35mm SLR with Leaf Shutter

[matt_nalley]

<p>Does a 35mm SLR camera body with leaf shutter exist, or are leaf shutters only in lenses or non-SLR cameras? I'm having a lot of vibration problems with my Minolta SRT-101 and a 2000mm EFL telescope. The focal plane shutter ruins all my shots. If there is an SLR camera body with a leaf shutter I'd love to get my hands on it. Or if anyone can give me advice for dampening the shutter vibration I'm all ears.</p>

[craigd]

<p>Doesn't the SRT-101 have mirror lockup and a cable release socket?</p>

[matt_nalley]

<p>Yes. I'm using both. The first roll I shot without mirror lock-up, and the results were terrible. Utilizing a cable release and mirror lock-up improved the image dramatically, but there is still enough vibration from the shutter to cause significant blur.</p>

[ken_l2]

<p>The Kodak Retina Reflex series from the late 50s to mid 60s have an in-body leaf shutter, and I think that Voigtländer also made 35mm SLRs with an in-body leaf shutter.</p>

<p>The Kodak Retina Reflexes are good examples of fine, precision German (over) engineering and are very complex in their design. Due to their age and complexity, most, if not all, of them are in dire need of a CLA. Unfortunately, there are few repairmen left who have the requisite skills and knowledge to work on these cameras. I'd think that the repair situation for the Voigtländers would be similar.</p>

<p>The Retina Reflexes are inexpensive on eBay, but a CLA would run about $200... </p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>There's only one Retina Reflex model that has a "behind the lens" leaf shutter, the Retina IIIs. It's not very useful for astrophotography, as the leaf shutter is only about 22mm in diameter: you'd get a small, circular image.</p>

<p>All the other Retina Reflexes use an interlens leaf shutter, only the front part of the lens is interchangeable, there are additional lens elements behind the leaf shutter, so they're useless for astro work.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'd think that the repair situation for the Voigtländers would be similar.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't think anyone currently alive can fix an unhappy Bessamatic.</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>What sort of exposure times are you running. The classic way to get low vibration shots on a telescope is to "hat" the scope. Hold a black card about twice the size of the scope diameter in front of the scope, a couple of inches away. Open the shutter. Wait a couple of seconds. Remove the card with a sliding motion, not a fanning motion.</p>

[steve m smith]

<p>The Retina Reflex III has a body mounted leaf shutter. There is no lens element between it and the film. The Bessamatic is a similar design with the same shutter and the same lens mount other than a couple of tabs to prevent the lenses from one being fitted to the other (although they can be filed off).</p>

[frank_scheitrowsky1]

<p>You may need a sturdier tripod/head.</p>

[matt_nalley]

<p>Thanks for all the responses.</p>

<p>Are the Retina Reflex III and Voigtländer really the only SLR cameras with behind the lens leaf shutters? I'd prefer to stick with 35mm because that's what I know, and anything bigger would be wasted, but are there any medium format bodies with a leaf shutter?</p>

<p>I'm trying to shoot the moon, so the "hat trick" is not an option because the shutter speed is 1/30s or faster depending on film speed. This method did give me an idea, albeit a complex solution. If I could build something similar in structure to a guillotine, without the blade, it might act as an external shutter like a really fast "hat" normally used for long exposures. There must be a better way though. Can anyone think of a simpler solution? (Please don't suggest a DSLR.)</p>

<p>Joseph - a 22mm shutter may be just enough. If I center the moon perfectly in the frame it would fit inside that circle. Normally with a 2000mm lens the moon is about 18mm on film. The current "super" moon is about 20mm, but it would still fit. Everything outside that area is pitch black anyway.</p>

 

[matt_nalley]

<p>Frank, the tripod is not a problem. It's a 20-lb steel telescope tripod with a steel wedge. Everything is bolted together. The problem is that the fork in which the telescope is mounted is fairly sensitive to vertical vibrations, and I don't think there is anything I can do about that because of the fork's design. Because the camera is not mounted to a tripod but directly to the back of the telescope its vibrations are amplified.</p>

[bob_sunley]

<p>Sounds like you have to fabricate a support brace from the tripod socket on the camera to a leg of the tripod to stabilize the whole setup.</p>

<p>BTW, it's pretty common to have to support the camera body with one tripod while the lens is supported on a second one to help eliminate vibration.</p>

 

[matt_nalley]

<p>Bob, I understand the concept, and that may be the simplest solution. However, due to the moon's movement I have to reframe the shot for every frame. The full moon is about 20mm on the film, so after about 15-20 seconds it's moving out of the frame. What could I use to support the camera that is also flexible and precise enough to move a couple centimeters every time I reframe the moon? Keep in mind the camera's shutter is horizontal so most of the vibration is in that direction. Would a tri/monopod attached to the camera's base reduce much horizontal vibration?</p>

 

[matt_nalley]

<p>I found a manual for the Retina Reflex III. The shutter speed controls are on the lens. Does that mean only lenses made for the camera will work, and therefore using a telescope is not an option?</p>

[bob_sunley]

<p>Is your camera just mounted to the focuser on the telescope? Or is there some kind of support bracket from the telescope body to the camera?</p>

<p>You could use a mono pod like tube with a small ball head on the camera end and have it going thru something like a Manfrotto super clamp on one of the tripod legs.</p>

<p>What telescope and mount are you using, posting a side view pic would make it easier to suggest a way of stiffening the setup while keeping it usable.</p>

 

[frank_scheitrowsky1]

<p>I know that Olympus OM1 cameras are (or were) very popular for astro photography and they also have horizontal running focal plane shutters.</p>

<p>How about increasing the inertial mass of the telescope/camera combo to mitigate shutter induced vibration? A sand bag (or similar) draped over the telescope would accomplish this.</p>

[matt_nalley]

<p>Bob, the camera is attached to the telescope's visual back with a T-ring adapter. Actually a Crayford secondary focuser is attached to the visual back, and the T-ring adapter is attached to the focuser. This is what the tripod looks like. (My C8 is an older model, but it has a similar fork.)<br>

http://www.chuckhawks.com/celestron_super_C8.htm</p>

<p>Frank, I've already added about 2.5lbs of counterweights to the front of the telescope, which is the limit before the scope is out of balance and wants to tip forward. I'll try to think of a way to add more weight, but when the telescope is angled at 40 degrees it's difficult. I'll also do some research on the OM-1. Thanks for the suggestions.</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>I found a manual for the Retina Reflex III. The shutter speed controls are on the lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No they're not. But it does look that way when the lens is fitted.</p>

[matt_nalley]

<p>Steve, I found pictures of the camera body without a lens and see that now. After I read more about the in-camera leaf shutter design I'm wondering if it would actually be worse in terms of vibration. It seems there are a lot more moving parts, and I can't find any indication that mirror lock-up is an option or if it's even possible. Mirror slap creates much worse vibrations than shutter slap. Do any of these leaf shutter cameras also have mirror lock-up?</p>

[matt_nalley]

<p>Bob, I took a couple pictures of my telescope with the Crayford focuser and camera attached.</p><div></div>

[matt_nalley]

<p>Here's a closer shot of the secondary focuser and camera. You may be able to see the T-ring, but the T-adapter is not visible because it slides inside the focuser completely.</p><div></div>

[matt_white4]

<p>This may be a naive (or just plain dumb) suggestion as I have no experience in astrophotography. Is it possible to mount the camera vertically rather than horizontally? If the telescope mount is more sensitive to vertical vibration than horizontal, then this might be a quick way to reduce the problem, at the cost of not having nicely horizontal negatives.</p>

[matt_nalley]

<p>Matt, I burned through many rolls with the camera mounted horizontally as shown in the photos above. The shutter in the camera moves horizontally, so the vibration is not as bad, but I think it still has an impact. I thought poor focus, bad optics, and/or humidity were my biggest problems until recently. Without considering the shutter movement I shot one roll with the camera mounted vertically (portrait), and almost every frame shows the hallmark double or "ghost" image. This leads me to believe the shutter is probably causing enough vibration to blur the image even when it is mounted horizontally. I've done a lot to achieve critical focus. Even if the focus isn't perfect it's certainly better than what I'm seeing in my negatives.</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>Do any of these leaf shutter cameras also have mirror lock-up?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The Retina Reflex III does not have mirror lock up. Also it has a plate which shields the film from light whilst the shutter is open for viewing. When the shutter release is pressed the shutter closes, the mirror moves up and the plate mentioned above then moves out of the way of the film. Then the aperture closes down to whatever it is set to and the shutter opens for its set amount of time and closes.<br>

Only when the film is wound on does the mirror return, the iris open up, the plate cover the film and the shutter open up again.<br>

It is probably not a good body to use for your purpose. I think the idea of extra bracing is the best so far.<br>

I assume you need to keep to fairly fast speeds due to movement. If this were not the case I would suggest a lot of neutral density filters and a longer exposure time which would make the shake occur for a smaller percentage of the total shutter open time.</p>

[matt_nalley]

<p>Steve, that's what I read about, and it sounds discouraging. With mirror lock-up I'm only dealing with the shutter movement right now. Even if a leaf shutter camera had mirror lock-up, it also has movement with the plate. I guess I need to turn my attention to minimizing shutter vibrations or finding a new camera that does not suffer from shutter vibrations as much. Any suggestions other than the Olympus OM-1?</p>

[robert_paul1]

<p>Hate to sound negative, but why waste film taking a picture of the moon? Especially if you're going to just fill the frame with the moon, and not have any other subject matter in the frame. You can get a picture from any astronomy book, or online. Your picture will look like a zillion other full-frame shots of the moon. Save your film for other, more interesting shots.</p>