Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Theodoros on March 27, 2015, 04:12:23 pm
-
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...
-
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
-
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.
-
Why not just use leaf shutters instead?
-
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?
-
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 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?
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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 ;)
-
Please don't suggest HSS
Genuine question, why exactly should it not be suggested?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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!
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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???? ;)
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.... ;)
-
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.)
-
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 ?
-
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
-
__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.
-
Well this conversation is turning into a broken record.
How did this ever come to you? ...what is that leads you to that conclusion? ???
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
I 'd assume shutters are not in house work, but procured from very few houses like Copal, no ?
I doubt it, especially for focal plane shutters, whose operation is highly coordinated with other parts of the body, and can represent a competitive advantage; I would think that they are designed and built in-house.
And after all, Copal does not even make Copal shutters anymore!
-
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.
I don't think that anyone suggested to break the laws of physics, nor one suggested that it is an easy task that can be done without further research or keeping cost the same... But I believe that with today's knowledge & research on materials and if combined by lowering the mass of shutter leafs further by increasing the number of them, it is feasible at reasonable cost.
-
I doubt it, especially for focal plane shutters, whose operation is highly coordinated with other parts of the body, and can represent a competitive advantage; I would think that they are designed and built in-house.
And after all, Copal does not even make Copal shutters anymore!
The shutter in the Sony alpha 7 is made by Copal:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/01/the-a7r-teardown-a-look-inside-sonys-awesome-full-frame-mirrorless-camera
Jim
-
The shutter in the Sony alpha 7 is made by Copal:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/01/the-a7r-teardown-a-look-inside-sonys-awesome-full-frame-mirrorless-camera
Jim
Interesting. I am tempted to say that this is what happens when an electronics company starts trying to make SLRs, and that I doubt a "real" SLR maker like Canon, Nikon or the like would stoop to such outsourcing. But actually, this in part goes back to the Alpha system's Minolta roots; Minolta also outsourced some shutters from Copal. So maybe FP shutter outsourcing is more common than I thought.
-
I don't think that anyone suggested to break the laws of physics, nor one suggested that it is an easy task that can be done without further research or keeping cost the same... But I believe that with today's knowledge & research on materials and if combined by lowering the mass of shutter leafs further by increasing the number of them, it is feasible at reasonable cost.
If it's such a great idea, patent it and sell it to the shutter makers. I doubt they've thought of it [/sarcasm]
The same technology that has enabled FP shutter sync speeds to creep faster has also allowed leaf shutter sync speeds to do the same. When FP shutter sync speeds on 35mm cameras were 1/60 sec or 1/125 sec, leaf shutter sync speeds typically topped out at 1/500 sec. FP shutter sync speeds on 35mm-sized cameras are now often 1/250 sec and guess what, leaf shutter sync speeds are 1/1000 sec (or faster). Still a 2-stop difference.
-
Interesting. I am tempted to say that this is what happens when an electronics company starts trying to make SLRs, and that I doubt a "real" SLR maker like Canon, Nikon or the like would stoop to such outsourcing.
Nikon has been using Copal shutters since the mid-1960s. AFAIK Canon first used Copal shutters in an SLR camera in the EF model.
According the Nidec (the maker of Copal shutters)
"A large number of these units are used for digital cameras of major manufacturers, and they have the overwhelming share of the world as the leading brand."
-
If it's such a great idea, patent it and sell it to the shutter makers. I doubt they've thought of it.
That is my rather generic response, given that there are multiple competing camera makers, and I doubt the are all run by people who know less about their business than the average forum poster. But with the issue of FP shutter speeds, there is a further issue: the place where there would be most benefit might be medium format getting beyond 1/125s (as opposed to 36x24 getting beyond 1/250s) but it seems that there is rather little R&D going on within the medium format companies; most progress seems to be "trickle up" from outside, like Sony's CMOS sensor. With sales revenues probably around one percent of what the smaller format SLR systems bring in, the financial incentives or resources might not be there to push those big FP shutters much harder.
Can anyone point to the last improvement in FP shutter speed in MF, or summarize recent significant "in-house" progress or innovation in MF hardware, as opposed to what sensor makers have provided to MF camera makers?
-
Nikon has been using Copal shutters since the mid-1960s. AFAIK Canon first used Copal shutters in an SLR camera in the EF model.
According the Nidec (the maker of Copal shutters)
"A large number of these units are used for digital cameras of major manufacturers, and they have the overwhelming share of the world as the leading brand."
To be fair, should have quoted my final more serious sentence, not just that somewhat sarcastic one!
So maybe FP shutter outsourcing is more common than I thought.
-
To be fair, should have quoted my final more serious sentence, not just that somewhat sarcastic one!
Yes shutter outsourcing is very very common. Canon, Nikon, Leica, Phase, etc may each have an 'exclusive' focal plane shutter design, but in each case it's a Copal design tweaked to the camera maker's specs and made by Copal. Much like Sony makes the majority of sensors, with CFA and other toppings tweaked to the camera makers' specs. AFAIK Leica makes the shutter for their central-shutter ("leaf shutter") lenses.
-
Can anyone point to the last improvement in FP shutter speed in MF, or summarize recent significant "in-house" progress or innovation in MF hardware, as opposed to what sensor makers have provided to MF camera makers?
S-Magazine 1-2012 has an interesting article on how Leica developed and makes their own leaf shutters (they call them central shutters) in house. You could buy/order the paper magazine, or you can download it for free on the iPad App.
http://s-magazine.photography/ceemes/en/magazine.html
-
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.
This morning :)
http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2015/03/30/phase-one-announces-the-worlds-smallest-80mp-medium-format-camera
I now think the door is open for a Mamyia 8 and that this discussion will turn to oblivion (because seriouselly, FPS sucks with high rez).
The question is : What part is the most expensive to change or repair ? A little Leaf shutter or a mirror box stuffed with lot of pretty complex mechanics ?
-
Some comments on the two replies so far to my question.
The Leica S system has indeed been the most actively developed in any format large than 36x24mm; in part out of necessity as it is still new, being the only such system introduced in the digital era. Whatever the reason, Leica has put a lot more development effort into it than I see from any of the systems surviving from the film era (just Hasselblad and Mamiya 645 now?). Even with its newly developed FP shutter and with its lower 30mm frame height, the focal plane shutter flash sync speed is only 1/180s, with Leica offering both leaf shutter lenses and High Speed Sync to go beyond that.
As to that Phase One announcement: leaving out all the bits that are not needed in a remotely operated camera is not a major or expensive technological advance!
Maybe Alpa is the other main innovator in camera bodies, with things like its contribution to the A-series.
-
Interesting. I am tempted to say that this is what happens when an electronics company starts trying to make SLRs, and that I doubt a "real" SLR maker like Canon, Nikon or the like would stoop to such outsourcing. But actually, this in part goes back to the Alpha system's Minolta roots; Minolta also outsourced some shutters from Copal. So maybe FP shutter outsourcing is more common than I thought.
we can just ask them (Lensrentals) a question - they seems to be nice people and they saw a lot of shutters in all kind of cameras, so if question posted to them they can answer...
-
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...
When global electronic shutters get good enough, will mechanical shutters have a reason to exist ?
It's not only about sync speed ...
-
I now think the door is open for a Mamyia 8 and that this discussion will turn to oblivion (because seriouselly, FPS sucks with high rez).
What do you mean by a "Mamiya 8"?
Like a Mamiya 6 or 7 but with an even larger 6x8 format sensor?! A camera using Mamiya 7 leaf-shutter lenses and a roughy 645 size sensor?
-
What do you mean by a "Mamiya 8"?
Like a Mamiya 6 or 7 but with an even larger 6x8 format sensor?! A camera using Mamiya 7 leaf-shutter lenses and a roughy 645 size sensor?
Pragmatically, no. I rather think same shape but with handle and EVF or (but this will need a whole factory) making the body slimmer to follow the legacy of M6, M7, M7ii and range finder. Hard bet. Sensors will stay the same size for a while. We might see a 6x8 format sensor but not yet (I mean not yet like 10 years).
If the price of this camera is competitive, I'm sure some ppl over here will jump on it very very quickly.
-
Pragmatically, no. I rather think same shape but with handle and EVF or (but this will need a whole factory) making the body slimmer to follow the legacy of M6, M7, M7ii and range finder. Hard bet. Sensors will stay the same size for a while. We might see a 6x8 format sensor but not yet (I mean not yet like 10 years).
If the price of this camera is competitive, I'm sure some ppl over here will jump on it very very quickly.
Take my money! I love my Mamiya 7II but I really haven't touched it since I started working with tech cameras. I would wonder if you'd be able to have the cooling and board layout space in something that small, without having the case balloon to be as thick as an old Sony Mavica though. The back technology we have these days just doesn't seem to be anywhere near able to fit into something that slim, or else you might have seen the S system be that narrow, for instance.
-
Mirrorless MF market was too narrow when film was around... It was a small percentage of what used to be a big market for MF SLRs... Now MF market is shrinking year by the year, day by the day... The maker that will "dare" to "invest" on MF mirrorless is for sure a dead duck... No point for it to exist at all... All it will ever do with respect to FF DSLR mirrorless is to (perhaps) increase quality a bit... Who cares? ...Improving quality (a bit) has nothing to do with improving photography...
-
I have high hopes that some manufacturer will come a a mirrorless DMF camera before this decade is over.
Eduardo
-
Take my money! I love my Mamiya 7II but I really haven't touched it since I started working with tech cameras. I would wonder if you'd be able to have the cooling and board layout space in something that small, without having the case balloon to be as thick as an old Sony Mavica though. The back technology we have these days just doesn't seem to be anywhere near able to fit into something that slim, or else you might have seen the S system be that narrow, for instance.
Because for me, MFDB brands are a bit on the "non investment " and "I take no risks" side. With the CMOS ships, cooling is less a problem. Phase just released a new "industrial" camera with back incorporated. It is two time slimmer than the previous camera and ... it is CCD. The size difference is huge:
Before
(http://industrial.phaseone.com/images/ixa-bk.png)
After
(http://industrial.phaseone.com/images/ixu-bk.png)
The 7ii is bigger or equal, volumetrically speaking :)
The Sony RX1, very tiny tiny camera, is full frame. Sony craft MF sensors ... logic say that it is possible that one day, sooner or later, sony will release a RZ1, the MF RX1 without any problem (battery maybe).
Mirrorless MF market was too narrow when film was around... It was a small percentage of what used to be a big market for MF SLRs... Now MF market is shrinking year by the year, day by the day... The maker that will "dare" to "invest" on MF mirrorless is for sure a dead duck... No point for it to exist at all... All it will ever do with respect to FF DSLR mirrorless is to (perhaps) increase quality a bit... Who cares? ...Improving quality (a bit) has nothing to do with improving photography...
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 have high hopes that some manufacturer will come a a mirrorless DMF camera before this decade is over.
Eduardo
Like a lot of people :) REFLEX MFs will still exist because of AF and more lenses options, MFDB will still exist because of technical cameras but, what is a FACT today, is that ppl want portable/discrete/tiny gear. Your high hope will transform into reality any-time soon and for that you can say thanks to Sony: Sony shake the market actually. You might say thanks to pentax too, because they shrink the MF price by a huge margin. They want people to stop "renting" MF but "owning" them. Then ppl will invest into their lenses (and you might notice that the new 645 lenses are absolutely not cheap).
So the whole interest in mirror-less MF and even fixed lenses MF is just huge. The threshold is the price and pentax/sony will just make it real (or push others to make it real). For example, if Pentax come with a fixed lens mirror-less MF, it will be cheaper than the 645Z. A LOAD of photographer will buy a unit. This is a mathematical fact proved by today market. Every ppl able to invest in a high end 35mm DSLR and lenses will have the possibility to buy MF (crop) at a cheaper price. A lot of units will sell, a real golden goat.
-
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?
-
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).
(http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/60954671.jpg)
This is what come in mind every time someone say something and dare to answer you, on LuLa, since weeks.
-
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... :D
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... ;)
-
#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.
(http://the-clu.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/phone1.png)
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 ...
-
Ohhh... that's what you mean by mirrorless ehhh? ;D 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?) :P 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?) .... ;D
-
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.
-
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...
-
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"?
-
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!) :D
-
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.
-
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....
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
Phase one has the 28mm (equivalent to 17mm on full frame 35mm) with a LS.
-
... 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...
Might as well ask if photographers would rather use a diffraction-limited 400mm f/2.8 that weighs 1/3 as much and has twice the DOF as the current CaNikon lenses and doesn't damage any credit cards to purchase. What's wrong with CaNikon? Why aren't they making this lens? It's obviously a conspiracy to make us buy the shorter and/or slower lenses that have been sitting in their inventory for decades.
-
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...
the answer to your question is yes. however given the history and current situation, that yes is not expressed by enough customer to be worth it for MF manufacturers .... satisfied ?
-
I honestly think leaf shutters are now just about as fast as they will ever get. Making the shutter twice as fast, for example, means twice the acceleration on shutter blades (possibly the problem is stopping them) and four times the energy needed to accomplish that. Demand for faster lenses = larger shutters makes the problem even worse. There is simply no demand enough to spend R&D money on something as esoteric, using fullerene blades and cryogenic magnets to move them. Forget it.
-
The question of this thread seems to have come down to why one company, Hasselblad (the only maker of a system without an FP shutter AFAIK) does not invest in designing and deploying a focal plane shutter system at least twice as fast as any other 645 system offers, and considerably faster than even the glorious somewhat smaller format Leica S system offers, to be deployed in addition to the continued offering of leaf shutters in most lenses, in order to potentially allow a few future wide angle lens designs to cost less by omitting the leaf shutter.
At a guess, it is because the cost of developing that imagined new FP shutter technology would be too high compared to the lens cost savings and the new sales attracted to Hasselblad by the ability to offer those few less expensive lenses. But does anyone here have any evidence on the costings on this? I doubt it.
-
The question of this thread seems to have come down to why one company, Hasselblad (the only maker of a system without an FP shutter AFAIK) does not invest in designing and deploying a focal plane shutter system at least twice as fast as any other 645 system offers, and considerably faster than even the glorious somewhat smaller format Leica S system offers, to be deployed in addition to the continued offering of leaf shutters in most lenses, in order to potentially allow a few future wide angle lens designs to cost less by omitting the leaf shutter.
At a guess, it is because the cost of developing that imagined new FP shutter technology would be too high compared to the lens cost savings and the new sales attracted to Hasselblad by the ability to offer those few less expensive lenses.
And, by the time they got done, global shutters might be on the horizon for MF, and who would care?
Jim
-
Can this thread end?
There isn't anything being discussed that hasn't been stated a few times over, and the OP's 'design ask' has been answered with there isn't a market justification to do it.
-
has been answered with there isn't a market justification to do it.
How? ...did you see anyone presenting a marketing research that claims so?
-
How? ...did you see anyone presenting a marketing research that claims so?
Don't feed the troll. Theodoros will not allow logic to stop him.
-
Don't feed the troll. Theodoros will not allow logic to stop him.
It's exactly the reasoning that is the fundamental behind logic.... Thus, the luck of reasoning reveals the trolls.... ;)
-
"Can this thread end?"
Unlikely: all you trolls have got to stop picking on Theo.