DPR Forum

Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. Whether it is Medium Format, fullframe, APS-C, MFT or smaller formats. Digital or film. DPRF is a forum for everybody and for every format.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!

In defense of plastic

Alan.... my chuckling mind was limited to a metal chassis and a wooden outer body! It was styled by Ikea
happy.gif
and possibly available in flat-pack!

We would call it the "Sven"!

Gaw’d knows what you were imagining!

I suppose my idea would have to be bonded together with clever resins!

Now then? Have we missed something here? What are Zeiss specialists in?

Glass!

What are Kyocera specialists in?

Ceramics! (Kyoto Ceramics = Kyocera .... Doh!)

What about a metal-free chassis, we have glass experts and ceramics experts ..... Why do we need metal or polycarbonates?

RTS III vacuum film plates flatter and more stable than metal. Formula 1 car bodies stronger than steel.... or titanium etc. Am I just dreaming?

OK! In the real world..... people worry about the weight of the RTS III or the bulk (size) of the AX.

Work it out in numbers of Big Macs ...... it ain't that much of a problem is it?

Alan ..... in a previous message you stated ....

"Choice of materials is only one aspect of good engineering. Which is best really depends on what your criteria for "best" is."

Plastic, (sorry polycarbonate), metal, glass, ceramics ..... who decides? ...... who buys?
 
Austin,
*I disagree, that is if you are talking about stability of the lense mount/mirror/focusing screen/film plane (which the assembly is called
the mirror box) assuring accurate focusing. The body could be cardboard...it is the mirror box that is important, and I believe the Contax cameras that have polycarbonate bodies have metal mirror boxes, so this issue is mitigated at least with Contax.*
That sounds reasonable and I would agree with it.
However, there must be more then only this statement. Try to compare shutter of Rx (for ex&le) and Aria. Aria is clearly louder and shakes more.
Good test how to see working of a shutter- a mesure of gentle function of cameras shutter.
Put the camera on the glass with water and active a self-timer. When the shutter is activated, shaking is visible on them. (if the camera bring on a storm in the glass, then I advice not to buy it)
Pavel
 
Pavel,

How do you separate out what is creating the disturbance in the water? It could be the film winding, it could be the mirror return, and/or it could be the shutter rewind (not the fire)...all of which have no effect on the image stability.

Regards,

Austin
 
Note to the timid:

Pavel is suggesting that the camera sits on top of a glass of water .... not that the camera is floating within the glass!
happy.gif


Hey! No problem either way with my wooden camera!

On a more serious note ... Austin has a very good point. It seems obvious that any source of vibration that exists during the exposure period may have an effect on the end product. Could these vibrations be caused by prolonged resonance of the mirror flipping up? Or by the curtain/blade movements themselves?

Would a more massive body help, in either case ...or is it an integrated design thing anyway?

Just curious, Kyocera Kid.
 
There may be something to a body with more mass (and weight). I had been using an RX and an RTS III for sevarel years before I bought an Aria a year ago. I guess I had developed a rather relaxed grip with the RTS III and the RX, which helps me use slower shutter speeds handheld. The first sevarel times I took pictures with the Aria, I noted that I could actually feel the camera rotate upwards and then downwards upon activation of the shutter, from the mirror flipping up. I now have to pay attention with the Aria and grip it tighter than I do the other two.

I will say the mirror and shutter action on the RX is buttery smooth.

Ron Walton
 
Of course additional mass will limit the inertia effects of the moving parts inside the camera. The RTS III is more than twice as massive as the Aria (40.48 oz vs. 16.2 oz). Not only will it vibrate less because of the added mass, the RTS III has mirror lockup so that you can worry less about long exposure pictures.

Does that make the Aria a less successful design? Not a chance. I'd rather travel with the Aria anytime.

If I want to take long exposures I make sure I use a solid tripod and the remote shutter release. If I really want to have a totally stable system I will cover the lens with a piece of cardboard, open the shutter in Bulb mode using the remote, then remove the cardboard for the length of the intended exposure. Finally, replace the cardboard and close the shutter. You can't get any anti-internal vibrational than that. At that point any movement is caused by external forces (wind, physical contact, etc.).

If I don't mind the weight, then I'd rather carry my medium format stuff anyway. And guess what? You will find a lot of plastic in medium format cameras.

af
 
Austin,
it is the first part of the shutter's cycle what can badly influence the stability of the camera= sharpness of the photography. It is the opening of the mirror, lifting up. Its strike- thats what I mean. Mirror returns has no influence; shutter is already closed.Film rewinds.. that comes in the end.
Just suggest: to distinguish this above, set on the camera *B* and first shake-after pressing the release is the what you want to know.
Second period when you free the button it is not already important.
I do not claim peering at camera on the glass of water is some exact scientific method but can bring an imagination about the shutter, especially, if you have more bodies and can them compare. Dont drown them long...:) (if you use big glass enough, try to test also your watertightness :)-another thread of the forum, but do not send me then your cost for drying ang cleaning)

*....If you are talking about sheer weight to d&en the shutter etc. yes, I agree, and a heavy lense like the 85/1.4 .....*
Oh man, you really got me-set me off! Heavy lens!! This is the pocket lens!! I shot with 500/5,6 some time (not mirror), 3,5 kg of love. You would not be happy with rts3 and A-T 200/2, would you!! :))))
Pavel
 
Pavel,

Though using B gives *some* separation, but not complete separation, as the shutter end of travel *could* provide quite a bit of vibration relatively, and it is inconsequential, as the shutter is closed at that point. Also, given vibration is a, more or less, vectored force, becasue your indicator (the water) shows movement, it doesn't say how detremental it is to the image.

Geeze, why not just shoot a roll of film and see what happens? I have an Aria, RTS-III and a few other cameras. I have found that technique is FAR more important than the camera, at least with the cameras I have. I can't really say one is better than the other in these terms, and I shoot a lot of low light and slow shutter speeds (1/15 @ f1.4) perhaps it is, and I simply haven't been observant enough to notice one being significantly better at low light performance than another.

Regards,

Austin
 
About that heavy camera diging into the ground more because it is heavier traveling faster there for slowing down over a longer period and saving the electronics inside. I know I'm late with my post but, I don't think so!! Internal componants are fixed to the outter shell, they don't hover in the camera, so if the cameras plastic body gives and bends this slows the camera down and thus the componants inside. Basically the body does the giving not the ground. Big metal bodys are cool for their weight, smashing would be attackers in the face, not splitting open when you do drop em and history lessons.
 
Back
Top