Post by Stephen on Oct 12, 2014 5:57:40 GMT -5
Hardly scientific enough, the effects may show in retrospect why some otherwise good cameras turned in mediocre results. And explains why good cameras were always that bit better.
Lenses by the 1970's were sharp, very sharp indeed on some cheaper Japanese reflexes, but never seemed to rival the better makers, but I had checked several standard and wide angle on adaptors to Exakta or Alpa, and had noted they tested better than on the makers body, at the time a bit of a mystery.
I did not think about vibration being behind it at the time, but is ties in with the widespread use of the vertical metal shutters that swept across most designs. At first the Copal was just noted as noisy, it improved as Seiko came along, but the was a generation of rather clunky cameras, at the same time using quality lenses.
In general shots they behaved themselves, high shutter speed no issues, but it always seemed to me that the minimum hand held speed had been raised by the clunky operation.
In the retail shop we did get complaints about overall sharpness on reflexes in the cheaper ranges that used the metal shutters. I use to test the lens and show they were OK, but rather assumed it was down to the user.
All the better photographic material in sharpness at the local photographic club was shot on slide or large size print from Nikon or Canon, the only make to step in was Olympus, identical results.
But there were on reflection lots of users of Chinon or Cosine derivatives that had good glass, but just did not turn in sharp negatives, the edge had gone in comparison.
Of course the commercial answer was buy a Nikon, but I knew from seeing thousands of shots going through the shop that you did not need a Nikon to get sharp results.
This is not just the photographer being better or more artistic, many a good photo was done on a Retina! It was the oddity that the crisp edge that you would expect from good glass was not there with what were not inexpensive cameras.
vibration or the damping of it may be behind a well remembered oddity, that several customers reported that zoom lens were sharper than the makers standard lens. Now my reaction was nonsense, any complex zoom must be inferior to a prime lens, this was and still is technically true.
But customers showed and displayed work in the club, that was obviously better in quality than the basic reflex delivered.
I now suspect it was the physical weight of the zoom that improved the damping, it damped the clunky shutters. This meant there really was a difference between the standard lens and the zoom.
Most zooms doubled or trebled the mass of the camera, and must deaden the vibrations
All of this may explain another mystery, why compact digitals seemed so sharp when they first came out, no shuuter! No vibration to damp, so the lens delivered its best sharpness.
Some early reflex digital struggled to get max sharpness, many a big zoom compact worked better.
Mirrorless may be an offender as they have the double shutter action, but makers like Olympus seem fully aware of the vibration problems and electronically damp each blade movement, and offer lags between firing and movement of the blades.
It might all come done to Zeiss were right, use a leaf shutter if possible!
Lenses by the 1970's were sharp, very sharp indeed on some cheaper Japanese reflexes, but never seemed to rival the better makers, but I had checked several standard and wide angle on adaptors to Exakta or Alpa, and had noted they tested better than on the makers body, at the time a bit of a mystery.
I did not think about vibration being behind it at the time, but is ties in with the widespread use of the vertical metal shutters that swept across most designs. At first the Copal was just noted as noisy, it improved as Seiko came along, but the was a generation of rather clunky cameras, at the same time using quality lenses.
In general shots they behaved themselves, high shutter speed no issues, but it always seemed to me that the minimum hand held speed had been raised by the clunky operation.
In the retail shop we did get complaints about overall sharpness on reflexes in the cheaper ranges that used the metal shutters. I use to test the lens and show they were OK, but rather assumed it was down to the user.
All the better photographic material in sharpness at the local photographic club was shot on slide or large size print from Nikon or Canon, the only make to step in was Olympus, identical results.
But there were on reflection lots of users of Chinon or Cosine derivatives that had good glass, but just did not turn in sharp negatives, the edge had gone in comparison.
Of course the commercial answer was buy a Nikon, but I knew from seeing thousands of shots going through the shop that you did not need a Nikon to get sharp results.
This is not just the photographer being better or more artistic, many a good photo was done on a Retina! It was the oddity that the crisp edge that you would expect from good glass was not there with what were not inexpensive cameras.
vibration or the damping of it may be behind a well remembered oddity, that several customers reported that zoom lens were sharper than the makers standard lens. Now my reaction was nonsense, any complex zoom must be inferior to a prime lens, this was and still is technically true.
But customers showed and displayed work in the club, that was obviously better in quality than the basic reflex delivered.
I now suspect it was the physical weight of the zoom that improved the damping, it damped the clunky shutters. This meant there really was a difference between the standard lens and the zoom.
Most zooms doubled or trebled the mass of the camera, and must deaden the vibrations
All of this may explain another mystery, why compact digitals seemed so sharp when they first came out, no shuuter! No vibration to damp, so the lens delivered its best sharpness.
Some early reflex digital struggled to get max sharpness, many a big zoom compact worked better.
Mirrorless may be an offender as they have the double shutter action, but makers like Olympus seem fully aware of the vibration problems and electronically damp each blade movement, and offer lags between firing and movement of the blades.
It might all come done to Zeiss were right, use a leaf shutter if possible!
