Is that really a rotary shutter? Isn’t it just a single leaf shutter?I've had some ideas recently for a multi-speed all-mechanical shutter that could be built with the same technology that was used for the (still operating after 50-100 years) rotary shutters used in generations of box cameras (and modern Holgas). Stamped sheet metal moving parts, simple hairpin type springs, and ought to be able to get speeds from 1/15 to 1/200 plus B with only about 2-3 times the total part count of a Brownie shutter. Problem is, I've got no money and little free time to even try to build a prototype.
Is that really a rotary shutter?
Shutter speeds between 1/25 and 1/250 would be sufficient for most situations.
I too have a difficult time visualising what you mean.It's not, and I didn't call it that. I said it could be made with the same technology as rotary shutters, i.e. stamping, shearing, and fine wire torsion springs.
The idea is close to the guillotine type shutters found in Minox and Minolta 16 subminiature cameras, but without the complexity of a pallet and cam timer (those essentially use the same mechanism as a Compur to control the release of the two plates). My idea would use plates with notches, one graduated at different positions (different insertion depths of the control bar would select different notch positions). When the shutter prefires, the leaves release against the control bar, which is then withdrawn for final firing (there needs to be a delay of about 1/100 to let the second plate rest on the selected notch), and the two leaves start to travel -- at the same speed, but from different starting positions, effectively giving a controllable slit width. This wouldn't work for speeds slower than about 1/25 or 1/15 (depending on the actual travel speed of the plates).
Add some simple electronics and you could have timed speeds to several seconds with no additional mechanical complexity, but the original idea was for an all-mechanical shutter that could be mass produced cheaply. Based on the performance of Minox and Kiev 30, it should be possible to get speeds up to 1/500 with this setup, though few modern photographers really need to go beyond 1/250. Electronic timing (directly controlling the release of the plates) might allow not only longer shutter times, but shorter (down to 1/1000, anyway).
From the patent diagram for the Pen F, I believe the rotary shutter there is really a half disk that rotates to cover or expose the film gate
Good ideas don’t often scale.We're talking about a 35 mm SLR resurrection, though, aren't we? You could mount a Minolta/Minox style horizontal guillotine shutter between film chambers at the focal plane, and have room for a mirror box and lens mount (you'd sell it with user-configurable lens mounts so the user could select, say, M42, Nikon F, Minolta or Yashica in the same pre-autofocus age range -- so long as you make the mirror box short enough to accommodate the shortest flange to film distance). You might need to make the camera a little wider than the more compact original cameras, but being able to make a shutter that doesn't require a mad clockmaker to assemble would make it worthwhile. This might even be possible to offer as a kit, similar in concept to the Konstructor from Lomography.
No, not two wings. Look at the shutters in Minolta 16, 16II, Kiev Vega, 30, and 303, or a Minox. Basically a focal plane shutter with solid metal curtains, except those cameras mount it in front of the lens, making it a guillotine type. I'm looking at a much simpler way to time the leaves, but you'd still have a separate aperture so your bokeh would be whatever the aperture created (if you build it to use existing lenses, you'd get the regular multi-leaf iris). I agree, the shutter/aperture combination with a square opening does create ugly bokeh, but this isn't that (that was an alternative, and would be much harder -- maybe impossible -- to implement without electronics).
I wonder why they didn’t just go with a simple leaf shutter?The Mercury shutter always rotates at the same speed with a variable slit width to determine exposure.
Yeah, but why? With speed of common film back in the day 1000 speed would not come in handy very often.I think the design objective was to reliably achieve 1/1000 second with a mechanism that was fairly easy to manufacture with average labor skills.
Yeah, but why? With speed of common film back in the day 1000 speed would not come in handy very often.
How about IBIS technology applied to the film???
It’s would be fairly easy to grasp the film firmly in a frame and move that around, using films ability to bend. We are talking very small movements after all.that’s an awful lot of mass to move around—it would have to be the film cassette, the take up spool, and all of the camera body that holds that in place. I know Contax did an auto-focus mechanism, by moving the film closer or further, but I don’t know if it moved the whole film path (probably) or it it was fast enough to use a similar mechanism to do IBIS (probably not). But it’s certainly an interesting idea.
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?