| Author |
Message |
    
Frank
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 08:16 am: | 
|
Hi, everyone,
I would like to get an idea and I am hoping one of you might have done a test or comparison.
Technically, is an electronic shutter more accurate than a mechanical shutter? If so, is it fair to say that electronic cameras would perform better and produce better quality photos? In addition, is it fair to say that cameras with mechanical shutters will suffer from a gradual decline in performance as time goes by, especially with the classic cameras that are approaching 30-40 years old?
My understanding is that there are three essential factors that determine the quality of a camera irrespective of its brand and type:
1) Accuracy of the shutter speed
2) Accuracy of the built-in lightmeter
3) Optical quality of the lens (including the accuracy of its aperture opening).
Say, if we are only considering SLR cameras, the lens quality can be "controlled" or "altered" by the use of OEM or aftermarket lenses.
Also, the lightmeter reading from a camera can easily be compared with a precision handheld lightmeter and adjustment can be made accordingly. As a matter of fact, a lot of photographers only rely on handheld lightmeters.
Hence, the accuracy of the shutter speed would then appear to be the only critical factor in determining whether a camera is average or good or excellent.
I would love to hear your opinion! |
Winfried
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 08:51 am: |
|
I have a degree in precision engineering and work as an electronics design engineer - maybe I can answer your questions.
Many older electronic shutters have analogue control, i.e. the shutter speeds depend on values of electronic components (resistors and capacitors). If both components are stable over the years (which is not always the case) shutter speeds will change very little over time as long as the remaining mechanical parts (shutter blade drive and shutter blades) are in proper order, i.e. not gummed up or corroded. On the other hand, electronic shutters need contacts to work, and even contacts of non-corrosive material (gold plated) are very sensitive to smudge and dirt. This applies to modern digitally controlled shutters, too.
But I have also seen shutters which are more than 70 years old and which work as accurate as possible after a bit of cleaning. I have a Compur rim set shutter I tested with a digital scope, and 1 second actually was 1050 msec. I have severe doubts that electronic shutters can be adjusted more accurate. At least, defects in mechanical shutters are more obvious and usually can be repaired with some screwdrivers and a pair of tweezers. To repair and to adjust electronic shutters other than by guesstimatic you will need some more equipment. |
charlie
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 09:24 am: |
|
My ranking of importance would be optical quality first, shutter speed second, and lose the built in exposure meter. Any camera that depends on built in electronics will not last long enough to be worth the inveztment. Others here may differ. |
rick oleson
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 03:26 pm: |
|
I suppose there's a practical limit to how many answers you need to this, but I'll toss one in anyway.
Electronic shutters generally speaking are quite accurate when they are working. As Winfried mentioned, the control circuits can drift on analog capacitor-timed systems; digital, quartz-timed shutters in my experience are extremely accurate (though for obvious reasons I've never been able to test one that's 50 years old). As Winfried also mentioned, even an electronic shutter is mechanical, and the mechanical parts are subject to wear like any other - and things like sticky or dirty magnets can cause very erratic behavior regardless of the electronics involved.
Mechanically timed shutters are probably never as accurate as a quartz system, and they can be affected by dirt. But in typical camera applications they virtually never wear out, and can be brought back to factory specs even after 50 or 70 years, usually without requiring replacement of any parts. This is not important if you like having a new camera every few years anyway, but if you want to keep the camera it will eventually become significant.
Accuracy of light meters should never be taken for granted. They are no better or worse for the camera having a mechanical or electronic control system, and they generally do not improve with age. I assume that new types may be more stable over time than earlier technologies, but one of the wonderful things about any new technology is that its longevity is unknown by definition.
Lenses are significant. While there is some flexibility in aftermarket choices, you cannot for example mount a Micro-Nikkor on a Miranda body. In addition to optical quality, your point about accuracy in the aperture stopping down is a good one: this is a fairly common source of trouble in older lenses, though, like shutters, they can generally be put right with proper servicing. I don't know of any good way to assess, though, whether a particular third-party brand of lenses stops down more accurately than another.... at least not without taking both apart and studying the designs.
And one last point about accurate shutter speeds: While there are better and worse shutters in this respect, in terms of the general choice of mechanical vs electronic, there is no shutter type that is not adequately accurate for any normal photographic application if it's properly serviced, and there's none that can guarantee adequate operation over time if it is not properly serviced. So, in practice, accuracy is not the best criterion for choosing one or the other type. |
Mike
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 07:52 pm: |
|
Hi Frank-
You have posed some excellent questions and have received some excellent answers to match.
Winfried and Rick have shared their exceptional insight with you.
Some electronically controlled shutters are painfully accurate, sometimes more accurate than the shutter speed testers used to measure them. Some of the quartz controlled shutters I have tested come in at 1/1002 second when set at 1/1000. Some other electronically controlled shutters may actually test at 1/623 or whatever when set at 1/1000. Recently I serviced an older Exakta VX which had a chattering shutter. When cleaned and re-lubricated without any further adjustment it tested within 10% or better at every speed from 1/30 to 1/1000.
That is exceptional performance from a mechanical shutter and would be deemed so for an electronic shutter. Whatever film chosen would not know the difference.
As for light meters, every manufacturer has it's own approach, and my experience is that you will find noticeable variation based on the subjective judgment as to what looks best to them and best shows off their product. Some seem obviously "tuned" for a certain film emulsion or color response. Personally I like external meters which measure in foot-candles! |
Frank
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 06:36 am: |
|
Thanks for all the valuable comments and opinion.
The reason why I posed the question was that there must be an objective method to determine the photographic quality of a camera. And I feel that the most important factor in such evaluation would be the shutter mechanism (ie. shutter speed accuracy).
From this standpoint, assuming most later cameras have fairly accurate shutters, how can one justify the high cost of a Canon F1 when an ordinary Canon AE-1 can perform similarly with the same lens. Likewise, why would anyone pay 3-4 times the purchase price of a Yashica SLR for a Contax SLR. Perhaps, my understanding of quality is too simplistic and the differentiation refers to more than just being accurate. Perhaps the so-called expensive models are more "consistently" accurate. Well, I am really not sure on that! I wish someone had done quality appraisals/comparison on the high-cost and low-cost models of the same brand. Is it always justifiable to say that the expensive one has better quality?
I guess the upmarket models only have more features and "status quality" rather. However, if photography is all about photo quality, wouldn't it be more practical to have a better lens than a better body? |
rick oleson
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 07:18 am: |
|
You've made some very good observations, Frank. Certainly a Canon AE1 will make just as good a picture as an F1, and a Yashica body is probably identical in quality to a comparable Contax built in the same factory... and you'd probably be hard pressed to find $2000 worth of difference between, say, a Leica R3 and its Minolta chassis donor.
There is a status factor, certainly. There are also factors that increase cost without necessarily increasing quality in some models... economy of scale being the primary one. If a camera is built in small numbers more or less by hand, it will cost more to make, whether it's better than a higher-volume model or not. But there are also quality differences in some cases. The F1 is a much more ruggedly built camera than the AE1, for instance... and it also has added features, such as interchangeable prisms and viewfinder screens, that cost money to provide. They're worth the money for those who need them, and to anyone else they're just added cost and bulk.
My personal approach to your question is to buy a high quality system, with a body that's of professional build quality but not necessarily packed with features that I don't use.... and to buy it second hand.
One excellent example of this philosophy (though it's not quite what I've done) would be to start with a Nikkormat FTn or FT2. These bodies can be had in excellent condition for less than half the price of a mediocre P&S digital camera, and they accept virtually ALL Nikon lenses, including Non-AI, AI, AIS and (with the coupling fork added) most AF lenses, with no sacrifice of any functions or conveniences of the cameras' original design. In terms of performance per dollar, this combination is very, very difficult to beat. |
David
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, May 14, 2005 - 02:57 pm: |
|
Produce better quality photos? I think the biggest factor is the person using the camera. No shutter no matter how accurate or lens no matter how perfect will take a 'better quality' photo if pointed at an unintersting subject, misfocussed or with poorly adjusted exposure. The entire camera, in fact is maybe at most 10% (IMHO) of what contributes to the quality of the photo. |
Frank
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, May 14, 2005 - 06:49 pm: |
|
David, while I agree with you that the "artistic" quality of the actual photo comes from the photgrapher, my argument is largely based on the idea of the same person using different cameras.
If, according to your opinion, photo quality was purely determined by the photographer, I would hate to say that there should not be such variety of makes and types of cameras.
My opinion is that the camera is a fine instrument. Different people use different cameras to achieve their desired results. No matter how talented a musician you maybe, you will not be able to exploit your full potential unless you have access to the finest instrument.
Same can be said for photographers (or photo artists), however, my main argument is that is there really a significant difference between the high-cost and low-cost cameras? While you use the same lens with the same pair of eyes and hands together with a precision handheld meter, would it make sense to say that the only differential factor is the shutter speed accuracy among the different models of the same brand? I personally doubt if a Pentax LX is more precise than an MX or a Canon F1 is any better than an AE-1 as such.
Don't get me wrong, I'd also love to own the top-end models, however, probably for the wrong reasons.
Hope to hear more of your comments. |
Frank
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, May 14, 2005 - 07:08 pm: |
|
I forgot to add that a top F1 racing driver simply cannot race to his best unless he has one of the fastest and most reliable cars.
While a racing car can be measured by its power & torque characteristics and its reliability records, I wonder if the same technical principle can be applied to cameras as well. |
Mike
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, May 14, 2005 - 07:14 pm: |
|
Frank, if you are going to go out and shoot 5-10 rolls of film a day, day in and day out, a Canon F1 is going to work out a lot better for you than a Canon AE-1 in the long run. Same goes for a Pentax LX vs an MX.
If you shoot a couple of rolls a month, your thesis is correct. The cameras mentioned were designed and built for entirely different market segments. That is the reason for such a variety of makes and types. |
Glenn Middleton
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, May 15, 2005 - 11:40 am: |
|
I fail to see what subject matter has to do with quality when the technical aspects of the camera/lens were being questioned.
For 30 years I was a forensic scientist specialising in accidents and arson.My cameras were just as important tools to me, as the vast array of analytical equipment in the laboratory.At least 80% of the subject matter could be classed as uninteresting,but without exception every negative was capable of producing quality 20x16 prints for the courts.A pinhole camera is not a practical tool to record body parts scattered down a railway track!
I now undertake freelance scientific photography and there is a very limited choice of camera systems that I would trust.As I have calibrated my total system;camera/lenses/film/meter/processing,given reliable equipment I will produce quality enlargements.Thus I will argue that reliability and consistancy are far more important than accuracy.I am not really bothered if say the f5.6 is in fact f5, or the 1/500sec is 1/600sec.So long as the values are reproducible, the calibration will ensure correct exposure.
Both my F1s and A1s produce similar results,but the F1 is a far better engineered machine and far more rugged,strip them down and compare.
41 years ago I managed to purchase a Leica M2 plus 2 lenses.This M2 and a twin plus six lenses have taken my hobby photographs in all weathers and situations,never a breakdown or fault.All this has required is the regular CLA.They are still my favorite cameras and worth every extra penny! |
charlie
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, May 16, 2005 - 08:08 am: |
|
This all may raise a further question, film consistency. A few years ago I used to read of professional photographers buying boxes of film with the same emulsion batch number and evaluating the first roll to determine the best exposures to use with the rest of the film with that same batch number. I haven't seen that practice mentioned lately, are films made so consistently now so it is no longer necessary? |
Henry
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, May 16, 2005 - 10:39 am: |
|
Seriously Frank, all three of the catagories you mention are truly irrelevant to a REAL photographer. Luckily I'm not a photographer, much less a real one! I'm a camera tinkerer so these things ARE important to me.
Why are these NOT important to a REAL photographer? Now I'm talking the obsessive Ansel Adams type here. Because...because they control every aspect of a photograph. They totally control the photo taking exposure by testing every shutter/aperture combo for its effect. They control focus...and swings and tilts. They control the print exposure in the darkroom. And they control every aspect of everything between these huge catagories. They even control the natural light by waiting days, if necessary, just to push that little shutter button.
But let me comment on each of your three things mentioned:
Shutter speeds need to be consistent much more than they need to be accurate. Many manual cameras can only be set at full stop increments. Some more expensive ones can be set to half stop intervals...wow! :-) So the closest one can get, even with a 100% accurate shutter is in half stop jumps. This isn't very "accurate" in any sense of the word.
Next the in camera meters... When many cameras are set to auto mode the shutters become "stopless" so they can appear to be more accurate. But in reality they give their rendition of the 18% gray card. So twilight looks like morning...which looks like noon...exposurely speaking.
Third: lens quality. A photo taken with the best, most expensive, Leica lens looks like crap if poorly focused on a cheapie enlarger lens.
I could go on endlessly...this is a worn out topic though...
Henry |
Peter Wallage
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, May 16, 2005 - 02:12 pm: |
|
I agree with Henry that this topic is becoming a bit worn out, but I would like to add my two-penn'orth.
My late wife was a freelance photographer, mainly for the motoring magazines, and shot maybe 20-22 rolls of film a week. She had two Canon A1s, each of which became unreliable (mainly with electronic problems) after about a year's use. She then bought a Canon F1 (older type), which went in to a Canon agent for a CLA every two years whether or not it was working perfectly. She never had a problem with the Canon lenses even though they didn't go for a CLA.
For shooting front covers she also had a Hasselblad 500C (bought new, like the F1) which also went for a CLA, together with its shutter/lenses, every two years. In the 10-12 years she had these cameras before she died they never let her down once, used almost every day in all sorts of weathers.
It amazes me that people who would think nothing of paying maybe £60 (or more) twice a year to get their car serviced baulk at spending the same amount every two-three years to keep their their camera reliable. |
anthony Howard
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 06:18 pm: |
|
I was really interested in this debate - it particularly reminded me of my time as a photography lecturer teaching adults - most of whom were fixated on equipment issues rather than 'quality of image ' issues. The bottom line for me has always been that most cameras ( of any vintage) are rarely exploited to their full potential, and in any case, more expensive equipment(particularly modern) is often designed to relieve 'photographers' from the burden of thinking too hard (or at all). I own a Fuji S7000, a camera that received mixed ( but generally favourable) reviews when it was launched. Once the price had dropped I bought one, and spent some time experimenting / visiting user forums etc, until I knew the capabilities of this camera well. It is a camera capable of producing excellent results when properly used - not as good as a Canon 20D (which I have also used) but fairly close - at a quarter of the price! The Canon however is so much easier to use.
Before anyone wonders what I am doing on this site I have just finished scanning and printing some negs from my QL17 and GSN. The quality is comparable to anything my EOS system gives me at a fraction of the price - providing - I use these cameras for their strengths, and I fully exploit their excellent characteristics.
My Pentacon 6 has equalled my Hassleblad in the past in quality of negs, so I make this argument based on wide experience. Bottom line - decent photographs depend on who is using the equipment - not the equipment! |
|
