Leaf v focal plane shutter

[cliveh]

Does anyone know why Oskar Barnack designed the Leica with a focal plane shutter in preference to a leaf shutter? I am aware of the leaf shutter summicron, but am not sure how this works, as surely it must operate with the focal permanently open to effectively cut down noise and vibration. However, to me, the concept of a leaf shutter seems a more ideal and purist form of exposure (dim to bright of the entire scene as the shutter opens to the working aperture and then closes). Although a focal plane may give faster speeds, the complete scene is not exposed at exactly the same moment in time. I am probably talking rubbish to even question the brilliance of Oskar’s thinking?

 

[Dr Croubie]

Just a guess, but since he designed it using cine film, were not the parts cobbled together from cine cameras? I know a rotary shutter isn't exactly a curtain, but they're close than a leaf.
Also, I've read something about him wanting to double-duty lenses on enlargers, ergo the L39 mount, although that came a bit later after the fixed-lens versions.

 

[bdial]

One big advantage is that you don't need a shutter in each lens. Also, putting a leaf shutter on or in the body with interchangeable lenses costs a lot of space, which either needs a bigger body or relatively long flange distances.

Hard to know exactly what he was thinking, but those are a couple of things that he may have been considering.

 

[cliveh]

One big advantage is that you don't need a shutter in each lens.

I understand the cost benefits of this, but surely his prime objective was engineering optimum form, function, perfection and not cost.

 

[cowanw]

I have always thought that the Topcon Uni was an interesting concept with a leaf shutter just on the front of the body which the lenses bayonet into. No noticeable extra space required.

 

[Hatchetman]

I don't think he designed it to be the status symbol that it became. He was being practical about cost, form, function, marketability, etc.

 

[ic-racer]

I have always thought that the Topcon Uni was an interesting concept with a leaf shutter just on the front of the body which the lenses bayonet into. No noticeable extra space required.

The Yanks made one like that also...

 

[Dr Croubie]

The original UrLeicas only had fixed lenses, so I don't know how pertinent would be anything regarding size of lenses and interchangeability. He may have made fixed lenses to begin with, fully aiming to make interchangeable ones later, or he may have just fudged as he went as we engineers so often do.

I know one of his main goals was size and weight, I'm not sure of the difference between a curtain and leaf for non-interchangeable lenses though, it's hard to compare directly.
At the least, curtains (especially vertical-slit/horizontal-travel) do make it easier to cock the shutter when winding on, as my Pentacon 6 attests.

 

[summicron1]

just a guess, too -- he was an amateur photographer with asthma who couldn't haul his heavy gear around. He decided to make a small camera for personal use that used leftover movie film. Rather than farm around for parts, used what he had at hand in the microscope factory in Wetzlar -- lenses, machines to make parts.

A focal plane shutter is a lot simpler to make yourself than a leaf shutter, and remember his first efforts weren't self-capping, were pretty crude by modern standards.

 

[mr rusty]

http://www.cameraquest.com/ret3s.htm

One of the nicest cameras I own.

 

[darkosaric]

http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/m3.htm

The nicest cameras I own .

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

If you've ever handled a Voigtlander Prominent, you know the answer to this question. The Prominent was an answer to a question nobody ever asked, ever. It offered interchangeable lenses with a built-in leaf shutter. It is much bigger than a Leica, much heavier, the ergonomics are lousy, and it is mechanically complicated.

 

[darkosaric]

If you've ever handled a Voigtlander Prominent, you know the answer to this question. The Prominent was an answer to a question nobody ever asked, ever. It offered interchangeable lenses with a built-in leaf shutter. It is much bigger than a Leica, much heavier, the ergonomics are lousy, and it is mechanically complicated.

Similar to Braun Paxette series - it is a small camera, but much more complicated and worse ergonomics.

 

[miha]

If you've ever handled a Voigtlander Prominent, you know the answer to this question. The Prominent was an answer to a question nobody ever asked, ever. It offered interchangeable lenses with a built-in leaf shutter. It is much bigger than a Leica, much heavier, the ergonomics are lousy, and it is mechanically complicated.

Have you ever handled a Zeiss Werra camera?

 

[cliveh]

Have you ever handled a Zeiss Werra camera?

Quite, or a Voigtlander Vitomatic IIb. Still small but with a leaf shutter, but no interchangeable lenses.

 

[DannL.]

Fewer parts, compact, and highly reliable. It must be easier to sell a camera that reliable and reasonably priced, than to sell a camera that is neither. The complexity of the leaf shutters vs. the focal plane shutters (Leica, FSU, Canon) that I've worked on is like night and day. Leaf shutters in general require many many parts. And those parts generally all have to work together. Add a flash and timer components to the shutter . . . more complexity. One aspect of the focal plane shutters in miniature format cameras I have noticed is that the negatives are almost always sharper than those made from leaf shutters. I have always had difficulty getting a truly sharp negative with a leaf shuttered camera when handheld. The fact that a focal plane shutter window in some cases is not exposing the entire negative at a single instance probably accounts for this. One problem I have noticed is that with folding cameras that have a leaf shutter, the shutter is usually located at a distance furthest from the fulcrum. This means that the shutter and lens will experience the most angular velocity/movement during any movement or vibration at the fulcrum. This is not the case with a focal plane shutter which is usually located near the fulcrum.

This post was made with a computer using Crap-A-Talk 3.1

 

[pdeeh]

Have you ever handled a Zeiss Werra camera?

Zeiss Jena of course ... exquisite cameras, my first "proper" camera was an olive green Werra 1, then a black one with the Prestor shutter. Unfortunately both eventually died of shutter/advance failure. I've got them on eBay at the moment as spares/repair, but I wish I could afford to get them repaired myself. Just beautiful.

 

[cliveh]

Zeiss Jena of course ... exquisite cameras, my first "proper" camera was an olive green Werra 1, then a black one with the Prestor shutter. Unfortunately both eventually died of shutter/advance failure. I've got them on eBay at the moment as spares/repair, but I wish I could afford to get them repaired myself. Just beautiful.

Not only the most minimalist camera, but one with the mother of all lens hoods. I also have an olive green Werra.

 

[pdeeh]

Yes! The quintessential lens hood ...

 

[Theo Sulphate]

http://www.cameraquest.com/ret3s.htm

One of the nicest cameras I own.

Beautiful camera; beautiful lenses. The mount and lenses look similar to those on my Voigtländer Bessamatic, with their moving depth-of-field indicators. Alas, one fault of the leaf-shutter-behind-lens design is that repairs can be difficult. My poor Bessamatic is jammed and, from what I've heard and been told, no one wants to work on them. A shame, as I'd gladly pay to have it done.

I also wish Stephen Gandy would add more to his Classic Cameras page on Cameraquest - one of my all-time favorite sites.

 

[Whiteymorange]

http://www.cameraquest.com/ret3s.htm

One of the nicest cameras I own.

+1 on that.