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

[Theodoros]

You very wrong, by a large margin, but I take time to semi answer your biased affirmation. MF market is not very shrinking, it is transforming (and already transformed). On an another hand, photography generate less money than before so investment is slower for photographers. So the MF cameras are more and more RENTED, but they are bought by shops. Once the ROI reached, those shops buy a new unit and sell the used MF. This is a pretty stable market and I think some shop's owner can confirm that on this very forum.
Range finder 120 cameras are legion and was far less expensive (and heavy). 645,680 rf cameras have been sold like hot cakes for decades, more than MF SLR and the second hand market is awesome on it. It is still popular because of a simple esoteric fact: they are cheaper and lighter.

I hope you have some figures to support all the above "statistics"... do you?

[Hulyss]

I hope you have some figures to support all the above "statistics"... do you?

Keep your hopes, I'll not answer you as I will not answer any of your interventions on LuLa until you became more gentleman with the photographers over here (period).



This is what come in mind every time someone say something and dare to answer you, on LuLa, since weeks.

[Theodoros]

Keep your hopes, I'll not answer you as I will not answer any of your interventions on LuLa until you became more gentleman with the photographers over here (period).

Good answer, good answer... it should be before quoting at the first place inaccurate and twisted bold information with no figures backing them up though...

MF mirrorless cameras during the film era where only a small fraction of what MF SLRs where selling. Proof for that is the analogy they have in the second hand market (look under Bronica or Mamiya general title on Ebay) and the fact that they where supported by a limited number of lenses with respect to the same maker's DSLR system... The reason is simple and it applies to the same analogy today... the only advantage such a system would provide with respect to a FF respective one, is the better image (with the same technology sensor) because of the increased light sensitive area's size.... But since modern FF mirrorless exceed the image quality that is expected for the respective use, only a very small market of possible customers would be prepared to invest a vastly increased amount of money that is unproportionally multiplied to only increase quality a bit... Therefore, because makers judge that the research on the matter is worthless as it requires a new lens line and additional support, they wisely let some people on forums speculating on others peoples pockets.... I bet you that if an MF mirrorless would ever appear, not even you would buy one... 

[Hulyss]

#pragma strict

var answer = false;

function OnReplyEnter (info : theodoros)
{
     if(info.tag == "civilized")
     {
        answer = true;
     }
}

I bet you that if an MF mirrorless would ever appear, not even you would buy one... 

This already exist, if you dare to read correctly what people post.



This a tethered only tool. Put a handle with shutter release, lenses control wheels and a switchable EVF on top of that. Or go Sony way : semi translucent fixed mirror and OVF... This is obviously going this way. It is just matter of time and MF Photographers will really enjoy a more compact gear. (and then I see ALPA running into trouble on some products...).

This thing actually have AF ...

[Theodoros]

Ohhh... that's what you mean by mirrorless ehhh?  Are you buying one?  Or is it that you mean the Alpa or other tech camera?  or is it a view camera? (it is mirrorless... no?)  Sorry I misunderstood you.... I thought that you thought that I thought, you was talking about modern digital rangefinders that are light, cheap and flaxible and that sell by millions (or is it trillions?) ....

[BJL]

I am a bit more optimistic than some about a camera maker introducing a camera in a format larger than 36x24mm which uses an electronic viewfinder rather than an SLR optical VF -- though I am not betting on it happening either.

Some reasons for a bit of optimism:

1) A major reason for the dominance of SLR's over rangefinders is the "what you see it [roughly] what you get" virtues of a through-the-lens viewfinder, which allows for using a greater variety of lenses (particularly long focal lengths and zoom lenses) along with advantages like depth of field preview and the ability to check focus at off-center subjects while viewing the intended framing, rather than by recomposing.

2) Major advantages of rangefinders are reduction in the size and weight of bodies and lenses by eliminating the mirror box and prism and greater flexibility in lens design, along with avoiding the vibration and noise from mirror slap, and reduced shutter lag.  Some of these become even more important as the format size gets larger.

3) An EVF camera can combine most of the virtues of the above two lists; in some respects, an EVF is even close to the ideal of "what you see it what you get", since it can preview effects like white balance and exposure level.

However I expect the price of sensors in these formats to stay rather high, so that tying such a camera to a single permanently attached lens would limit it to a very small market, and would lose most of the lens choice advantages of a TTL VF mentioned above.

[Theodoros]

 Faster lenses with MF cameras, yet retaining a high-sync capability is what leads some more possible customers to choose a DSLR instead. Thus, a faster focal plane shutter would add another attractive feature so that the MF makers could widen their marketing appeal...

[BJL]

Faster lenses with MF cameras, yet retaining a high-sync capability is what leads some more possible customers to choose a DSLR instead. ...

These virtues are equally possible with an EVF camera, or even with a true rangefinder; why are they arguments for customers to choose a DSLR?  Or by "DSLR" do you mean "camera with an FP shutter"?

[Theodoros]

These virtues are equally possible with an EVF camera, or even with a true rangefinder; why are they arguments for customers to choose a DSLR?  Or by "DSLR" do you mean "camera with an FP shutter"?

By DSLR one means (by definition) a reflex camera... i.e. one that reflects OPTICAL image through the lens via a reflective mirror... just like ALL MF bodies that are currently offered. An FP shutter camera, is one that has a ...FP shutter! ...well, ...usually! (one never knows with forums!) 

[BJL]

By DSLR one means (by definition) a reflex camera... i.e. one that reflects OPTICAL image through the lens via a reflective mirror... just like ALL MF bodies that are currently offered.

Good; we agree on that at least.

So what has the presence of that OPTICAL TTL viewfinder (as opposed to an electronic TTL viewfinder or an optical rangefinder viewfinder) got to do with "Faster lenses with MF cameras, yet retaining a high-sync capability".  Do you think that SLR's have an _inherent_ advantage  with respect to fast lenses and high-speed sync capacity?

To me, this sounds like an argument for MF cameras that offer both FP shutters and some lenses with leaf shutters, but nothing to do with how the viewfinder operates.

[Theodoros]

Good; we agree on that at least.

So what has the presence of that OPTICAL TTL viewfinder (as opposed to an electronic TTL viewfinder or an optical rangefinder viewfinder) got to do with "Faster lenses with MF cameras, yet retaining a high-sync capability".  Do you think that SLR's have an _inherent_ advantage  with respect to fast lenses and high-speed sync capacity?

To me, this sounds like an argument for MF cameras that offer both FP shutters and some lenses with leaf shutters, but nothing to do with how the viewfinder operates.

I don't relate the FP shutter with viewfinder operation either... I only say that leaf shutter lenses restrict lens speed and that if a faster FP shutter would exist, some customers would prefer to buy faster lenses than slower ones equipped with leaf shutter....

[BJL]

I don't relate the FP shutter with viewfinder operation either... I only say that leaf shutter lenses restrict lens speed and that if a faster FP shutter would exist, some customers would prefer to buy faster lenses than slower ones equipped with leaf shutter....

OK, got it: you are talking about why many people prefer having a focal plane shutter available, as in all current MF cameras except the Hasselblad H system.

So we seem to agree: nothing to do with the camera being an SLR or not.  And not much to do with whether leaf shutter lenses are _also_ offered (Mamiya/Phase One 645, Pentax 645, Leica S2.)


It is interesting to me that Hasselblad had some focal plane shutter 6x6 bodies for a while, the 203FE and 205FCC, but reverted to leaf shutters only with the H system.

[Theodoros]

It is interesting to me that Hasselblad had some focal plane shutter 6x6 bodies for a while, the 203FE and 205FCC, but reverted to leaf shutters only with the H system.

That is really strange isn't it?  Particularly if one considers that with the H bodies, there is a mechanism in front of the focal plane to block the light, which could have been an FP shutter doing the same thing instead... It seems strange that they insist not to include an FP shutter at all and make leaf shutters even for their 24mm & 28mm lenses...

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Yes, and the 500 series outlasted the 200 series.

There is a principal problem with focal plane shutters, and that is that accelerating the shutter curtains induces reversed motion on the camera body. It is called conservation of momentum. Exactly the like phenomena as firing a gun, there will be recoil. Now let's assume that we need 1/500s sync time, so front curtain would have completed it's travel and second has still not moved.

Let's assume that curtain travel time must be below 1/1000s to allow for 1/500 s sync time. Let's also assume that the shutter travel is 50 mm on a MFD. That would mean that the shutter travels at 0.050/0.001 50 ms/s, now let us also assume that the camera weight is about 2 kg and shutter curtain weight is say 10g.  So camera would move with 50 * 10 / 2000 = 0.25 m/s. Assuming shutter time of 1/500 the motion would be 0.5 mm.

Obviously a tripod or hand holding the camera will slow down that motion.

With a central shutter the moving masses are smaller, but most of all the different blades will accelerate in different direction, so the forces on the camera will cancel out.

If connection between camera body and tripod is very solid the whole thing would act as single coupled mass.

Now, would we go to 135 format, shutter travel would be less, say 30 mm and shutter curtain would be proportionally smaller. So it is easier to make a low vibration and high speed shutter for DSLRs.

Best regards
Erik

OK, got it: you are talking about why many people prefer having a focal plane shutter available, as in all current MF cameras except the Hasselblad H system.

So we seem to agree: nothing to do with the camera being an SLR or not.  And not much to do with whether leaf shutter lenses are _also_ offered (Mamiya/Phase One 645, Pentax 645, Leica S2.)


It is interesting to me that Hasselblad had some focal plane shutter 6x6 bodies for a while, the 203FE and 205FCC, but reverted to leaf shutters only with the H system.

[BobShaw]

they insist not to include an FP shutter at all and make leaf shutters even for their 24mm & 28mm lenses...

Because it is better for the work it is made for with leaf shutters for high speed flash sync. If the 24 and 28mm lenses did not have leaf shutters (as do all H lenses) then you could not use them.

PhaseOne wanted to keep compatibility with the focal plane shutter Mamiya 645AFD lenses that it originated from, but most new lenses are leaf shutter.

Focal plane shutters have mechanical movement right in front of the sensor.

[Theodoros]

Because it is better for the work it is made for with leaf shutters for high speed flash sync. If the 24 and 28mm lenses did not have leaf shutters (as do all H lenses) then you could not use them.

PhaseOne wanted to keep compatibility with the focal plane shutter Mamiya 645AFD lenses that it originated from, but most new lenses are leaf shutter.

Focal plane shutters have mechanical movement right in front of the sensor.

I'm not sure you understand the subject of the thread... This is not a comparison between FP or LS on which outperforms the other... It is purely on what the benefits would be if FP shutters of MF SLR cameras would sync as high as 1/250... By the way, none ever has a use for high flash sync with a MF 24 or 28mm lens... The comment on Hasselblad's H bodies is purely because the cameras could have a focal plane shutter included that could replace the light blocking mechanism that is used on them, it doesn't mean that it would have to be an 1/250 able to sync shutter... All other competition doesn't use LS shutter in their wide angles and this leads to better pricing and faster lenses.

[BobShaw]

There is no subject to the thread.

My Hasselblad was built from day one to be leaf shutter, and that's one of the reasons why i bought it. If I need a focal plane shutter I use my Canon. PhaseOne didn't have the option to start from scratch, because they bought Mamiya.

It is possible to make a motorcycle with 4 wheels. it is just what you call it.

[BJL]

Cameras with 1/250s flash synic speed still offer HSS, to support flash at far higher shutter speeds; there seems to be some demand for using flash at 1/800s and even 1/1600s.  Since I doubt that any SLR, let alone ones in formats larger than 36x24mm, will ever get mechanical focal plane shutters that fast, I predict that leaf shutters will be around at least until sensors get good global electronic shutters.

[Theodoros]

I believe it is common sense that the existence of leaf shutter lenses has nothing to do with FP shutters existing along side them and with the sync speed of FP shutters... All todays MF cameras but the Hasselblad H system provide FP shutter and are able to use LS lenses (Pentax 645 too) if the maker decides to offer them.

Obviously there are people that would choose to use higher sync LS lenses and others that would prefer faster & cheaper lenses instead... The question asked is completely different than most people reply (which is usually out of subject) and has to do whether some customers would prefer to use faster, cheaper, simpler & more reliable lenses if higher sync FP shutter was offered by the makers... 

Note that the UWAs offered by ALL makers that have bodies with FP shutter in production are only offered without LS shutter included and this is because there is no use for a high sync UWA lens...

[Kagetsu]

Phase one has the 28mm (equivalent to 17mm on full frame 35mm) with a LS.