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
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
With batteries continuous shutter variable from 1/100 to 8 seconds.
Missed a zero. Over the whole rangeHuh. I thought it was variable throughout its selectable speed range.
Apropos post 36: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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.Actually who cares which way the shutter travels so long as it is accurate and works.
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.
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.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?
Actually, you did.I never said that. I just did not think it was worth replying to.
Hasselblad made a 35mm SLR? Please: do tell.
Source: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.
Dear Les,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.
Brett Rogers said: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!
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.
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?