Rotating primes?

[rick_hensil]

Total n00b question:

 

Instead of a huge zoom, why don't they have a bracket that lets you

rotate between three primes? I mean the mount would get in the way, so

the lenses would probably have to be specially designed, but I can

imagine a 24/2.8, 85/1.8, and 135/2.8 are lighter, better, and cheaper

than a 24-135/2.8 zoom.

 

While I'm ranting, why don't camera bodies record shutter

speed/aperture/other information underneath the film on the sprocket

area, or in the millimeter between frames? Or do some bodies?

[ilkka]

Movie cameras used to have a 'revolver' mount where you could fix 2-3 lenses for quick change. But movie lenses are relatively much smaller in size than film lenses, especially compared with the size of the camera itself, and nowadays optical technology has improved to the level that good zoom lenses are actually quite acceptable in quality and size. A 'huge zoom' would be repalced with a huge attachment with three large lenses. While your 24-135 zoom may be bigger than any one of the lenses you mention, it is surely smaller than all three stacked together. Leica makes a variable 'fixed focal length lens' that can be either 28, 35 or 50mm.

 

Many medium format cameras do record exposure information on film next to the image. For example Pentax 645 and Fuji GA/GZ 645. At least Minolta Dynax/Maxxum 7 memorises exposure information for the past five rolls and the data can be reviewed afterwards. That information can also be transferred to a computer using a separate gizmo and a memory card.

[Brian]

Rick, those of us who use prime lenses do more or less what you suggest but we carry two of the three primes in a bag rather than hanging them off the front of the camera. Changing lenses is not a big deal. And you're right: primes are lighter, better and cheaper.

[jeffpolaski]

Good idea, but it would be awkward with 35mm film. I used a triple turret in 16mm cine cameras back when, and it was convenient and relatively easy to manage. With 35mm film, the lenses are large, and would be awkward. Another comparison point is that the 16mm cine camera is sort of bulky (think Bell & Howell combat cameras -- almost solid steel --, or Bolex H-16's). The bulk offsets the weight and size of the triple lens assembly. With current day 35mm, cameras are smaller and lighter, and with a triple turret you would have one front-heavy piece of equipment to maneuver. The turret would also be pretty large, pretty much eliminating use of front mounted camera body controls.

 

That said, your interest in primes is laudable. I personally use older Pentax manual primes with my new Pentax DSLR, and am having a great time.

[tomas_telensky]

> why don't camera bodies record shutter speed/aperture/other information...

 

Why you think I bought Minolta Dynax 7? :) It records date-time, speed, aperture, focal length (great thing), max aperture (good to distinguish which lens you had..), exposure compensation, whether flash was used, its compensation and mode, shooting mode (M, A, S, P) and finaly metering mode. If only it could record what filters I used :-)

 

Also I know about Nikon F80S, which is capable to print shutter speed and aperture in between frames.

 

BTW, are there any other cameras with these features?

 

(I think Dynax 9 and Nikon F6 are also capable of remembering the exposure data, but these are very expensive).

[mike dixon]

It's been done. Check out the <a href="http://yandr.50megs.com/leica/turret/turret.htm">Leica lens turret</a>.

[rick_hensil]

Haha! after seeing that ad, the idea seems really bad. :)

[pvp]

<I><B>...why don't they have a bracket that lets you rotate between three primes?</B></I><P>

Great idea. Lessee, my 50mm f/1.4 weighs 0.81 lbs, my 135mm f/2.5 is only 1.39 lbs, and my 300mm f/2.8 weighs a svelt 5 pounds. I gotta have one of those brackets!

[colin_elliott]

Those Leica Lens Turrets are quite rare. Therefore pricey.

[scott_stadler]

My Contax will also record the data between the frames, or it will save the information and write it all in the first two frames (It winds past them so they are un-exposed and then comes back and fills in the data at the end of the roll)

[richard_oleson]

It was done in the SOR world, too, though it wasn't a commercial smash: The <a href="http://www.marcoant.com/images/Rectaflex/R-Rotor-4.JPG">Rectaflex Rotor</a>, in addition to being one of the first SLRs with an eye level pentaprism finder, was also first with a 3-lens turret. Just the thing for candid street photography and mountain climbing!

[richard_oleson]

(oops, that was supposed to be SLR, not SOR)

 

:)=

[douglas_green1]

As we've seen, the three lens turret idea is pretty cumbersome, however, certainly, there have been plenty of useful and commercially successful cameras that had two lenses which could be switched between. Generally, the lenses were not interchangeable, though, but two fixed lenses which could be switched between. Often, what really was done was, a teleconverter was switched in and out of the optical path of the main lens, effectively providing a 2nd focal length. However, as zooms have improved in quality and cost-effectiveness, they have pretty well superceded these switched teleconverter designs.

[jeffpolaski]

Saw the picture. When I said "awkward", I had no idea! Yikes!

[dan flanders]

Walther Benser developed a baseplate for a Leica M's that could hold two auxiliary lenses in bayonet mount, allowing for, say, a 35, 50,& 90 to be carried on the camera. Actually it was more easily used with only two lenses leaving an empty spot for placing the replaced lens. I see it advertised on eBay every once in a while at a collector price. The real problem is as previously noted: a lot of weight that could only be justified in unusual circumstances.