alex_bonham_carter

Well it has been stripped of its leatherette and I just received a lens spanner in the mail to attempt to remove dust and maybe clean the shutter blades (q-tip clean, definitely learned my lesson about removing things) if they are readily accessible with the tools that I have. Where do I go to get new screws for this thing? Micromark emailed saying my sizes are too small and micro-tools said they have nothing in stock that would work nor do they have an ETA for new shipments. The screws I need secure the shutter assembly to the lens board and then the lens board to the focus hinges that move it in and out. 4mm (head diameter) x 3.5mm (length) x 2mm (screw diameter) - need 5 3mm (head diameter) x 2.5mm (length) x 1.5mm (screw diameter) - need 10 to be safe. I'm tempted to not use leather or faux at all and just paint it. Paint it black. Thanks!

<p>As an update, I have fixed it. I completely removed the black shroud around the base of the lens assembly and that allowed me to easily hook the winder tab into the shutter cocking lever. Sounds confusing if you're not familiar, but several stripped screws later, and I'm a step closer to ordering replacement leather.</p>

<p>Familiar story eh? I know what I'm doing, give me that screwdriver. Anyway, I'm trying to remove the leatherette and I decided to remove the face of camera, including the intact shutter assembly and both lenses by unscrewing the four little brass screws underneath the front leather. This is not exposing the inner workings of the shutter and I thought, it was a very basic job. I was wrong. After removing the leatherette, I realized that I didn't have to take it apart after all and began to reassemble before actually opening the spings and cogs areas. I lined up the screw holes, put the screws back in, and wound the film advance and pressed the shutter and nothing. It is not cocking. I understand that the winding arm moves a little tab back and forth which reaches in and cocks the shutter. I can cock and fire the thing by using a wooden skewer to recock the shutter manually and it certainly worked just fine before I "restored" it. Can someone please give me some photos of how everything should line up or what positions all the pieces have to be in to reassemble nicely? I'm beyond frustrated. Nothing has been bent to my knowledge, but I'm not sure what I am missing as far as correct reassembly steps.</p> <p>Does this sound familiar to anyone?</p> <p>Thank you.</p>

I've decided to submerge the pipe column into a 5 gallon bucket of gravel/sand which should reduce the vibrations. I took the arm off and pushed the pipe and saw it vibrate and the base flexed even with 80 pounds of weight next to the flange. That tells me that even using the truss stabilizer, it will sway due to the horrible mount quality. The wood was flexing as well, clearly amplifying the pipe vibration. A trussed assembly will vibrate as one joined piece. I'm hoping that a bucket on a lockable wheeled dolly will provide about a foot and a half of rigid support up the column, but should be loose enough to dampen some of the residual movement. At least this method will be easy to adjust and I can always add trusses later. I'll try gravel by itself, and then sand to fill in gaps if necessary for weight. It should be about 70-90 pounds surrounding the column on all sides which I'm hoping will be good to go. I think even two flanges will flex from my base. If the bucket won't do it, no harm because it's non-permanent.

That looks plenty strong, Jim. I think I might make the original design first and see if I need the second column after all. That would be pretty easy to add if it's just not stable enough. I like the concrete base idea so now I just have to flip a coin and see whether I can't find a local welder to put the diagonal angle on permanently without needing a new drill bit or a new drill. Thanks everyone!

Jim, I suppose a machine shop would make a strong weld for me easier than buying a wheelbarrow, mixing the concrete, and praying that I don't ruin my driveway/basement floor. My drill is not really good for making the holes either way. Should I use an iron angle on both sides? Two better than one? Does anyone have any doubts about the flange doing its part to steady the whole thing? I know it's holding firm because it's really just the column that wiggles with no vibrations that I can feel in the flange/base. Also, should I make sure that the iron angle is bolted exactly halfway on the column or is there a method to finding the best placement? Maybe that doesn't matter much? I will likely switch to the T design and hope that the 80lb bag on the base will make it as stable as any other design Reasonable for 10lbs of gear. Thanks again guys!

I might just go with the cement option as I already have this and a locking dolly to wheel it around if necessary. It is certainly easier to pour concrete into a bucket than find a machine shop to weld supports to the center column or completely re-engineer the base. Would 80 pounds of concrete in a big bucket give this the stability that I want? It would certainly support a good bit of the center column. Heavy yes, but it will likely move ten feet at most so a lockable dolly/ wheels assembly would be all I would need to protect my back. Mobility definitely is not needed. Or tip and roll it. Thanks everyone for your feedback.

Matthew, I like that design, but my question is how is a studio stand DIY or bought so stable as a similarly weighed, designed, T shape or are they also prone to flex that is not mentioned in DIY articles or reviews? I have the weight to keep it steady despite the base's relatively small footprint (probably two feet long by one wide) and I'm just amazed at how little information I can find about other designs having similar issues. I believe that you're right about the flange though. The flange is just too low to provide adequate stability. Just not enough threads to get a good bite. Perhaps the u-shape with the camera in the middle is the best shape. There should be plenty of space to manipulate my lights around just two very spread apart legs, it was the narrow tripod arrangement (narrow to prevent flex with heavy gear) that created problems. Thank you so far!

Hello engineers and clever builders, I made a post some time back asking about a diy camera stand for shooting overhead food photography. I decided to use 1-1/2 inch galvanized steel to make a crude camera stand, 48" high with the arm 24" long extending over my short table and using a super clamp to mount a 3-way pan head. I am using an 80 pound quick cement bag in a black sack as a counterweight positioned on the base and as many of you will be able to guess, there is a slight back and forth wobble when I give the pipe a push. The original goal was to make one long and strong pole so that my studio lights do not shine on tripod legs and cast shadows. The wobble is very slight and does not make the thing unusable with mirror lockup, but I would rather make it as solid as possible. Should I make it a "T shape" as a counter balance? Would filling the center column with sand do anything for me? Can anyone advise me on improvements? I want to make this single column design work because it is really what I need. I included a horrible cell-photo to show you what I'm working with. Thanks!<div></div>

Fair point. I'll be using a compact flourescent, but I'll keep an eye on cold items.

Well everyone, I think using a smaller table top will do very nicely. Shortening/collapse the legs some made everything perfectly rock solid. I'm satisfied. I clamped two shop lights to the tripod legs to asist in focusing as I have dim lights if I turn my model bulbs off and negligible natural light. It will be a good setup for my one place setting framing. Thanks for all the advice, so far I can highly recommend the Manfrotto 3039 for being very smooth and very stable with no creep or vibration. I'll still lock up the mirror, but as long as I don't kick my tiny table as I sit down, it'll work nicely.<div></div>

As an update, I have installed the Manfrotto 3039, and it does indeed hold the camera firm. I'm waiting on an at an Arca Swiss clamp to arrive so that I don't have to switch from a Manfrotto mount without anti twist pins to my Arca plate with anti twist plates. Now I'm trying to decide whether I want to buy a heavy duty c stand to use in place of my induro legs, which is natively designed to take studio heads and weight vertically. I'm noticing a fair amount of leg flex with the induro legs if I press down on the top of the camera. However, in typical use, it is very steady and does not wiggle around when I'm composing, cocking, or raising the mirror. I position a chair in front of my table top so I can easily see the ground glass and have plenty of space to maneuver my lights. So far so good. The c stand may provide a more rigid setup with appropriately positioned sandbags, but I would likely not be able to get as close to the ground glass, as I would only be able to position the stand at the edge of the table, not directly overhead as with a tripod. I may end of getting a smaller, more square table top so that I can close and shorten the tripod legs a big to make it more stable. I've measured and I really don't have much clearance to hang weight from the center column without the weight being visible in the frame. If I had higher ceilings I could put the whole rig on higher and use a longer lens, solving several issues at once, but I'll soldier on with my 90mm f3.5 (roughly a 40mm in 35 terms). The leg flex is annoying, but mostly a nonissue. I have not tried to see if I can switch film backs without it wiggling any. That'll be the decider.

Well, I'm sure I can make it work. I'll try to get it as close as possible with the stock settings before I readjust any hex nuts, but i have no doubt that it will be easier to adjust than my ballhead whether I have to account for any sag or not.

<p>I will look into the enlarger base, thanks guys! In the mean time, I went with a simple Manfrotto 3039 pan head. I figured it would be good to have a second head that will support the RZ67, just in case. I'm still going to pursue the enlarger idea because something quick and easy like that will prove to be very convenient for when the food is hot and steamy and I don't have as much time to play with.</p>

That is a fair point that I could use the ball head to roughly tilt the camera over and then adjust the rest of the tilt with the leg extensions. My mock table is not very wide or long, just big enough for a close crop of a table setting or one food arrangement, I'm not constructing Christmas Day spreads so I do have extra leg length to use. The RZ67 luckily has a revolving back so really, the framing could be landscape or portrait independently of the camera's mounting. Just as long as I can see the waist level finder. I tried it with the ballhead a little bit ago and by putting a spirit level on the back of the camera, I can work out most of the sideways tilt, but I'm still open to a more set and forget friendly method.