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

[Theodoros]

Will then Leaf shutter have a reason to exist? Focal plane (only) shutter cameras will be cheaper, lenses will be faster, simpler, cheaper & more reliable... 

[Jim Kasson]

Will then Leaf shutter have a reason to exist? Focal plane (only) shutter cameras will be cheaper, lenses will be faster, simpler, cheaper & more reliable... 

A faster FP shutter would, all else being equal, increase vibration associated with acceleration and deceleration of the first curtain. Probably, what you're suggesting should be combined with EFCS, hence new sensor chips needed.

Jim

[Theodoros]

A faster FP shutter would, all else being equal, increase vibration associated with acceleration and deceleration of the first curtain. Probably, what you're suggesting should be combined with EFCS, hence new sensor chips needed.

Jim

IMO that's a myth. The vibration is mostly caused by the mirror on DSLRs and usually leaf shutter cameras are of much more noisy mirror (the ones that mirror itself blocks the light towards the image area) or have (like Hasselblads) "curtains" equally or more vibrant to a focal plane shutter to block light.... To the contrary... I believe that focal plane can be attached on the body in a way (using proper damping materials) that can be very anti-vibrant indeed.

[JoeKitchen]

Why not just use leaf shutters instead? 

[Theodoros]

Why not just use leaf shutters instead? 

MO is for a number of reasons many of which are stated with the OP ("Focal plane (only) shutter cameras will be cheaper, lenses will be faster, simpler, cheaper & more reliable...") but more than that, why have high shutter sync with lenses that one will never need to use high sync with? (like ultra wide angles for example)... Usually a studio photographer doesn't need more than two lenses with high shutter sync, three would be very rare.... Why decrease reliability, increase cost and have slower lenses on the rest?

[Joe Towner]

The bigger question is why incur the design and development efforts that may or may not be required.  It's twice the distance to cover, and to get 1/250th would require a shutter that's twice as fast as the current FPS bits on 35mm.

You'd need to get 35mm sync to 1/500th to have a technology that's fast enough - and there would be a lot more happy folks with that.

Plus, if you buy into the Hasselblad based systems you're a 'sync at any speed' setup already.

-Joe

[Theodoros]

The bigger question is why incur the design and development efforts that may or may not be required.  It's twice the distance to cover, and to get 1/250th would require a shutter that's twice as fast as the current FPS bits on 35mm.

You'd need to get 35mm sync to 1/500th to have a technology that's fast enough - and there would be a lot more happy folks with that.

Plus, if you buy into the Hasselblad based systems you're a 'sync at any speed' setup already.

-Joe

The question is if "sync to any speed" is needed as long as sync goes up to 1/250 and surely modern materials should be able to cope with the better quality that a faster MF focal plane shutter would require... It's purely a question on how people "balance things" adapted to modern tech... Surely leaf shutters are a tradition, but they started at a date where focal plane shutters where too slow... they do increase cost considerably, one has to buy different shutters with each lens (instead of buying one with the camera), they do add to complexity and do affect reliability.... now there are some advantages too... but what about how things balance today?

[Joe Towner]

The question is if "sync to any speed" is needed as long as sync goes up to 1/250 and surely modern materials should be able to cope with the better quality that a faster MF focal plane shutter would require... It's purely a question on how people "balance things" adapted to modern tech... Surely leaf shutters are a tradition, but they started at a date where focal plane shutters where too slow... they do increase cost considerably, one has to buy different shutters with each lens (instead of buying one with the camera), they do add to complexity and do affect reliability.... now there are some advantages too... but what about how things balance today?

I'd guess that HSS and speedlights have gotten most folks past the 1/250th issue.  The Profoto B1/B2 and other things doing a long even flash that sync's up ok seem to resolve the issue without the durability issue that camera makers would have with faster FPS syncs.

What is the gain in a faster FPS shutter, especially in a MF world?  Mamiya has LS lenses, Hasselblad has just LS lenses, and Leica has LS lenses.  We're down to Pentax as the only current make that doesn't have a LS lens you can buy new.

-Joe

[Jim Kasson]

IMO that's a myth. The vibration is mostly caused by the mirror on DSLRs and usually leaf shutter cameras are of much more noisy mirror (the ones that mirror itself blocks the light towards the image area) or have (like Hasselblads) "curtains" equally or more vibrant to a focal plane shutter to block light.... To the contrary... I believe that focal plane can be attached on the body in a way (using proper damping materials) that can be very anti-vibrant indeed.

Here's the result of testing EFCS on and off with mirror up in both cases with a much smaller shutter:

http://blog.kasson.com/?p=6638

Jim

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Moving significant mass at high speed will always induce movement, due to conservation of momentum.

I have seen a lot of it on my Pentax 67, and Michael Reichmann reported in on the Phamyia. Some FPS users have reported it with long lenses.

The reason it is not seen more is that it is not causing double contours, just a degeneration of image quality.

Best regards
Erik

Here's the result of testing EFCS on and off with mirror up in both cases with a much smaller shutter:

http://blog.kasson.com/?p=6638

Jim

[Doug Peterson]

Once you get used to syncing natively and wirelessly at 1/1600th without significant loss of light (as with pseudo sync methods like HSS) you come to consider 1/250th quite limiting.

[Theodoros]

Surely LS has some advantages, but if (high sync) focal plane shutters would be the standard, then I believe: A. There would be less photographers considering the kind of shutter the system of their choice has, B. There would be no need for makers to have more than 3-4 lenses in their series with leaf shutter build in, C. The makers that only offer leaf shutter lenses would have to redesign their cameras to integrate a focal plane shutter in it.... + the previously said advantages... (less cost for the lens, less bulky and faster lenses, more reliability, less service expenses, longer lens life... etc).

It seems to me that there would be a breakthrough with (digital) view/tech cameras too.... (Let me remind the introduction of a focal plane shutter with the new universals or Sinar's m shutter previously).... They could then be more focused to communicate the shutter with the MFDB letting the lens to do its job independently of the rest of the system... Especially if LV improves further with MFDBs, the combination with (high sync) focal plane shutter on a view/tech camera could resurrect the glory of them. The whole MF market could have a new boost as a result!

[BobShaw]

Once you get used to syncing natively and wirelessly at 1/1600th without significant loss of light (as with pseudo sync methods like HSS) you come to consider 1/250th quite limiting.

Exactly. Not sure of the reason for the question as that is one of the reasons for me going MF, to get a high sync speed. (Please don't suggest HSS)
Being able to overpower the sun with portable flash is fantastic.

[AlterEgo]

Exactly. Not sure of the reason for the question as that is one of the reasons for me going MF, to get a high sync speed. (Please don't suggest HSS)
Being able to overpower the sun with portable flash is fantastic.

a variety of RX1-type bodies (wide/normal/tele) will be good... 1/2000+ sync + HSS + TTL... each body for a price of one MF leaf shutter lens 

[BernardLanguillier]

Please don't suggest HSS

Genuine question, why exactly should it not be suggested?

Cheers,
Bernard

[BobShaw]

Genuine question, why exactly should it not be suggested?
Cheers,
Bernard

HSS works by dividing up the flash power and spreading it to periods as the curtains move down the sensor. You have have control over when that actually is. With a leaf shutter you can wind up the shutter speed to control the ambient and then open up the aperture to use even modest flash units and any of them.

So my reasons would be:
1. Low power - since only a fraction of the power is available for each mini exposure.
2. inconsistent power and hence exposure.
3. Varying colour
4. hard on flash units.
5. Hard on models.
6. Most professional flash units don't support it. I need to be able to use any flash unit any time.
7. Just hate toys.

People spend so much time = money on gimmicks to overcome basic limitations of their equipment. In the long run the better system is cheaper.

[BernardLanguillier]

HSS works by dividing up the flash power and spreading it to periods as the curtains move down the sensor. You have have control over when that actually is. With a leaf shutter you can wind up the shutter speed to control the ambient and then open up the aperture to use even modest flash units and any of them.

So my reasons would be:
1. Low power - since only a fraction of the power is available for each mini exposure.
2. inconsistent power and hence exposure.
3. Varying colour
4. hard on flash units.
5. Hard on models.
6. Most professional flash units don't support it. I need to be able to use any flash unit any time.
7. Just hate toys.

People spend so much time = money on gimmicks to overcome basic limitations of their equipment. In the long run the better system is cheaper.

Thanks.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Hulyss]

Will then Leaf shutter have a reason to exist? Focal plane (only) shutter cameras will be cheaper, lenses will be faster, simpler, cheaper & more reliable... 

Well... I would have asked the inverse question. In my humble experience, LF's should be optimized and FPS forgotten. It is very nice and flexible to use a camera able to sync at 1/2000 without any mirror slap or curtain movement, like fuji X100, sigma DP and ultimately Sony RX1 (or Voight 667 at 1/500). I think we need to wait till we can get compact MF ala 7ii. We might see that within 5 years or less.

For that, Leica and other do it (but still, you have movements inside the camera even if your on LS).

I'm waiting a brand to pop out a camera without internal movement who work only with LS lenses.

[Theodoros]

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!

[AlterEgo]

My opinion is, that studio photography

but in studio you can often just kill the ambient light and with a regular x-sync of 1/250 still use the flash output @ 1/Ks as if you have the same x-sync... outdoors is a different matter