Why did Nikon F2 have horizontal shutter?

[BradS]

Here's an interesting article about the Copal square shutter written by Ryuji Suzuki. It goes into the history in some detail.

http://www.konica-collector.org/history/Ryuji Suzuki.htm

 

[Bill Burk]

I believe the Asahi Penax Spotmatic ESII had a vertical metal shutter in 1971, as did the K2 in '75, and in '76 Pentax's entire M line (except the MX) went vertical.

Aaron

ES-II has horizontal cloth shutter. You get battery independent mechanical speeds B and 60 to 1000 (no metered manual). With batteries continuous shutter variable from 1/100 to 8 seconds.

 

[Mick Fagan]

I think you may find the mirror lockup was mandatory on their professional cameras to allow the use of their 8mm and 7.5mm fisheye lenses; these two lenses require mirror lock up to be mounted.

Mick.

 

[Les Sarile]

Here's an interesting article about the Copal square shutter written by Ryuji Suzuki. It goes into the history in some detail.

http://www.konica-collector.org/history/Ryuji Suzuki.htm

Excellent read, thanks!

 

[George Mann]

With batteries continuous shutter variable from 1/100 to 8 seconds.

Huh. I thought it was variable throughout its selectable speed range.

 

[Bill Burk]

Huh. I thought it was variable throughout its selectable speed range.

Missed a zero. Over the whole range

 

[Brett Rogers]

Based on what? Your PhD in Mechanical Engineering? Do you have any published technical papers that you can show us? Vast experience in camera shutter design? You cannot make such sweeping statements without some proven technical reason that you can point to.

Apropos post 36:
Perhaps you didn't mean to come across as churlish as that reads? But, I'm rather surprised to find controversy about this point. The format being discussed is 35mm, yes? Nominally, 36mm x 24mm in size, with cameras using it having a film gate of similar dimensions?

At times shorter than in the X synchronisation speed of a focal plane shutter (let's assume it is synchronised) the effective exposure on the film (setting aside, for now, such variables as the precise distance from the curtains to the film plane, and the focal length of any lens fitted) is going to be the product of: the curtain slit width x the curtain velocity. This is not news? Surely?

Elementary level mathematics should reveal that, for any given curtain velocity, a set of curtains can traverse a 24mm distance in less time than it will take them to traverse 36mm. Surely, this is not controversial, either?

Thus, a few scenarios can play out.

For example: with less distance to run, the vertical curtains running at an identical velocity to those in another, horizontally running shutter, will (if the same slit width is employed in both) yield a shorter exposure time than the horizontal. Remember: slit x velocity. The vertical takes less time!

Alternatively: the vertical could use the same slit as the horizontal type, but run more slowly, and, yet, still produce an exposure equal to the horizontal.

In yet another scenario: assuming again, that both designs use curtains running at a similar speed, a particular time (say, 1/1000) could be attained by the vertical curtains using a wider slit width than the horizontals. The shorter elapsed time (compared to the horizontal) negates any increase in exposure that would otherwise occur due to the wider slit, and the exposure of each can still be the same.

In the real world, various examples of classic vertical and horizontal shutter designs won't necessarily cooperate by halving or doubling so neatly, with such round figures—but there's no reason why (within certain limits) they couldn't.

Slit x velocity. Or velocity x slit, if you prefer.

With a shorter race to run, the vertical shutter has a simple, fundamental, advantage over a horizontal type at exposure settings shorter than 1/1000.

This isn't new. It's not controversial. It's not even technical. It's just grade school maths. But don't take my word for it. Lipinski covered all this, and much, much, more as far back as the mid 1950s, and I seriously doubt his treatise has ever been bettered.
Regards,
Brett

 

[Brett Rogers]

The Zeiss Contarex predates the Nikon F by about a year. Activating its MLU entails doing so with no lens mounted, but as I didn't see any rules about user-friendliness or convenience I think it qualifies.

The ALPA Reflex predates the Nikon F by well over a decade and was fitted with a lockable mirror retracting lever adjacent to its finder on the top wind side of the body. There's no doubt it was provided to facilitate collapsing certain retractable lenses (Eg the 5cm Alpar) without also lunching the reflex mirror in the process—but a MLU is a MLU. It's able to be utilised whilst the shutter is actuated.

The ALPA Prisma which predates the F by about ten years, featured a Kern (sort of) eye level pentaprism and was also equipped with a lockable mirror retracting lever, able to be used during exposures (I've personally verified this with a Prisma) for precisely the same reasons as the Reflex.

Any advances on the Reflex/Bolseyflex et al?

You won't be able to focus or meter either.
But in Nikon's defense, they were first to implement mirror lockup. At leasty in my collection it is. Cameraquest believes the Nikon F is first too -> https://www.cameraquest.com/fhistory.htm

 

[flavio81]

The ALPA Reflex predates the Nikon F by well over a decade and was fitted with a lockable mirror retracting lever adjacent to its finder on the top wind side of the body. There's no doubt it was provided to facilitate collapsing certain retractable lenses (Eg the 5cm Alpar) without also lunching the reflex mirror in the process—but a MLU is a MLU. It's able to be utilised whilst the shutter is actuated.

This is interesting info, thanks!

So strange than the later ALPAs fell behind technologically.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Apropos post 36:
Perhaps you didn't mean to come across as churlish as that reads? But, I'm rather surprised to find controversy about this point. The format being discussed is 35mm, yes? Nominally, 36mm x 24mm in size, with cameras using it having a film gate of similar dimensions?

At times shorter than in the X synchronisation speed of a focal plane shutter (let's assume it is synchronised) the effective exposure on the film (setting aside, for now, such variables as the precise distance from the curtains to the film plane, and the focal length of any lens fitted) is going to be the product of: the curtain slit width x the curtain velocity. This is not news? Surely?

Elementary level mathematics should reveal that, for any given curtain velocity, a set of curtains can traverse a 24mm distance in less time than it will take them to traverse 36mm. Surely, this is not controversial, either?

Thus, a few scenarios can play out.

For example: with less distance to run, the vertical curtains running at an identical velocity to those in another, horizontally running shutter, will (if the same slit width is employed in both) yield a shorter exposure time than the horizontal. Remember: slit x velocity. The vertical takes less time!

Alternatively: the vertical could use the same slit as the horizontal type, but run more slowly, and, yet, still produce an exposure equal to the horizontal.

In yet another scenario: assuming again, that both designs use curtains running at a similar speed, a particular time (say, 1/1000) could be attained by the vertical curtains using a wider slit width than the horizontals. The shorter elapsed time (compared to the horizontal) negates any increase in exposure that would otherwise occur due to the wider slit, and the exposure of each can still be the same.

In the real world, various examples of classic vertical and horizontal shutter designs won't necessarily cooperate by halving or doubling so neatly, with such round figures—but there's no reason why (within certain limits) they couldn't.

Slit x velocity. Or velocity x slit, if you prefer.

With a shorter race to run, the vertical shutter has a simple, fundamental, advantage over a horizontal type at exposure settings shorter than 1/1000.

This isn't new. It's not controversial. It's not even technical. It's just grade school maths. But don't take my word for it. Lipinski covered all this, and much, much, more as far back as the mid 1950s, and I seriously doubt his treatise has ever been bettered.
Regards,
Brett

One factor alone does not determine a design. Engineering and marketing decisions are based on cost analysis, ability to built, reliability and many other factors which do not including what one eats for breakfast. Monday morning quarterbacking and hindsight are easy decades later.

 

[Les Sarile]

The Zeiss Contarex predates the Nikon F by about a year. Activating its MLU entails doing so with no lens mounted, but as I didn't see any rules about user-friendliness or convenience I think it qualifies.

I am not surprised as I don't have a none Japanese slr in my collection but surprised Stephen Gundy (Cameraquesr) did. Quick look and saw that the Bullseye Contarex was not released till 1960 and MLU was not a feature noted but that the mirror had to locked up in order to use a certain lens. Perhaps there is a technicality about the feature MLU? For instance there is a lot of argument about "instant return mirror". Can you provide more details about the Zeiss and others you presented? Maybe a new thread about who really was first with MLU might be interesting at least for us who are geekish about this sort of thing.

 

[BMbikerider]

Actually who cares which way the shutter travels so long as it is accurate and works.

As for vibration, My F4 is a lot smoother and quite a bit quieter than my F6 but neither are as quiet or as smooth as my Minolta XM which has a Titanium horizontal travelling shutter

 

[Sirius Glass]

Actually who cares which way the shutter travels so long as it is accurate and works.

Unless you want to make photographs of oval race car tires.

 

[Chan Tran]

Actually who cares which way the shutter travels so long as it is accurate and works.

I do care and I prefer the horizontal travelled shutter.

 

[Bill Burk]

Apropos post 36:
Perhaps you didn't mean to come across as churlish as that reads? But, I'm rather surprised to find controversy about this point. The format being discussed is 35mm, yes? Nominally, 36mm x 24mm in size, with cameras using it having a film gate of similar dimensions?

It's impossible for me to interpret Sirus Glass' statement as anything other than satire. Shorter distance, same exposure, wider gap... so obvious it's gotta be a joke. He's pulling your leg.

 

[Sirius Glass]

It's impossible for me to interpret Sirus Glass' statement as anything other than satire. Shorter distance, same exposure, wider gap... so obvious it's gotta be a joke. He's pulling your leg.

Not completely, have worked as an Electrical Engineer, Hardware Software Systems Engineer and Safety Engineer plus writing safety engineering books and teaching for ten years Computer Architecture at a university, I get really fed up with know-nothings making themselves self appointed experts based on what they had for breakfast or whether or not they has fought with their spouse the night before.

 

[Helge]

Would a soft roll curtain going vertically be able to achieve the same speed as the blinder metal shutter?

 

[Brett Rogers]

It's impossible for me to interpret Sirus Glass' statement as anything other than satire. Shorter distance, same exposure, wider gap... so obvious it's gotta be a joke. He's pulling your leg.

Oh, that is OK, Bill. I'd quite forgotten it last night, but I recall, now, that Sirius once tried to tell me that the Hasselblad XPan is an SLR. He never did acknowledge his error in that instance. I would not expect anything else, although I do note he has said nothing since which might prove that my comment yesterday (and the previous one by another member to which he was replying) is actually incorrect.

Now: does anyone want to sell me an XPan SLR?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Oh, that is OK, Bill. I'd quite forgotten it last night, but I recall, now, that Sirius once tried to tell me that the Hasselblad XPan is an SLR. He never did acknowledge his error in that instance. I would not expect anything else, although I do note he has said nothing since which might prove that my comment yesterday (and the previous one by another member to which he was replying) is actually incorrect.

Now: does anyone want to sell me an XPan SLR?

I never said that. I just did not think it was worth replying to.

 

[Brett Rogers]

I never said that. I just did not think it was worth replying to.

Actually, you did.
Thank you for making my previous point for me far more eloquently than I possibly could have.

Hasselblad made a 35mm SLR? Please: do tell.

Note that you quoted my words, above, in your reply, thus:

The XPAN. But the point was that the Hasselblad has a mirror lock up. Mirror lock ups are not restricted to 35mm slr cameras only.

Source:
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/35mm-slrs-with-mirror-prefire.145219/#post-1899843

 

[Brett Rogers]

I am not surprised as I don't have a none Japanese slr in my collection but surprised Stephen Gundy (Cameraquesr) did. Quick look and saw that the Bullseye Contarex was not released till 1960 and MLU was not a feature noted but that the mirror had to locked up in order to use a certain lens. Perhaps there is a technicality about the feature MLU? For instance there is a lot of argument about "instant return mirror". Can you provide more details about the Zeiss and others you presented? Maybe a new thread about who really was first with MLU might be interesting at least for us who are geekish about this sort of thing.

Dear Les,
That's a very good question!
I had to check where I'd read a reference to the Contarex & MLU. Eventually found something in Ivor Matanle's book "Collecting & Using Classic Cameras". He referred to the 21mm f/4.5 Biogon in Contarex mount only not being able to be fitted to later Contarex versions such as the Super and Super Electronic, for instance, and said the lens could only be fitted the the Cyclops (Bullseye) or the Special.

But efforts to find images of the lift mechanism via Googling "Zeiss Contarex mirror lock up" didn't yield much. In the end I found myself having to do the obvious, Ie, "RTFM". Thank goodness for Mike Butkus. Page 27 of his pdf copy of the Contarex user manual reveals more.
https://www.cameramanuals.org/zeiss_ikon/zeiss_ikon_contarex.pdf

The manual states that:
"When the Biogon is removed the mirror will return to the viewing position automatically when the shutter is tensioned."

This sounds rather as if the lift lug inside the mirror box is a sort of crude pre-fire, as opposed to a means of mechanically locking the mirror retracted, doesn't it? Presumably, having initially lifted the mirror, it remains "jammed" up above the substantial rear of the Biogon during exposures, and on removal of the lens it will free itself. Under the circumstances I'd say that it's more like a pre-release than conventional lock up, and hence, when I suggested previously that the Contarex does have a MLU, this isn't really correct, yes? Sorry about that.

A few years ago I was entrusted with the sale of a small collection of Alpa cameras and lenses. Actually I kept some and enjoyed using some of the others. There was a Reflex and also a Prisma present. The Prisma mechanism worked and I enjoyed inspecting and testing it including its mirror lock up. You can see some images at various angles of both, some of which give a good view of the mirror lift lever that sits close to the front of the finder on the wind side of each, in these albums:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/43224475@N08/albums/72157679468395771

https://www.flickr.com/photos/43224475@N08/albums/72157677723061994
Best Regards,
Brett

 

[wiltw]

I should not get into this p*ssing contest, but I cannot let this go by unchallenged.

Elementary level mathematics should reveal that, for any given curtain velocity, a set of curtains can traverse a 24mm distance in less time than it will take them to traverse 36mm. Surely, this is not controversial, either?

Thus, a few scenarios can play out.

For example: with less distance to run, the vertical curtains running at an identical velocity to those in another, horizontally running shutter, will (if the same slit width is employed in both) yield a shorter exposure time than the horizontal. Remember: slit x velocity. The vertical takes less time!

Consider this...if the slit is the same width for both horizontal curtain and vertical curtain, and the movement of the slit is the same travel speed acrossed the frame, indeed there is less elapsed time for the curtain slit to travel vertically across the frame than horizontally acrossed the frame. But that elapsed time is not 'shutter speed', in terms of exposure....that is determined by the width of the slit and the slit travel rate acrossed the frame -- IDENTICAL SHUTTER SPEED because a given segment of film sees light for the identical period of time, even if the shutter curtain takes less time to travel a shorter distance!

 

[Bill Burk]

Ah right wiltw, you don’t get to have a wider slit for a given velocity.

 

[BMbikerider]

Unless you want to make photographs of oval race car tires.

Landscape pictures which I take don't move particularly fast so a shutter travelling in any direction works perfectly well so really not worth getting all hot and bothered about.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Landscape pictures which I take don't move particularly fast so a shutter travelling in any direction works perfectly well so really not worth getting all hot and bothered about.

Ditto