Nikon doesn't like MIRROR LOCK????
Ronald Shu
which helps minimize camera shock. However, I found that most Nikon
camera, such as N50, N60, N70, N80, even newest F100, do not have mirror
lock. Why Nikon designers don't like mirror lock? That puzzled me.
Mirror lock costs too much? Not important for sharpness of image? Please
share your thoughts if you know why. Thanks,
Ronald
Tony Spadaro
AF Nikon body has to shell out for an F5.
--
Photo restoration in peaceful Chapel Hill NC
http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony
New: Selecting Your First SLR & The Grey Card Walk
The Teleconverter Page & The Night Gallery
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Mark Bergman
than the F5. They have never offered it on any model less then the top of
the line (i.e. FE,FE2,FM, EL, 40004, 2002,FA,etc). Since people have been
buying their product for all these years and doing without it why should
they add it now?
The new electronic shutters have much less vibration today then the older
models so mirror lock up is less needed.
Mirror lock up is a far greater expense. To get the new super high shutter
speeds over 1/1000 the shutters are very thin. They are not 100% light
proof. The F4 and F5 have a 'veiling' curtain over the shutter to make sure
there is no light leakage with the shutter open for long periods of time
with fast film and/or bright light.
"Ronald Shu" <shouro...@isc.ucsb.edu> wrote in message
news:397E770C...@isc.ucsb.edu...
Fred Whitlock
MLU is a fairly expensive feature. Luckily, for me at least, it isn't
an important one. I sold my F5 as soon as the F100 hit the market and
now I don't own a single 35mm SLR with MLU. The medium format, of
course, are another matter altogether. I think MLU is necessary
there. Good shooting.
Fred
Maplewood Photography
Mark Bergman <mb5...@navix.net> wrote in message
news:8lmiio$4pm$1...@iac5.navix.net...
Maziar Farahmand
model, which is the REBEL series.
Why Nikon does not have it? I really do not think that it is cost
issues. I think that it is a marketing trick aimed at making nikon
users buy multiple bodies, and hence more profit for nikon. Although it
sounds like a stupid strategy, but it seems to be working for them!
In article <397E770C...@isc.ucsb.edu>,
Ronald Shu <shouro...@isc.ucsb.edu> wrote:
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> --------------26F52C8A719A514ECF93F814
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> I am a Nikon user, but not a Nikon expert. I like mirror lock feature
> which helps minimize camera shock. However, I found that most Nikon
> camera, such as N50, N60, N70, N80, even newest F100, do not have
mirror
> lock. Why Nikon designers don't like mirror lock? That puzzled me.
> Mirror lock costs too much? Not important for sharpness of image?
Please
> share your thoughts if you know why. Thanks,
> Ronald
>
> --------------26F52C8A719A514ECF93F814
> Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
> name="shourong.shu.vcf"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Content-Description: Card for Ronald Shu
> Content-Disposition: attachment;
> filename="shourong.shu.vcf"
>
> begin:vcard
> n:;
> x-mozilla-html:FALSE
> adr:;;;;;;
> version:2.1
> x-mozilla-cpt:;-1
> end:vcard
>
> --------------26F52C8A719A514ECF93F814--
Jim Upchurch
> which helps minimize camera shock. However, I found that most Nikon
> camera, such as N50, N60, N70, N80, even newest F100, do not have mirror
> lock. Why Nikon designers don't like mirror lock? That puzzled me.
> Mirror lock costs too much? Not important for sharpness of image? Please
> share your thoughts if you know why. Thanks,
> Ronald
In addition to the previous comments you can use the timer to trigger
mirror lockup. This works on my FE and FM10. The mirror seems to come
up about 3 seconds before shutter release. You don't need to set the timer
on max either.
Jim Upchurch
"hooked on fonix"
Stefan Miltchev
Stefan
Maziar Farahmand wrote:
Canon has MLU on all their current bodies expect for their lowest end
model, which is the REBEL series.
Why Nikon does not have it? I really do not think that it is cost
issues. I think that it is a marketing trick aimed at making nikon
users buy multiple bodies, and hence more profit for nikon. Although it
sounds like a stupid strategy, but it seems to be working for them!
In article <397E770C...@isc.ucsb.edu>,
Ronald Shu <shouro...@isc.ucsb.edu> wrote:
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> --------------26F52C8A719A514ECF93F814
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> I am a Nikon user, but not a Nikon expert. I like mirror lock feature
> which helps minimize camera shock. However, I found that most Nikon
> camera, such as N50, N60, N70, N80, even newest F100, do not have
mirror
> lock. Why Nikon designers don't like mirror lock? That puzzled me.
> Mirror lock costs too much? Not important for sharpness of image?
Please
> share your thoughts if you know why. Thanks,
> Ronald
>
> --------------26F52C8A719A514ECF93F814
> Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
> name="shourong.shu.vcf"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Content-Description: Card for Ronald Shu
> Content-Disposition: attachment;
> filename="shourong.shu.vcf"
>
> begin:vcard
> n:;
> x-mozilla-html:FALSE
> adr:;;;;;;
> version:2.1
> x-mozilla-cpt:;-1
> end:vcard
>
> --------------26F52C8A719A514ECF93F814--
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
-- ---------------------------------- Stefan Andreev Miltchev 3600 Chestnut Street, Box #1214 Philadelphia, PA 19104-6106
Bryan
my FE to be the ultimate tripod camera for when I need totally
shake-free exposures.
set the shutter timer and the lens stops down, the mirror locks up and
the only movement is the shutter itself. the camera is light and that
also helps when using less-than-pro tripods.
even if not a manual lockup, the fe style SHOULD be standard on all
nikons. I think its purely a marketing decision; to force one to have
to buy the more expensive body. I don't believe it costs THAT much
more to add - esp. in the FE style.
--
My real email is Grateful.Net@fnord (or something like that).
John R
situations, it is, however, not as good as having the mirror up a few
seconds before exposure.
Nikon Manual cameras, like FM10 or FM2 have pseudo lockup. Just cock the
shutter, pull self timer just to where it catches, push shutter - 3 second
lockup!
Of course, true mirror lockup allows you to mount lenses that protrude into
the mirror box, such as some fisheyes.
JCR
Ronald Shu wrote in message <397E770C...@isc.ucsb.edu>...
MarkTuccillo
Ronald Shu wrote:
> I am a Nikon user, but not a Nikon expert. I like mirror lock feature
> which helps minimize camera shock. However, I found that most Nikon
> camera, such as N50, N60, N70, N80, even newest F100, do not have mirror
> lock. Why Nikon designers don't like mirror lock? That puzzled me.
> Mirror lock costs too much? Not important for sharpness of image? Please
> share your thoughts if you know why. Thanks,
> Ronald
Ron
I have two older Nikon bodies with MLU ( F and F3 ) and one with a pre-fire
( FE2 ). I also have two ( N70 and F100 ) without MLU. I have shot test
rolls using the F3 and N70 with the 500mm Reflex lens, on a tripod, with the
F3 using MLU and the N70. Exposures were fairly long, 1/8 to 1/15, and the
timer was used to fire the shutter. It was impossible to see a difference
on the slides under a lope. Since the 500mm is very light, I figured any
mirror induced vibration would show up, but I saw none. Furthermore, shots
taken with the F100 using the AI 105mm micro at 1:1 were tack sharp. The
conclusion is that the upswing of modern Nikon mirrors is pretty well
damped, enough so for most work. However, I was shooting on a microscope, I
would want MLU and would most likely use the F3. On a telescope I would use
the F with the mirror locked and the T shutter mode.
Mark
Sotiris Ioannidis
> already bought another body and now like to also have MLU. It is not
> an 'honest' marketing strategy.
there are neither 'honest' nor honest marketing strategies
&si
--
Sotiris Ioannidis
Ph.D. candidate, Distributed Systems Lab, UPenn
mailto:sot...@dsl.cis.upenn.edu
AngryMob
John R wrote:
> Of course, true mirror lockup allows you to mount lenses that protrude into
> the mirror box, such as some fisheyes.
which is a bad thing on most modern electronic SLRs when the batteries die or
the power is turned off, and the mirror comes crashing down on the back end of
the lens.
am
>
>
> JCR
Stefan Miltchev
BTW, the F5 is not the only body offering MLU in the current lineup -- you have full MLU on the F3 and pseudo MLU on the FM2n for $500.
Another feature that Nikon could and does not offer in any of its bodies is the leader-out as a custom function. You can only have it programmed at a service center for certain bodies.
I think every company makes some compromises. Canon offers more of these features, but saves money in other areas. For example Canon chose to offer a metal body only on its top of the line Eos-1v. One could speculate that the money that went towards adding MLU and leader-out for the EOS3 was spent on a metal body for the F100 :)
My point being that a lot of decisions are being made by estimating the target market and making compromises, not necessarily in order to make you spend more money. E.g. Canon does not offer ECF on its EOS1v but does on the EOS3, the reason being that ECF and a 100% viewfinder were difficult/expensive to combine. That doesn't mean they are trying to push buyers one way or another, they just estimate that to the pro the viewfinder will be of more use than the ECF. One can argue whether this is a good or bad estimate depending on the intended use of the camera.
Getting off my soapbox,
Stefan
Farahmand wrote:
Stefan,
You say that "I guess Nikon decided that MLU is not as essential on
lower end bodies".1) So according to you, N90s and F100 are "lower end bodies".
2)Even exposure bracketing is not "as essential", but it is a good
thing to have around, it comes handy a lot of times, and especially if
want to do macro work, you really like to have MLU, even if you are
doing macro work just for experimenting or just for fun.I do think that Nikon's decision of depriving all of the bodies, except
for F5, from MLU is just for making you buy F5. i.e. after you ahve
already bought another body and now like to also have MLU. It is not
an 'honest' marketing strategy.
In article <397F22A1...@gradient.cis.upenn.edu>,
Stefan Miltchev <milt...@gradient.cis.upenn.edu> wrote:
>
> --------------F78E865B8A8228A484966B73
> > > I am a Nikon user, but not a Nikon expert. I like mirror lock
feature
> > > which helps minimize camera shock. However, I found that most
Nikon
> > > camera, such as N50, N60, N70, N80, even newest F100, do not have
> > mirror
> > > lock. Why Nikon designers don't like mirror lock? That puzzled me.
> > > Mirror lock costs too much? Not important for sharpness of image?
> > Please
> > > share your thoughts if you know why. Thanks,
> > > Ronald
> > >
> > > --------------26F52C8A719A514ECF93F814
> > > Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
> > > name="shourong.shu.vcf"
> > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> > > Content-Description: Card for Ronald Shu
> > > Content-Disposition: attachment;
> > > filename="shourong.shu.vcf"
> > >
> > > begin:vcard
> > > n:;
> > > x-mozilla-html:FALSE
> > > adr:;;;;;;
> > > version:2.1
> > > x-mozilla-cpt:;-1
> > > end:vcard
> > >
> > > --------------26F52C8A719A514ECF93F814--
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
>
> --
> ----------------------------------
> Stefan Andreev Miltchev
> 3600 Chestnut Street, Box #1214
> Philadelphia, PA 19104-6106
>
> --------------F78E865B8A8228A484966B73
> Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> <!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
> <html>
> There are two kinds of mirror lock-up. True MLU is only provided on
high
> end bodies. Lower end bodies do not have true MLU. The other
alternative
> is to lock up the mirror using the self timer. I believe this is what
lower
> end Canons do. I guess Nikon decided that MLU is not as essential on
lower
> end bodies.
> <br>Stefan
> <p>Maziar Farahmand wrote:
> <blockquote TYPE=CITE>Canon has MLU on all their current bodies expect
> for their lowest end
> <br>model, which is the REBEL series.
> <p>Why Nikon does not have it? I really do not think that it is cost
> <br>issues. I think that it is a marketing trick aimed at making nikon
> <br>users buy multiple bodies, and hence more profit for nikon.
Although
> it
> <br>sounds like a stupid strategy, but it seems to be working for
them!
> <p>In article <397E770C...@isc.ucsb.edu>,
> <br> Ronald Shu <shouro...@isc.ucsb.edu> wrote:
> <br>> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> <br>> --------------26F52C8A719A514ECF93F814
> <br>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> <br>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> <br>>
> <br>> I am a Nikon user, but not a Nikon expert. I like mirror lock
feature
> <br>> which helps minimize camera shock. However, I found that most
Nikon
> <br>> camera, such as N50, N60, N70, N80, even newest F100, do not
have
> <br>mirror
> <br>> lock. Why Nikon designers don't like mirror lock? That puzzled
me.
> <br>> Mirror lock costs too much? Not important for sharpness of
image?
> <br>Please
> <br>> share your thoughts if you know why. Thanks,
> <br>> Ronald
> <br>>
> <br>> --------------26F52C8A719A514ECF93F814
> <br>> Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
> <br>> name="shourong.shu.vcf"
> <br>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> <br>> Content-Description: Card for Ronald Shu
> <br>> Content-Disposition: attachment;
> <br>> filename="shourong.shu.vcf"
> <br>>
> <br>> begin:vcard
> <br>> n:;
> <br>> x-mozilla-html:FALSE
> <br>> adr:;;;;;;
> <br>> version:2.1
> <br>> x-mozilla-cpt:;-1
> <br>> end:vcard
> <br>>
> <br>> --------------26F52C8A719A514ECF93F814--
> <br>>
> <br>>
> <p>Sent via Deja.com <a
href="http://www.deja.com/">http://www.deja.com/</a>
> <br>Before you buy.</blockquote>
>
> <pre>--
> ----------------------------------
> Stefan Andreev Miltchev
> 3600 Chestnut Street, Box #1214
> Philadelphia, PA 19104-6106</pre>
> </html>
>
> --------------F78E865B8A8228A484966B73--
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Godfrey DiGiorgi
Maziar Farahmand wrote:
>
> Canon has MLU on all their current bodies expect for their lowest end
> model, which is the REBEL series.
>
> Why Nikon does not have it? I really do not think that it is cost
> issues. I think that it is a marketing trick aimed at making nikon
> users buy multiple bodies, and hence more profit for nikon. Although it
> sounds like a stupid strategy, but it seems to be working for them!
Ascribing such complicity and subtlety to the Nikon marketing staff is
probably the funniest part of your thoughts.
Godfrey
Nigel Hunt
The F60 with it's T-Function actually has a neat feature to reduce camera
vibration during long or timed exposures. The F60 during a long time
exposure, will actually pause for a brief second after the user selects to
operate the shutter so the camera can stable itself before exposing the
film.
Mark Bergman <mb5...@navix.net> wrote in message
news:8lmiio$4pm$1...@iac5.navix.net...
> What does it matter why Nikon doesn't offer mirror lock up on any thing
less
> than the F5. They have never offered it on any model less then the top of
> the line (i.e. FE,FE2,FM, EL, 40004, 2002,FA,etc). Since people have been
> buying their product for all these years and doing without it why should
> they add it now?
>
> The new electronic shutters have much less vibration today then the older
> models so mirror lock up is less needed.
>
> Mirror lock up is a far greater expense. To get the new super high
shutter
> speeds over 1/1000 the shutters are very thin. They are not 100% light
> proof. The F4 and F5 have a 'veiling' curtain over the shutter to make
sure
> there is no light leakage with the shutter open for long periods of time
> with fast film and/or bright light.
>
> "Ronald Shu" <shouro...@isc.ucsb.edu> wrote in message
> news:397E770C...@isc.ucsb.edu...
Phil Partridge
Of course mlu is important to ensure that the postage stamp negatives of
35mm deliver good sharpness at large print sizes. Who needs a high speed
mirror flying up and down when they have a long lens attached?
This is my explanation - 35mm cameras these days are a mass market
phenomenon, so most mid-price models come with a poor quality mid-length
zoom, dumb pop-up flash, idiot modes and lots of automated confusion, but no
mlu, and no spot meter. What do people do with them? Family snapshots,
travel, prints in 4x6, consumer grade films...
It's a change in the way the makers view users of this market segment, and
it accounts for the fond feelings many harbour towards models like the FM2,
FE series, etc.; you know, the ones that came with a super sharp 50mm lens
with the right focus ring feel and dof scales, with great ergonomics,
unsurpassed reliability, light weight, compact size, and either no battery
or a small button one that lasted a year or two.
Message of the new age 35mm SLR: 'the camera is in charge, not the
photographer'.
PS. The FM2n retails at $US439, grey, at B&H...
A better 35mm buy cannot be had, imho.
cheers, Philip.
Mark Bergman
the FM2. The FM2 doesn't have MLU?
"Phil Partridge" <ph...@prometheus.com.au> wrote in message
news:pvOf5.33$gb7....@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net...
Mark Bergman
except the top of the line body. Thus they are consistent. Very consistent.
"Godfrey DiGiorgi" <rama...@bayarea.net> wrote in message
news:397FCC46...@bayarea.net...
Peter
$5 000.00 F5 = 20" x 30" print
$100.00 second hand Rollie and you get 120 negs as well. Lets you get
the crisp image for mural or poster print
I know how many shots I have to sell to cover my capital!
Only me...
"Ronald Shu" <shouro...@isc.ucsb.edu> wrote in message
news:397E770C...@isc.ucsb.edu...
> I am a Nikon user, but not a Nikon expert. I like mirror lock feature
> which helps minimize camera shock. However, I found that most Nikon
> camera, such as N50, N60, N70, N80, even newest F100, do not have mirror
> lock. Why Nikon designers don't like mirror lock? That puzzled me.
> Mirror lock costs too much? Not important for sharpness of image? Please
> share your thoughts if you know why. Thanks,
> Ronald
>
Never needed it. The FM2 has a sort of MLU, by using the self timer.
Interestingly, there's no less noise OR vibration on the F5 when you use the
MLU... waste of time.
David.
SB
macro photography. I found that it made no difference in
sharpness using a 105 F2.8 macro at 1:1 with an F(N)70.
Pictures taken at F8 at 1/15 th sec or so (within the giggle
zone) were just as sharp under a 15x loupe as pictures taken
using a flash as only source of light. Both on a tripod using
timer to trip shutter. Maybe I goofed the experiment in some
way. But I couldn't see any difference what so ever.
I think you probably need it to obtain differences in sharpness
that can be seen using a microscope to study negatives taken
with long lenses on a tripod in the jiggle zone (1/4 to 1/30 or
so). Even here, I've read stuff that says that if you put your
hand on the lens (over the tripod mount), press your eye against
the camera body, and squeeze off the shutter properly, your body
acts as the world's best vibration damper and negates the effect
of mirror lock up, and minimizes the effect of the shutter
curtain. I guess you can use the self-timer while doing this
too. I don't know about that one. Never tried it myself.
Anyone measured this? M. Peterson told me he's never seen a pro
use mirror lockup in the field.
On really long lenses (like my Questar at 1400 mm focal length),
even mirror lock up doesn't help, the shutter curtain slap kills
you here. The only way to get a sharp picture out of those
puppies is to trip the shutter (2-3 sec shutter speed) with a
self timer (or a pneumatic shutter cable) while holding a black
card in front of the scope, wait a second, and manually flash
the card at the approximate shutter speed. This can also be
done by cutting a long groove in the card, and sweeping it by
the telescope's opening at a constant, practiced, pace. No
amount of mirror lock up or shutter dampening can help.
I suspect that Nikon doesn't put mirror lockup on most of it's
bodies because of cost, and there are only a few applications
where it will make a measurable (but perhaps not noticable)
difference if proper techniques are used to maximize sharpness.
The recently published Pop Photog. tests weren't done this way,
and they used a fairly cheap long zoom lens which probably
didn't have good vibration dampening. The vibration dampening
of the lens and it's components is also important.
There's alot of anecdotal positions on the web, usually driven
by brand loyalty (nothing wrong with that, by the way), but very
few measurements when holding the camera as described above when
firing the shutter. If you really want mirror lock up, get a
used manual Nikon, or even an FM-10 or FE-10 (did I get the
model numbers right? I'm talking about the manual nikcosinaons)
for that purpose. They're cheap and have pseudo mirror lock up.
Hey, while I'm typing this, PBuran, if you're reading this, I'd
like to hear your opinions/experiences on this matter.
Best,
Steve.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
Woodard Springstube
Maziar Farahmand wrote in message <8ln0s7$nib$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>Canon has MLU on all their current bodies expect for their lowest end
>model, which is the REBEL series.
>
>Why Nikon does not have it? I really do not think that it is cost
>issues. I think that it is a marketing trick aimed at making nikon
>users buy multiple bodies, and hence more profit for nikon. Although it
>sounds like a stupid strategy, but it seems to be working for them!
Yeah, It is working so well that if I ever have to have a Nikon body with
MLU, I will buy a used one to keep them from making a dime off of me.
Actually, I am thinking very seriously about hunting up an F3HP on the used
market. I assume that it has MLU, since it was once their top-of-the-line
body.
Woodard Springstube
>
>
Michael Schuler
I wish my camera (an N-60) had only these problems - it also has no cable
release and only reads DX-coded film. Its the lack of depth of field markings on
the lense that's most annoying, though. My next camera will be chosen with a
much more discerning eye...
Phil Partridge wrote:
> Ronald,
>
> Of course mlu is important to ensure that the postage stamp negatives of
> 35mm deliver good sharpness at large print sizes. Who needs a high speed
> mirror flying up and down when they have a long lens attached?
>
> This is my explanation - 35mm cameras these days are a mass market
> phenomenon, so most mid-price models come with a poor quality mid-length
> zoom, dumb pop-up flash, idiot modes and lots of automated confusion, but no
> mlu, and no spot meter. What do people do with them? Family snapshots,
> travel, prints in 4x6, consumer grade films...
>
> It's a change in the way the makers view users of this market segment, and
> it accounts for the fond feelings many harbour towards models like the FM2,
> FE series, etc.; you know, the ones that came with a super sharp 50mm lens
> with the right focus ring feel and dof scales, with great ergonomics,
> unsurpassed reliability, light weight, compact size, and either no battery
> or a small button one that lasted a year or two.
>
> Message of the new age 35mm SLR: 'the camera is in charge, not the
> photographer'.
>
> PS. The FM2n retails at $US439, grey, at B&H...
> A better 35mm buy cannot be had, imho.
>
> cheers, Philip.
--
*************************************************
Michael Schuler
CAD Manager
City of Seattle - Facility Services Division
Phone 206.864.0404
Fax 206.684.0525
Email michael...@ci.seattle.wa.us
*************************************************
Happy computers are all alike;
every unhappy computer is unhappy in its own way.
*************************************************
s...@randomc.com
I'm not sure how that would make us buy multiple bodies? I agree that it
stinks, but your theory is a little screwy. Nikon has never had MLU on any
but their highest end cameras - F2 (?), F3, F4, F5. So why hasn't Canon come
out with RGB metering?
Steve
bachch...@my-deja.com
cover was located on the bottom of the mirror chamber. It certainly
wasn't anything "top-of-the-line?" like the F, F2, F3...
Andrew
On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 06:42:17 -0500, "Mark Bergman" <mb5...@navix.net>
wrote:
>What does it matter why Nikon doesn't offer mirror lock up on any thing less
>than the F5. They have never offered it on any model less then the top of
>the line (i.e. FE,FE2,FM, EL, 40004, 2002,FA,etc). Since people have been
>buying their product for all these years and doing without it why should
>they add it now?
>
>The new electronic shutters have much less vibration today then the older
>models so mirror lock up is less needed.
>
>Mirror lock up is a far greater expense. To get the new super high shutter
>speeds over 1/1000 the shutters are very thin. They are not 100% light
>proof. The F4 and F5 have a 'veiling' curtain over the shutter to make sure
>there is no light leakage with the shutter open for long periods of time
>with fast film and/or bright light.
>
bachch...@my-deja.com
Nikkormat series had *REAL* mirror lock-up also. None of them were
"top-of-the-line" models.
Amitabh
camera.
I have a N60 and use the ten second timer for landscaes etc where I feel
I might need a cable release.
Yes it did bother me it had no cable release.
Also the DX coding did not really bother me as I never used stuff like tech
pan etc.
I thought it was a good camera for the price and its very light and yet has
a good feel in my hands.
Amitabh
Michael Schuler wrote in message <3980C6D2...@ci.seattle.wa.us>...
bachch...@my-deja.com
not top-of-the line like F and F2.
Andrew
Tony Spadaro
Why hasn't Canon come out with RGB metering? There is an old logic
story that goes like this.
A group of American were getting a tour of the Moscow subway. They
were shown murals, mosiacs, and statuary.
One American looked down the tracks and said "What about the trains?"
The guide ignored him and took the group to see the modern restrooms,
the efficient dispatch booth the escalators, the ventilating system.
The American kept glancing down the track, and every twenty minutes
or so repeated "What about the trains?"
The guide was pointing out the vaulted ceiling and the sprinklers
installed every twenty feet when the American finally parked himself
directly in the man's path and said firmly, "But What About the Trains?"
"What about the trains! What about the trains!" cried the guide.
"What about the sharecroppers in Alabama?"
--
Photo restoration in peaceful Chapel Hill NC
http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony
New: Selecting Your First SLR & The Grey Card Walk
The Teleconverter Page & The Night Gallery
Bryan
I rest my case ;-)
In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Mark Bergman <mb5...@navix.net> wrote:
: As I said in an earlier post I don't think Nikon EVER put MLU on any body
: except the top of the line body. Thus they are consistent. Very consistent.
Mark Bergman
market didn't miss it too much.
<bachch...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:7hr4osk38lqhpj8a7...@4ax.com...
> >but their highest end cameras - F2 (?), F3, F4, F5. So why hasn't Canon
come
> >out with RGB metering?
> >
> >
> >Steve
>
Snorre A. Selmer
photography through a telescope, but with exposure-times of 15-45mins , I'd
drain the batteries in less than a quarter of a roll (est. exposure time in
manual mode: 4-6 hrs)...
That's one of the reasons why I bought the battery pack (holds four AA
NiMHs)...
efreibrun
self-timer is engaged. When the shutter release button is depressed after
setting the self-timer, the mirror flips up and waits for the timer to
release the shutter.
"Bryan" <fn0rd@Grateful__NO_WUMPUS__.Net> wrote in message
news:8lutk6$225$2...@tyler.aplatform.com...
Perry White
>photography through a telescope, but with exposure-times of 15-45mins , I'd
>drain the batteries in less than a quarter of a roll (est. exposure time in
>manual mode: 4-6 hrs)...
than the time the camera may be vibrating from the mirror-slap, that
vibration makes no discernable difference.
In other words, once the exposure time is longer than, say, 60
seconds, the shutter/mirror vibration has no effect on the photo.
What we need to discuss here is "Subject Slap" which really does ruin
may pictures. It is the syndrome when a person being photographed is
so offended by the photographer's use of a cheap camera to take their
picture, that the subject hurries toward the photographer and
SLAP!!!
Perry White
What in thundering tarnation?!?!?
(and don't call me "Chief")
Jansen98
bachch...@my-deja.com
*never* had MLU except the top models. I only correct this factual
error. Nikkormats had the feature and it's an undeniable fact. Most of
our great grandparents lived decades, or even a century ago. I guess,
like the Nikkormats, they really did exist too, no matter what "the
market" thinks.
BTW, many Nikkormats are still performing well after all these years,
regardless of "the market."
Andrew.
On Sat, 29 Jul 2000 11:09:16 -0500, "Mark Bergman" <mb5...@navix.net>
wrote:
>Your right. And both where made over 30 (40?) years ago. So evidently the
Jim
<shouro...@isc.ucsb.edu> wrote:
>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>--------------26F52C8A719A514ECF93F814
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>I am a Nikon user, but not a Nikon expert. I like mirror lock feature
>which helps minimize camera shock. However, I found that most Nikon
>camera, such as N50, N60, N70, N80, even newest F100, do not have mirror
>lock. Why Nikon designers don't like mirror lock? That puzzled me.
>Mirror lock costs too much? Not important for sharpness of image? Please
>share your thoughts if you know why. Thanks,
>Ronald
Ronald...
I own a Nikon F (with mirror lock), and an N90s. I owned a Leica IIIf
(sold) I have shot much reversal film from Kodachrome 25 to Fuji and
Kodak 400 ISO and darn near everything inbetween. I would beg you to
tell me which photos were taken with which camera (other than the
exposures on th N90s are usually much better,, particularly the flash
photos)). The only time mirror lock matters is when the camera is on
a tripod. And I will further qualify that with the following, because
I believe all of these cause more subject/film movement than the
mirror in a well designed and engineered camera.
1. Tripod must be a heavy duty, exceptionally stable
unit places on a solid surface.
2. Magnification must approach 1:4 or better
3. There most be no breeze (wind).
4. Subject must be dead still
5. Lens/Film/Paper or Lens/Film/Projection lens
must be sufficiently high in resolution to allow
the significance of mirror movement to be
measured much less noticed
6. Lens must be an exceptional instrument
Given that most photos are not taken on a tripod,( and those that are
not on Bogen or Gitzo) most subjects
are taken outdoors, there is usually a breeze, and most photos are
taken to Wal-Mart, Stop & Shop, K-Mart etc for processing, are of
moving obects (ever tried to take a picture of a bird with a mirror
lock up... I'lll bet the composition is all screwed up by the time the
shutter is triped), mirror lock up is only important to those who need
to find something to nit pick at, or those who take lots of high
magnification shots in a studio under controlled condidtions where the
miniscule vibrations of a mirror in a quality 35mm SLR might be
noticed. I'll bet most of the photographers in this field are using
120m or view cameras in any event. If they are in 35mm world then
they are using top line Canon's, Nikons. or Leica's which all have
mirror lock up.
I used the thing on my F when I as approaching 1:2 ... but even then I
question the sanity, as these were shots of cultivated and
wildflowers, on their native stalks. I don't remeber any day in my
life when there wasn't at least a 1 mile per hour breeze blowing. I
sure hope the mirror movement in the F wasn't so sever that it would
make the difference.
Jim
Obakesan
HiYa
many good points .... but I'd like to toss in some questions, if I may;
In article <3988e2a0.426438482@news>, ji...@home.com wrote:
>I own a Nikon F (with mirror lock), and an N90s. I owned a Leica IIIf
>(sold) I have shot much reversal film from Kodachrome 25 to Fuji and
>Kodak 400 ISO and darn near everything inbetween. I would beg you to
>tell me which photos were taken with which camera (other than the
hard to tell for sure, but since (I thought) you suggested that you
didn't use a tripod so much perhaps its moot.
also, have you done some shots to directly compare a single camera, and
lens system for mirror lockup, or just looked at the shots, and felt
that they were good?
> 1. Tripod must be a heavy duty, exceptionally stable
> unit places on a solid surface.
perfect!
> 2. Magnification must approach 1:4 or better
wouldn't enlargements of > x10 also show up any problems?
> 3. There most be no breeze (wind).
indoor shots? I do my studio work that way ... also the stuff like tree
trunks barely move in the wind. I understand that the wind can also
move the camera, but if the tripod is not fully extended, I don't think
that there is much movement there.
I did some experiments with a laser pointer mounted on the camera, and
was surprised at the amount of movement that was happening (I went to
the place where the red dot was, and observed the movement with a ruler
for a scale)
> 5. Lens/Film/Paper or Lens/Film/Projection lens
> must be sufficiently high in resolution to allow
reversal film? But I look at the trannies with a Pentax x30 microscope
> 6. Lens must be an exceptional instrument
most new lenses are ....
>Given that most photos are not taken on a tripod,( and those that are
>not on Bogen or Gitzo) most subjects
true ... in these cases MLU isn't worth a damn
>noticed. I'll bet most of the photographers in this field are using
>120m or view cameras in any event. If they are in 35mm world then
>they are using top line Canon's, Nikons. or Leica's which all have
>mirror lock up.
so you think MLU is usefull?
>I used the thing on my F when I as approaching 1:2 ... but even then I
>question the sanity, as these were shots of cultivated and
well I used it on my OM-1 and could see the difference ... I can see the
difference with my EOS when I take shots with long exposures with no
ambient light and trigger a seperate strobe to provide exposure, VS
using ambient light and shorter exposures. This allows the vibrations to
dissipate BEFORE the exposure is made, so that the camera is in a steady
state.
the difference between 50 l/mm and 100 l/mm isn't much vibration....
>wildflowers, on their native stalks. I don't remeber any day in my
>life when there wasn't at least a 1 mile per hour breeze blowing. I
>sure hope the mirror movement in the F wasn't so sever that it would
>make the difference.
>
>Jim
--
See Ya
(when the bandwidth gets better ;-)
Chris Eastwood Please remove undies for reply
Photographer, Stunt Programmer WWW -> www.powerup.com.au/~cjeastwd/
Motorcyclist and dingbat
Jim
(Obakesan) wrote:
>
>HiYa
>
>many good points .... but I'd like to toss in some questions, if I may;
>
>In article <3988e2a0.426438482@news>, ji...@home.com wrote:
>
>>I own a Nikon F (with mirror lock), and an N90s. I owned a Leica IIIf
>>(sold) I have shot much reversal film from Kodachrome 25 to Fuji and
>>Kodak 400 ISO and darn near everything inbetween. I would beg you to
>>tell me which photos were taken with which camera (other than the
>
>hard to tell for sure, but since (I thought) you suggested that you
>didn't use a tripod so much perhaps its moot.
>
>also, have you done some shots to directly compare a single camera, and
>lens system for mirror lockup, or just looked at the shots, and felt
>that they were good?
>
>
>> 1. Tripod must be a heavy duty, exceptionally stable
>> unit places on a solid surface.
>
>perfect!
>
>> 2. Magnification must approach 1:4 or better
>
>wouldn't enlargements of > x10 also show up any problems?
Maybe... they will certainly show imperfections in the process
but I still question whether imperfections with a greater
effect than mirror vibration will create a larger problem.
>
>> 3. There most be no breeze (wind).
>
>indoor shots? I do my studio work that way ... also the stuff like tree
>trunks barely move in the wind. I understand that the wind can also
>move the camera, but if the tripod is not fully extended, I don't think
>that there is much movement there.
It doesn't take much wind to move a 16" diameter tree trunlk,,,,
Probably more movement than the mirror vibration.
Studio photogs.. have a concern with mirror vibration......
>I did some experiments with a laser pointer mounted on the camera, and
>was surprised at the amount of movement that was happening (I went to
>the place where the red dot was, and observed the movement with a ruler
>for a scale)
>
>
>
>> 5. Lens/Film/Paper or Lens/Film/Projection lens
>> must be sufficiently high in resolution to allow
>
>reversal film? But I look at the trannies with a Pentax x30 microscope
Most of us don't look at our photos through a 30x maginifier. If you
do (and as a professional you should be) then everything you can
do to reduce movement is important. However, I suspect most of
the whiners on this BBS about mirror lockups are not in the same
category as you...
>
>> 6. Lens must be an exceptional instrument
>
>most new lenses are ....
Agreed... even the 300 dollar ones that some will
harpoon at great length.
>
>>Given that most photos are not taken on a tripod,( and those that are
>>not on Bogen or Gitzo) most subjects
>
>true ... in these cases MLU isn't worth a damn
My point exactly... see comments about whiners above..
>
>
>>noticed. I'll bet most of the photographers in this field are using
>>120m or view cameras in any event. If they are in 35mm world then
>>they are using top line Canon's, Nikons. or Leica's which all have
>>mirror lock up.
>
>so you think MLU is usefull?
Yes in very specific circumstances. What I was trying to express,
which I believe you understand, is that for the average photographer
it is not important. To those who who truley understand the
significance, then it is. I understand MLU and if I was taking
pictures in controlled conditions I would insist on it. I am not...
I think Nikon has it pegged. Why spend money on a feature that
few will use, when we can spend the money on a flash
exposure system of DOF preview that many will use.
>
>>I used the thing on my F when I as approaching 1:2 ... but even then I
>>question the sanity, as these were shots of cultivated and
>
>well I used it on my OM-1 and could see the difference ... I can see the
>difference with my EOS when I take shots with long exposures with no
>ambient light and trigger a seperate strobe to provide exposure, VS
>using ambient light and shorter exposures. This allows the vibrations to
>dissipate BEFORE the exposure is made, so that the camera is in a steady
>state.
>
Once again a more complex situation... and long exposures.... not the
average photograph. Mine were not long exposures, Obviously you
benefit from MLU and have purchased cameras which support your
technique.
I would not be sorry if the N90s had MLU and I would use it on
occasion.. but I provided 99% of the features I wanted and for 1/3
the price of the camera that had 100% ofthe features... (remembering
that I had considerable investments in Nikon glass....)
Have a great day.. and if you do an exhibition... please let me know..
Jim
Nigel Cummngs
featured mirror Lock Up!
Ronald Shu <shouro...@isc.ucsb.edu> wrote in message
news:397E770C...@isc.ucsb.edu...
Mark Bergman
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=395603500
"Nigel Cummngs" <n.cum...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:s_Oi5.4057$V_2.3...@news1.cableinet.net...
Nicholas O. Lindan
>
> I am a Nikon user, but not a Nikon expert. I like mirror lock feature
> which helps minimize camera shock. However, I found that most Nikon
> camera, such as N50, N60, N70, N80, even newest F100, do not have mirror
> lock. Why Nikon designers don't like mirror lock?
Newer cameras all use Copal shutters. These shutters are not entirely light
tight and depend on the mirror to keep the light away from the film.
Nikon considers such shutters not suitable for mirror lock-up, though it
does provide this feature through the self timer, which only locks the mirror
up for a short period of time.
Nikon did provide mirror lockup in its early Nikkormat cameras. It probably
found that customers were complaining of ruined frames from walking around
all day with the mirror locked up.
Mirror lockup would be a natural for the FM2, and I have the feeling that
if it was feasible Nikon would provide it.
--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio noli...@ix.netcom.com
Technical Management Consulting & Engineering Services:
New Product Development; Electrical Engineering;
Software, System and Circuit Design. Oh, & Photography
Bob Salomon
cameras whose rear element would hit the mirror. Example are the original
21mm and the fisheyes that came with their own view finders.
--
www.hpmarketingcorp.com for links to our suppliers
HP Marketing Corp. U.S. distributor for Braun, Gepe, Giottos, Heliopan, HP
Combi Plan T, Kaiser fototechnik, KoPho cases, Linhof, Pro Release, Rimowa,
Rodenstock, Sirostar 2000, Tetenal Ink Jet Papers
Nicholas O. Lindan
>
> Nikon had mirror lockup on early cameras because Nikon made lenses for these
> cameras whose rear element would hit the mirror. Example are the original
> 21mm and the fisheyes that came with their own view finders.
Ah, yes. Forgot that one. Thanks, Bob.
Only me...
"Nicholas O. Lindan" <noli...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3995F34D...@ix.netcom.com...
> Ronald Shu wrote:
> >
> > I am a Nikon user, but not a Nikon expert. I like mirror lock feature
> > which helps minimize camera shock. However, I found that most Nikon
> > camera, such as N50, N60, N70, N80, even newest F100, do not have mirror
> > lock. Why Nikon designers don't like mirror lock?
>
> Newer cameras all use Copal shutters.
No they don't! Copal shutters are leaf shutters. All 35mm SLRs use
focal plane shutters.
David.
Nicholas O. Lindan
> No they don't! Copal shutters are leaf shutters. All 35mm SLRs use
> focal plane shutters.
Well, if one is going to be wrong one may as well be adamant about it.
See: http://www.copal.co.jp/en/cpl020_e.htm
Copal likes to think it is the business of 'Synergistic Optomechatronics.'
They make all kinds of things - motors, mini-labs, optics,
factory automation ...... I used to have a Copal alarm clock.
And they make all kinds of shutters, not just old-fashioned mechanical units for
view camera lenses.
For shutters see: http://www.copal.co.jp/en/cpl100_e.htm
Only me...
> "Only him..." wrote:
> >
> > "Nicholas O. Lindan" <noli...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > > Newer [SLR] cameras all use Copal shutters.
>
> > No they don't! Copal shutters are leaf shutters. All 35mm SLRs use
> > focal plane shutters.
>
> Well, if one is going to be wrong one may as well be adamant about it.
>
> See: http://www.copal.co.jp/en/cpl020_e.htm
>
> Copal likes to think it is the business of 'Synergistic Optomechatronics.'
> They make all kinds of things - motors, mini-labs, optics,
> factory automation ...... I used to have a Copal alarm clock.
be as clever as you want, but tell us which SLRs have copal shutters in
them? None that I can think of.. more pertinent perhaps is which NIKON has
a coal shutter, as the thread is about Nikons, and why they don't have MLU,
to which you gave us the outstandingly poor reason of them having coal
shutters, which, as you probably know by now, is nonsense.
If however, you had posted this in the medium format NG, you'd not have
made yourself look quite as silly.
David.
PS
please keep the discussion in the NG, I don't like unsolicited e-mail.
Only me...
"Only me..." <davebg@[nospam]globalnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2dkm5.38427$V_2.3...@news1.cableinet.net...
>more pertinent perhaps is which NIKON has
> a coal shutter,............
........having coal
> shutters,
And let THAT be a lesson to anyone thinking of trusting a spell checker.
David.
Nicholas O. Lindan
> > > "Nicholas O. Lindan" <noli...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > > > Newer [SLR] cameras all use Copal shutters.
> > > No they don't! Copal shutters are leaf shutters. All 35mm SLRs use
> > > focal plane shutters.
> > Well, if one is going to be wrong one may as well be adamant about it.
> > See: http://www.copal.co.jp/en/cpl020_e.htm
> a copal shutter?
Er, Nikkormat, FMx, FEx, EMx, F4x, F5x, all the Nxx and Fxx stuff and a whole
lot a didn't mention, can't remember and don't know about.
All vertical multi-blade focal plane shutters are made by Copal. They have
the patents and they have the cost structure.
> as the thread is about Nikons, and why they don't have MLU,
> to which you gave us the outstandingly poor reason of them having copal
> shutters, which, as you probably know by now, is nonsense.
Gee, it's Nikon's reason. Not mine.
> If however, you had posted this in the medium format NG, you'd not have
> made yourself look quite as silly.
Didn't know Nikon made MF gear. And don't think Copal makes MF shutters,
though I may be wrong.
> David.
> PS
> please keep the discussion in the NG, I don't like unsolicited e-mail.
I'll bet.
Nicholas O. Lindan
> >more pertinent perhaps is which NIKON has
> > a coal shutter,............
>
> ........having coal
> > shutters,
>
> And let THAT be a lesson to anyone thinking of trusting a spell checker.
My spell checker wants to place Kodachrome in place of Ektachrome, so far
so good, but then it wants to substitue vulva for Velvia, not so good.
Nicholas O. Lindan
>
> > All vertical multi-blade focal plane shutters are made by Copal. They
> > have the patents and they have the cost structure.
>
> this.
Seiko/Sekoshia (sp?) used to make BTL shutters. I wasn't aware they made
vertical FP shutters, but I could be wrong, and often am.
My God, what's that below me? Could it be? Oh dear, it is. Hoisted
by own petard.
But, as I am soaring upwards, let me restate: Copal sure does make 'em.
Nicholas O. Lindan
> Assuming that all focal plane shutters were made by Copal, what does
> that have to do with mirror lock up?
Copal shutters aren't 100% light tight. If the mirror is up for any length
of time with the shutter closed then the film gets fogged.
For the F4 and F5 they make a shutter with 3 sets of blades rather than the
normal 2. The extra set of blades is for extra light baffling and is sent
out of the way before the two main sets fire to create the shutter slit.
As Bob Salomon and others have pointed out MLU is also necessary for their
exotic fish-eye lenses and their early days (1957?) 21mm that protrude so
close to the film that the mirror has no room to move.
Nicholas O. Lindan
>
> >Copal shutters aren't 100% light tight. If the mirror is up for any length
> >of time with the shutter closed then the film gets fogged.
>
> >For the F4 and F5 they make a shutter with 3 sets of blades rather than the
> >normal 2. The extra set of blades is for extra light baffling and is sent
> >out of the way before the two main sets fire to create the shutter slit.
>
> So what's the explanation for the F3, which has mirror lock-up? Does it have
> twin curtains?
The F3 has a regular horizontal shutter. When the shutter is closed the
gap between the shutter curtains is out of sight of the film aperture.
All the professional class Nikons F, F2....F5 have MLU. The F, F2 & F3
have horizontal shutters made of titanium foil.
Rudy Garcia
<davebg@[nospam]globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
> "Nicholas O. Lindan" <noli...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:3995F34D...@ix.netcom.com...
> > Ronald Shu wrote:
> > >
> > > I am a Nikon user, but not a Nikon expert. I like mirror lock feature
> > > which helps minimize camera shock. However, I found that most Nikon
> > > camera, such as N50, N60, N70, N80, even newest F100, do not have mirror
> > > lock. Why Nikon designers don't like mirror lock?
> >
> > Newer cameras all use Copal shutters.
>
> No they don't! Copal shutters are leaf shutters. All 35mm SLRs use
> focal plane shutters.
>
> David.
You stepped on it this time David. There are two broad types of focal
plane shutters. The older, horizontal travel curtain type and the newer
vertical traveling type. One of them is called .... a Copal focal plane
shutter. I'll let you guess which type.
Yes, Copal does make tons of the leaf shutter types as well.
--
Use address below for Email replies.
"Rudy Garcia" <ru...@jps.net>
Only me...
> My spell checker wants to place Kodachrome in place of Ektachrome, so far
> so good, but then it wants to substitue vulva for Velvia, not so good.
Yes... I once posted an article in which I went on at great lengths
about how I love Vulva.... (oh ground open up and eat me alive)
David.
Only me...
Only me...
One other thing:
Assuming that all focal plane shutters were made by Copal, what does
that have to do with mirror lock up?
David.
s...@randomc.com
>"Only him..." wrote:
>> Assuming that all focal plane shutters were made by Copal, what does
>> that have to do with mirror lock up?
>Copal shutters aren't 100% light tight. If the mirror is up for any length
>of time with the shutter closed then the film gets fogged.
>For the F4 and F5 they make a shutter with 3 sets of blades rather than the
>normal 2. The extra set of blades is for extra light baffling and is sent
>out of the way before the two main sets fire to create the shutter slit.
So what's the explanation for the F3, which has mirror lock-up? Does it have
twin curtains?
Steve
Mark Bergman
the F4 and the F100 (all of which I have owned and used.) I assume the F5
is smooth also.
It's only the high speed shutters that are not light tight. The F3 goes to
1/2000 while the others go to 1/8000.
You need MLU with the F3, after testing the F4 I never used it again.
It had nothing to do with the brand shutter but the design.
<s...@randomc.com> wrote in message news:8ncv8s$74p$2...@crchh14.us.nortel.com...
Only me...
> Seiko/Sekoshia (sp?) used to make BTL shutters. I wasn't aware they made
> vertical FP shutters, but I could be wrong, and often am.
They certainly do :-)
David.
Only me...
"Rudy Garcia" <rudyg...@jps.net> wrote in message
news:rudygnospam-15...@209-239-207-136.oak.jps.net...
> You stepped on it this time David.
For a change? :-)
I still don't see the relevance though, despite the fact that I was
mistaken about Copal. I doubt any of this is why Nikon don't have MLU on
their lower priced bodies. It's clearly a cost issue, and has nothing to do
with shutters. I think that having a true MLU on a lower end body would
make no sense anyhow. How many F70 users for example, would make use of
MLU? Apart from macro work, Astro work, and using a few Nikkors that most
N70 users would not be able to afford, what would it be used for? As for
the first two, I can't imagine the F70 (or any other lower end Nikon) being
anyone's first choice for either. The F70 owners that need MLU will
obviously disagree, but they're in a small minority, and catering fro them,
at the expense of everyone else makes no sense at all.
Nicholas O. Lindan
> "Nicholas Lindan" wrote:
> > Seiko/Sekoshia (sp?) used to make BTL shutters. I wasn't aware they made
> > vertical FP shutters, but I could be wrong, and often am.
>
> They certainly do :-)
And where may we find one of these strange beasties?
Nicholas O. Lindan
>
> "Rudy Garcia" <rudyg...@jps.net> wrote in message
> news:rudygnospam-15...@209-239-207-136.oak.jps.net...
>
> > You stepped on it this time David.
>
> For a change? :-)
>
> I still don't see the relevance though, despite the fact that I was
> mistaken about Copal. I doubt any of this is why Nikon don't have MLU on
> their lower priced bodies. It's clearly a cost issue, and has nothing to do
> with shutters.
Mirror lock-up per-se is a no-brainer. Just stick your hand in there and lift
the mirror. The cost of a lever and knob to do this is peanuts.
But a three blade Copal or a titanium foil horizontal shutter is another matter-
now the cost is real.
The only camera that would benefit (IMHO) would be the FM2 as the camera is
used in a more 'technical' setting - it's not for family snaps. Though the
thing to do for Astro is an F2 body, TTL metering is nice to have for
microscopy.
And then there is the safari crowd with 1000mm lenses clamped to the window
of a Land Rover. Apparently the only way to get this to work is to use MLU.
You observe the beast with bino's and then release the shutter at the right
time. Also a reason that Leica M's with Visoflexes were so popular for this
work - very low shutter vibration.
Rudy Garcia
<davebg@[nospam]globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
> I still don't see the relevance though, despite the fact that I was
> mistaken about Copal. I doubt any of this is why Nikon don't have MLU on
> their lower priced bodies. It's clearly a cost issue, and has nothing to do
> with shutters. I think that having a true MLU on a lower end body would
> make no sense anyhow. How many F70 users for example, would make use of
> MLU? Apart from macro work, Astro work, and using a few Nikkors that most
> N70 users would not be able to afford, what would it be used for? As for
> the first two, I can't imagine the F70 (or any other lower end Nikon) being
> anyone's first choice for either. The F70 owners that need MLU will
> obviously disagree, but they're in a small minority, and catering fro them,
> at the expense of everyone else makes no sense at all.
Purely a marketing decision.
How to differentiate the top of the line from the lower priced units,
based on features and dollars; while at the same time not getting rid of
widely popular features demanded by the target market & which are offered
by the competitors.
I can't believe the MLU adds that much cost ($10 ??), but it is a handy
differentiating feature which the average person in the target market
wouldn't miss.
Patrick & Anita Chiu
"Jim" <jimn....@home.com> wrote in message
news:3988e2a0.426438482@news...
> On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 22:28:44 -0700, Ronald Shu
> <shouro...@isc.ucsb.edu> wrote:
>
> >This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> >--------------26F52C8A719A514ECF93F814
> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> >
> >I am a Nikon user, but not a Nikon expert. I like mirror lock feature
> >which helps minimize camera shock. However, I found that most Nikon
> >camera, such as N50, N60, N70, N80, even newest F100, do not have mirror
> >Mirror lock costs too much? Not important for sharpness of image? Please
> >share your thoughts if you know why. Thanks,
> >Ronald
>
>
>
> I own a Nikon F (with mirror lock), and an N90s. I owned a Leica IIIf
> (sold) I have shot much reversal film from Kodachrome 25 to Fuji and
> Kodak 400 ISO and darn near everything inbetween. I would beg you to
> tell me which photos were taken with which camera (other than the
> exposures on th N90s are usually much better,, particularly the flash
> photos)). The only time mirror lock matters is when the camera is on
> a tripod. And I will further qualify that with the following, because
> I believe all of these cause more subject/film movement than the
> mirror in a well designed and engineered camera.
>
> 1. Tripod must be a heavy duty, exceptionally stable
> unit places on a solid surface.
> 2. Magnification must approach 1:4 or better
> 3. There most be no breeze (wind).
> 4. Subject must be dead still
> 5. Lens/Film/Paper or Lens/Film/Projection lens
> must be sufficiently high in resolution to allow
>
> the significance of mirror movement to be
> measured much less noticed
> 6. Lens must be an exceptional instrument
>
>
> Given that most photos are not taken on a tripod,( and those that are
> not on Bogen or Gitzo) most subjects
> are taken outdoors, there is usually a breeze, and most photos are
> taken to Wal-Mart, Stop & Shop, K-Mart etc for processing, are of
> moving obects (ever tried to take a picture of a bird with a mirror
> lock up... I'lll bet the composition is all screwed up by the time the
> shutter is triped), mirror lock up is only important to those who need
> to find something to nit pick at, or those who take lots of high
> magnification shots in a studio under controlled condidtions where the
> miniscule vibrations of a mirror in a quality 35mm SLR might be
> noticed. I'll bet most of the photographers in this field are using
> 120m or view cameras in any event. If they are in 35mm world then
> they are using top line Canon's, Nikons. or Leica's which all have
> mirror lock up.
>
> I used the thing on my F when I as approaching 1:2 ... but even then I
> question the sanity, as these were shots of cultivated and
> wildflowers, on their native stalks. I don't remeber any day in my
> life when there wasn't at least a 1 mile per hour breeze blowing. I
> sure hope the mirror movement in the F wasn't so sever that it would
> make the difference.
>
> Jim
MLU is only useful for people who need very sharp pictures at shutter speeds
from 1/8" to 1/30" (for 135 cameras). Is it that important to you?
Anders Svensson
> MLU is only useful for people who need very sharp pictures at shutter speeds
> from 1/8" to 1/30" (for 135 cameras). Is it that important to you?
Adding, ofcourse, people who only shoot cooperative subjects
and use a tripod.
MLU is almost a contradiction to what the 35 mm camera
stands for, active (if not action) photography. I know that
some photographers use it "all the time", but it can be
reasoned that if the quality enhancement that MLU can give
is significant and important, other camera systems than a 35
mm SLR can be better choices.
Nikon has regrettably choosen to not add that functionality
to their cameras, but I belive the worth is more of a
"feelgood" factor than a real need. The historical reason
for MLU was usage of non-retrofocus wide angles and DOF
preview disappeared from many (not all) cameras when auto
aperture lenses became standard.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anders Svensson
Anders.-.Ei...@swipnet.se
-----------------------------------------------------------
Fred Whitlock
about it that way but Anders is right. 35mm has its strengths and
weaknesses. It's strength is not to do what, say, a 6X7 medium format
camera does. My 6X7 camera is always used on a tripod and used with
MLU on every exposure. If I need that kind of precision and image
quality, I probably shouldn't be trying to get the job done with 35mm.
This point also helps me better understand why I sold my F4 and F5 a
couple of years ago. The things were brutishly large and heavy. In
fact they each weighed about the same as my 4X5 field camera. That
starts to get beyond what 35mm photography is all about which is
light, portable, handheld, reactive and spontaneous. Now where did
I put that super light little Olympus OM-2 system? I think I'll carry
it with me today. Camera body in one pocket and a couple of lenses in
the other. See, I didn't say a word about Leica. Take care.
Fred
Maplewood Photography
Anders Svensson <Anders.-.Ei...@swipnet.se> wrote in message
news:399EC54B...@swipnet.se...
Rudy Garcia
<a...@skyenet.net> wrote:
Are we to ignore the use of a 35mm camera in closeup, or macro applications?
I'd like to see how practical it is to mount a 4X5 field camera on a microscope.
Not everyone needs a camera with MLU, but there are applications where an
MLU does contribute to final image quality.
Anders Svensson
> Are we to ignore the use of a 35mm camera in closeup, or macro applications?
Certainly not. The 35 mm camera is a versatile instrument
and probably the most "allround" system there is, today. A
lot of people (me included) also use it as their "only
system" because time, money, space and other practical
considerations are important.
This obviously means that the 35 mm camera shouldn't be
ignored as a macro camera... :-)
But it is also a fact that among the camera systems and
formats available, it can be reasoned that a 35mm camera is
the (with Fred's words) "light, portable, handheld, reactive
and spontaneous" camera, more than any other kind. Perhaps
this will be changed by the "digital revolution", perhaps
APS will take off and make 35 mm obsolete... (but I don't
think so, really).
This is just a reflection on why MLU may be less important
for some.
> I'd like to see how practical it is to mount a 4X5 field camera on a microscope.
Not particularily, I think. OTOH, blasting Nikon for not
having MLU for users in need of that isn't really true, as
both the F5 and the F3 has it, in it's true form. Mirror
prefire will not quite cut it, when strange and mysterious
lenses need to be mated to a body of this kind.
Besides, Nikon has *a lot* of specialist equipment for
micro and macro usage, including a dedicated microscope
body.
> Not everyone needs a camera with MLU, but there are applications where an
> MLU does contribute to final image quality.
Absolutely. There are also a lot of applications where MLU
is useless, and a lot of those applications are why many
people prefer to use a a 35 mm system over a medium format
system camera.
I don't think, however, that MLU availability can hurt in
any way. But on a restricted budget, some other feature (or
a lower price - sounds stupid when discussing a F100) may be
more beneficial.
Is there, BTW any other 35 mm SLR brand that really offers
more models with (true) MLU than Nikon does - not denying
that (simple) mirror prefire can have it's uses ?
> --
> Use address below for Email replies.
>
> "Rudy Garcia" <ru...@jps.net>
ia...@my-deja.com
haven't seen come up before. Using high contrast targets (like black
lines on a white chart) the resolution of film is quite high. But for
lower contrast ratio subjects (~6:1 is a typical contrast range for
real-world photos the resolutions of most films drop to only about 50
lines per mm. A nice site that discusses this is here.
http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/lenslpm.html
So, the typical maximum resolution of a print or slide film is about
50 - 60 lpm on the negative or slide when photographing real world
subjects. But even that resolution is going to be diminished when
making prints from the negative. Depending on the enlarger lens, how
well it's focused, aligned, etc. So my question is can one really see
any difference in a print between use of MLU and non use of MLU? If I
recall correctly, the maximum resolution that the Pop. Photography test
got *without* using mirror lockup was ~ 47 lpm. This is already pretty
close to the maximum resolution of most colour print films and negative
films. I bet it's possible to tweek it higher that 50 without using
MLU. So I guess my question is, for making any sort of prints using
slide or negative film of real world subjects, will one see a
difference using MLU?
Best,
Steve.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Anders Svensson
While sometimes, a lesser error drowns in a greater, here is
a effect of errors adding up, sometimes two invisible errors
add up to a compound, visible error and so on.
You are probably right in that there are greater sharpness
problems than lack of MLU, but regrettably, errors add up in
this area. We have a situation where the image degrades from
the negative towards the final result (copied at least
twice, and adding errors in the enlarging phase). The better
the image is to start with, the better the end result.
Rudy Garcia
<Anders.-.Ei...@swipnet.se> wrote:
Agree totally. My original objection to the message I replied to was that
it did not take macro work into account.
gcouger
: Are we to ignore the use of a 35mm camera in closeup, or macro
applications?
:
: I'd like to see how practical it is to mount a 4X5 field camera on a
microscope.
It is very parctical. Just postion the camera over the scope on a real
rigid mount and use a shutter with out a lens or use the light switch on
the microscope for the exposure. Use a light tight fabric tube from the
camera to the microscope. You use a regular eyepiece and adjust the
magnifcation by varying the distance of the film to the eyepeice.
In fact you don't need any camera at all
http://www.micscape.simplenet.com/mag/artjul00/pjphotopaper.html describes
a method using paper negitives that can by done in a blacked out room.
:
: Not everyone needs a camera with MLU, but there are applications where
an
: MLU does contribute to final image quality.
:
Any time your exposure time is much over 1/focal length of the lens you
can start to see shake from the mirror. It usualy doesn't get too bad
until you get to exposures of several seconds on a setup that is not too
rigid. A 35mm on a microscope is not very rigid. I see noticable
deteration at 1/2 second.
--
Gordon W5RED
G. C. Couger gco...@couger.com Stillwater, OK
jjs
> MLU is almost a contradiction to what the 35 mm camera
> stands for, active (if not action) photography. [...]
Put Long Lens work right in there as well. I've struggled with one
particular shot now for five sessions, and if haze and smoke didn't kill my
shot, then vibration coming from god-knows-where killed one good set. Mirror
Lockup was an absolute must in this case, as were intentionally long
exposures to minimize short bursts of vibration. (The majority of the image
comprised of the non-vibration period.)
jjs
<ia...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8ns0gc$5a6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> There's another issue dealing with the effects of mirror lockup that I
> So, the typical maximum resolution of a print or slide film is about
> 50 - 60 lpm on the negative or slide when photographing real world
> subjects.
There was a short but intense discussion of that in the large format group
recently. It said that even a lens with about 100 lines-per-millimeter
resolution will achieve only about 70 lines even when the film resolves 100
lines. And it goes from bad to worse when the enlarging lens is introduced
into the problem.
(and are you sure about the resolution of slide film? best name the
particular film.)
s...@randomc.com
>Anders Svensson <Anders.-.Ei...@swipnet.se> wrote in message
>news:399EC54B...@swipnet.se...
>> MLU is almost a contradiction to what the 35 mm camera
>> stands for, active (if not action) photography. [...]
Huh? You enjoy getting back macro pictures with mikrror shake induced blur
because you don't have MLU? I use it all the time in macro and landscape
photography.
S
Anders Svensson
Firstly;
It might be (and please do not take this as an insult) that
some cameras need this more than others, and that other
precautions, normally taken when using MLU plays the greater
part. For example, I would envision someone using MLU to
make doubly sure that his camera is fixed and steady on a
tripod,and that proper sharpness is checked at least twice.
If a non MLU camera owner don't understand the necessity of
these factors, their images will suffer from more than MLU
absence. I don't think that anyone would even try to take a
macro shot using MLU and no tripod, for example...
Secondly;
I was referring to the classic "35mm" vs medium format/large
format discussion, namely that if there is a camera that is
suitable for ad-hoc, on-the-go casual, spontaneous
photography (an artform in itself, and perhaps very
different from macro and long range telephoto photography),
it is the easy to handle, light 35 mm camera.
Given the renaissance of the rangefinder and the large
number of low end and medium SLR cameras sold as upgrades to
P&S owners, this might be a valid reason to think twice
about the necessity of MLU as a feature.
But I agree that some Nikon models would have been
(slightly) better cameras with MLU than without. If that
makes them unusable is another matter, completely.
epsil...@my-deja.com
> Mirror lock up is a far greater expense. To get the new super high
shutter
> speeds over 1/1000 the shutters are very thin. They are not 100%
light
> proof. The F4 and F5 have a 'veiling' curtain over the shutter to
make sure
> there is no light leakage with the shutter open for long periods of
time
> with fast film and/or bright light.
I don't think this is an expensive feature -- all the Contax cameras
since the 167MT (apart from the S2) have this additional curtain, and
remember the 167MT was about the same price as an F801 (N8008 in the
US?).
Why do most of the Canon EOS-s have mirror lockups, coupled with the
self-timer, like the Nikon FM2 etc. used to have, if this is a price
issue?
Conclusion: I don't think a mirror lock-up is normally necessary. I have
seen a test in a photo magazine, showing details of pictures shot with
different setups (tripod type, mirror lock-up, etc.). There was little
difference in sharpness with or without mirror lock-up, although this
was with a Leica R7, which has a particularly heavy mirror.
Also, I don't agree that the quality of the shutter makes a difference,
since it is the mirror that causes vibration in the first place. This,
however, has been minimized since motor-driven mirrors have come up.
Also, the stiffness of the camera is very important, so that the
vibration can be taken up by the tripod. Contax is just wonderful in
this respect (all-metal body etc.), Canon probably has great trouble
with this, with their rather flexible plastic bodies.
Andras
Bob Salomon
up. Any vibration normally would occur when the mirror comes down.
Assuming that the camera is working properly the mirror only comes down
after the shutter has closed and the exposure has been made.
in other words mirrors have no or extremely little effect on resolution from
any vibration.
www.hpmarketingcorp.com for links to our suppliers
HP Marketing Corp. U.S. distributor for Braun, Gepe, Giottos, Heliopan, HP
Combi Plan T, Kaiser fototechnik, KoPho cases, Linhof, Pro Release, Rimowa,
Rodenstock, Sirostar 2000, Tetenal Ink Jet Papers
eza...@my-deja.com
Bryan <fn0rd@Grateful__NO_WUMPUS__.Net> wrote:
> on the FE, you DO have a poor man's mirror lock. its GREAT. I find
> my FE to be the ultimate tripod camera for when I need totally
> shake-free exposures.
>
> set the shutter timer and the lens stops down, the mirror locks up and
> the only movement is the shutter itself. the camera is light and that
> also helps when using less-than-pro tripods.
>
> even if not a manual lockup, the fe style SHOULD be standard on all
> nikons. I think its purely a marketing decision; to force one to have
> to buy the more expensive body. I don't believe it costs THAT much
> more to add - esp. in the FE style.
>
> --
> My real email is Grateful.Net@fnord (or something like that).
>
I was going to say the exact same thing. I love my FE!
Shankar Bhattacharyya
> ... If I need that kind of precision and image
>quality, I probably shouldn't be trying to get the job done with 35mm.
>
>This point also helps me better understand why I sold my F4 and F5 a
>couple of years ago. The things were brutishly large and heavy. In
>fact they each weighed about the same as my 4X5 field camera. That
>starts to get beyond what 35mm photography is all about which is
>light, portable, handheld, reactive and spontaneous. Now where did
>I put that super light little Olympus OM-2 system? I think I'll carry
>it with me today. Camera body in one pocket and a couple of lenses in
>the other.
Unless I am very much mistaken that OM-2, lightweight and all,
provides you with mirror lock-up and depth of field preview. A camera
which provides MLU does not have to be particularly heavy.
What is irritating to those of us who want it is that MLU used to be
routine in mid-priced cameras. My first SLR was a Canon FTb. That had
MLU. So did the equivalent Nikon, the Nikkormat FTn (?) and pretty
much every manufacturer's camera at that sort of price point. Now,
with some few exceptions, if you want MLU you have to go up to
pro-oriented bodies. Hell, the F-100 doesn't have it.
35mm SLRs are the tool of choice for film-based astrophotography.
Exposures can be very long, perhaps an hour. Vibration is a killer.
Can you work around the lack of MLU? Yes, but it used to be that you
did not have to. With the newer cameras automation has got to the
point that if you want control you have to go pro, very nearly.
MLU is available in lower cost Canons, I understand, but they are too
battery-dependent for some of these applications.
I am not opposed to automation, by any means. I just find it
significantly inconvenient that camera design has gone from a state
when a minimalist camera which left everything to you used to be cheap
and any kind of automation expensive, to a situation where automation
is so cheap and the use of it so pervasive at the low end that any
kind of customization and control involves much higher cost.
I am not even complaining, just recognizing that this is where the
market is.
- Shankar
Jim
<ani...@home.com> wrote:
>
>"Jim" <jimn....@home.com> wrote in message
>news:3988e2a0.426438482@news...
>> On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 22:28:44 -0700, Ronald Shu
>> <shouro...@isc.ucsb.edu> wrote:
>>
>MLU is only useful for people who need very sharp pictures at shutter speeds
>from 1/8" to 1/30" (for 135 cameras). Is it that important to you?
Exactly my point. No it is not important to me, Nor, do I suspect
is it important to most, but not all, of the pundits of MLU on this
NG.
When was the last time any one has seen an exhibition print taken at
shutter speed aproaching 1/30 of a second. If any one knows of such
an exhibit then I am booking my tick's tomorrow.. That photographer
has such an unederstanding of light, film and exposure that the pic's
must be stupendous.
Jim
s...@randomc.com
I suspect that most of the pundits of MLU on this group want it for this very
reason. Its almost impossible to do macro work without it - unless you have
bright light. Landsapes are the same way. Since many of use use K64 or
RDP100 or Velvia or some other fairly slow film for lanscapes, and many of us
us f16 or so for the shot - slow shutter speeds are very common. MLU is
important to most of us pundits.
Steve
Shankar Bhattacharyya
Q.G. de Bakker <q...@worldonline.nl> wrote:
>Shankar Bhattacharyya wrote:
>
>> Unless I am very much mistaken that OM-2, lightweight and all,
>> provides you with mirror lock-up and depth of field preview.
>
Sorry about that. I figured that out later. The OM-1 did have it,
though, did it not? I have been thinking about this because I am
looking for the least elaborate way to get a Beattie screen on a
manual SLR with MLU, never mind the lenses. The Olympus would serve.
Right now I use an old Canon F-1 (original ASA 1600 job) for
astrophotography but I don't have a really suitable screen in it and
focussing is a little bit of a pain. The eyes are not what they used
to be. A brighter screen would be nice.
- Shankar
Q.G. de Bakker
Jim
>Steve wrote
>
>K64 RDP100 or Velvia or some other fairly slow film for lanscapes, and many of us
>important to most of us pundits.
>
advantages. However, I am still not convinced that everyone banging
the MLU drum understands this. I still contest that movement caused
by even a 2 mph breeze will cause more blur in my macro shots than any
amount of degredation caused by mirror movement in any contemporary
midline or better SLR in todays market.
Jim
Dave Haynie
Bhattacharyya) wrote:
>In article <8oc53m$cqs$1...@nereid.worldonline.nl>,
>Q.G. de Bakker <q...@worldonline.nl> wrote:
>Sorry about that. I figured that out later. The OM-1 did have it,
>though, did it not?
Yup. Still does.
On the OM-4, and I believe OM-2, the mirror goes up as soon as you
trip the shutter, even the timer's set. So you have a reasonable
fallback for the lack of a lockup.
The OM-1 was among the first, if not the first, SLR to have put lots
of effort into mirror dampening. I'm guessing that, while the lockup
was popular for some applications (astrophotography for one,
microprotography, a business Olympus was in long before they made SLR
cameras, for another), it didn't matter much. My OM-1 is not noticably
shakier, and only very slightly noisier, than my Canon/Leica
rangefinders.
The main reason for lockup is, in fact, mirror induced vibrations from
the mirror going up. The mirror is fully up by the time the shutter
opens, but the vibrations may not be damped by then (again, before the
OM-1, they almost certainly won't in most cameras). On the way down,
mirrors are damped as well for noise, but the shutter is already shut.
And of course, any camera vibration can conceivable introduce
vibrations into the surrounding environment, which may feed them back.
So a properly heavy tripod is critical here anyway.
Another solution would be to simply fix the mirror, as in the Canon
EOS RT and Canon EOS-1. No moving mirror, no vibration problems. Well,
except for the motor...
Dave Haynie | frog pond media | dha...@jersey.net
"Whomever dies with the most cameras wins"
GO GREEN - VOTE NADER
Q.G. de Bakker
> [...]
> On the OM-4, and I believe OM-2, the mirror goes up as soon as you
> trip the shutter, even the timer's set. So you have a reasonable
> fallback for the lack of a lockup.
No, the OM-2 will not do that.
When using the self-timer (which has its own release; you don't press the
camera's release button!) the mirror will remain in the down position until
the actual exposure is made.
(You can actually stop the self-timer, and change a lens, recompose, or
whatever, and then make the exposure restarting the self-timer, or using the
camera's shutter release as normal.)
The OM-4 indeed will flip the mirror up as soon as the self-timer cycle is
started.
> [...]
Chris Williams
shutter is delayed just a bit to let the mirror vibrations settle and the
the shutter goes. Cute.
"Dave Haynie" <dha...@jersey.net> wrote in message
news:39ac12ac....@news.jersey.net...
> On 27 Aug 2000 20:26:05 -0400, sbha...@u3.farm.idt.net (Shankar
> Bhattacharyya) wrote:
>
> >In article <8oc53m$cqs$1...@nereid.worldonline.nl>,
> >Q.G. de Bakker <q...@worldonline.nl> wrote:
> >Sorry about that. I figured that out later. The OM-1 did have it,
> >though, did it not?
>
> Yup. Still does.
>
> On the OM-4, and I believe OM-2, the mirror goes up as soon as you
> trip the shutter, even the timer's set. So you have a reasonable
> fallback for the lack of a lockup.
>
s...@randomc.com
>Another trick allowed by the D1 (and I think the F5) is a setting where the
>shutter is delayed just a bit to let the mirror vibrations settle and the
>the shutter goes. Cute.
That is correct, its called silent mode. However, I'm not sure of the
sequence of events. I know that the film advance is delayed, and the
normal sequence of events is delayed...Cute? I don't think they did it to be
cute.
Steve
Dave Haynie
wrote:
>Another trick allowed by the D1 (and I think the F5) is a setting where the
>shutter is delayed just a bit to let the mirror vibrations settle and the
>the shutter goes. Cute.
Within reason, not a bad idea. I guess if you're electonic enough,
this could even be done with a feedback system that measures the
vibrations.
However, as many digital camera fans can attest, too much lag between
the button press and the actual shutter action can be a problem.
Though I suppose that goes the other way, too -- last time I had
accidently left my EOS RT in RT mode (a release time lag of 8mm/sec,
versus the "standard" mode of 100mm/sec), I accidently shot off three
pictures before I noticed the error.
Chris Williams
<s...@randomc.com> wrote in message
news:8oj59m$4k2$1...@bcarh8ab.ca.nortel.com...
s...@randomc.com
Woa, gettn' a little affectionate there.
H. David Huffman
having kept an F w/FTn meter, F-36 MD and the MLU. Sure wish the other
three were equipped.
Since we have to buy what they sell-------------has anyone come up with
a comprehensive plan as how we will get back at them?
"Shankar Bhattacharyya" <sbha...@u2.farm.idt.net> wrote in message
news:8o8f1u$q...@u2.farm.idt.net...
> In article <8nocge$1k3e$1...@nix2.kconline.com>,
> Fred Whitlock <a...@skyenet.net> wrote:
> Of mirror lock-up on 35mm cameras:
>
> > ... If I need that kind of precision and image
> >quality, I probably shouldn't be trying to get the job done with 35mm.
> >
> >This point also helps me better understand why I sold my F4 and F5 a
> >couple of years ago. The things were brutishly large and heavy. In
> >fact they each weighed about the same as my 4X5 field camera. That
> >starts to get beyond what 35mm photography is all about which is
> >light, portable, handheld, reactive and spontaneous. Now where did
> >I put that super light little Olympus OM-2 system? I think I'll carry
> >it with me today. Camera body in one pocket and a couple of lenses in
> >the other.
>
> Unless I am very much mistaken that OM-2, lightweight and all,
j...@cheerful.com
Nikon claimed that the Mirror will flip up before the shutter open as oppose
the same time in Canon.
This is for 1/16 speed and lower.
I always use a timer which literally give you a mirror lock up in 1/8 speed or
lower.
Tony Spadaro
"H. David Huffman" <crap...@lvcm.com> wrote:
> I have a Nikon 8008S and 2 - 6006's and no mlu, so I beat the problem
by
> having kept an F w/FTn meter, F-36 MD and the MLU. Sure wish the
other
> three were equipped.
> Since we have to buy what they sell-------------has anyone come
up with
> a comprehensive plan as how we will get back at them?
I have. I switched to Canon, and got mirror pre-fire with a 400
dollar fully automatic body.
--
Digital photo restoration in autumnal Chapel Hill NC
http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony
New - A Digital Workflow + Sharpness: Threat or Menace?
And Selecting Your First SLR - Java must be enabled
Jansen98
in all SLRs. MLU definitely helps at certain shutter speeds. Nikon is the
only major manufacturer that offers TRUE mirror lockup on its professional
F5. This isn't just a prefire like the others and an auxillary shutter
curtain is also used to assure no light leakage. This also allows for
attachment of certain essoteric glass like the 6mm 2.8 fisheye. Certain
manual focus Nikons like the FM2 and FE2 flip the mirror in self timer mode,
but not the newer AF bodies (except the previously mentioned F5 and F4s.
<j...@cheerful.com> wrote in message news:39E815D7...@cheerful.com...
Fred Whitlock
> I have a Nikon 8008S and 2 - 6006's and no mlu, so I beat the
problem by
> having kept an F w/FTn meter, F-36 MD and the MLU. Sure wish the
other
> three were equipped.
> Since we have to buy what they sell-------------has anyone come
up with
> a comprehensive plan as how we will get back at them?
Sure, quit worrying about having MLU on a 35mm camera which is of
little value to most photographers.
Fred
Maplewood Photography
jjs
Fred Whitlock <a...@skyenet.net> wrote in message
news:8sat6f$1ks0$3...@nix2.kconline.com...
> Sure, quit worrying about having MLU on a 35mm camera which is of
> little value to most photographers.
Yea, stop worrying. Forget about MLU and be complete: watch daytime TV, eat
junk food, wear sweatsuits to the mall, process your prints a the One-Hour
booth, and always trust Fred Whitlock.