What if faster MF focal plane shutters will be introduced to enable 1/250 sync?

[BJL]

This is a simple wonder why focal plane shutters on MF are stuck with 1/125 max sync ...

I suppose that the simple answer is that mechanical shutters can traverse the 24mm frame high of 35mm format in a bit under 1/250s, but MF shutters take longer to traverse the 42.5mm frame height, especially because they are also wider and so heavier and harder to accelerate and decelerate.

I see several possible developments for the sort of photography that benefits from flash sync speed higher than 1/125s and currently uses medium format:

1) It continues to be served by leaf shutter lenses, including systems like Pentax and Mamiya/Phase One that also offers FP shutters, to avoid the extra cost of having leaf shutters in every lens.

2) It moves to smaller formats that allow higher FP shutter speed: 44x33, 45x30, 36x24 ...

3) People paying that much for cameras and backs accept paying for lighting bright enough to work with HSS, with the help of higher ISO speeds that reduce the intensity of illumination needed.

4) As a variant of the above, a move to continuous illumination, again made more practical by the higher usable ISO speeds.  The move to a video/still mix might push some professionals in this direction.

5) Electronic shutters could improve enough to make all mechanical shutters necessary.  Maybe not the "fast progressive read-out" type, but ones using an electro-optical shutter layer in front of the sensor, which can be electronically switched between opaque and transparent at very high speed.  This is what is used in some special-purpose high speed cameras, I believe.

[Joe Towner]

This is a simple wonder why focal plane shutters on MF are stuck with 1/125 max sync... It also questions the consequences that could affect industry if 1/250 sync speed was applied on modern MF and View/tech cameras... nothing more, nothing less!

I thought I was clear that the physical & material limitations prevent a focal plane curtain set from moving fast enough across a 36x48mm surface with enough reliability, durability and price to justify the expense of building and selling it.  The 645Z, with it's 33x44mm sensor size could have a faster than 1/125th, sync due to the smaller distance, but that would take a whole new shutter design.  The mirror box design is the moving part of a camera, and it fails enough already, and making it run at 200% isn't an improvement.  

How can I state this?  Easy, 35mm folks have screamed for faster than 1/250th for over a decade (and bitch just as much when they don't get 1/250th on the newest bodies ala 1/180th on the 6D or 1/200th on the D750), and DSLR makers, whom sell millions of cameras a year haven't invested the time, effort and money into solving it.  It's a positioning thing, where they'll limit it to hobble certain cameras compared to others.

Leaf styled MF lenses can only move around 1/800 or 1/1000 (Phase gets their 1/1600th via some trickery in the back and body working together, and even still can't do 1/1600th wide open on all lenses).  There is a limit to how fast they can move.  The Fuji X100 can move faster because the opening is smaller.

[Theodoros]

I thought I was clear that the physical & material limitations prevent a focal plane curtain set from moving fast enough across a 36x48mm surface with enough reliability, durability and price to justify the expense of building and selling it.  

Sure you was clear... but who are you?   

[Theodoros]

May I just repeat the whole as some "continue" their "logic" on replying? ...Thanks....

I really hate it when considerations are confused with "war" for some... Clearly, none claims that LS should be abandoned... none claims that one shutter is superior than another.... The only claim is made to the extend of appliance here... Camera's have customers with different needs... there are people that claim 1/2000 sync is necessary for photography to exist, there are others that claim that photography hasn't benefit anything, anything at all, from pushing flash sync further than 1/250... I'm (personally and without trying to "compete" with other opinions) with the second... My opinion is, that studio photography hasn't benefit at all from increasing flash speed more, I haven't seen anything as an image result that proves "innovative photography" worth considering because flash sync increased further than 1/500...

OTOH, it is a fact that LS raises prices, it is a fact that lenses are bulkier, slower and more keen to failure, it is a fact that servicing costs are multiplied and it is a fact that reliability is degraded... Can one (for a change) talk on the subject set, than defending his investment or his company's selling (BS) point? ...Can I see a picture that is a breakthrough in photography, sold for millions, couldn't be done with 1/250 sync and was shot with flash use of more than 1/250? ...may I?

This is a simple wonder why focal plane shutters on MF are stuck with 1/125 max sync... It also questions the consequences that could affect industry if 1/250 sync speed was applied on modern MF and View/tech cameras... nothing more, nothing less!

[telyt]

This is a simple wonder why focal plane shutters on MF are stuck with 1/125 max sync... It also questions the consequences that could affect industry if 1/250 sync speed was applied on modern MF and View/tech cameras... nothing more, nothing less!

The physics of moving masses are why focal plane shutters on MF are stuck with 1/125 max sync.  Bigger shutters + faster speeds = more vibration to control.

FWIW EFC is certainly possible with sensors larger than 24mm x 36mm.  EFC is used on the Leica S series cameras when in central shutter ("leaf shutter") mode.  The exposure sequence is:

Mirror up, FP shutter open, lens stops down
Exposure starts via EFC
exposure ends when central shutter closes
mirror down, aperture opens, FP shutter closes, central shutter opens

The central shutter doesn't make the difference between complete failure and a picture sold for millions, it allows the photographer greater lighting flexibility especially with strong ambient light.

[Hulyss]

5) Electronic shutters could improve enough to make all mechanical shutters necessary.  Maybe not the "fast progressive read-out" type, but ones using an electro-optical shutter layer in front of the sensor, which can be electronically switched between opaque and transparent at very high speed.  This is what is used in some special-purpose high speed cameras, I believe.

I also think we are going this way. Fuji do it on an APS-C sized sensor, Sony do it on 35mm sensor. We might see this technology before any announcement of a compact MF. I bet that the next Dxxx will have full electronic shutter option. We might even see this on the upcoming A9, maybe. MF in the other hand... it will take maybe more time but now CMOS is in the party, things can change quickly.

The central shutter doesn't make the difference between complete failure and a picture sold for millions, it allows the photographer greater lighting flexibility especially with strong ambient light.

And also freezing hairs at pixel level in speedy movements.

[Theodoros]

The physics of moving masses are why focal plane shutters on MF are stuck with 1/125 max sync.  Bigger shutters + faster speeds = more vibration to control.

The "physics" where with 1/30 more than half a century ago... and where with 1/60 sync forty years ago... (that's the main reason why leaf shutters where a necessity...), the same "physics" achieved 1/125 20 years ago.... 20 years ago.... 20 years ago....  20 years ago....

[JoeKitchen]

Well this conversation is turning into a broken record.  

I would guess that a certain time/speed, improvements become significantly smaller at a significantly higher price.  There is such a thing called the point of diminishing returns; maybe we are already past that in regards to FPS design. 

Maybe designing a FPS that gets you to 1/500 would add on an extra grand or two onto the cost of the camera.  At that point, why not just use what we already have, a LS lens.  (Or at least that is how the manufactures are going to view the problem.)  

[AlterEgo]

Maybe designing a FPS that gets you to 1/500 would add on an extra grand or two onto the cost of the camera.  At that point, why not just use what we already have, a LS lens.

__one__ lens ?

[AlterEgo]

I also think we are going this way. Fuji do it on an APS-C sized sensor, Sony do it on 35mm sensor.

those are rolling shutters, nothing to write home about

[JoeKitchen]

__one__ lens ?

Yes, that's right, one lens, or at least that is how the manufacturer would view it, which you conveniently edited out of my quote.  

[Theodoros]

Well this conversation is turning into a broken record.  

How did this ever come to you? ...what is that leads you to that conclusion?  

[Jim Kasson]

those are rolling shutters, nothing to write home about

Mechanical focal plane shutters are rolling shutters, too. They just roll faster, Speed Graphic excepted.

Jim

[AlterEgo]

Mechanical focal plane shutters are rolling shutters, too. They just roll faster, Speed Graphic excepted.

true, but we have nothing to write home about them either

[AlterEgo]

Yes, that's right, one lens, or at least that is how the manufacturer would view it, which you conveniently edited out of my quote.  

"at least that is how the manufacturer would view it" - that is just your guess... about how exactly they view it.

[JoeKitchen]

Yes, a guess, but I did put a little thought into it.  

New products cost money, not to mention time to develop, which is really money.  So, if a new faster FPS can be developed but adds on over a $1000 per camera to implement, why bother when there is already a solution?  

Lets not forget it is not just a new shutter, but new manufacturing facilities (or, at the very least, new machines) to produce such shutter, new employes, new material suppliers and contracts, new firmware, etc., etc.  

So yes, I am sure at least some camera companies, when asked, would just say, "what's wrong with leaf shutter lenses?"  

Of course, I could be wrong is assuming that we have already past the point of diminishing returns in regards to FPS.  Maybe, there is more ground to cover with minimal investment, but it is just camera companies assume 1/250 is all a photographer needs.  But if that is the case, why would not companies just change their feelings if so many photographers are complaining about it? 

[telyt]

The "physics" where with 1/30 more than half a century ago... and where with 1/60 sync forty years ago... (that's the main reason why leaf shutters where a necessity...), the same "physics" achieved 1/125 20 years ago.... 20 years ago.... 20 years ago....  20 years ago....

The laws of physics haven't changed in millions of years.  There have always been design tradeoffs that sacrifice one physical limit for another.  Sometimes new materials such as plastics or carbon fibers can be used to reduce mass in a shutter but always at a cost - manufacturing cost or durability for example - but our materials have to respect the laws of physics.  Accelerating a mass and stopping a mass requires forces and induces vibrations.  The faster you want the mass (shutter) to move the greater the forces and vibrations.  Big shutter + fast sync speed = big forces and lots of vibration.  It shouldn't be difficult to understand.

[BJL]

Maybe designing a FPS that gets you to 1/500 would add on an extra grand or two onto the cost of the camera.  At that point, why not just use what we already have, a LS lens.  

Indeed: and from the cost perspective, the challenge of doubling the flash sync speed has to be compared to the alternative of roughly doubling the power of the flash and using HSS.  Other potential issues with HSS have been noted, but for all any of us knows, the challenges and costs involved in overcoming those could be less than the challenges and costs involved in doubling the speed at which the shutter moves, as needed to double the flash sync speed with and FP shutter.

And then there is comparison to the costs of the option of leaf shutters -- which for photographers who also sometimes want shutter speeds higher than 1/800 or 1/1600, must be _in addition_ to the FP shutter.

[BJL]

I also think we are going this way. Fuji do it on an APS-C sized sensor, Sony do it on 35mm sensor. We might see this technology before any announcement of a compact MF. I bet that the next Dxxx will have full electronic shutter option. We might even see this on the upcoming A9, maybe. MF in the other hand... it will take maybe more time but now CMOS is in the party, things can change quickly.

So far those are rolling electronic shutters: each line is exposed for, say 1/1000s, but not all at the same time, so no use for normal flash (the pseudo-continuous illumination of HSS flash would still be needed).  for now, the total exposure time is quite slow, like 1/20s. That is why I mentioned the more exotic approach, providing a global electronic shutter as needed for use with normal flash systems.

But actually, I was a bit wrong; the modern approach seems to be a global electronic shutter on the sensor itself, without the extra layer in front.  The idea is to simultaneously transfer the gathered electrons from each photo-site to an adjacent light-shielded storage capacitor, ending the exposure, which then allows reading the signal out from there "at leisure".

Ironically, one Nikon DLSR had this years ago, allowing 1/500s flash sync, using a Sony interline transfer CCD sensor; the ability was then lost with the shift to current CMOS sensor technology.  However, there are CMOS sensors with this ability: Teledyne-Dalsa has some info about this at https://www.teledynedalsa.com/imaging/knowledge-center/appnotes/global-shutter/ and it offers global electronic shutters in both CMOS and CCD.  But AFAIK, no current still camera CMOS sensor offers a global electronic shutter.  One trade-off seems to be reduction of well capacity, so reducing the dynamic range at base ISO speed.

[AlterEgo]

Lets not forget it is not just a new shutter, but new manufacturing facilities (or, at the very least, new machines) to produce such shutter, new employes, new material suppliers and contracts, new firmware, etc., etc.  

I 'd assume shutters are not in house work, but procured from very few houses like Copal, no ? so it is like MF and CMOS sensor from Sony - once (and if) some manufacturer will make it available to be used in consumer cameras all camera manufacturers will all use it.