theodoros_fotometria

<p>What you are "trying" to say, would be true only if the leaf shutter was positioned at the same place as aperture or if it had a double role... (both shutter and aperture) and would need a symmetrical lens design, but because of your attitude (and bad language) I won't bother to explain it nor I will reply back to you again. Bye.</p>

<p>Jeff, other than fast flash sync speed, quietness and lack of vibration is the only advantage that leaf shutters have, but not in SLR systems where the main source of vibration is the mirror. So with MF SLRs, you have to buy a Leaf shutter with every lens you use, buy a slower lens too, without having a benefit in vibration. Also... the cost rises a lot because you buy multiple shutters.... Thus, if sync speed of focal plane was faster (like it is with FF DSLRs) Leaf shutter would give no additional benefit. It's only in Large format systems that there would still be a reason to use LS designs (the way that view cameras are traditionally designed). In return, there is fall off caused by the leaf shutters (especially at higher speeds) which can be a problem if added to the lens natural vignetting at the wider apertures. </p>

<p>.......................................................???? "<em>Mal a la tete</em>" Les?</p>

<p>I've tried the Dalsa 33mp sensor twice on two different systems Marc, one was with P3/75H and another was HY6/e-75... the color was so neutral on both... Better than the P65+ I once tried on a Mamiya. Don't know if it was because of the lenses, but it's a stunning sensor... high ISO and DR is very good too. If they could have 75H with card and screen, it would also be a perfect alternative for me than CF39MS... You won't sell me your back ....will you? ...I have the Contax adapter on my 528c at the moment... have you ever tried one of these in 16x with a Fatif (rock solid) tripod?</p>

<p>"In fact the ring on the AI/AIS lenses doesn't feed the aperture to the camera; it feeds in the amount below maximum aperture the lens is (or rather will be) stopped down."<br>

This is the "perfect" way of explaining it... but I don't know if it will be understandable by all... In fact, the coupling ring of AI/AI-s lenses (which is still present on the models that offer Non-CPU lens coupling), does nothing more than replacing the old prong coupling of the 60's cameras to the build in metering and it does so mechanically. Nikon, is the only imaging company at present, which when the body sets shutter speed automatically this is done electronically, but when aperture is set automatically, only the order is electronic, the final action is mechanical and is performed by the lever behind the lens which is there originally to provide the DOF preview!<br>

Richard is also right when he says that "it can be offered" ("I can't see why S and P mode couldn't be offered.."), IMO it is purely the additional cost and complexity that is involved to make the coupling (mount) ring communicate as an extra command <em>with the camera's control system,</em> (not <em>only with the metering as it is today) </em>and the fact that a second (cheaper) control system would be necessary for the low cost cameras that not offer AI coupling. Also, (I like this) the fact that the company thinks of P & S modes as non important for photographers.... at least for the ones that would use an AI/AI'd/AI-s lens. After all, FA was never able to compete with FE-2 sales, despite its "fancy" metering, the modes and the "stupid" F3-like viewfinder info... didn't FE/FE-2/FM-3 offer the <em>best viewfinder info of all times? ...and all the features that a photographer will ever need?</em><br>

</p>

<p>Q: Why is leaf shutter still there...?<br /> A: Because more than half a century ago, shutter curtains where not fast enough to support strobe use...<br /> Q: What if focal plain shutters where faster....<br /> A: The sync. speed of strobes is in direct relation with the ability of a focal plain shutter to "cover" the sync speed, the faster a focal plain shutter can move, the sync speed will follow!<br /> Q: Do we need LS if focal plane shutter was as fast?<br /> A: No!<br /> Q: What is the fastest sync speed a master photographer would use?<br /> A: During the (recent) past, that was 1/500sec, but it was rarely used, most experienced photographers used (less than usual) up to 1/250, for fill in.<br /> Q: Do modern photographers use more than 1/500?<br /> A: No! (not with strobes anyway)... If one claims that he does, it's only for "showing off" reasons, there are other ways to cope with extreme light situations, which are more effective!<br /> Q: Can a focal plane shutter DO 1/250 with MF?<br /> A: Most probably yes! ...But makers never demanded it (from Copal or others), they prefer to offer in lens shutter systems and charge you (a lot) for it... It makes lenses "slower" too.<br /> Q: If sync speed was the same when in focal plane and in LS... which mode should I prefer? <br /> A: LS, <em>doesn't have an even distribution of light on the </em><em>image, ....depending on the shutter speed, light is more to the center and gradually falls towards the e</em><em>d</em><em>ges, (vignetting), </em>the more the shutter speed, the more the problem is relevant, focal plane has none of these issues, just that it was (up to now) slower!<br /> Q: If my lenses didn't have LS in them would they be cheaper and would they be faster?<br /> A: This is obvious...<br /> Q: So who is preventing Copal (or any other) to come with faster shutters (let's say 1/250sec) and sync strobes with that MF speed, that would make LS uneccesary...?<br /> A: Nobody has asked for it!<br>

<br /> Your call (MF) people!</p>

<p>Q: Why is leaf shutter still there?.<br>

A: Because more than half a century ago, shutter curtains where not fast enough to support strobe use...<br>

Q: What if focal plain shutters where faster....<br>

A: The sync. speed of strobes is in direct relation with the ability of a focal plain shutter to "cover" the sync speed, the faster a focal plain shutter can move, the sync speed will follow!<br>

Q: Do we need LS if focal plane shutter was as fast?<br>

A: No!<br>

Q: What is the fastest sync speed a maser photographer would use?<br>

A: During the (recent) past, that was 1/500sec, but it was rarely used, most experienced photographers used (less than usual) up to 1/250, for fill in.<br>

Q: Do modern photographers use more than 1/500?<br>

A: No! if one claims that he does, it's only for "showing off" reasons, there are other ways to cope with extreme light situations, which are more effective!<br>

Q: Can a focal plane shutter DO 1/250 with MF?<br>

A: Most probably yes! ...But makers never demanded it (from Copal or others), they prefer to offer in lens shutter systems and charge you (a lot) for it... It makes lenses "slower" too.<br>

Q: If sync speed was the same when in focal plane with respect to LS... which mode should I prefer? <br>

A: LS, <em>doesn't have an even distribution of light on the </em><em>image, depending on the shutter speed, light is more to the center and gradually falls towards the e</em><em>d</em><em>ges, (vignetting), </em>the more the shutter speed, the more the problem is relevant, focal plane has none of these issues, just that it was (up now) slower!<br>

Q: If my lenses didn't have LS in them would they be cheaper and would they be faster?<br>

A: This is obvious...<br>

Q: So who is preventing Copal (or any other) to come with faster shutters (let's say 1/250sec) and sync strobes with that MF speed , that would make LS unnecessary...?<br>

A: Nobody!</p>

<p>Lets hear your voice folks... Do you like to pay for LS on your lenses?</p>

<p>By the way... Marc is also wrong when he said "it was surprising how close H60 was in color, with respect to his 39MS..." it was the <em>subject </em>that made difference calling small... not the result! ...if the subject was more demanding...? ...I can say that, ("small difference in color"), with my D800s too... with certain subjects!</p>

<p>MO is, that automatic systems are improving but are not (can't be) perfect... "doing photography" will still require skills on picture taking and all the "promising specs" are there for the "average user"... I can live with and without AF... but rather prefer the "good old microprism" screen back... either with AF, ...or without it!</p>

<p>These kind of questioning of "automatics" on a camera is well back... from the times that internal metering first appeared. It's not the automatic features of a camera that will make you a better photographer... it's you!</p>

<p>The thing is Jake that <em>both trolls </em>under question, are read by a number of people worldwide, ...people that not necessarily have the knowledge to understand what they read and thus are affecting negatively the <em>meaning </em>of advancing photography.<br /> The other day, O.G. (i.e. nameless) questioned and tried to humiliate my explaining on the superiority of MS shooting, by <em>claiming in public </em>using the worst possible "names" and attitude against me, <em>that when shooting 16x with 22mp sensor, the requirement from the lens is still to cope with 88mp analysis... </em>which of course is TOTAL NONSENSE, since each shot is made on a 22mp sensor... He even presented a full "Einstein" theory on the matter (backed up with the other troll in question - who "accidentally is aways present" whenever I have an argument), which was totally irrelevant since it was confusing "<em>real printing" </em>with "<em>real capturing"... </em>I am sure that this behavior, <em>is not accidental but rather intentional, in a number of (bad) forums, (usually run by same ignorants) </em>that don't just reject those "Einstein nonsense", but instead, ....praise them as well because they create more ignorance! Not to mention the worst of all forums, that the one that runs it, is a troll himself.</p>

<p>Mind you that P will also work correctly.... but in reality, it's exactly the same as using A mode because aperture can't be adjusted from the camera... Still, exposure will be correct.</p>

<p>Marc, your previous post (the one before the last one) came out in full agreement with my 30 years of experience... So, I would like to ask you your personal opinion since as I said before I am after a single shot back and obviously Jake is in the same situation.</p>

<p>What would you choose between a CF39 and an e-motion 75LV and why?</p>

<p>I left Leaf 7/75 and P1 P45+ out intentionally because I prefer and interchangeable plate and to do my own shimming. I also left CF 39ms out, because this would be an ultimate choice for me, even if I would prefer the Dalsa IQ than the Kodak one in single-shot. Please try to think of your answer as if you would own a Contax and would like to keep it (or a V for Jake). If you can share your experience with a friend's system that you may have tried it would be great.<br>

I have to say, that I've tried the above sensors in different systems and know that they are all great but for different reasons, what I am looking for, is <em>your </em>opinion on the color, the grain in higher Iso's and the possibility of intentional use of it, the DR and the compatibility with lenses character... Thanks in advance.</p>

<p>The stupidity with Hasselblad's policy Paul, is not only that they sent away <em>additional customers, </em>which they absolutely need financially (the company has had 5 different owners during the last 12 years and is shrinking all the time), but additionally, they feed the greed of competition by providing them "free space"... thus they affect <em>the whole MF market negatively. </em>What is more surprising, is that they could have (easily) an "open system" policy, while keep the "closed system" unaltered at the same time, with (practically) no new investment... If they would sell the H4x for example and make versions of some <em>existing </em>dedicated backs with interchangeable adapter plates, they would both add more customers and would compete with P1 "in the open field" where they are now absent... there is no logic behind it if one thinks about it. <br>

Jake, wouldn't the last part of "Time bandits" (the one with the place on fire and Agamemnon as the leading fireman) describe the situation better? Not that "bureaucracy logic" doesn't...</p>

<p>Very true Marc, however we must confess that it wasn't long ago that one couldn't have an H60 (or IQ180) or S2 at all ....and he was as happy with his work without ever thinking that he needs an upgrade, it is only <em>after </em>a product is introduced that desire develops... </p>

<p>Aahh... Andrew, another proof that the camera knows that there is an AI/AI-s lens attached, is that it automatically turns non-CPU lens data to ON! Only that the system is a bit "stupid" ...and the aperture on the top screen is the one detected from the coupling as if the lens was the last AI-s used... if the lens is different you have to "tell" it! ...unless of course if max aperture is the same... (In this later case all the exif data will only show wrong focal length). LOL...</p>

<p>" I just want to be clear (or corrected!) that the mechanism of metering and aperture control is identical for AI and AF lenses, and that it's just the AI/AI-S distinction of whether the camera knows the lever position for the selected aperture that's distinct - hence my claim that AI-S lenses should "just work" if the camera knew it had one attached."</p>

<p>Actually Andrew, the camera "knows" when it has an AI/AI-s lens attached by detecting the movement of the ring around the aperture mount which also provides the aperture setting as info to the metering... Notice that when an AI or AI-s is attached, the ring is "grabbed" from the lens and is moved, the same doesn't happen with a G lens. What opposes the automatic aperture lever on the back of the lens to set the aperture automatically, is that the lever <em>cannot be </em><em>controlled by the coupling ring around the mount, it must be controlled by the camera dials because the dials are connected with the metering, </em>Thus, if the system (the way it is designed) would give the ability to the ring around the mount to be an extra control to the metering, both the other controls on the camera (the aperture and shutter dials) would have to be disengaged, then the camera would be able to do S & P modes, ...but not M&A (!!!). Obviously they could design a more complex system and have everything working, but this would cost much more, because other that it is more complex, they would need to have a different (much cheaper) system to control the cheap cameras that have no AI coupling... while now, they have one (cheap) system for all cameras and only add the coupling ring to the more expensive models.<br /><br />"To clarify, there's no "disengaging": all the cameras that can do this at all have purely electronic controls. The aperture following ring around the lens mount, which engages with the aperture ring, just feeds a number into the camera meter electronics to tell it what aperture you selected. An equivalent number may come from the system of spinning a dial (and the number is just stored in software in that case - which is why there's no hard stop on the control dials when you use them for aperture, and why you can change the stop size change for each click in a menu) or from the camera's selection in auto-aperture mode. All this tells the camera what settings to use for the exposure and whether the exposure is "correct". I don't actually know whether the camera will try to move the aperture lever to where it thinks it should go even if the aperture ring is being used to set the aperture, or whether in this case the camera will fully release the aperture lever and let the aperture ring catch it - does anyone know? Either way, the meter is unaffected - the camera thinks the aperture will be set to the value it expected when the shutter was pressed. Low end DSLRs with no aperture ring following tab (though they do have a switch to detect whether minimum aperture has been selected, I believe) still control the aperture lever in the same way."</p>

<p>Exactly! Only that the AI coupling ring is not engaged as a dial (it only provides info to the metering)... if it would (be engaged) the camera dials would have to be disengaged (which would lead in S&P working and A&M not working) ...look above.<br /><br /><br />"I'm not sure whether we were actually disagreeing about how this worked, but if we were, I hope that's clarified things!"</p>

<p>We fully agree on how it works, my comment is only on <em>why there is no full compatibility on all modes... </em>Just another point if I may... The metering is in full communication with both the camera dials, if the coupling ring was to act as a dial, the <em>matrix metering mode would also work (as it does with the FA), </em>the reason that matrix now doesn't work with AI/AI-s lenses, is that the coupling ring only gives aperture information, it cannot act as a dial!</p>

<p>I have to say that I love the system the way it is! I never use S or P modes and have plenty of AI-s lenses in my possession. In another conversation I'll present a "trick" on how I have convert (harmless and easily reversible) my 14mm f2.8 to an AI-s lens. I would do so with the 17-35 too, but AF zooms don't have a "real" DOF scale on them, pity! I may still do it though, I love using the aperture ring manually the traditional way.</p>

<p>Yes Andrew, I thought it was a bit confusing the way I've put it... You have to excuse my English for this, not being my mother language.<br /> What I am saying is that they disengaged the ability (they could have it working) because if it was engaged, A & M modes wouldn't work with AI lenses, you wouldn't be able to use the alternative internal path (the in camera metering) since the aperture would be controlled by the other path (the ring) and the shutter speed by the internal path, what now happens is that is only the internal path that works (for the camera to set the shutter command, manually or automatically) and the ring is used only to provide information for the value on the aperture in use (again to the internal path). If they where to use the ring as aperture control, the metering would have to disengage the dials that are connected to it (the same internal metering) and thus the shutter dial would have to be disengaged too. I guess they could make it work, but it would be a much more expensive and complex design which possibly would become even more expensive because they would have then to design 2 different control systems (one for the cheaper models that don't have the ring at all). Now, they can have one control system for all cameras and only use the ring for the bodies that are to accept the AI-s lenses.</p>

<p>Of course you are right on what you say about the aperture control ring on the F100 and the rest of cameras in the other comment of yours, it is there only for lenses that have an aperture ring, but CPU as well... the mount ring isn't related with lenses that have CPUs... what is replaced, is the aperture control of the camera with the aperture ring on the lens.</p>

<p>Watch your mouth O.G! ...."silly", "get real", "upset person", "conspiracy" (your invention), "emotional turmoil you apparently are struggling with", "boy", ...etc. in a conversation, are tactics of disturbed people, especially if they refer to a well supported and explained <em>opinion </em> which hasn't been objected to any of its points... I advise you to have a look on the language that Marc uses for his arguments (who has a totally different opinion than mine)... you won't be replied back in any of your quotes (not only in this threat) because you are doing this repeatedly.... Bye.</p>

<p>Marc, you talk about IQ again, which <em>nobody </em>denies in any of the high end systems.... Regards, Theodoros.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Apparently, in both the cameras with CPU communication with the lens and with the cameras without it, (FG, FA, F301, F501) automatic aperture (in P & S mode) <em>is set by the camera using the same method, moving the lever on the body... </em>However, Nikon has disengaged the ability to do so on the cameras that bare CPU contacts & control the lens from the body, because the control of the aperture <em>in M and A modes (in AI lenses) is done using the wheel on the camera! This means, that the metering is calculated by internal circuit and the spring controlled ring around the mount is inactive on those cameras. </em>In the cameras without CPU contacts, <em>all metering is done by the ring around the mount, </em>on the rest, the ring is there (if it is) to activate a parrallel path to the internal metering of the camera which is connected with the control wheels of aperture and shutter speed, if Nikon was to activate the ring around the mount for automatic aperture, then the aperture wouldn't be able to be controlled using the camera dials in A & M modes! ...now which modes are more important? ...well done Nikon, it's great to be able 40 years old (lovely) lenses with metering in a modern AF DSLR!</p>

<p>I believe you've tried 1/500 shutter with the battery removed Cooper... if it's the same (which it should) with ETRSi, it should be mechanical... also, have you tried to move lens functioning to "T"? ...It may help, other than that, I would remove the finder and screen and try to finger force the mirror down from tops, while having the battery removed (so that only mech 1/500 operates) and having the shutter button pressed at the same time. Also, if I remember well, the Bronicas do fire with the back removed... try if the gear that advances the film has more path, the camera may have not cocked completely... I am just guessing though...</p>

<p>That Hass, still exists is thanks to one buyer of the company finding a next buyer and then another one that are prepared to loose their money... and due to the recent shrinkage (they closed down all the original Imacon premisses in Denmark) of premisses and personnel. <br /> That P1 still exists is because they can blackmail all the rest of the "open" market... because Hass abandoned it! They both screwed up with their plans, trying to compete each other in false decisions and courts, just to create a unique monopoly for themselves, ...instead of sitting around a table and look at their common interest which would be to expand the base of the MF market and explain the superiority of it... <br /> There is a proof for the above... Ask Marc, what's the difference between his CF39 (in single shot of course, H60 doesn't stand a single chance if the scene is still) and his H60? ...<em>but his CF 39 is EIGHT years old technology! These guys ask for fortunes for people only to have INSIGNIFICANT improvement, </em>only taking advantage of some showoffs around the forums that are making conversations "my IQ180 this - my IQ280 that" and some business men that run forums <em>pretending to be photographers ...</em>only without pictures that worth or contribute anything to photography! <br /> In the meantime, look at at an 8 years old DSLR and a D800... and what will happen 2-3 years later with the D800 successor... Eehh? Now, photographers buy the D800 for "what the Hey" reasons, others because they <em>don't have a clue on the quality difference that MF has to offer, others because they find it more useful and flexible and give MF "what the hey" reasoning... </em>but most important of all, is that MF lost it's <em>character... which is (was) modularity! </em><br /> Lets face it guys, great images never where because IQ was slightly better... they where because the photographer could find a solution to the shot! What service does a bigger DSLR provide than a smaller one? What does S2 has to offer more than a D800? ....Put it otherwise, lets imagine a task and then hire two photographers to achieve it, one with S2 (or H60 or IQ180) and another with a D800... <em>who will be up to the task better? ..</em>..the <em>more capable photographer </em>or the better camera? Now having the most capable photographer <em>with the better camera </em>is up to the photographer ....IF he cares, or ...IF consider spending a part of his fortune to "new toys".<br /> <br /> Turning MF into only "just better" larger image area DSLRs... will be the death of it! ...or "just a toy" for the ones that can pay! ...just my 2 cents.</p>

<p>By market base, I mean that there would be much more MF users, and a much wider spread of cameras by now Marc, can you imagine how many owners of Bronicas for example, would have turned their systems into digital by now that the original backs of the 2003-2004 period have dropped in price? This, shouldn't affect new back sales, it would create a future expansion of the MF market, since it's the base that upgrades to higher levels... If the base is not wide enough, then there are much less future customers. This could have happened if there were still backs with interchangeable fitting available... You see Marc, <em>it's in the nature of the photographer to upgrade with time as his photography improves and his needs grow... </em>OTOH, IMO, MF&LF <em>is all about modularity </em>and basic in modularity is to <em>be able to change the kind of imaging area you are using easily... </em>Can you imagine if you where stack with only one film in the past? </p>

<p>I had a conversation a few years ago with P.H. of P1 during the presentation of P65+ in my country where I was invited, this was just after P1 invested in Mamiya, he said that they offered a lot of money to Kyocera before the Mamiya deal, to buy the rights of Contax from them, but Kyocera refused. He also claimed that Zeiss did support the deal... Now since it is well known that C645 production stopped because Kyocera wanted a less tight lens quality control from Zeiss, which would bring the cost down considerably and thus increase profit for them (which Zeiss refused since they don't like having "lemons" in use from customers), the end for Contax was inevitable.<br>

I guess we all have to wait until 2015 where the decade expires... Hopefully Zeiss (which still owns the rights for the name Contax, but is under production contract obligations), having being free of contract obligations, will take some action for the historical name of Contax to survive into the future. I have to say though, that other than the three bodies I own, I did buy another 3 bodies with damaged shutters, to have for parts and a service manual at a silly cost... I then came in contact with Priebe in "Tritec" (the official Contax service in Europe) who had no objections to send me 2 brand new original Shutter mechanisms at the cost of 315 Euros (inc. shipping) for both... That's all that is in my knowledge.</p>

<p>OK, lets end this argument here and go back to Jake's concern... Jake, my concern for the (digital) future is more that the makers "kill" most of their trades than what they provide. I believe that "they take their own eyes off" by doing this, it's a law in marketing that if you want a market to grow, <em>you need a wide base... </em>what happens now is that there is no growth of the base which cannot spend a fortune to buy the ultimate. As Jake would verify, his H60 is no where better than his starting H22 as the price suggests... It is better, but <em>no where near the price difference, especially if there was the wide </em><em>availability of older MFDBs that should have been in the market by now, if the makers wouldn't "kill" the older backs... </em>I happen to use what Marc started with (the same quality in single shot Imacon 528c on Contax 645 & Fuji GX680), and I would like a 33-60mp back (they are all excellent) for single shot, primarily because of the moire issues that the "fat pixel" backs have in single shot. OTOH 16x microstep is absolutely essential for what provides my main income (painting reproduction), so I also worry about having a back up for my 528c... what I did, is bought an adapter for the Sinar 54h to have "just in case" because Sinar doesn't kill their older backs and they are widely available (the 54Hs), as for single shot, I got 2 Nikons D800 (one "plain" & one "E") but although they are up to the task, <em>they are not MF - even if compared with the 528c. </em>So, I am looking for single shot back too, but I am not prepared to spend a fortune for it, if I was to buy new, it would be multishot. I guess each one of us plans with the priorities he has, what I am thinking of (what would have been ideal) would be for me to find a S/H CF39MS, it would be a compromise for multishot, but it would solve the single shot flexibility/movrability the 528c can't provide me, it would give state of the art image quality and would provide a replacement in case something happens with my 528c until it's repaired. If I was in your position Jake and didn't need multishot, I would keep my V, would try to find a S/H back of 33/39mp <em>with </em><em>interchangeable adapter plates (either a CF or a Sinar emotion) and would also try to collect some adapters for focal plane cameras (M645 or C645) so that if I decide to change the camera body, i would still keep my lenses and my back... but this is just me. </em>Regards, Theodoros.</p>

<p>Bela... if I may, I also sold the 14-24 and returned back to the 14mm f2.8 (after I was foolish enough to have sold my original 14mm for the zoom), ...thus, I want to hear (if you don't mind) for the reasoning behind that move. I just want to see if your reason coincides with mine, since the zoom is sharper at faster apertures... It's really a (little out of topic) curiosity question. Thanks, Theodoros.<br>

P.S. Isn't the 14mm MF enough for you Bella? ...it does have (very) good focusing feeling and does bear an equally good to an old AI-s (well.. almost) DOF scale on it...</p>