Mirror lock up and when?

Discussion in 'Medium Format' started by jim_gardner|4, Jan 30, 2021.

  1. Yes, keep up pouring on the sanctimonious snark, q.g. because that wins people over so well.

    For the love of Victor H, the only reason you and I get derailed is because you have different rules for yourself and everyone else. You jump on my or others perfectly reasonable observations with a dismissive "show me signed notarized engineering documents or your comment has zero merit" routine, which affords you the appearance of seeming very concise because any response will tend to drag on with explanations, which you then dismiss again, and the cycle repeats.

    I observed that Hasselblad did not include full MLU in any leaf-shutter-only motorized or crank wound body, drawing the reasonable inference that perhaps Hasselblad felt pre-release was less complex given the already very elaborate mechanical ballet for making a normal exposure. Nothing controversial there at all.

    Your response was a dismissive "You're wrong in suggesting that this could not have been done. It could have been done easily. But they just haven't."

    So, I'm not allowed to speculate it was "not thought to be the optimal way to implement mirror control in the non-focal-plane bodies", but you can definitively rebut "you're wrong, it could have been done, they just chose not to"? How is your statement not equally speculative? Neither of us is privy to the engineer's actual reasons. We can only observe that full MLU was installed only in the unmetered 2000 series focal plane shutter models, not before and not after. It is natural to wonder why, and theorize perhaps after trying full MLU in the 2000s the original pre-release was considered a better fit for these cameras by the mfr, so the later 501cm/cw and 555ELD remained with pre-release.

    Foolishly, I answered your "it could have been done" with "then who knows, perhaps they did a few on special order, given the custom specials they sometimes produced". Big mistake, merely engendered more dismissive snark in return, leading to sloppy response from me, rinse repeat. Agree, disagree, agree to disagree: no form of engagement resolves anything. Got it: next time you tear apart a post, I'll defer to your making absolutely certain no reader use their own judgement in parsing it for themselves.
     
  2. That's not what I said at all. Sorry, but I'm not in the mood for dealing with dyslexia (or dementia).
     

Share This Page