Does "no mirror" really = sharper negs?

[Rol_Lei Nut]

The laser pointer and penny tests don't really tell you if the vibration is affecting the image. There could be a lot of vibration when the mirror returns and the shutter closes, and that wouldn't make any difference.

I actually did a laser pointer test on my 6x7 with & without MLU and using slow speeds and B in order to differentiate between mirror rising, shutter opening and shutter+mirror closing (unable to differentiate between those two).

True, the worst vibrations were with the mirror/shutter closing. The shutter opening was fairly weak (but visble) and the mirror raising stronger still, but a long way from being a major part of the jolt you feel when you shoot the beast.

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

There are big differences between 35mm SLRs in the degree of mirror (and shutter) dampening present.
Some SLRs I can hand hold at speeds practically as low as a rangefinder.
Others notoriously have no dampening at all (the otherwise lovely Nikon F & F2, for example).

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

In my understanding, however, the laser pointer test involves actually photographing the laser point on the wall, not just viewing it with your eyes. Therefore, the test should work just fine to tell you if the slap is affecting the camera during exposure.

As for the penny test, it is just silly, IMO.

I've usually heard the laser test as attaching the pointer to the camera and watching the spot dance. I think photographing the spot might tell you something, but a photograph of a projected laser spot wouldn't be as informative as a photograph of a resolution target with and without mirror lock up, if one were trying to determine the effect of mirror slap.

 

[df cardwell]

The thing about a rangefinder is that you MUST learn to see the world as it will see it.
You can't get lost inside the SLR kaleidoscope.

The reason a Rangefinder is good in the street is that the photographer learns to SEE what it will see.

Its like learning to play a violin. Following the SLRs are better argument, guitars must be better than fiddles because they have frets and you know where all the notes are.

So, it isn't so much whether a RFDR is sharper without the mirror, it is that WE become sharper when our eyes can see.

 

[John Koehrer]

The Pentax 67's problems are also due to the shutter curtain. See the illustration, even with the mirror locked up, here:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/pentax67ii.shtml

That's an interesting photo with a double image in the detail.
But, if the shutter bounced that far it would have gone more than 1/2 way back across the negative.
In any case camera movement doesn't give a double image, it gives a blurred image.

 

[Jedidiah Smith]

Hi Df Cardwell, thanks for the philosophy of shooting rangefinders tip! I suppose I should have given that MF Fuji rangefinder a bit more time to get used to when I had it...Makes me wonder if I should just go for the G2 anyway and see if I like it sometime? Suppose no one can tell me if I will, I just have to try.

This whole discussion is making me want to get an SLR with MLU, if I return to an SLR, though. Which is kind of a bummer, because I really liked the Minolta XD-11. It is a fine camera; but sadly, no MLU. Maybe the shutter and mirror assembly is sufficiently dampened that they didn't need one? One could only hope that, I guess!

Thanks for the great discussion, it feels really good to be talking cameras and things again.
Jed

 

[Q.G.]

The laser pointer and penny tests don't really tell you if the vibration is affecting the image. There could be a lot of vibration when the mirror returns and the shutter closes, and that wouldn't make any difference.

I don't think so.
First, because both tests include the full cycle, not just the opening part.

Second, the real 'bump' occurs when the mirror or shutter hit their end stops, their end positions. When their mass comes to a sudden stop, and the energy built-up during accelleration instantly has to find a place to go.
At that time, the image is no longer being created.

 

[Lee L]

The difference between having a mirror and having no mirror is not readily quantifiable in general terms and the difference between an SLR and rangefinder in use is more about whether the particular camera model is a good match to the individual photographer and the job at hand. David Goldfarb's point about the wider parameters and greater ease of designing wide angle lenses without compensating for a mirror's physical requirements is well taken, but in practice there are good and bad wide angles among both rangefinder and SLR optics.

I have a very solid brass-bodied SLR with a cam driven mirror. With the mass of the body and the deceleration of the cam drive mirror (to the point that it really doesn't slap against the rest of the body at the top of the cycle), it does very well at pretty much any shutter speed. I have been repeatedly surprised over the 30 years that I've used it at the degree to which I can handhold at slower shutter speeds.

I have an Argus C3, an Agfa Isolette folder, and a Bessa R3A, all rangefinders. The difference in their viewfinders is more significant a difference in practice than between say the R3A and a nice SLR finder.

One other thing that I find more significant than mirror slap in the cameras I've used is whether the camera fits my hands well. I have larger hands, and even many SLR bodies aren't large enough for me to get a good grip. The Nikon N8008s body is short and thick, and the bottom of the body doesn't even reach halfway across my right palm with my finger on the release button. I don't feel that I can hold it very steadily. Bad ergonomics for me personally. I put a trigger winder on my C/V Bessa rangefinder bodies to make them fit my hands well, and they work great for me that way.

There's a lot more at play than a simple mirror/no mirror question if "sharper negs" is the goal, and in many (perhaps most) circumstances, I think that gets swamped by other considerations, including individual camera build, individual lens quality, overall ergonomics of the particular camera model in your hands, your overall comfort level with the given camera, and your individual skills/ability to hand hold steadily.

Lee

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I don't think so.
First, because both tests include the full cycle, not just the opening part.

That's precisely the problem. Only the opening part is relevant to the exposure. Vibration after the shutter closes and the mirror returns (on cameras that have an instant return mirror) is irrelevant, and watching a laser point dance on the wall or seeing the penny fall is only interesting if you can isolate the beginning of the exposure from the end.

I'd still rather look at a resolution test, because that's really what you want to know--do shutter and mirror-induced vibration reduce resolution, and how much, and at what shutter speeds?

 

[cdowell]

I don't know about mirrors, but would there be any vibration caused as I yell "SAY CHEESE!!!" just as I'm releasing the shutter?

 

[Bob Carnie]

I prefer working from rangefinder negatives, over the years , it just seemed to me the prints are sharper than those from an SLR camera.

The Pentax 6x7 was the fashion photographers go to camera, I believe because the mirror slap softened the look of skin.

I own a fuji 6x9, my wife received a Pentax 67, I like both cameras but use mirror lockup with the Pentax on tripod.

 

[eddym]

The reason a Rangefinder is good in the street is that the photographer learns to SEE what it will see.

...and one can also see what the lens does NOT see! One of the great things about my Leica is that I can see what is about to enter the camera's field of view before it happens. With an SLR, you only see what the lens sees, and miss what is just outside its field of view. With a RF, you can see something about to happen and recompose to catch it.

 

[Sirius Glass]

...and one can also see what the lens does NOT see! One of the great things about my Leica is that I can see what is about to enter the camera's field of view before it happens. With an SLR, you only see what the lens sees, and miss what is just outside its field of view. With a RF, you can see something about to happen and recompose to catch it.

I never found this to be a problem because I am able to open my eyes and see without looking through a view finder. Some times I will keep both eyes open when I use an RF or an SLR. Neither of these two techniques are difficult, in fact most people normally see the first way! So I always though the discussion about what one cannot be seen in an SLR versus a RF camera to be just plain rationalization for the RF users to feel superior. For the life of me, I can't see why the RF users are so insecure that they need the rationalization.

Steve

 

[SFC]

Using a laser pointer does tell you one thing: is the camera moving, or not? Whether or not it affects the image depends on something else: How long does the vibration continue?. This will depend on the ability of the tripod/head to dampen.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

It's not enough to know if the camera is moving or even how long the vibrations continue, unless you can isolate the vibrations that happen at the beginning of the exposure from the vibrations that happen after the shutter closes and the mirror returns. You could approximate this by triggering the shutter on "B," but given the way a focal plane shutter works, with the second curtain beginning to close before the first curtain ends its travel at any speed faster than the X-sync speed, that test wouldn't necessarily give you everything you need to know.

Another approach might be to look at a sound wave to see which part of the shutter and mirror motion produce the most sound, sound being vibration, but even this information isn't that useful. I tried this with my notoriously loud Bronica S2a and determined that most of the sound was happening at the end of the exposure, rather than at the beginning where it could reduce image quality, but it's hard to say what that means, since it also depends on the structure of the camera and where the vibrations are coming from and the length of the exposure and external factors like the tripod and head.

 

[GeorgeDexter]

I have tested this, with a Manfrotto carbon-fiber tripod, Manfrotto geared head, Nikon slr. I shoot 2+ second exposures with a cable release and a 200mm micro lens. I definitely see mirror slap resulting in less sharpe images than when I use mirror lock-up. Is there less vibration in rangefinders? I don't know.
Also, not to muddy the issue, but I have always believed that leaf shutters cause less vibration than focal plane shutters, because the motion of a leaf shutter is radial, where the motion of a focal plane shutter is one-directional. The inertia of a leaf shutter should cancel out, reducing negative impact on images. Perhaps leaf shutter SLR are better than focal plane shutter rangefinders?

Also, I'm sure the shutter vibration of my Kiev 4a is more than that of my Leica M3!

 

[zumbido]

I have tested this, with a Manfrotto carbon-fiber tripod, Manfrotto geared head, Nikon slr. I shoot 2+ second exposures with a cable release and a 200mm micro lens. I definitely see mirror slap resulting in less sharpe images than when I use mirror lock-up. Is there less vibration in rangefinders? I don't know.
Also, not to muddy the issue, but I have always believed that leaf shutters cause less vibration than focal plane shutters, because the motion of a leaf shutter is radial, where the motion of a focal plane shutter is one-directional. The inertia of a leaf shutter should cancel out, reducing negative impact on images. Perhaps leaf shutter SLR are better than focal plane shutter rangefinders?

Yep. You don't need to call it a belief, it's a fact. Like the mirror vibration issue, this is another one with ample image test data out there in addition to the physics. And of course like the mirror issue, it depends on other factors of the particular camera build as well.

 

[Jedidiah Smith]

Well, if I go the SLR route again, I will definitely be getting a model with MLU at this point!
Interesting thought about leaf shutters vs focal plane; I hasn't thought of that angle on it before.
Jed

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

I have tested this, with a Manfrotto carbon-fiber tripod, Manfrotto geared head, Nikon slr. I shoot 2+ second exposures with a cable release and a 200mm micro lens. I definitely see mirror slap resulting in less sharpe images than when I use mirror lock-up. Is there less vibration in rangefinders? I don't know.

Which Nikon camera? Again, the F & F2 had notoriously undampened shutters & mirrors. Also My FM & FE2 have more "kick" than average.

Leaf shutters definitely (usually) cause less movement.

Like SLRs, also rangefinder cameras undoubtedly have more or less dampened shutters.

There are some SLRs which come close to rangefinders as far as vibrations are concerned. Needs to be looked at on a model by model basis (and condition - the need for a CLA, could also play a role).

 

[keithwms]

When I went from the F5 to the F100 I thought MLU would be an issue... it has not been. The mirror damping on the F100 is very good.

Jed, when I spoke of longish handheld exposures in a previous post, that was with a mamiya 6, which has leaf shutter lenses.... and no mirror Leaf shutters rock for quiet, smooth operation. Great synch times too if that's your thing.

 

[John Koehrer]

Well, if I go the SLR route again, I will definitely be getting a model with MLU at this point!
Interesting thought about leaf shutters vs focal plane; I hasn't thought of that angle on it before.
Jed

The XD11 had a seriously dampened mirror system, one of the best.
Canon f1N & Leica SLR's also.
The absolute necessity of having MLU becomes more important with Macro/micro photography, not general usage.
Though I'm not a fan of AF cameras, the Contax G2 is about as good as it gets.
Comfortable size & weight and excellent lenses. Won't break the bank to get a body & a lens or two.
It fails if you like to use a long lens or do macro work. So do Leica M's

 

[Jedidiah Smith]

Hi John,
Thanks for that info. Maybe that is why I liked the XD-11 so much? I shot everything from a wedding to landscapes on that camera...wish I never had sold it! (But ah...when you need money)
Anyway, I once took a shot of my daughter in a camping tent with that XD-11 and Minolta 50mm f1.4 lens hand held at 1/8 second shutter speed. Amazingly, it is sharp! Not as sharp as a tripod would have done, probably, but enough for a decent 8x10. Guess I got lucky...but perhaps that is a testament to the well dampened mirror? Wish it had MLU anyway, though.

OK, after looking at prices and really sitting down thinking about it, I'm pretty much torn between getting an XD-11 and some good Minolta Rokkor primes again or trying the Contax G2. Only bummer about the G2 is I'm limited to a 90mm tele.
I rarely used to shoot anything but the 24 - 100mm range with my SLR, but now that I live in Ventura, I've thought about doing some surfing shots, and I'd need some reach for that!
Thanks for all the help everyone! If you can think of other stuff I should consider, please let me know. I've got the money saved up now for the rest of the darkroom gear I need, and if all goes well, maybe I'll drive down to Freestyle Photo on Monday.
Jed

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

Hi John,
I rarely used to shoot anything but the 24 - 100mm range with my SLR, but now that I live in Ventura, I've thought about doing some surfing shots, and I'd need some reach for that!

With the price of film bodies being what it is nowadays, there's no reason not to get a rangefinder *and* an SLR body to use with long lenses...

 

[GeorgeDexter]

Which Nikon camera? Again, the F & F2 had notoriously undampened shutters & mirrors. Also My FM & FE2 have more "kick" than average.

Leaf shutters definitely (usually) cause less movement.

Like SLRs, also rangefinder cameras undoubtedly have more or less dampened shutters.

There are some SLRs which come close to rangefinders as far as vibrations are concerned. Needs to be looked at on a model by model basis (and condition - the need for a CLA, could also play a role).

Well, I didn't want to say it, but it's my D700. The fact that it's digital should have no bearing on mirror-slap issues, though I generally refrain from discussing digital cameras on this forum. I never noticed mirror-slap with my F100 under similar shooting situations, but then I couldn't try it both ways and pixel-peep like I can with digital.

 

[Jedidiah Smith]

I think at this point most of us have at least used a digital, so no big deal. It's just that we prefer film or analog process for one reason or another.
Do you think the D700 is lighter than your F100 and has less mass to combat the mirror vibration or anything like that? Or maybe it's just the way they made the mechanism internally that isn't quite as good at reducing the "thwack" when it lifts?

Also at Keith - thanks for clarifying that for me on the rangefinder / long shutter speed issue. It is starting to make a lot of sense. I've got to decide if the abilities of the rangefinder outweigh the ease of use I've come to have with an SLR.
Jed