Great aperture and central shutter don't fit along well. A real world example: Zeiss lenses for Hasselblad. Lenses for F cameras get larger aperture than those for C cameras. Wonder why?
How so? In most lenses with central shutters, the shutter is directly in front of/behind the aperture. Some even use one diaphragm for both functions.
From an optical perspective, a lens with and without a central shutter are basically identical.
Examples of this are large-format lenses, whose cells are routinely used in both barrels and shutters without any optical modifications at all.
Never liked the Contax II. The design of the camera ignores how the human hand operates. The choice of lenses is limited by the design decision to include the focusing helix in the camera body rather than in the lens. A well made but very poorly designed camera.
How so? In most lenses with central shutters, the shutter is directly in front of/behind the aperture. Some even use one diaphragm for both functions.
From an optical perspective, a lens with and without a central shutter are basically identical.
Examples of this are large-format lenses, whose cells are routinely used in both barrels and shutters without any optical modifications at all.
I think they mean it limits the max. aperture. Did anybody make an leaf shutter SLR with a faster than f2 lens? The other thing is that many interchangeable lens SLRs of this nature had the rear elements fixed in the body behind the shutter, so really only half of the lens was interchangeable which led to compromises in lens design and ultimately a limited number of focal lengths available to the user of these cameras.
Another way of looking at this topic (as I sit here with my Bronica ETR/speed grip/prism/200mm lens with hood, which resembles some sort of anti-tank weapon):
Could it be said that even a good camera can be bad for certain uses? The Bronica (in this configuration) would be a terrible camera for street photography or hiking, but it handles beautifully and produces superb negatives when I get the exposure right.
I'm pretty sure we're talking about reliability here more than usefulness.
Back in the 1960s, Consumer Reports magazine declared that Miranda Sensorex was the best buy for the money. Their declaration had a great influence on my decision to select the Sensorex as my first SLR. However, my Sensorex broke three times within the first two years of its three-year warranty. The third time it broke was when I was hundreds of feet in the air covering the maiden voyage of a new aircraft that the local university had just acquired. Thank goodness a backup twin-lens reflex camera that I carried allowed me to complete my assignment.
The other photographers at the newspaper where I worked used Nikons and convinced me that Nikons had the reliability that I needed. I immediately replaced my broken Sensorex with a used Nikon F. I have been using Nikons ever since because I have been very impressed with the dependability and ruggedness of their bodies and lenses.
My horrible experiences with my brand new Miranda Sensorex convinced me that it was and is a bad camera. I would not recommend it to anyone.
Maybe in a parrell universe Miranda and Petri were the winners and Canon and Nikon are bankrupt.
Maybe cameras just aren't supposed to have people names.
Great aperture and central shutter don't fit along well. A real world example: Zeiss lenses for Hasselblad. Lenses for F cameras get larger aperture than those for C cameras. Wonder why?
Kowa for sure 1.9 and 1.8 and I recall a 1.4 but not sure, and I also recall Topcon with 1.8.
Maybe in a parrell universe Miranda and Petri were the winners and Canon and Nikon are bankrupt.
Where would lomo and Leica be in that universe?
Because an f/1.4 lens to cover 6x6 would be impractically huge. That's not an optical limitation, that's a design decision that has little to do with the central shutter.
There are dozens of reasons lenses for the F system are faster than those for the V system.
Comparing apples to oranges and criticizing one for being less round.
I would be interesting to know why comparing lenses for C and F Hasselblad cameras is meaningless? Is a 500C so different from a 1000F so their respective lenses can't be compared? Please elaborate.
Haha, I misunderstood you. When someone says "F System", I think Nikon.
The lenses are approximately the same size, yes? That makes it a mechanical issue, not an optical one. That was my main point. The central shutter takes up space, and the physical size of a fast MF lens with a central shutter would be unwieldy. It's got nothing to do with the optics.
Pioneer, the 'endurance' value of the K1000 was in its engineering simplicity. I have taken enough cameras apart to attest to that merit. - David Lyga
Pioneer, the 'endurance' value of the K1000 was in its engineering simplicity. I have taken enough cameras apart to attest to that merit. - David Lyga
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?