Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/10/01
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > > > If one is an SLR and one a rangefinder I definitely lock up > > the mirror on the SLR; there is a huge difference in not having > > mirror vibration being another variable. > > I have seen this statement so many times and it's just so much total > bullshit. The ONLY time that mirror slap on any modern, well-designed SLR > is of any concern at all is at a very very few shutter speeds (usually in > the 1/2-1/15 sec range) where the *possibility* of a resonant vibration > could happen *with some lenses*. Usually very long lenses or when the > camera is mounted for astrophotography or photomicroscopy use. > > The photo posted was a hand-held snap, most likely at some shutter speed > like 1/60 second with a lens set to approximately 35mm focal length, > mounted on a Nikon F5. There is simply no possibility at all that mirror > slap induced vibration could be detected in any analysis of these photos. > > Godfrey Geeeeese Godfrey! Maybe not so much with a 35mm focal length. I can think of one example about 8 years ago I was shooting the Portland Skyline for a sideshow for Microsoft. Projected slides made with a non mirrorlockupable 8008 were unusable... Slides made with an FE2 where I forgot to lock up with mirror by using the self timer prerelease were painfully evident in a series of the same projected slides and unusable. Just shoot a roll on a tripod with a longish lens and shutter speeds between 1/2 and 1/125 of a second and not lock up the mirror for some of the shots. They stick out like a sore thumb. It would be nice if those slick brochures on why were are spending so much money on those modern slrs were to be completely believed. Since the shoot I just mentioned the F4 and F5 both came out. But they didn't leave off the mirror lockup because of it's great new dampening action. They left it on for a reason. Mark Rabiner