A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » Medium Format Photography Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Focal plane vs. leaf shutters in MF SLRs



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old April 3rd 04, 12:09 AM
Martin Francis
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old April 3rd 04, 12:32 AM
jjs
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old April 3rd 04, 04:03 AM
Bob Monaghan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old April 3rd 04, 06:42 AM
KM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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?


  #15  
Old April 3rd 04, 12:21 PM
jjs
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Focal plane vs. leaf shutters in MF SLRs

In article , (Bob
Monaghan) wrote:

[...]
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! ;-)


Thanks for the pointer to the excellent articles, Bob.

One more thing - I can show how the wrong cable release can lead to camera
shake. My favorite release is the long (about 12") thin type, however I
got a 'deal' on some short, high-tech heavy releases. What a huge mistake.
Sighting down the side of a 500mm lens I could see the lens and camera
move as I depressed the release. Bad! I switched to using the camera's
self-timer and the differences in the negatives were profound.
  #16  
Old April 3rd 04, 02:22 PM
Q.G. de Bakker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old April 3rd 04, 02:26 PM
Q.G. de Bakker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old April 3rd 04, 05:24 PM
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old April 3rd 04, 06:13 PM
Bandicoot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old April 3rd 04, 06:58 PM
Wilt W
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.