If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
are mechanical shutters bad?
Dante Stella seems to make the argument that a $1 quartz watch is more
accurate than a $10,000 mechanical rollex and likewise he argues that electronic shutters are more accurate than mechanical ones, and what's worse, is that mechanical ones deteriorate over time so that unless professionally checked every decade (at quite a cost) they're bound to be troubled in old cameras. I've been developing a liking for older cameras recently and especially so now that i ordered the gossen digisix i may be less inhibited in wanting to buy cameras which batteries are now outlawed or exposure is antiquated, but if mechenical shutters are problematic this may be a problem. What do you guys think of what he said? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
are mechanical shutters bad?
"Mike Henley" wrote Dante Stella seems to make the argument that a $1 quartz watch is more accurate than a $10,000 mechanical rollex and likewise he argues that electronic shutters are more accurate than mechanical ones, and what's worse, is that mechanical ones deteriorate over time so that unless professionally checked every decade (at quite a cost) they're bound to be troubled in old cameras. I've been developing a liking for older cameras recently and especially so now that i ordered the gossen digisix i may be less inhibited in wanting to buy cameras which batteries are now outlawed or exposure is antiquated, but if mechenical shutters are problematic this may be a problem. What do you guys think of what he said? Let me put it this way: (just my opinion) Over the years, I've owned quite a few quartz watches (the $25 kind). They were accurate, precise and cheap - and they're all gone, for various reasons (broke, can't get the battery anymore etc.). I switched to (attention: cliché!) my fathers mechanical Omega, which is over 50 years old and works like a charm. I never worry about batteries anymore, and back then, they made these watches like tanks - durable, water resistant and well protected against shocks. I've become attached to that mechanical watch (or rather, it's become attached to me...) and I'll gladly shell out $60 every ten years to have it serviced. I know it's reliable (never been late because of it). Not so long ago, I replaced my fully electronic Nikon F65 by an (almost) all mechanical FM2n. Never regretted it. And I never enjoyed photography so much. Just my 2c. Cheers, ink |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
are mechanical shutters bad?
Mike Henley wrote:
Dante Stella seems to make the argument that a $1 quartz watch is more accurate than a $10,000 mechanical rollex and likewise he argues that electronic shutters are more accurate than mechanical ones, and what's worse, is that mechanical ones deteriorate over time so that unless professionally checked every decade (at quite a cost) they're bound to be troubled in old cameras. I've been developing a liking for older cameras recently and especially so now that i ordered the gossen digisix i may be less inhibited in wanting to buy cameras which batteries are now outlawed or exposure is antiquated, but if mechenical shutters are problematic this may be a problem. What do you guys think of what he said? Yes, electronic shutters are usually more accurate. Do you need that accuracy? Are your light meters (and your ability to use them) up to the task? Are you using sensitivity tested professional films (properly kept & stored)? In the real world that extra accuracy is usually insignificant. Deteriotion over time: Unless you're running many rolls of film a day through your camera, wearing your shutter out is not an issue, at least with quality cameras. Electronic shutters will do no better (given the same build quality). What mechanical shutters do need is a periodic adjustment (or CLA). This frequency this is needed depends on the shutter and how & where it's used. I recently had several of my cameras (20 to 50 years old, most AFAIK never having had a CLA) checked: They were all within tollerance. The 1/1000 top speed of older cameras is usually more like 1/800 or 1/700 (even with the glorious Leicas), but that is within tollerance. Keep in mind that a 1$ quartz watch might not last you very long and that your great-grandchilden will still be using the Rolex. And there's nothing worse than ugently needing to know the time and seeing that the bloody watch has stopped... Chris |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
are mechanical shutters bad?
"Mike Henley" wrote in message om... Dante Stella seems to make the argument that a $1 quartz watch is more accurate than a $10,000 mechanical rollex and likewise he argues that electronic shutters are more accurate than mechanical ones, and what's worse, is that mechanical ones deteriorate over time so that unless professionally checked every decade (at quite a cost) they're bound to be troubled in old cameras. I've been developing a liking for older cameras recently and especially so now that i ordered the gossen digisix i may be less inhibited in wanting to buy cameras which batteries are now outlawed or exposure is antiquated, but if mechenical shutters are problematic this may be a problem. What do you guys think of what he said? Shutter acuracy is prolly the least important part of the whole chain. Real film speed is seldom as stated; f stop is purely mathamatical, subtract 4% or less for every surface, transmission is seldom the same corner to corner, or for every f stop, or target speed for that film, or reciprocity failure. And on and on. If the shutter is deadly accurate, so what? Beside, when's the last time two watches agreed? Bob Hickey www.Pbase.com/bobhichey/galleries |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
are mechanical shutters bad?
Mike Henley wrote:
Dante Stella seems to make the argument that a $1 quartz watch is more accurate than a $10,000 mechanical rollex That may be true, but does it need to be? and likewise he argues that electronic shutters are more accurate than mechanical ones, and what's worse, is that mechanical ones deteriorate over time so that unless professionally checked every decade (at quite a cost) they're bound to be troubled in old cameras. So are electronic shutters as they also have mechanical parts. In addition the batteries may not be available in years to come. I've been developing a liking for older cameras recently and especially so now that i ordered the gossen digisix i may be less inhibited in wanting to buy cameras which batteries are now outlawed or exposure is antiquated, but if mechenical shutters are problematic this may be a problem. What do you guys think of what he said? It all depends on what you need and want. Both mechanical and electronic work. Both can be as accurate as needed. Both can fail. When building a new camera today, good mechanical will be more expensive to build than good electronic. So choose what you like, but don't expect much in the line of new mechanical to be coming out. -- Joseph E. Meehan 26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
are mechanical shutters bad?
Bob Hickey wrote:
Shutter acuracy is prolly the least important part of the whole chain. Real film speed is seldom as stated; f stop is purely mathamatical, subtract 4% or less for every surface, transmission is seldom the same corner to corner, or for every f stop, or target speed for that film, or reciprocity failure. And on and on. If the shutter is deadly accurate, so what? Beside, when's the last time two watches agreed? Bob Hickey www.Pbase.com/bobhichey/galleries I've seen shutters that the marked 1 second was closer to 8 seconds. So things can get pretty bad. OTOH I think for most things the issue is how big a difference really doesn't matter. 1/500 could be 1/400 to 1/600 and the difference is just a fraction of a stop. If the shutter is constant then it's not too hard to adjust the other parts of the chain [Your EI for one] to compensate. Nick |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
are mechanical shutters bad?
Mike Henley writes:
Dante Stella seems to make the argument that a $1 quartz watch is more accurate than a $10,000 mechanical rollex ... He's right. A mechanical Rolex is off by about six seconds a day. A $1 quartz watch may be ten times more accurate. A radio-controlled quartz watch will be accurate to within one second over a period of three million years, and such watches only cost about $40. ... and likewise he argues that electronic shutters are more accurate than mechanical ones ... True. But shutter accuracy isn't as important as watch accuracy, because imprecision in shutters isn't cumulative, and fairly large errors are still imperceptible in the final result. ... mechanical ones deteriorate over time so that unless professionally checked every decade ... This is true for all shutters. Even "electronic" shutters are actually mechanical; they just have an electronic timing circuit that decides when to open and close the shutter. So electronic shutters have more accurate exposure times, but they wear out just as fast as all-mechanical shutters. I've been developing a liking for older cameras recently and especially so now that i ordered the gossen digisix i may be less inhibited in wanting to buy cameras which batteries are now outlawed or exposure is antiquated, but if mechenical shutters are problematic this may be a problem. What do you guys think of what he said? A good mechanical shutter will be very accurate for many years, and typically they can be adjusted to restore accuracy for many additional years of service. Not only that, but you don't really need 0.001-stop accuracy in a shutter, because exposure is never that precisely calculated in the first place (all exposure settings are compromises). -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
are mechanical shutters bad?
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
are mechanical shutters bad?
Mxsmanic wrote:
Mike Henley writes: Dante Stella seems to make the argument that a $1 quartz watch is more accurate than a $10,000 mechanical rollex ... He's right. A mechanical Rolex is off by about six seconds a day. A $1 quartz watch may be ten times more accurate. A radio-controlled quartz watch will be accurate to within one second over a period of three million years, and such watches only cost about $40. ... and likewise he argues that electronic shutters are more accurate than mechanical ones ... True. But shutter accuracy isn't as important as watch accuracy, because imprecision in shutters isn't cumulative, and fairly large errors are still imperceptible in the final result. ... mechanical ones deteriorate over time so that unless professionally checked every decade ... This is true for all shutters. Even "electronic" shutters are actually mechanical; they just have an electronic timing circuit that decides when to open and close the shutter. So electronic shutters have more accurate exposure times, but they wear out just as fast as all-mechanical shutters. I've been developing a liking for older cameras recently and especially so now that i ordered the gossen digisix i may be less inhibited in wanting to buy cameras which batteries are now outlawed or exposure is antiquated, but if mechenical shutters are problematic this may be a problem. What do you guys think of what he said? A good mechanical shutter will be very accurate for many years, and typically they can be adjusted to restore accuracy for many additional years of service. Not only that, but you don't really need 0.001-stop accuracy in a shutter, because exposure is never that precisely calculated in the first place (all exposure settings are compromises). Excellent post. -- --e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.-- |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
are mechanical shutters bad?
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message ... Mike Henley writes: Dante Stella seems to make the argument that a $1 quartz watch is more accurate than a $10,000 mechanical rollex ... He's right. A mechanical Rolex is off by about six seconds a day. A $1 quartz watch may be ten times more accurate. A radio-controlled quartz watch will be accurate to within one second over a period of three million years, and such watches only cost about $40. And, if you save your sales slip & warrantee, and you find that it's off by more than a second after three million years, you will be able to get your $40 back....... |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
zone system test with filter on lens? | Phil Lamerton | In The Darkroom | 35 | June 4th 04 02:40 AM |