set to Bulb, by opening the aperture fully, you may also reach the glass surface of the rear lens group through the shutter itself. Obviously you can clean the rearmost glass from inside the back of the camera with the bellows closed. This won't give you access to every air to glass surface without further disassembly but I don't know your skill level when it comes to camera repairs, and it's a start.
Cheers,
Brett

Yeah, I can imagine that first impression not being great for you to try another one.

I'm relatively new to film cameras, but I resucitated a Contax RTS II that fell in the sea and I got it back to fully working order. I had to pull out the mirror box from the body and clean out all the sand, reoil the pivots everywhere and clean the shutter solenoids, so I guess I'm pretty handy with tools. The camera works great and the photos are stupid-sharp, like, digital pretty much...

Having said that, I did clean all the elements on the Mamiya Six carefully and gently to avoid messing up any of the coating. I unscrewed the front element with my fingers and wiped it with 3% hydrogen peroxide and, front and back and let it dry fully. Then the same with the rear element from behind. The aperture and shutter blades are clean like brand new, so I didn't bother doing anything there to them.

Coming back to the focusing and patch alignment issue, though:

I spent a good 45 min. ~ 1h. playing around and focusing to infinite and things nearby. This is where I'm at now.

The lens infinity stop is indeed infinity at the film gate. Good. So, I used a frosted clear plastic card that was pressed in with the pressure plate in place exactly as film would be, so that's super precise.

Then, I aligned the RF patch to match infinity exactly, but when I would track back to focus on things nearby between 3.5 to 15 ft., the focus wasn't EXACTLY perfect, it was off by a pinch, so I ended up focusing through the lens with the frosted card and then adjusting back the RF patch to match the lens.

The current result:

The RF patch seeeeeeems to match lens focus all the way up to 30 feet. That's the main thing most of us are concerned with, I think anyway. When I reach infinity on the dial and the scale, the rf patch overshoots it by a slight hair. I feel I can live with that since I know that infinity at the dial stop is inifinity in the lens. All near distances are more important to me for portraits or some street shots anyway. I believe I read somewhere that overshooting inifinity in some rangefinders is normal, perhaps this is the case here too as long as everything else is perfectly in focus?

I stuck a roll of Ilford Delta 100, let's see how we do.

 

[r_torc]

After reading what Brett said about cleaning and oiling the cams that move the film gate, I removed the springs and cleaned everything in there. As expected, though, the film gate and the lobes were clean and the plate only had a slight signs of scoffs from the cams on the paint, so it's probably far from wearing them out.

Cleaned the lobes and the plate and added the slightest dab of grease to the contact points. I think this camera is good for another 50 years, easy... I also do take care of things carefully, so unless I drop it or someone touches it, this will last.

Some photos of the film gate removed.

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

Yeah, I can imagine that first impression not being great for you to try another one.

I'm relatively new to film cameras, but I resucitated a Contax RTS II that fell in the sea and I got it back to fully working order. I had to pull out the mirror box from the body and clean out all the sand, reoil the pivots everywhere and clean the shutter solenoids, so I guess I'm pretty handy with tools. The camera works great and the photos are stupid-sharp, like, digital pretty much...

Having said that, I did clean all the elements on the Mamiya Six carefully and gently to avoid messing up any of the coating. I unscrewed the front element with my fingers and wiped it with 3% hydrogen peroxide and, front and back and let it dry fully. Then the same with the rear element from behind. The aperture and shutter blades are clean like brand new, so I didn't bother doing anything there to them.

Coming back to the focusing and patch alignment issue, though:

I spent a good 45 min. ~ 1h. playing around and focusing to infinite and things nearby. This is where I'm at now.

The lens infinity stop is indeed infinity at the film gate. Good. So, I used a frosted clear plastic card that was pressed in with the pressure plate in place exactly as film would be, so that's super precise.

Then, I aligned the RF patch to match infinity exactly, but when I would track back to focus on things nearby between 3.5 to 15 ft., the focus wasn't EXACTLY perfect, it was off by a pinch, so I ended up focusing through the lens with the frosted card and then adjusting back the RF patch to match the lens.

The current result:

The RF patch seeeeeeems to match lens focus all the way up to 30 feet. That's the main thing most of us are concerned with, I think anyway. When I reach infinity on the dial and the scale, the rf patch overshoots it by a slight hair. I feel I can live with that since I know that infinity at the dial stop is inifinity in the lens. All near distances are more important to me for portraits or some street shots anyway. I believe I read somewhere that overshooting inifinity in some rangefinders is normal, perhaps this is the case here too as long as everything else is perfectly in focus?

I stuck a roll of Ilford Delta 100, let's see how we do.

Although I completely stripped and cleaned the Six rangefinder I did not have any problems calibrating it. Why yours deviates across the range I can only offer some general observations about.
First, I'll assume Mamiya made a RF with precision good enough to track tolerably well across the range of focus. I've no reason not to. So what are some general reasons the focus of lens and RF might diverge, then?

1)
Alteration of lens focal length is one. If a lens has been incorrectly assembled and an alteration to its internal dimensions has occurred this will alter the focal length. At infinity, lens focus and RF might be excellently adjusted. But as the RF is made to track to closer distances at the same rate as a particular focal length, changing the focal length will see the RF fall out of agreement.

With some more sophisticated RF systems it is possible to adjust the track of the RF at close and/or very close range for best results. Within the limits of such adjustment it could be possible to dial the RF in for best results at all distances. From memory the Six RF features only one basic adjustment.

2)
Insufficient precision matching lens & RF at infinity. It's not particularly easy getting the same standard of RF calibration factories originally achieved, with just the naked eye. Someone practiced with good vision can certainly get very, very, close, sometimes bang on. But minute deviations virtually imperceptible at infinity can throw the agreement off enough to be more readily noticed at close range and of course, this is where depth of field will least cover such errors.

I've been doing these adjustments a long time and routinely do a "blind test" at close range to cross check an infinity calibration. Every time to date I've found a discrepancy in the five foot match, on careful re-examination, I have found my infinity setting was good, but not quite perfect. Correcting this would see the close check align.

These days I'll use up to a 30 times loupe and ground glass to assess a lens. And a 2–3 times mini telescope to magnify the view of a patch through the viewfinder for maximum precision on dead tree branches a kilometre away, and adjust, and readjust, until it's impossible for my eyes to differentiate the merge.

3)
Wear or damage to the RF system. It's worth examining these parts for signs of damage or abnormal wear. Given the particular architecture of the Six RF actuating linkage—if you were obsessive enough over this sort of thing, with the appropriate combination of plotting the focus match, and dressing and flattening the cam, it may even be possible to dial the track of the RF to the lens, better than what it is (having absolutely satisfied yourself first, of course, that no other reason for the mismatch can exist).
Cheers
Brett

 

[r_torc]

Although I completely stripped and cleaned the Six rangefinder I did not have any problems calibrating it. Why yours deviates across the range I can only offer some general observations about.
First, I'll assume Mamiya made a RF with precision good enough to track tolerably well across the range of focus. I've no reason not to. So what are some general reasons the focus of lens and RF might diverge, then?

1)
Alteration of lens focal length is one. If a lens has been incorrectly assembled and an alteration to its internal dimensions has occurred this will alter the focal length. At infinity, lens focus and RF might be excellently adjusted. But as the RF is made to track to closer distances at the same rate as a particular focal length, changing the focal length will see the RF fall out of agreement.

With some more sophisticated RF systems it is possible to adjust the track of the RF at close and/or very close range for best results. Within the limits of such adjustment it could be possible to dial the RF in for best results at all distances. From memory the Six RF features only one basic adjustment.

2)
Insufficient precision matching lens & RF at infinity. It's not particularly easy getting the same standard of RF calibration factories originally achieved, with just the naked eye. Someone practiced with good vision can certainly get very, very, close, sometimes bang on. But minute deviations virtually imperceptible at infinity can throw the agreement off enough to be more readily noticed at close range and of course, this is where depth of field will least cover such errors.

I've been doing these adjustments a long time and routinely do a "blind test" at close range to cross check an infinity calibration. Every time to date I've found a discrepancy in the five foot match, on careful re-examination, I have found my infinity setting was good, but not quite perfect. Correcting this would see the close check align.

These days I'll use up to a 30 times loupe and ground glass to assess a lens. And a 2–3 times mini telescope to magnify the view of a patch through the viewfinder for maximum precision on dead tree branches a kilometre away, and adjust, and readjust, until it's impossible for my eyes to differentiate the merge.

3)
Wear or damage to the RF system. It's worth examining these parts for signs of damage or abnormal wear. Given the particular architecture of the Six RF actuating linkage—if you were obsessive enough over this sort of thing, with the appropriate combination of plotting the focus match, and dressing and flattening the cam, it may even be possible to dial the track of the RF to the lens, better than what it is (having absolutely satisfied yourself first, of course, that no other reason for the mismatch can exist).
Cheers
Brett

Thanks Brett, I appreciate greatly your explanations and the time you take to walk me through some of these items.

At the moment I'm on frame 4 of 12 using the 6x6 format, which should be the most "lose" the film will be since the masks aren't there to help with flatness as they are on 6x4.5. I will develop this film and ensure I have one or two shots to check for focus precision. I already took a shot at infinity and some medium distance shots, I will take one or two portraits at close distance on the widest aperture to see if I nail the focus. If so, perhaps I shall just leave it like that since most of my shots are at proximity with the odd few exceptions.

Having said all that, I don't think the problem here is option 1, this is the lens that came originally with these cameras, if I'm not wrong. The lenses do appear to be assembled correctly and the rear element is in the correct direction, so I think that should be fine.

Option 2, is possible. Specially the patch on the MSix is so tiny and the viewfinder is as big as the eye of a needle so... yeah, maybe. I did use a magnifier glass but I felt like it made it harder than it needed to.

Option 3 is the most likely if that is the case, although maybe not judging by the looks of the rest of the camera and even the cams that move the lens.

I feel I can accept my infinity being slightly off if all other focus points are bang on within 10 meters or so.

I have a Mamiyaflex Automat B coming up soon. Incredibly well kept, I hope that won't give me any head aches either.

I promise I will post some results once I develop this roll and perhaps if all photos are at the intended focus I will then lay the issue to rest (for now). I'll still look for another front element to make the camera look even better. (and see even better! haha)

 

[europanorama]

i didnt go through all messages. i have some deep experiences adjusting and verifying focussing issues. scale, infinity etc.
here bessa I 105mm, Mamyia UP systems, Pentax 67 lenses on Kiev 60 pls go to pentaxforums.com for the latter, also infinity reaching there.
there are multiple problems which i will mention now. pls be patient everything true.
Since i didnt collimate all my lenses i cannot tell for sure what is wrong if lens doesnt reach infinity here 7.8km TV-tower. i didnt test with film but digital. NB: i have a Bessa I attached to EOS 1000D infinity nonreached. maybe it will when using M10.
1. Real infinity other what YT-experts are telling is 10km(leica told) or even more of extraterrestrial infinity is meant for Astro-use. e.g. novoflex-systems can be adjusted for extraterrestrial. noflexar 200 is going beyond infinity but finefocussing impossible. this lens told me one can get better sharpness at 7.8km when lenses reach infinity or adapters are shorter. Important to know and confirmed by Zeiss: Manual focus lenses dont reach infinity on digital. thats why newest zeiss are made the way to reach infinity. leitax confirmed there mount to be made shorter. will test asap their new OM-EOS mount with rubberized surface. also two C/Y-EOS-mounts for AE lenses.
Bessa I 105mm lens adjusted and calibrated external rangefinder. both easy. did calibrate scale at 2m. no infinity tested.
the problem could be focus-shift when stopping down.means: one should calibrate scale with best possible fstop.
setup-
Good target on wall. Camera on tripod with macroslider here manfrottos.
using good not cheap lasermeter. stiff ruler. stiff groundglass of real glass here from photofinder. no plastic. why? we made a universal brightscreen groundglass same available for MF and other formats. i had focus-difference between viewfinder and GG. when pressing loupe on screen there will be focusdifferences. laser where lens can be removed is measuring through open camera. get laser which can be adjusted for front or back-measuring.
the problem with the rangefinders is: focallenghts are too short to verify real best sharpness at infinity. for 7.8km i need at least 200mm. or a very strong loupe for GG-checking. i think 7x isnt enough. one must have very good eyesight. glasses must be perfect. had huge problems in 2016 when i mentioned wrong focus on lenses and adapters. my right eye was then deteriating. got a hole in right foramen(location of sharpest viewing). tested automn 2017. in some forums there may still be some false statements about C/Y-EOS adapter K+F concept going beyond infinity and sigma 28/1.8 aspherical highspeed wide reaching only 40m. surgery failed at least i have now a new lens at right side(greystar surgery) and can read newspapers without glasses. left lens must also be replaced soon and new glasses made since i want perfect viewing.
3.

 

[europanorama]

collimating method using two cameras mentioned. instruction is online.