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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Focal plane vs. leaf shutters in MF SLRs
wrote in message
... Enough with the design details - which one provides the sharpest image overall? Thanks Leaf shutters typically vibrate less- certainly comparing my 'Blad or Bronica lenses with a Pentax 67, it is a tangible difference. So in that scenario, the leaf shutter would provide sharper images. But a rangefinder with a FP shutter might vibrate less than an SLR with a leaf shutter, and hence be sharper still. And a rangefinder with a leaf shutter might potentially be even sharper... Personally i'd aim for a camera whose shutter is moved by faeries on rocket boots. Failing that, I don't much notice the vibes from a leaf shutter SLR. -- - Martin Francis "Two hundred channels, and nothing but cats" - Jasper |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Focal plane vs. leaf shutters in MF SLRs
wrot
Enough with the design details - which one provides the sharpest image overall? Sharpness is in the lens. It doesn't matter what shutter you use. Some people (myself, for example) feel that the leaf shutter has less vibration and it's a good thing. I won't get into arguments about this. Suffice to say, I always pre-fire the 500c when shooting on a tripod. If you feel the same way, then a leaf shutter is the way to go - IMHO. Yesterday I walked down the photogaphy aisles in the university library and found a book that showed how shutter speed related to sharpness. There were noticable differences (at admittedly ridiculous magnification) in hand-held 1/250th pictures compared to tripod shot 1/250th, but it makes sense - a fraction of a millimeter of movement at the camera is hugely magnified. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Focal plane vs. leaf shutters in MF SLRs
shutter and related camera vibration sources can be significant limiting factors at the higher resolution levels; Dr. Skudrzyk's Photography for the Serious Amateur notes that his results for lenses were typically 1/3rd higher than often reported in other tests, which was largely credited to using short duration studio flash for exposure, thereby minimizing camera related vibration (and these tests were on seriously heavy tripod setups). as jjs noted, tests show some degradation at speeds as fast as 1/250th See chart at http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/vibration.html even more shocking, the value of mirror lockup may surprise many photographers, including many whose current cameras don't offer this once common feature, see http://medfmt.8k.com/third/mlu.html chart of Pop tests telephotos gained circa 100% (135mm) to 170%+ (300mm) when used with MLU on sturdy tripods at speeds around 1/15th to 1/60th second etc. Yeech! ;-) grins bobm -- ************************************************** ********************* * Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 * ********************Standard Disclaimers Apply************************* |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Focal plane vs. leaf shutters in MF SLRs
Thanks all. I learned a lot.
"KM" wrote in message ... I was cleaning my RZ and began wondering why each lens must incorporate its own leaf shutter, then began wondering why we find leaf shutters only in lenses. I understand why the shutter has to be in the lens for rangefinder systems (proxmity of wide-angle rear elements to focal plane = insufficient space), but why couldn't they be incorporated into SLR bodies? In current leaf-shutter systems like the Bronica ETR and Mamiya RB/RZ, doing so would make the lenses smaller and lighter. In focal-plane systems like the Pentax 645N, you'd get flash synch at any speed. I'm sure there's a perfectly good explanation I'm overlooking.What is it? |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Focal plane vs. leaf shutters in MF SLRs
jjs wrote:
Sharpness is in the lens. It doesn't matter what shutter you use. [...] That doesn't quite tally with the rest of what you wrote, i.e. that shutter caused vibration can indeed reduce sharpness. One other thing to consider is that SLR cameras using leaf shutter lenses must have a second "shutter" to shield the film while viewing through the open leaf shutter. That thing too will cause vibrations, so it's design too will matter very much. In some SLRs using leaf shutter lenses, this extra shutter even is a focal plane shutter. Use of a tripod and prereleasing the camera is the only way to benefit from the relative lack of shutter induced vibration associated with use of leaf shutters. (And anyway, use of a tripod is far more important than choice of shutter type.) |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Focal plane vs. leaf shutters in MF SLRs
Martin Francis wrote:
Personally i'd aim for a camera whose shutter is moved by faeries on rocket boots. Failing that, I don't much notice the vibes from a leaf shutter SLR. Kerr-cell type electronic shutters don't move at all. Capable of fantastically fast speeds too. With (slow) liquid crystal technology where it is today, i can't help but wonder why we haven't seen any developments in that direction. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Focal plane vs. leaf shutters in MF SLRs
I hate to play devil's advocate (OK - I like playing that role) but as most leaf
shutters are designed in between the lens elements, doesn't that inhibit lens design? Could the anecdotal stories of Biometars outperforming Planars could be as a result of the Biometars being mounted to a camera using a FP shutter and the Planars using between the lens, leaf shutters? jjs wrote: wrot Enough with the design details - which one provides the sharpest image overall? Sharpness is in the lens. It doesn't matter what shutter you use. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Focal plane vs. leaf shutters in MF SLRs
"Martin Francis" m wrote in
message ... [snip] Personally i'd aim for a camera whose shutter is moved by faeries on rocket boots. Didn't Black Sabbath write a song about that? Peter |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Focal plane vs. leaf shutters in MF SLRs
Kerr-cell type electronic shutters don't move at all. Capable of
fantastically fast speeds too. With (slow) liquid crystal technology where it is today, i can't help but wonder why we haven't seen any developments in that direction. How about 'Because the light has to go THRU the device, and that itself degrades the image. And it provides additional surfaces on which dust collects. Digital SLR suffer from the need to keep the CCD clean of dust, so imagine how a light-shutter would affect things, too! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Formula for pre-focusing | Steve Yeatts | Large Format Photography Equipment | 9 | June 22nd 04 02:55 AM |
zone system test with filter on lens? | Phil Lamerton | In The Darkroom | 35 | June 4th 04 02:40 AM |