Back to the list after on year without DCS Pro SLR/c

Hello,

I am back to the list.

Last summer, I experienced, that my SLR/c had a considerable front focus which was the reason that I did not achieve those sharp shots with my prime Zeiss lenses as I expected. It was thought, that the sensor came off from the glue.

I was reluctant to send the camera to Midwest Camera Repair. So I found somebody in Europe who used to repair the SLR cameras and who offered me to check whether he can do something on it. It took him one year to return it to me... I have the camera not in hands yet, but I will in ten days when I am back from my holiday. So I looked again in the forum. First step I was doing was to install Photo Desk under Windows 7 Ultimate. Until now, I was running it under the XP emulation in W7. The installation - with the replacement of the kodakcms.dll 5.0.4.0 by the version 5.2.5.0 did the job! Photo Desk is running directly on W7!

So will be back soon with more contributions to the discussion.

Best regards,

Dirk

Dirk (and anyone else for that matter with similar problem), this is now easily addressable if you can get your hands on donor 14nx/SLR/n/c (they all use the same sensor). Sensor can be simply transplanted, and the accompanying sensor calibration file extracted from donor camera and placed in yours (using a service firmware from my DCS Remap program). True it may cost more but the results are usually better than having precision align sensor yourself.

Also to guard myself from this ever occuring I strengthened sensors in all my Kodaks with industrial strength metal epoxy (taking the sensor from its board and doing it underneath the frame) - the backside of the sensor off the board looking like this after "operation":

Enterprising, informative and the info sticks in one's mind!

Well, the repairman said, that the sensor did not came off the glue.

He said also, that really fixing the AF-Problem usually could only be done by software which is only available at Midwest.

Is the software anywhere available for the SLR/c? This would really help.

I had also the original screen replaced by a Contax screen with split image focus meter.

So I will check how the camera works when I will have it in may hands and will report.

Best regards so far.

Dirk

Dirk124 said:

Well, the repairman said, that the sensor did not came off the glue.

He said also, that really fixing the AF-Problem usually could only be done by software which is only available at Midwest.

Is the software anywhere available for the SLR/c? This would really help.

Click to expand...

The AF software is not Midwest exclusive (unless Kodak had its own version of it) - it is standard AF calibration procedure for Nikon F80 body. Unfortunately not many service centers left that do that and I have not seen Nikon service software for old film cameras available anywhere. All the F80 camera firmware and I suspect areas responsible for AF calibration are accessible from Kodak firmware so perhaps with time I'll decipher that part as well.

The AF calibration is not just the software - you repairman was not entirely truthful. Nikon calibration procedure firstly does mechanical adjustment of AF sensor (at the bottom of the camera) as much as possible (with 3 screws and set of axis alignement stands and focusing target). And then it follows by fine tuning AF in software (which is effectively a table of AF sensors errors allowing software controlling thge lens to adjust for it).

Dirk124 said:

I had also the original screen replaced by a Contax screen with split image focus meter.

So I will check how the camera works when I will have it in may hands and will report.

Click to expand...

I did the same and used Nikon K3 split screen to make my own KatzEye kind of screen for SLR/n (it only needed light filing on both sides).

So, unfortunately, the Nikon procedure does not help...

The calibration was in early days made by the Sigma-Service, but today they now refuse to touch the camera anymore.

Regards

Dirk

Dirk124 said:

So, unfortunately, the Nikon procedure does not help...

The calibration was in early days made by the Sigma-Service, but today they now refuse to touch the camera anymore.

Click to expand...

My bad - keep forgetting about SLR/c. Yes for that one I have no idea how it works unfortunately.

Dirk124 said:

Dirk124 wrote: Well, the repairman said, that the sensor did not came off the glue. He said also, that really fixing the AF-Problem usually could only be done by software which is only available at Midwest.

Click to expand...

Checkout the article in my signature about correcting for front/back focusing as that could help. Have used the method successfully on many different SLRs and DSLRs to adjust for Manual and AF focusing issues but you MUST do the focusing check as shown - essential to get the right diagnosis and end results.

--
Zone8: Although I am a handsome genius, when I stand in front of a mirror, I vaguely recognise the ugly idjit standing on the other side!
LINK: For B+W with Epson 1400 (and other models) using black ink only PLUS other useful tips:
http://www.photosnowdonia.co.uk/ZPS/epson1400-B&W.htm
Cleaning DSLR Sensors, including Kodak DSLR Factory Cleaning method:
http://www.photosnowdonia.co.uk/ZPS/KodakDCS-sensorcleaning.htm (Includes links to "bassotto's" images)
Solving back/front focus problems on Sigma and most other DSLRs
http://www.photosnowdonia.co.uk/ZPS/backfocus.htm
PDF format list of lenses you can print or download - covers Italian Flag YES/NO for DCS 14n but applies to others. http://www.photosnowdonia.co.uk/ZPS/ItiFlagLensList.pdf

Thanks, I did consider that procedure.

As I also wanted to get the screen replaced by one with a split focus aid and as it was assumed the sensor came off from the glue, I decided to send to the repair shop.

I will evaluate the results and then possibly try to the mirror's calibration as described.

Currently I have also with my Sigma cameras, SD1 and SD15 severe foucs problems the Sigma service cannot fix. Possibly I also have to come there to the same procedure.

Regards

Dirk

That procedure is to fix mirror alignement not focus. Thanks to internet it is widely distributed myth. It only helps with focus when the primary cause of focus problems was misaligned mirror. Otherwise it can make it a lot worse.

Alexey.Danilchenko said:

AlexeyD wrote: That procedure is to fix mirror alignement not focus. Thanks to internet it is widely distributed myth. It only helps with focus when the primary cause of focus problems was misaligned mirror. Otherwise it can make it a lot worse.

Click to expand...

Whilst I can understand that point of view - practical results are opposite from my personal experience. To date I have used this for visitor's cameras (Nikon, Canon and Sigma - around 23 to date) and it has worked totally correctly - importantly with any lens on those cameras. In several cases, owners of more than one (I can only quote actual examples) DSLR have followed recommendations (by others in other forums) and sent their body showing that problem with their lenses back to the manufacturers, who have presumably then adjusted the lenses to get "correct focusing" - the owner then finding when they were returned, their other body - which had no problems with the lenses, then had problems that the presumably adjusted lenses now did not align with the other, formerly fine, body. In every case where I have used the method to "correct" manual and auto focusing errors, the end results have been perfect focusing. In addition, many have posted using this and achieving correct focusing on a range of both SLR (film models) and DSLRs.

Of interest is the later inclusion of being able to adjust focusing and other problems via internal camera software methods which would seem to indicate that adjustment to "whatever" inside the body or perhaps something inside the different lenses. One day I will have to check out exactly what is actually being adjusted. Meantime I shall continue to use the method described because it works. I first did this with my Sigma SD14 - I had stopped using it because, without really trying to understand "why", I was dissatisfied with a fair proportion of shots - then did a focusing check and found it was due some back focusing, that I did not experience with the earlier SD9 with same lenses. Did the tests as per article, did the adjustments - bit at a time and rechecked - until got the end results as wanted. It then restored confidence in using the SD14. As said - I can only report of success with quite a number of cameras and feedback from others in similar vein. Certainly not an urban myth from my personal experience.

We have been through this discussion a few times and it is not a point of view. It is a fact dictated by the camera construction and reading the service manuals (and actually repairing) for various cameras. Strongly advised before you embark on passionate discussion about merits of some approach...

Alexey.Danilchenko said:

AlexeyD wrote: We have been through this discussion a few times and it is not a point of view. It is a fact dictated by the camera construction and reading the service manuals (and actually repairing) for various cameras. Strongly advised before you embark on passionate discussion about merits of some approach...

Click to expand...

As mentioned - simply reporting on actual cases.

Thanks for the open discussion and your tips and opinions.

My few cents:

I believe, you both Alexey and Zone8 are right!

The natural way for screen precision should be to adjust the screen -- lens mount distance via adjustment of the level of the screen. Either by screws (at the better cams) or by thin spacers. Distance should be exactly the flange back.

The natural way to adjust the AF-sensor should be to do the same with its position in relation to the lens mount. I believe, because the AF-sensor compares parts of left image side with parts of the right image side - or as cross sensor also vertically, that it is very critical that the sensor is adjusted very parallel (meaning 90 degrees) to the image plane.

Both adjustments should be done with the appropriate mirrors aligned axactly to 45 degrees.

This is the primary concern. Software fixes either at the camera or the lens are crap and should be used as last order solution.

HOWEVER: My opinion is that, as mechanical adjustment is very complicated and time consuming, most manufacturers accept higher mechanical tolerances and try to fix them by error correction matrices in the firmware. Even at low end cameras the mechanical adjustment might no more be possible.

Mirror adjustment as described by Zone 8, however, might be the best tweak against negligence of a manufacturer or workshop to carry out correct mechanical adjustments. Shortcoming of adjusting the mirrors will be that the focus indication spot in the screen will not necessarily match exactly with the location where the focus is measured. However, this shift might be neglibile. I have no idea to rate this effect.

In the case of Sigma, I own an SD15 with significant backfocus. I tried three (!) times to get the Sigma service (and to pay for that) to adjust the AF mechanically. What they were doing was to adjust the lenses to the SD15 - however for free. The result was, that all the lenses now have FRONT focus with my SD1 and my SD14. Horrible! So this case is crying for self tweaking the mirrors.

In the case of my Sigma SLR/c body:

Sigma should be able to fix the AF as the body is similiar to the SD9/10. However, I called them and they refused.

I would have tried the mirror fixes for sure. The reason I did not, was the assumption that the sensor needs to be glued again and that this should fix the problem.

Anyway, I will see how the cam comes back from the workshop and will see what to do.

Best regards

Dirk

In various camera service manuals, mirror alignement is usually done first with collimator. This is what those side excentric bolts are for, by turning them you can vary primary and secondary mirror angles. The mirrors themselves are planes so varying their angle with one point of control you physically cannot vary the plane of focus for 4 focus points - it is impossible.

With camera mirrors aligned to a specified degree in mirror box (usually primary 45 degrees and secondary can be a variation depending on position of AF sensors plane), the focusing screen and AF sensor units are aligned in their individual planes. This is done by using spacers (usually for focusing screen) and at least 3 points of alignement for AF sensors (usually) followed by a secondary software calibration (the AF sensors could themselves be not exactly planar and offset against each other so a calibration table of differences is written with service software to the camera). On some older cameras (MF from those I repaired) even focusing screen alignement is controlled by 3 or more screws changing planar position of the screen.

Now the mirror misalignement is perfectly possible and this can have AF and manual focus miss effect, and in this case using the bolts under mirror may actually fix it. But in vast majority of cases it is actually not the case. Well known focus problems on various Nikons for example were caused by AF sensor block becoming loose. Following advise to turn the screw under mirror will actually make it worse. It is giving that advise as generic AF fix what annoys me, not explaining it to people or giving them caveat. Screwing mirror alignement is easy - getting it back in home conditions could be not an easy task at all.

As an added exercise, draw a mirror chamber diagram, a lens optical path that goes through the primary and secondary mirror and reflects to each of 4 AF sensors and then redraw it with appropriate angle changes when there is a slight mirror angle variations (primary, secondary and both) and see what it does to the aligned in the plane of focus 4 AF points and how they move. Perhaps then it becomes a bit clearer why I am so against advising this.

Hello,

I am now starting to understand the focus problems of my SLR/c.
First, I have the assumption that the registration distance is to high.
How can I measure it?
Workshops use this, but is there any other cheaper idea with available gear?


Also, I had the camera in a workshop which tried some tweaks. Anyway, they removed the sensor, checked whether it came loose (the glue was still ok), cleaned the sensor and remounted everything. Could it be that during re-fitting the sensor to the camera body it was mounted not in the right position so that it came a bit more in distance from the body?

Thanks a lot.

Dirk

Dirk124 said:

Hello,

I am now starting to understand the focus problems of my SLR/c.
First, I have the assumption that the registration distance is to high.
How can I measure it?
Workshops use this, but is there any other cheaper idea with available gear?
https://pictures.lytro.com/lyt-04932...ictures/706640

Click to expand...

Nikon uses depth gauge (a kind of micrometer) to measure distance between mount and 4 points at the sensor plane.

Dirk124 said:

Also, I had the camera in a workshop which tried some tweaks. Anyway, they removed the sensor, checked whether it came loose (the glue was still ok), cleaned the sensor and remounted everything. Could it be that during re-fitting the sensor to the camera body it was mounted not in the right position so that it came a bit more in distance from the body?

Click to expand...

Can't say for SLR/c but on SLR/n it is made in such a way that its impossible.

Hello,
I do not think to need to measure the registration distance from the SLR/c any more.
I had the same focus issue with the same lens and adapter at another Canon camera, so it is not an SLR/c problem.

You must know, that I use a Zeiss 1.4/85 lens with a Rollei QBM mount and an adapter to Canon EOS.

It seems that the adapter is about 0,10 mm too thick. This explains the problem to achieve infinity focus. It does not explain the front focus issue I also have.

The adapter is too thick because I found out that in internet ressources like Wikipedia a QBM registration distance of 44,70 mm has been published. While Canon needs 44.00 mm, the adapter should have 0.70 mm thickness. It had less, so I felt save. Now I found a correction, that the 44.70 where erroneously published and the right value was 44.50 mm. This means that the adapter was too thick, it may have been manufactured somewhere in China according to the erroneously published data.

I will now correct the adapter and then go on with the front focus issue.

Dirk