What is you opinion of this shutter tester?

[BrianShaw]

Well that counts me out. I got rid of both my Hammarlund HQ180's. All I have is my Hammarlund HQ110, ham band only. So no WWV for me. This house is just too small for all my gadgets.

If you'd like a replacement I can offer you a HQ-180 and a Hallicrafters SX-28, both of which work but could benefit fron being re-capped. My wife keeps bugging me to get rid of "my little boy toys" that are cluttering her shelves in the garage. Pick-up only... those beasts would cost a fortune to ship!

 

[Chamaeleo]

Works brilliantly!

I have one. It works brilliantly. How could anybody with a modicum of intelligence think it works by recording sound? Unbelievable.

 

[noacronym]

If you'd like a replacement I can offer you a HQ-180 and a Hallicrafters SX-28, both of which work but could benefit fron being re-capped. My wife keeps bugging me to get rid of "my little boy toys" that are cluttering her shelves in the garage. Pick-up only... those beasts would cost a fortune to ship!

Thanks. But if it's an HQ 180 AX, then you might be the same guy shipping back the same one I sold on ebay several years ago. That thing was mint. Some guy in California bought it. Not enough room here for any more gadgets. What I need to be doing is getting out there and chasing women.

 

[BrianShaw]

No, Henry... I got this from the original owner here in CA. And don't even think of coming out here to chase women... all of the good ones are taken, and the remainders are a bunch of flighty bubble-headed bleached blondes with ugly tatoos.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I have one. It works brilliantly. How could anybody with a modicum of intelligence think it works by recording sound? Unbelievable.

Ummm. Perhaps because you use it with... get ready... a sound card? Modicum indeed.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Shutter testers are devices for increasing photographers sense of insecurity, because if they are inaccurate what are you going to do about it ?, if I suspect they are out I get mine tested by a professional and have him adjust them if neccesary.

Speaking for myself only, adjust or repair the shutter.

Others will either do it themselves, apply the appropriate compensation, or send it out.

 

[Chan Tran]

I wonder how well such a thing would work if I use an oscilloscope instead of a sound card?
How big is the aperture for the sensor. If it's too big it's not accurate.
How sensitive to light it is? If it's not sensitive enough then we would need lots of light.
How fast it is? If it responds slowly then it can't measure high shutter speed.

 

[noacronym]

No, Henry... I got this from the original owner here in CA. And don't even think of coming out here to chase women... all of the good ones are taken, and the remainders are a bunch of flighty bubble-headed bleached blondes with ugly tatoos.

And here, they are fat sloppy tattooed female eyesores that look like they're off Jerry Springer or COPS.

 

[Chan Tran]

After all these discussion I am thinking may be someone can come up with a full frame CCD or CMOS sensor and interface to test shutter.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I wonder how well such a thing would work if I use an oscilloscope instead of a sound card?
How big is the aperture for the sensor. If it's too big it's not accurate.
How sensitive to light it is? If it's not sensitive enough then we would need lots of light.
How fast it is? If it responds slowly then it can't measure high shutter speed.

Depends on how accurately calibrated the timebase in the scope is, and that would be up to the operator.

I trust those computer soundcards about as far as I can spit a rat.

If this tester has a limit of 1/1000, and users have said it's straining at 1/500, then it's nowhere near fast enough. That could be the cheapo soundcard, though.

 

[noacronym]

Depends on how accurately calibrated the timebase in the scope is, and that would be up to the operator.

I trust those computer soundcards about as far as I can spit a rat.

If this tester has a limit of 1/1000, and users have said it's straining at 1/500, then it's nowhere near fast enough. That could be the cheapo soundcard, though.

I have found my soundcard to be something I need to watch like a hawk, with great suspicion. I have caught it red-handed, NOT putting out flat frequency response. When tuning tape recorders, flatness of db's is paramount. So far as showing time in a program such as Adobe Audition, where shutter testers are used, I'm not so leary of them. The timebase is in Audition, not the souncard.

 

[Chan Tran]

Depends on how accurately calibrated the timebase in the scope is, and that would be up to the operator.

I trust those computer soundcards about as far as I can spit a rat.

If this tester has a limit of 1/1000, and users have said it's straining at 1/500, then it's nowhere near fast enough. That could be the cheapo soundcard, though.

The seller is selling what is really a probe and not a complete shutter tester. It was designed to work with sound card but what if I use it with a good scope. The time base of a reasonably good scope is much more accurate than any accuracy one may need with the shutter speed.
1. The size of the aperture on the probe is important because if it's large then the rise time and fall time of the waveform is going to be longer as the shutter uncovers and covers the probe aperture.
2. Small aperture size is good but then the sensor wouldn't have sufficient output or one may need a lot of light which can be a problem especially if one tests it with lens on.
3. The response of the sensor itself. Some sensor may take time to change their output and thus limiting how high a shutter speed one can test even if it connected to a 200Mhz scope.

 

[MattKing]

No, Henry... I got this from the original owner here in CA. And don't even think of coming out here to chase women... all of the good ones are taken, and the remainders are a bunch of flighty bubble-headed bleached blondes with ugly tatoos.

So do you spend your time looking for the ones with beautiful tatoos?

 

[E. von Hoegh]

The seller is selling what is really a probe and not a complete shutter tester. It was designed to work with sound card but what if I use it with a good scope. The time base of a reasonably good scope is much more accurate than any accuracy one may need with the shutter speed.
1. The size of the aperture on the probe is important because if it's large then the rise time and fall time of the waveform is going to be longer as the shutter uncovers and covers the probe aperture.
2. Small aperture size is good but then the sensor wouldn't have sufficient output or one may need a lot of light which can be a problem especially if one tests it with lens on.
3. The response of the sensor itself. Some sensor may take time to change their output and thus limiting how high a shutter speed one can test even if it connected to a 200Mhz scope.

Well, all I can say is this.
The thread title is a question. The question is, "what is your opinion of this shutter tester?"
My opinion is that it isn't worth bothering with.

 

[bascom49]

If you could fire the shutter of your F100 show me how as I could not fire the shutter of my F5 with the back opened so I never could test the shutter of my F5.

To be honest I don't remember. This was a Saturday project a couple of winters ago. I do remember placing the camera body on top of the box pointing up with the back hanging off the edge of my desk. I used a halogen desk light over the lens for a light source. I don't recall having a problem tripping the shutter.

 

[bascom49]

Well, all I can say is this.
The thread title is a question. The question is, "what is your opinion of this shutter tester?"
My opinion is that it isn't worth bothering with.

Maybe not, but I sure had fun on a rainy day with nothing to photograph and no film to process.

 

[Steve Smith]

About five years ago I made a shutter tester with a photo-transistor gating an oscilator into a counter from which I could work out the shutter speed to the nearest tenth of a milli-second.

I spent a couple of evenings testing every camera owned by my father and myself then put it in a cupboard never to be used again.

I think that unless it is going to be used as a tool to calibrate shutters, it is of limited use. We can usually tell if something is wrong from our negatives.


Steve.

 

[noacronym]

In defense of Mr. von Hoegh's apparent consternation, it's taken me the day to pick apart what he asserts. I believe he means that converting a momentary blip of energy of a non-audio frequency into an audio frequency, which is actually a very small range; that the only hope of any kind of accuracy depends on the make of the sound card. And while a program such as Adobe Audition might have the screen to show a time-base in a believable sight; that the sound card itself is highly questionable. I have already proven to my own satisfaction in my tape-recorder restoration pursuits that a sound card does NOT give a flat frequency response to any degree to utilize it as a frequency-response generator. With that, then how could the time-base be dependable? How can you know you're picking out the correct 2 blips in Audition, CoolEdit, or whatever? This product we're discussing is probably a neat thing to own for the slow speeds, where blips will be far enough apart to be unmistakeable. At the high speeds, not so much. It stands to reason.