Have read this multiple times, wonder whether a singular event or a widespread systemic issue?It is a upgrade for heavy lenses like the Rodenstock 32 as the copal was way to weak for it...
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Have read this multiple times, wonder whether a singular event or a widespread systemic issue?It is a upgrade for heavy lenses like the Rodenstock 32 as the copal was way to weak for it...
I think the misalignment potential is what people mean when they say the copal 0 mount was weak, esp with the Rodie 32. My impression is that when misalignment happened with the copal 0 mount, it was more than a trivial issue to correct once the availability of copal 0 shutters went down, but someone correct me if I’m wrong.Hopefully the aperture only mount will be available for purchase in the future just like a copal shutter is now.
I can't imagine why a copal 0 mount would be 'weak' for a Rody 32..... its not like there is much spacing but the mounts themselves were/are prone to misalignment.
Victor
Thank you for sharing your observations with us.The traditional Copal shutter was borderline too physically weak to hold the large 32HR front element in proper alignment. I say borderline because most people found it to be just fine, but some of the customers that we’ve seen need a repair are not the kind to be careless with their gear, which strongly implies that damage could occur due to shaking/shocks that fall well short of negligent. We began advising our 32HR clients to watch out for this potential issue (eg packing it with extra padding, not leaving it mounted when relocating a tripod, especially for long distances, etc) and have seen a steep decline in repairs since then.