Related Local Links:
Autofocus Problems Page
Bronica S2a Shutter Sound
Loudest Ever SLR? (.wav)
Camera Vibration Page
Homebrew Lenses Page
Pop. Photo on MLU Benefits
Shutter Delay Times
Third Party Lenses Pages
Related Links:
MLU Pages (photonet)
Nikon MLU Utility Poll
Rigid Camera Support Pages
Steve Hoffman's MLU Page [8/2002]
| But just how much additional sharpness will mirror lockup give you? An awful lot, according to our tests... |
Mirror lockup plays a major role in much of scientific photography.
Historically, mirror lockup has been nearly mandatory on cameras for use
on most optical microscopes. The vibration of the camera and microscope
tube and mounting gets highly magnified (e.g., 100X to 900X), resulting in
unsharp images. For
many amateur macrophotography buffs, mirror lockup also reduces vibration
significantly, even at the lesser magnifications used (0.5X to 10X). In
astrophotography, long exposures consume less battery power with mirror
lockup on manual bodies than when using the latest cameras. Motor drive
operation may be fastest when the mirror is locked up, and wear may also
be reduced too. Noise is also reduced using mirror lockup, which can be
important in situations from press photography and weddings to nature
photography and street shooting.
I happen to have done a good bit of scientific photography, including
macrophotography, partially explaining my interest in mirror lockup issues.
Last semester, I added a Bronica EC medium format
camera to my Bronica collection, simply because it had mirror lockup for
macrophotography lacking in my older Bronica S2A cameras. I also have kits
of Nikon cameras with both a pro model and nikkormat backup camera body
with mirror lockup as standard features. And I have done astrophotography
on telescopes up to 60 inches aperture (at Yale), as well as using various
professional microscopy and my own homebrew amateur macrophotography
setups (see homebrew lenses pages).
I readily admit to being a fan of mirror lockup and its uses. So it
disturbs me to hear many otherwise knowledgeable amateur photographers
dismiss mirror lockup as a useless feature. As the song goes, You can't
miss what you have never had. Once you realize that the loss of such a
minor feature blocks certain areas of photography to
your experience, it will seem more important. That is especially true in
light of the long telephoto lens tests described below, which show huge
gains in sharpness thanks to mirror lockup features. Sadly, the lack of
this feature is unnecessary and easily provided with a simple redesign of
current camera models to provide a pre-fire mirror lockup
option.
Unfortunately, mirror lockup is available on only a handful of current
SLR camera models. Most of these mirror lockup featured cameras are
higher priced pro models such as the Nikon F5, higher end Canon EOS
models, and similar cameras. As a Nikon user, I find it irritating that
the newer Nikon AF SLRs lack mirror lockup even among the higher dollar
semi-pro models such as the Nikon F100. Nor am I alone in this lament.
By contrast, it is far easier to find hundreds of models of SLR cameras
from the 1960s through the 1980s which feature mirror lockup. Many of
these mirror lockup feature SLR models were the economy models of their
line (such as the Nikkormats).
At the least, electronic cameras could offer a version of mirror
pre-fire, in which the mirror is locked up with a short time delay before
making the exposure. Some cameras such as the Nikon FE (circa 20 years
old) offer mirror pre-fire when using the self-timer for exposures. The
cost of such an option would seem to be rather minimal. All that would
seem to be needed is a bit of software. The mirror moving mechanics are
already there and under electronic control. What would one more display
icon or mode be among all the other modes already embedded in most of
today's microchip based cameras?
The logical explanation for the lack of mirror lockup is two-fold. First,
amateur photographers generally don't know the benefits of mirror lockup,
so they don't request such features in their cameras during focus groups
and marketing surveys. Second, such features are made available on the
pro models for those scientific and professional photographers who really
do need it.
A related explanation is that many older manual bodies with mirror lockup
are readily available on the used market. For astrophotography and
macrophotography, you really don't need autofocus features in most
current cameras. The telescope or microscope provides the optics in most
scientific photography. In macrophotography, autofocus is essentially
useless (see autofocus problems pages). Many older
mirror lockup bodies
have TTL and off-the-film flash control, making macrophotography shooting
much easier despite the lack of the latest AF electronics.
Popular Photography VP Herb Keppler and David Phung decided to
actually test the effects of mirror lockup, as reported in the June 1999
issue (SLR column, p.18, 20, 22, 24, and 66). A few major results reported
in their article are shown graphically here, but you simply have to read
their whole report (and future followups, I hope) to get the full story.
The above chart shows the startling improvements (up to 172%) provided by
using mirror lockup with a Nikon F5 and Sigma 135-400mm zoom telephoto
lens. Shutter speeds were varied from 1/8th second to 1/60th second. A 5
second exposure was thrown in to show the effects of much longer exposures
(where vibration would be expected to be less of a factor). In this first
graphic, the lens was mounted on a Slik U212 tripod using a tripod
mounting foot on the lens.
If you are like me, you may often use a tripod or monopod when low light conditions dictate
using longer shutter speeds with your telephoto lenses. For many
landscapes and other slow moving subjects, using mirror lockup would be
easy - if you have that feature on your camera. The above chart documents
that the benefits could range from nearly 50% to 150% improvements in
on-film resolution (measured in lpmm) for a similar long zoom setup at
these common slow shutter speeds.
I suppose that I don't have to point out that these sharpness gains are
truly startling, in an industry where we argue and spend major
dollars on lenses to achieve much smaller gains in resolution.
The above chart
shows the data for the camera mounted on the tripod (rather than the lens)
when using mirror lockup. The gains are less in terms of percentage, with
the 135mm resolution values being fairly similar in both cases. But the
lens mounted on the tripod produced higher resolution results in the
sub-second exposures at both 300mm and 400mm. This observation is in
keeping with the usual expectation that a long telephoto lens with
mounting foot is probably best used mounted on the tripod, rather than
the camera body. Moreover, the longer lenses put a lot of torque and
weight on camera mounts, so most of us would prefer to use a lens on
tripod mounting scheme to minimize the weight on the camera mount.
Keppler's SLR column article goes on to investigate the effects of various tripod based lens support combinations and their impacts on improving resolution. Again, I recommend that you review their results in a copy of June 1999's Popular Photography. I also want to emphasize that this study courageously raises some issues that aren't likely to win any praise or benefits from that magazine's major OEM camera body advertisers. Don't you think a number of readers are going to start asking why their new autofocus cameras can do seemingly everything but provide mirror lockup?
As a former Olympus OM-1 owner, I keep being sorry I ever sold my compact
camera (although to a very good friend ;-). The above chart shows how the
OM-1 with mirror lockup improved sharpness over the latest OM-4Ti [using a
28-105mm lens]. This chart is especially important if you believe that the
latest dampening technology and camera designs are so good they don't
benefit from mirror lockup. In both the case of the Nikon F5 and OM-4Ti,
they clearly do benefit a great deal at some commonly used shutter
speeds.
Since the OM-1 has a horizontal rather than a vertical shutter, as on the
Nikon F5, this data also suggests that there may be some impact (pun
intended) from whether or not a horizontal versus a vertical shutter is
used. For those of us with both pro model vertically traveling shutters
and backup bodies with horizontally traveling shutters, we will just have
to wait for followup articles - or perform our own tests!
How does he do it? Simply zone
focus (for estimated distance and lighting conditions) and shoot with the
lens pointed towards the subject. You are relying on the wide angle lens
to provide enough depth of field, and the large angle of
coverage to ensure the subject and a usable, crop-able image gets on film.
If you have a hot shoe mounting viewfinder or rangefinder accessory, you
can convert your SLR into a pseudo-rangefinder. These accessories were
commonly used for view finder cameras from the 1950s and 1960s, but are
more rarely seen now. If you can find a non-collectible one, you can be
in good shape for more accurate framing at modest costs ($15 US and up).
Unfortunately, most of the lower cost finders have small finder
windows, making their use accurate but harder in fast action
situations.
Personally, I prefer the easier to use viewfinder type accessories. I use
some hot shoe mounting types borrowed from my underwater photography gear
(made by Ikelite). They are big (2" diameter), bright, with curved optics
and a set of interchangeable plastic masks for different lens coverage.
Since they are designed to be easily visible from many inches away while
looking through a mask underwater, they are super easy to quickly point,
compose, and shoot. Fortunately, I have a good enough feel for distances
that I can usually estimate closely enough for a good result (partly due
to lots of experience with the guess focus nikonos cameras I used
underwater).
Another less expensive and faster to use framing trick requires a
sportsfinder.
Sportsfinder used open frames, sometimes of plastic, to provide a accurate
and very fast to use framing tool. As an underwater photographer, I have
often used a low cost plastic framing tool on my bad weather cameras -
Nikonos models. These cameras feature frames for 28mm, 35mm, and circa 80mm
size frames, with a fold-out aiming bar, that proves surprisingly
accurate in use. It also fits in the camera's hot shoe nicely. Besides
being very quiet due to using mirror lockup, this sportfinder setup is very,
very fast to use. It is also bright and much bigger than even my
sportsfinder prism equipped pro Nikon models (from underwater housings).
You can also readily make a sportsfinder from a mounting shoe, some
cardboard or wire, and a little ingenuity. Since you are using an SLR,
you can easily compare your sportsfinder frame to the viewfinder with the
mirror down to ensure accurate coverage.
Most amateur photographers have never used a sportfinder, so it comes as
a big surprise how fast you can shoot with one. The term
sportfinder arises as this device was used to make it easy to take
fast and reasonably accurately framed action shots in sports without
having to peer through a small and dim eyepiece. Another benefit of the
sportsfinder is that you can customize it for different lenses. In the
case of the modestly priced plastic Nikonos sportfinder, it provides
useful guides for three lenses often used by rangefinder enthusiasts as
their basic kit - a 28mm wide angle, a "normal" lens of 35mm (often used
on point and shoots and by some pros as a wide normal lens), and a short
telephoto (80mm).
Personally, I keep trying to talk myself into buying into an
interchangeable lens rangefinder system (such as the Leica or Canon
series). But the costs are high, and the weight from carrying both SLRs
and RF cameras prohibitive. So any trick which gives you a fast shooting
and quieter SLR is well worth investigating. This tip is especially handy
if you already have a small SLR body with a quiet shutter and a
mirror lockup feature such as the Olympus OM-1.
My suspicion is that further testing by amateur photographers will reveal
that the loss of mirror lockup features on modern autofocus and electronic
camera bodies is an unfortunate oversight or marketing decision. I suspect
that knowledgeable amateur photographers will demand that mirror lockup be
added as an affordable option on the latest (AF) camera models (possibly
using a mirror pre-fire approach). And I suspect some pros will be
kicking
themselves for failing to test and use such a simple existing feature on
their cameras, in light of Keppler's published data.
[Ed. note: thanks to John for helping motivate this page ;-)]
From: "John Emmons" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Nikon going the way of Leica?
Date: 7 Sep 1999
Mirror lock up and depth of field preview are simply not used by the
majority of photographers buying those cameras. Your insistence that these
two features are the end all and be all of necessary features is rather
amusing though.
Mirror lock up, or the lack of it is an argument that has long ceased to be
meaningful, the average photographer doesn't need it and those that do
simply buy the model camera that has it or they use an older body.
As for depth of field preview, since the majority of people buying cameras
don't know how to use it and since it is a hard feature to use in the best
conditions, it too has become virtually unnecessary.
What's more interesting is why you keep insisting on using those two
features as some sort of benchmark for good camera design?
Perhaps you can enlighten the group on why you seem to feel that mirror
lock up and depth of field preview are so important to you and then explain
how you use those features to improve your photography...?
John Emmons
From: "eMeL" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: med fmt latency was Re: Capturing fast action with MF SLR
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999
FWIW:
Actually, Fuji GW and GSW rangefinder cameras have a huge shutter lag due to
their construction and size: physically large camera with 2 mechanical
shutter release buttons and a cheap shutter.
In terms of shutter lag, you'll find that there is just one AF SLR that has
it down to 6 ms - Canon EOS1N RS. F5 and the "regular" EOS1N are 10 times
slower in this department... MF SLR (not to mention AF MF SLR) have the
shutter lag in the 100s of milliseconds.
Michael
....
From: Gary Frost [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: med fmt latency was Re: Capturing fast action with MF SLR
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999
The shutter release on the Fuji rangefinders is indeed clunky and does
not have a smooth, precise feel (far from it) but it does not have
"shutter lag" in the traditional sense of the term. When you press the
shutter button, the leaf shutter fires.... the shutter sounds nice & crisp
but the release mechanism sounds a cheap ka-chunnggg.
There is no mirror, AF, or aperture stop down to wait for. It's a direct
mechanical connection to the leaf shutter release.
Gary Frost
....
From: "e M e L" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: med fmt latency was Re: Capturing fast action with MF SLR
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999
Yes...1/8s or so...Strange but true...
Amateur AF SLR cameras go as high as 200-300 ms and P/S cameras can be
*much* worse in this department, with half a second lag not that uncommon.
Some "high end" rangefinder cameras also test high, blowing away the myth of
their "instantaneous" shutter response...
Canon EOS1N RS (the one with a pellicle mirror) has the shutter lag of 6 ms,
by the way.
Michael
...
From: "A. H. Ongun" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: med fmt latency was Re: Capturing fast action with MF SLR
Date: Sat, 02 Oct 1999
According to the article the lag is 1/10s (100ms) in normal mode, and 1/40s
(25ms) in quick release mode.
Andy
burt [email protected] wrote
> Actually the Rollei 6008 has the shortest lag of any SLR (35mm included) > tested according to Popular Photo. I think it was 45 millisec.
[Ed. note: simple free fast rangefinder ;-)]
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999
From: "Harry M. Fleenor" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei 35 & estimating distance
>I am considering buying a pocket camera, but I have always had trouble >estimating distances. I used a Minox 35 until I lost it in a cab one day, and >even though the lens was superb and the meter accurate, I just couldn't focus >the darn thing well. > >Do you 35 users have any tips on estimating distances? > >David
There is a very simple solution to the distance judging problem for the
Rollei 35.
It came up a couple of months ago on this list. in a post by Roly Gilbert.
You can make your own Free rangefinder on a business card or a piece of
tape on the back of your Rollei 35.
Check out.
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000Ryx
- Hold a ruler at arms length with your right hand so you can see the
numbers.
- Using your left eye align the edge with the edge or an object 10 feet away.
- Holding the ruler in the same position view the same edge of the object
with your right eye.
_ The same edge of the object will align with a point along the ruler.
(for me it's around 2 inches.)
- Try the same experiment at different distances.
Using this method you can make a scale on a business card or a tape on the
back of your camera and accurately estimate focus distances every time.
Thank You,
Harry Fleenor
[email protected]
http://www.jps.net/hfleenor
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999
From: "Roger M. Wiser" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei 35 & estimating distance
....
These responses on estimating distances are excellent. Another
approach, that I admit is an "overkill" is buying an Ultrasonic
Distance/Area/Volume Measuring device. I am buying one from Edge for
$39.95. It is not for the primepurpose of using with cameras but also for
other purposes (estimating construction repair costs). With cameras I
would suppose that it would have to accurate at short distances. I will be
testing it and if does not meet my requirements I will return it.
Roger Wiser
From Leica user Group:
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000
From: Frank Dernie [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] Technical Pan Sharpneness & Camera Vibration
Paul Roark asked about the effect of vibration on the resolution available
from tech pan film on a 35mm camera.
I have never shot a test chart so I do not know resolution numbers but I am
pleased to share some observations and measurements FWIW.
1) I am sure that the vibration you hav e noticed is due to mirror
movements not the shutter. A Hasselblad is useless for the type of
photography I do due to vibration, and it has a leaf shutter. The mirror
and darkslide etc vibration OTOH is like a grenade going off in the hand.
2) I did measurements about 20 years ago of vibration on an Olympus OM1,
Nikon F2 and Leica IIIf. This was what i owned at the time. I still have
all but the Leica which was stolen. The vibration level was at its lowest
on the Leica with the Olympus surprisingly good and Nikon some way behind.
What was particularly interesting was the time over which the vibration
contiued. It was sufficiently short for the effect to be important at
shutter speeds of 1/60 to 1/2 second but for slower speeds to be
negligible.
At the risk of over simplifying for the sake of clarity this is analogous
to very long exposures where people, cars etc move through a scene and are
effectively unrecorded. If the vibration effectively lasts 1/30 secs the
camera is vibrating for the entire time the shutter is open at 1/60th but
only a fifteenth of the time that the shutter is open during a 1/2 sec
exposure. The effect of the vibration will then be negligible.
3) the combination of tripod mass, rigidity and position of the camera on
it and the camera mass etc has a large influence on measurements. The best
camera can be made worst by mounting it on an unsuitable (for it) tripod.
4) I have done no measurements since but for back packing a Leica M system
IMHO is unbeatable. With a 35 aspherical summilux or 24mm Elmarit I get
results which for me exceed that which I get with a Mamiya 7 and are way
better than my Hasselblad efforts, I reeally should sell that camera.
Very complicated
cheers Frank
From Leica User Group:
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2000
From: Paul Roark [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] Sharpness & Camera Vibration
Frank Dernie wrote:
> Leica Users digest Wednesday, January 5 2000 Volume 14 : Number 057 > ----------------------------- > Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 > From: Frank Dernie [email protected] > Subject: [Leica] Technical Pan Sharpneness & Camera Vibration > > Paul Roark asked about the effect of vibration on the resolution available > from tech pan film on a 35mm camera. > > I have never shot a test chart so I do not know resolution numbers but I am > pleased to share some observations and measurements FWIW. > > 1) I am sure that the vibration you hav e noticed is due to mirror > movements not the shutter.
No. The mirror is pre-released. I wouldn't consider an SLR that didn't have
this function.
Focal plane shutters, from my tests, appear to have more non-offset mass to
start and stop. I fear camera movement is the equal and opposite effect of
this shutter movement.
With the leaf shutter, I suspect that the blades on opposite sides of the
lens aperture offset each other to a certain extent. I've seen comments
from other shooters with leaf shutters that indicate they can get by with
very light tripods (as long as there is no flopping mirror to deal with).
The successful medium format leaf shutter cameras include some of the best
knows makes, for example, the medium format rangefinders, Rollei TLRs and
6000 series (designed after the SL66's focal plane -- the best I've
encountered), and the classic Hasselblads.
> A Hasselblad is useless for the type of > photography I do due to vibration, and it has a leaf shutter. The mirror > and darkslide etc vibration OTOH is like a grenade going off in the hand.
Do you get these same results on a tripod if you pre-release the mirror?
> ... > What was particularly interesting was the time over which the vibration > contiued. It was sufficiently short for the effect to be important at > shutter speeds of 1/60 to 1/2 second but for slower speeds to be > negligible.
My tests show the same thing. The oscillations are absorbed by the tripod
over time. The wood and carbon fiber tripods allegedly absorb the
vibration better or quicker than metal. Also, at some speeds the body's
relatively efficient absorption of vibration is said to make hand held
shots at some speeds with some cameras actually sharper than shots taken
on (light weight metal, no doubt) tripods.
One thing I sometimes do with telephotos to minimize the sharpness loss
due to shutter shake is to use a strong neutral density filter. This
allows me to use a speed that is long enough for the initial vibration to
be a relatively small percentage of the overall exposure.
> ... > 3) the ... position of the camera on [the tripod] > ... has a large influence on measurements.
My tests agree with this, at least with focal plane shutters. I've found
that vibration is least where the direction of the shutter is precisely
lined up with the tripod column -- and thus the tripod center of mass.
This is generally the case with modern SLRs that have vertically-moving
focal plane shutters. While these modern SLRs do relatively well on
horizontal/landscape format shots, they are not so good with
vertical/portrait format shots, where the shutter has little mass under
it. With one of these SLRs, I've found that when shooting a
vertical/portrait format tripod shot, I can reduce vibration by adding
mass to the tripod head or camera base, such that the mass under the
shutter is increased. One modified head I made that allowed this had a
camera (female) bayonet (a rear lens cap) firmly attached to the head so
that I could put an unused (and heavy) lens on the head to add mass (that
I was carrying anyway) right where it would be most effective. It worked
-- the vibration of the system was reduced.
> Very complicated
Yes. As far an I'm concerned, a well designed camera for doing landscape
display prints must be sufficiently vibration free that I can get all the
sharpness its lens and film have to offer easily -- without having to jump
through all sorts of hoops. At the wide angle end, 35 may have made the
grade. (I bought a Ricoh GR1 [very good 28 mm, leaf shutter] for wide
angle shots to supplement my Rollei GX.) In the moderate telephoto range,
I will, at some point, just have to rent an M6 to see how it handles a 90
on a light tripod.
Thanks for your experience and views.
Paul Roark
From Leica User List:
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999
From: "Rod Fleming" [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] Vibrations
Hi
Jim Brick wrote
>How about a >wooden glockenspiel?
Yup. It's called a marimba. Sounds very nice too. Wood resonates just fine
under the right conditions, as any guitar player, pianist or violinist will
affirm.
There are a lot of reasons why this thread is becoming a tad academic, but
hey, why not. If you want a really really completely vibration free camera
support, then one exists- it's called a beanbag. Why do you think long range
target riflemen use them? Not to mention their popularity amongst wildlife
photogs.
However they are slow to use, awkward, require some handy and conveniently
shaped topography, and considerably limit camera position. But they sure are
stable.
With very long tele lenses, and the quickest and easiest way to stabilise a
camera and lens on a tripid is to add a monopod- with very long lenses you
support the lens with the tripod and either attach the mono pod to the
camera or use a special adapter to support the end of the lens. It's very
effective, but a pig to line up.
A great deal of the vibration seen when using long lenses will come not so
much from the trip of the shutter, but from wind induced vibration. It can
be a real problem sometimes. Watch news footage of say, a plane hijack or a
prison seige where the camera is a long way away- now that camera is on a
robust support, but you will still see wind-induced movement, unless it's a
flat calm. (I write from Scotland. We don't do a lot of flat calm round
here.)
Also remember that vibration has to do with harmonics, and these can to some
extent be damped out by suspending a mass by a flexible link- a string bag
full of stones hanging from a strap is pretty good, and has the advantage of
being very light. You can use a camera bag, but I prefer the string bag.
Varying the length of the strap has a noticeable effect.
Which is not to say that either wood or carbon fibre is not a good thing- if
it saves weight, that's a plus. I remember reading, somewhere in the dim and
distant, that weight for weight wood is much stiffer than metal (like
several times stiffer)- I suspect that this inherently greater rigidity is
the real reason why wooden tripods are acclaimed as they are.
Cheers
Rod
From: [email protected] (LaserAndy)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Modify MLU on Nikon F?
Date: 14 Oct 1999
I have no first hand experience with the modification, but there is a way to
lock up the mirror on an F without wasting a frame.
This takes a couple tries to get used to, but it does work.
Switch the MLU switch to up, cock the shutter (these two can be done in
either order). Bounce your finger on the shutter button, sort of tapping
against the spring. Gradually use more force until the mirror flips up.
When done right, the shutter does not fire, just the mirror. Practice it
without film until you get it right.
I've seen photos of the modification, it's subtle, and I would guess
original examples are actually worth more. However, to have the
modification done to a camera now is probably going to rival the cost of a
beater F2 body which has no-loss of frame mlu anyway.
Andrew
From: [email protected] (WFTL Radio)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Modify MLU on Nikon F?
Date: 15 Oct 1999
>Bounce your finger on the shutter button, sort of tapping against the >spring. Gradually use more force until the mirror flips up.
In fact, without a mirror "lockup switch", per se, this is the identical
technique i used to use on old Spotmatics (pentax). I got so proficient at
it, i could get it 100 times, out of 100. A very useful lock-up technique
to be sure, requiring no modifications...
Joseph.
From: [email protected] (David T. Greenfield)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Modify MLU on Nikon F?
Date: 15 Oct 1999
...
Thanks for the info. I read something similar (though less clearly
described) on the "Nikon F and Its System" website
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/michaeliu/cameras/nikonf/index.htm
but haven't yet been able to accomplish the
technique. Perhaps your instructions will make a difference.
Regards.
David
From Nikon Digest:
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999
From: "Curfman, Donald (GEIS)" [email protected]
Subject: [NIKON] RE: Mirror lock up Nikons
> I am looking for a used, inexpensive, second body to > use on a telescope. Mirror lock-up is important to > avoid vibrations. Is there a source that will let me > know which of the Nikkormat and FM or FE series have > mirro lock-up? Autoexposure, etc is really > irrelevant. Thanks.
You can get around MLU by using a dark slide over the
lens. Hold the card in front of the lens, open the
shutter, count to ten, then remove the cover and start
timing the exposure. If you're using 'T' instead of
'B', you need to cover the lens again before closing
the shutter, since you generally have to touch the
camera to close the shutter in T mode on a Nikon.
FWIW, the FM, FM2, FM2N, FE, FE2, and FA do not have
a MLU lever, but they all flip the mirror up when the
self-timer starts, which is close enough.
I never had a Nikkormat, but I bet somebody else on
the list has had a bunch of 'em.
A removable finder is much more important than MLU.
It's almost impossible to accurately focus on a star
field through an eye-level finder. You need to pull
the finder off and use a loupe on the focusing screen.
For cheap ($150 or less), I'd recommend that you look
for an F. With the finder off it's light enough you
should be able to balance it even on a fairly small
scope/mount. Before I got my F3 and 6x finder I got
good results using a loupe with a topless F2.
Since you'll be using Bulb or 'T' for everything you
don't need to worry about whether the calibration of
the shutter speeds is off.
The F2's mirror lock up is easier to operate than the
F's is. The F's MLU will eat a frame of film every
time you flip it, unless you remember to do the song
and dance (I don't even remember what the steps are).
If you can afford an F2 (the older ones are running
around $325 here), I think it's worth the difference.
- -Don
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Mirror lockup
Mirror lockup is a must for astrophotography, as shown in the side by side
pictures of the moon in "The Backyard Astronomers Guide" by Terence Dickinson
and Alan Dyer.
After owning a Nikon FE for 20 years, I had forgotten that the self timer
locks up the mirror before running the timer. I almost went out and
bought a used OM-1 just to get mirror lockup.
I'm just getting started in astrophotography, I'm hoping the small vibration
of the self timer doesn't affect my telescope mount. Thanks for the article.
From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000
From: Alan Yeo [email protected]
Subject: Re: [NIKON] RE: AFS, do we really need it? and MIRROR LOCK UP
COMMENTS
Agree with Don.
For what it's worth, I do find the MLU feature very
useful in long lens use. I only recently discovered
that MLU DOES help in giving me sharper images
especially in the region of 1000mm and above. There is
not mistaking the fact that the MLU feature helps to
reduce vibrations in a camera - even on a F5.
Alan
- --- "Curfman, Donald (GEIS)"
[email protected] wrote:
> The F5's mirror slap is much less than that of an > FM2 > or F3. But with long lenses (500mm and up), an F3 > with the mirror locked up will still make sharper > images than an F5 with the mirror unlocked. > > > -Don
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected] (DWA652)
[1] Re: How many of you used Mirror lock up in 1999?
Date: Sat Feb 05 2000
I used it for about 1000-1500 shots, all macro. Incidentally, years ago I
ran a test using an F3HP with mirror locked up vs an N90 without the
mirror locked up. Shutter speed was 1/30 of a second. Lens was a Sigma
90mm macro. Used a Bogen 3047 head on a large Bogen (3036?) tripod -
solid as a rock. Put the slides on a viewer and asked my wife to pick the
sharpest two using an 8X loupe. She picked both from the F3HP with mirror
lockup as the two sharpest. But it was close!
God Bless,
Don Allen
http://www.DonAllen.net
http://members.xoom.com/donallenfoto
[Ed. note: for various reasons, I don't subscribe to this "test", but I do
think it worth testing if this trick improves your camera steadiness if
you don't have MLU...]
Date: 16 Feb 2000
From: [email protected] (AldenPhoto)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: How many of you used Mirror lock up in 1999?
I stopped using mirror lock up, because vibration still occures. Put a
water glass on top of your camera and look at it to check. I followed the
advice of Arthur Morris, and a guy called MOOSE, and place a hand on the
lens, and then press against the eye cup, with your eye, and look to
steady before firing. It works.
Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2000
From: "Gregory J. Scott" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: mirror lockup pages URL was Re: camera shake mirror
induced..
Even if mirror slap vibration is minimized in today's cameras, mirror
lockup may still be an important feature. For high speed flash
photography, it is desirable to have a short and constant the time delay
between the activation of an electronic triggering device and the actual
moment of the flash. When shooting birds in flight, the bird may fly
several inches from the point where it triggers an electric eye until the
series of events occur that allow the camera to make the exposure. By
shortening this interval as much as possible, the position of the bird is
more accurately determined. Variations in the speed and direction of
flight make it hard to focus precisely on the point where the bird will be
at the time of the flash. Shorting the delay makes a
corresponding/proportional shorting in the uncertainty in the position of
the bird. I don't know (my father's the expert) but I suspect that by
locking up the mirror, it's possible to design the camera so that the
exposure now happens _sooner_ after exposure than when the mirror has to
be swung up as part of the exposure sequence. Furthermore, if modern
cameras minimize mirror slap vibration by lengthening the delay from the
time when the mirror is moved out of the way until the shutter operates,
this increased delay would induce an even greater uncertainty into the
position of the subject when the flash actually occurs.
This is a good example of how everything in photography is a
compromise. In
this case, if you reduce mirror slap vibration's effect by inducing a
delay,
you reduce the "position" resolution of the exposure, ie the subject moves
during that delay.
Not to inject the other evil thread into this on, but sorta like uf
filters protecting the lens and aiding in easy cleaning of the front
element at low risk, but slightly degrading the image by increasing flare
and distortion. There are certain (rare and specialized) situations where
one might eschew a uv filter on the front of the lens, but in most
situations, it is useful and practical to do so. Likewise, the reduction
of mirror slap by an induced delay would usually be a GOOD thing, provide
that the delay is short enough so that relatively slow subjects don't move
much.
Date: 19 Jan 2000
From: [email protected] (WFTL Radio)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Help choosing Manual SLR
>I have used K1000s for nearly twenty years but I do not know this trick. >Could >you please describe a bit more?
My new reader has been painfully slow in posting new posts, but I adressed
this in email responses to a couple of people who inquired about the
technique. For the beneit of others who were interested, he's a past from
my email correspondence:
MIRROR LOCK-UP:
Think of the shutter release on a manual Pentax as a "two stage" throw --
or mechanical action. The first stage engages the mirror and tells it to
swing up, out of the way -- just prior to the shutter opening. The second
stage opens the shutter, naturally.
What you want to do to lock up the mirror is to "engage" the mirror
action, without firing the shutter (initially). You do so by, in a sense,
"punching" or tapping the shutter release with your index finger --
generally starting with your index finger poised a few inches above the
shutter release and "tap it". Executed with the correct G-force, the
mirror will swing up, but the shutter won't open. NOW you may simply press
the release (with finger or cable) for the shutter to open and commence
with the exposure. The mirror then swings back down to its normal position
after the shutter closes, as usual.
This technique DOES take a little practice but, over time, you'll be able
to do it generally 100 times, out of 100. And no, this technique does no
harm to the camera, inclusive of its mirror or shutter.
I discovered this technique quite by accident when I was 14 years old with
my Spotmatic. I simply floored what was then a Honeywell (distributor)
representative at a camera shop. Six months later, all the reps knew about
it and I could no longer dazzle them. In any event, virtually all of the
Spotmatic internal mechanics were transposed into the K1000. And even as
one who made the switch to Nikon, ultimately, the Pentax manuals still
remain fond in my heart as no other camera, past or present, sits "so
right" in the hands...
Joseph.
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000
From: Tom Trottier [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/third/mlu.html
Hey, the OM-4 has mirror lockup & aperture prefire. And I believe us
some other cameras also have this feature that works with the self
timer. It's not just the mere lock up and the shutter that cause
problems with vibration. It's also the automatic diaphragm shutting
down the causes problems. There's been quite a discussion in the
Olympus list, and Gary Reese has found that the OM 4, using the self
timer, is sharper than the OM1 using mirror lock up.
Tom
-------------------------
Tom Trottier, Abadax IT Consulting
[email protected] [email protected]
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000
From: Tom Trottier [email protected]
To: Robert Monaghan [email protected]
Subject: Re: http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/third/mlu.html
....
Hi Robert
I love your site - lots of good info.
Re vibrations - Olympus, in their manuals, recommends holding the
camera/lens to reduce vibrations while taking the picture on a
tripod, as does the following:
Tom
Date: 06 Feb 2000
From: [email protected] (BHilton665)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: How many of you used Mirror lock up in 1999?
I use it every time possible.
John Shaw wrote that he uses mirror lock even when he's shooting a 24 mm
lens at 1/500 th sec ...
Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2000
From: "Daniel Cunningham" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: How many of you used Mirror lock up in 1999?
I use it any time I can also, but it depends on what you are trying to
achieve. Case in point - for a class I was taking outdoor shots to
achieve maximum depth of field. I was using 400 film, a 50 mm lens
(required), and a tripod. Enlargements showed a "keep of the Grass" sign
about 150 feet away that I never noticed when taking the picture. With
mirror lock the sign was legible. Without mirror lock you knew it said
something, but it was not legible. Shutter speeds were in the 1/125 to
1/250 range (outdoors in bright sunlight). The difference was not visible
in a standard 3x5 print, but very visible in my enlargements (8x10s with
cropping). FWIW
Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2000
Newsgroup: rec.photo.equipment
From: Thomas Edward Witte [email protected]
Subject: Re: How many of you used Mirror lock up in 1999?
I used MLU about 17 times last year. Not because wanted to, but
because I had to. The Nikkor 7.5mm requires you to, because the rear
element is about 2mm from they shutter.
That's the only time I ever use it.
Tom
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Sun, 26 Dec 1999
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Reply to: [email protected]
To: [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: SLR mirror
I would never own an SLR that does not have mirror pre-release. My Leica
R7's and Hasselblads all have mirror pre-release and I use this feature
99.999% of the time. It's not needed when using electronic flash or
photographing a fast moving event where your shutter speed is up there
anyway. But I'm a fan of slow films, ISO 25-50, and static subjects,
therefore for me it is virtually always pre-release, then exposure. Tripod
or not.
Jim
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999
From: [email protected] (Terence Danks)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Mirror lockup pages URL Re: What is Mirror Lock-up?
Godfrey DiGiorgi [email protected] wrote:
>I'm waiting for when one of your MLU gurus writes a definitive, 600 page >dissertation on the subject of mirror lock up. > >Sheesh, all this flap for a feature that I've had on every one of my pro >Nikons for 30 years and only used 10 times! > >Godfrey
Well so what? You don't use it so it's a trivial issue? Fine for you.
Some of us feel quite differently. I have used it, suffice to say, a
lot more than ten times, the last being just a few nights ago
photographing the moon at an EFL of 1120mm.
A really useless feature that comes at astronomical cost is 6-10 fps
capability. I NEVER use it and NEVER will! So it's useless?
Well to me it surely is! Sports photogs. feel otherwise I guess.
MLU was, in the past, offered on most SLR's. Some manufacturers
continue to offer it, or pre-fire, on VERY modestly priced cameras.
Nikon, in their wisdom, have seen fit to move this low-cost feature
very much "upscale." A pox on them for it. They are getting the
negative comments they deserve for this strategy. It is just a very
small part of why I feel quite content to leave the Nikon fold. (IS is
the REAL reason, of course.)
The fact that the MLU thread keeps popping up is a measure of the
interest the feature has for a segment of camera users.
How large a segment? I don't pretend to know.
MLU: It is useful. I use it. It is offered on low cost cameras from
other manufacturers. There is no excuse for Nikon dropping it from
many of their expensive bodies. It has left some long-time Nikon
customers unhappy . . . me amongst them.
It was a bad decision and I feel it was made solely for marketing
reasons. Some have insisted the F100 could not have included this
feature without major modifications due the fragility of the shutter,
necessitated by a dictate for high fps rate capability. Perhaps they
are correct . . . I am not convinced though.
I still, to repeat, feel it was a bad decision . . . one of a great
many made by Nikon in recent years that have affected me and set my
resolve to try other manufacturers.
Oh, I could go out an buy an F5 . . . I could. But I won't. I'd rather
get an EOS body instead. That way I get MLU and IS capability as
well. With the Del adapter, I can also use the EOS on my 800mm Nikkor
too.
The MLU issue seems to have two sides: Nikon vs everybody else.
Nikon blew it. That is my opinion. They've made worse mistakes
recently. Stodgy and non-innovative . . . that is what Nikon has
become and . . .
It's gonn'a cost them.
Terence A. Danks
Nova Scotia, Canada
http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/danksta/home.htm
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Mirror lockup pages URL Re: What is Mirror Lock-up?
> "...with the Nikon F4, this multi-bladecurtain is doubled, leaving > virtually no room for light to slip past the edges of the curtain blades. This > means the F4 allows you to perform a mirror-lockup shooting without the fear of > such light leaks, A really professional consideration." --Nikon's literature on > the F4
Very interesting statement. The prior, Nikon F shutter (as used in the
F, F2 and F3) was not a vertical travel, multiblade design and never had
any problems with light leakage. The vertical travel, multiblade shutter
in a Contax G has no such problem and it has no mirror to protect it.
Nor does the Leica M, CL, Contax II, or any other shutter that I know
of. A shutter that has the possibility of light leakage is a bad shutter
design. Nikon's never put a bad shutter in any of their cameras.
This is purely marketing hooey.
> I think that a lot of bandwidth has been wasted by those who do not use mirror > lockup, insisting that it doesn't matter. With macro work, and with almost any > work between 1 sec and about 1/60 sec., depending upon lens, it does make a > difference. I have done enough tests to see this. How many of the "MLU doesn't > matter" camp has run tests and examined the results?
I have. I said so. I tested with a Nikon F2, mirror operating normally
and mirror locked up with all shutter speeds using a 1200mm telephoto
lens, two different support configurations, with a 50x microscope
examining the results. It made NO difference whatsoever what mode the
mirror was in. Period.
I've stopped reading the magazines long ago, Robert, because they are as
full of hooey as the Nikon marketing statement above. All they seem to
be interested in doing is selling you more new cameras and providing
infotainment. I'd rather do photography.
Terry Danks, you long ago told the world that Nikon no longer made the
camera you wanted. Why haven't you bought something else yet? There are
options, you know, if it's that important to you.
Have a good weekend. I'm going to go take pictures now.
Godfrey
[Ed. note: Greg makes a good point, relating to explanations from Nikon as
to why they can't provide this feature; unfortunately, their old Nikon F
and nikkormat cameras had a light tight shutter, so it isn't clear why
they can't provide something similar today...]
Hi Bob,
I was just looking over your
MLU page. You talk about there
being no good reason for this
feature being dropped.
I thought part of the reason
is that with a real MLU you
have to have a 100% light tight
shutter since the person may
have the MLU'd for hours with
an f1.4 lens on a sunny day.
With the selftimer psuedo-mlu
the shutter only needs to cause
no fogging for 2 seconds or whatever.
The new Cosina/Voigtlander RF
camera has a second shutter that
so that you don't have to worry
about keeping your lens capped
or at f22 when carrying it
around (like the new Yoshohura sp?
one requires).
With electronics I guess the
MLU could cancel itself based
on the film speed you are using
and the aperture you have set
if there is a danger of film
fogging. Though people would hate
it if the MLU dropped out just
before taking that rare Big Foot
photo :)
Regards - Greg
Date: 15 Sep 1999
From: "Anthony Nardelli" [email protected]
I use lenses from 180mm to 400mm with scenics and things like fall color.
It's the same as with macro work--between about one second and
one-sixtieth of a second there is a terrific problem with internal camera
shake from shutter and mirror. I use F3s and F4s and MLU helps, but not
enough.
For the "hat trick" with the black card mentioned a while back, is there
any reason why it would be detrimental to set the F3 at 8 seconds with the
lens covered, expose for one or two seconds while the shutter is held
open, and cover again before it closes itself? This would seem to simplify
things a bit...
Rick Spoo
From Nikon Mailing List;
Unless you've got a lens that's 500mm or longer,
any difference you notice will be slight.
Put a 600mm f/4 + TC14E on an F5 and shoot a roll
of Velvia through it between 1/4 second and 1/30
second, and any doubts you might have had about
MLU being important on the F5 will disappear
faster than a snowball in hell. It's absolutely
mandatory.
- -Don
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999
In terms of mirror dampening, yes, they are very well damped. Has
Nikon done such a wonderful job of it that mirror-slap is no longer a
factor even in areas where shutter vibrations are? Ridiculous.
Long-exposure astro-photography is not a problem. Short-exposure is.
For example brighter objects like Moon and Jupiter where shutter speeds
can be in the range of 1/125 to 3 seconds or so. Using focal lengths
of 1,150mm to 3,000mm even the shutter itself can be a problem. Mirror
slap will ruin the exposure every time in this range. On the long end,
I have countless 30-60 minute photos taken with N90S and F3 without
even using MLU showing each star-dot as a discreet pin-point -- no
evidence of blurring whatsoever.
Comparing mirror and shutter shock of my F5 and N90S's with my F3,
anyone could tell the difference just by holding the units in their
hands and tripping the shutter. N90S is a LOT better than F3. F5 is
slightly better than N90S both in shutter and mirror. Nikon has done
wonderful work in calming down their mirrors. However, basic physical
laws are still with us. The problem is not solved, just attenuated.
[email protected] wrote:
From NIkon Mailing List:
In my work with an F5 or FM2n on a microscope, the different is huge,
although that is mainly because of the jigglyness of the extension tube
from the microscope prism to the t mount.
From Nikon Mailing List:
I agree that MLU is an important feature on a Nikon body. Or, at least
its an important feature for the kind of photography I do.
It has very restricted value, however. It is valuable for shots slower
than 1/30 second. Thus its valuable for shots taken from a tripod.
If all the shots you make are hand-held -- and I suspect that the vast
majority are -- MLU is of no value to you whatsoever.
The challenge is not introducing vibration into the system at a critical
juncture -- when the shutter is open long enough for mirror slap to
affect the image.
For those of us who do macro work or who use long telephoto lenses in
these shutter speed ranges, MLU is valuable. It eliminates one of
several possible sources of blur from the system.
How much blur? Can film record it? Can we see it? At how great an
enlargement? That remains to be determined.
I think the fact is that given what Nikon tells us, if we use Nikon and
want MLU then we are going to have to buy an F5 or an F4 or an F3 or an
older manual camera body. We can still use our AF lenses.
Or, we can forget about it. For macro work, I think DOF preview is more
important than MLU. If I didn't have my F4 with me and I wanted to do a
macro shot, I wouldn't hesitate to take it with my 8008s. I think I'd
get a good shot. I've gotten good macro shots with 8008 and 6006
cameras, shots I've blown up to 8x12 and been proud to put on my wall.
If I had the F4, I'd use it and engage MLU, and the shot MIGHT be a tad
sharper. But I'd still be glad to have the shot I got with my 8008s.
Let's go on to something else.
Best,
NikonJohn
From Nikon Mailing List:
Anders Svensson wrote:
Given that the feature is not very expensive (after
all, my Nikkormat has it) and that it would be a
great selling point for the upper range of Nikons there
has to be some reason for it to be non existant. One
theory is that the safe application of the feature is
dependant on a more expensive shutter, another might
be that the benefit of it isn't there on newer
cameras.- --- -------------------
Or a third theory, shall I say, just a marketing
reason. If you are a Nikon user, MLU is only on the
F5, so if you need the MLU, you are just forced to buy
an F5, it's that simple. The same thing they do with
DOF preview. I would even support your statement that
this features are not expensive to include in the body
(at least, I'm sure DOF is very, very cheap) but this
way they sell a lot more of F5's.
Business is Business, also for Nikon.
=====
[Ed. note: if anyone can help Dan with more info, please do
so! Thanks!]
Bob,
My findings parallel yours exactly. I use mostly Canon FD equipment, but
also some EOS. After becoming dissatisfied with my autofocus results I
did some controlled testing, and found that I could consistently get about
100 lp/mm on film from the FD lenses, but only about half that with
autofocus. Manual focus of a known-to-be-sharp AF lens (on an A2E body)
only improved the situation slightly.
Question: do you know whether the microprism and/or split image screens
available for cameras like the Canon EOS 1n restore "real" manual focusing
quality, or are they inherently limited by their brightness requirement?
My benchmark is the original (mechanical, 1975) Canon F1n.
Another battle I'm currently fighting is blurring due to mirror impact.
After a round of disappointing results with an 80-200 f/4 L lens on a
Canon T90, I again did some controlled testing. The results were shocking
(pun?) and dismaying. With the mirror locked up (on the F1n) and at 1/250
sec, I could get 88+ lp/mm at 200mm. Without locking the mirror, the
results dropped to less than 50 lp/mm by 1/60 sec (and decreased at slower
speeds).
And this is with a Gitzo 1228/Foba/Arca. My disappointing results have
been explained, but the solution isn't obvious: only my oldest camera (the
F1n) has MLU capability, but it's devoid of modern metering features. And
newer cameras with MLU can't be focused.
I'd appreciate any insights you have wrt this situation.
Dan
From Nikon Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000
I do not know about the F3, but with my F5 I hold down my "cable
release" half way to lock in the exposure (when using an auto exposure
mode like A. Pri.). I then flip the mirror and take the shot. Also to
add my two cents worth I have recently did a test with mirror up vs down
with the above camera a 300 f4 and a 1.4 tc and the differences with a
10x loupe is detectable at slow (below 1/40) shutter speeds.
Ben
The F3 has an exposure lock also, but it is awkward for me to use.
Others might not agree with that statement.
Jim
From Nikon Mailing List:
you wrote:
MLU is very important in these kind of shots. I'll probably get flamed for
saying this, but 'I' can tell the difference, and so can many friends of
mine.
The FM2n is a better performer for this type of photography along with the
F4 and F5.
The differences is in the eye of the beholder.
;-)
From Pentax Mailing List:
At last, the Mirror lock-up results, thanks to Bob Burgos.
From: [email protected] (Roberto Burgos S.
__________________________________
Here are the results (better than I expected}
Gear: PZ1P, MZ5N (with and without battery grip Fg), FA200/f2.8, cable
release Fg, laser pointer keychain, Slik 444 tripod with standard head,
clothespin, two rubberbands, ruler.
________________________________________
Setup: Tripod fully extended, center post down, camera(s) attached to tripod
head (no tripod base on the FA200), laser pointer strapped to lens hood
(with
rubberbands) pointing to where the camera is aiming (lens axis),
clothespin
holding the laser pointer on button pressed. Gear was indoor no wind),
projection beam at white wall exactly 17 meters away.
Tests set A:
All test shots were done at 1 full second shutter speed with cable
release.
a) Single shot without MLU (2 sec), horizontal & vertical
Results A:
PZ1P / horizontal / no MLU: oscillation was less than the laser beam's
diameter, which I calculate in about 10 millimeters.
PZ1P / vertical / no MLU: oscillation was about 15 millimeters, in an up
and down motion
PZ1P / horizontal / 2sec MLU. Less oscillation than with horizontal.
Still not measurable.
PZ1P / vertical / 2sec MLU. Not measurable but still noticeable.
MZ5n (with grip Fg) /horizontal/: About 10 mm oscillation, up/down motion
MZ5n (with grp Fg) / vertical/: About 15 mm oscillation, circular motion.
MZ5n (no grip Fg)/ horizontal: Not measurable
MZ5n (no grip Fg) / vertical: About 10 mm oscillation, circular motion.
___________________________________________
Other discoveries:
a) In both cameras, when the mirror flaps down (end of exposure), there is
a big shake. It doesn't matter because the picture is already exposed.
b) Motion happens during the first moments of the exposure and soon stops.
c) I tested both cameras on continous shots/film advance. There is a
strong oscillation probably due to winder torque. On both cameras the
movement is circular and bigger that 30 mm oscillation.
d) Hanging my camera bag (about 20 pounds wt.) to the tripod seems to
reduce all oscillations to none detectable.
e) Tests done tripping the shutter by hand. Oscillation was too big.
______________________________________________
Conclusions:
As reported be Herbert Keppler (Pop Photo sept 99?), MLU does work but is
more noticeable at medium long speeds (1/30 to 1/2 sec.) Longer speeds do
have the same degree of movement but since the exposure is taken during a
longer period of time, the image is recorder mostly at no oscillation
moments.
Hanging something heavy from the tripod does help.
Vertical shots are more prone to oscillation.
Use a cable release.
Roberto Burgos S.
Mafud
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Henk & Marga Jamin [email protected] wrote:
I need real mirror lock-up a lot of times with macro work. Sitting there
with shutter cable in hand - I may only have a 1/2 second to fire before
the wind starts up again. Mirror pre-fire wouldn't help there. So no,
true MLU is needed for more than a few lenses.
Steve
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000
With the mirror locked up you will most likely get the least vibration
with a camera using leaf shutters (in lens shutters) at least that has
been my expericence.
Used to use a Mamiya 645 Pro TL and even with the mirror locked up
there seemed to be still quite of bit of vibration. Now using a
Hasselblad 503cw and in pre-release mode (mirror locked up auxillary
curtains open) vibration is vastly improved with leaf its leaf shutter
lenses.
Date: 10 Nov 2000
DAVID BRAITHWAITE [email protected] wrote:
None of these cameras has mirror lock to the best of my knowledge. You
only get that on a single-digit F camera (F5,4,3, etc.), or some of the
older bodies like the FM2 and, I think, the FE2 (not sure about the FE).
Someone recently did some fairly well thought-out MLU tests on the F100
mailing list, accessible at.
http://www.egroups.com/group/NikonF100
Search for a message entitled 'MLU and the "Moose technique"' by Joseph S.
Wisniewski.
His findings were that the F100 displayed detectable mirror vibration in
the range 1/60-1/4 sec, with the worst effects in the 1/30-1/8sec range.
The 8008 seemed to have about the same "danger zone" but the mirror
vibration was more pronounced. Unfortunately he did not have an
MLU-capable camera to test as a control.
I'm not sure if any of these tests were done at 1:1 and 2:1, but he did
try a variety of lenses included telephoto, macro, and tele-macro lenses.
Keep in mind that mirror shake is only an issue with macro if you're using
available light and your shutter speed falls into roughly the 1/30-1/4 sec
range. If you use flash as the main light then you shouldn't have any
problems, as the flash will effectively freeze any camera motion.
Paul
FRom contax mailing list;
I've explained this here before but maybe you weren't around then. Whether
a
camera has mirror lockup usually depends on the type of shutter it has.
Most metal blade shutters, the most common type in today's SLR cameras,
leak some light. They rely on the mirror being down as a secondary baffle
to block light until just before the photo is taken. Some metal blade
designs, like in the F5 and RTS III are more complicated and made to block
all light when closed, but cost a lot more to build. The shutter used in
the N1 is most likely one of the ones which is not 100% light tight when
closed, so a brief pre-release of the mirror as in a few seconds is OK,
but prolonged mirror lockup is not.
Bob
....
From Minolta Mailing List:
Minolta's "reason" for the 2 second delay for Mirror Lock Up (MLU) is
probably based on actual testing for avoiding mirror shake affecting
images at exposures of 1/15 second (the shutter speed area reported to be
the most affected by mirror shake).
But I question whether Minolta had many actual photographers use this
MLU method. As I have reported/noted/complained here many times, "real"
MLU locks the mirror up -- then the photographer should be able to trigger
the shutter when he likes, as often as he likes, including bracketing if
desired.
I do frequently use the 2" delay MLU on my 9, but never if action is
part of the subject. I just can't time that 2" delay with ANY action --
and that even includes Macro! If there is any wind and you are shooting
at f11, f16 for Depth of Field, then you either have to use flash to
defeat motion at slow shutter speeds, or time the shutter firing at just
that moment when the wind lets up. Just try that w/a 2" delay in there!
It never works for me.
Huff
Being a 800si user I haven't had to worry about it but, I often wondered
why Minolta picked a 2 second delay on their MLU (Mirror Lock Up) on their
new camera's.
Well, the Jan. 2001 issue of Petersons Photographic magazine may have just
answered my question. On page 45 (referencing using tripods with remote
cable release) if the shutter is set for � to 2 seconds then there will
incur some vibration. As we all know any vibration with be displayed as
blurriness in the final photo. Apparently anything faster than a � second
shouldn't be visually detectable with decent glass.
Any qualified comments??
Later,
From Nikon Mailing List:
Since the original poster asked for MLU or "timer MLU"
that makes the Folowing cameras viable:
FE2 and FM2n and FA (I think):
MLU on start of timer cycle
If you can live with 1/125 synch you have the FE and
FM has well.
Diego K.
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001
A long time ago, Pop Photo did a vibration test of the various manual
focus Nikon SLR's. There was a huge difference ranging from the EM to the
F's. With those cameras you seemed to get what you paid for because the
more expensive the body, the lower the vibration. They recommended a
minimum of 1/250th for the EM.
There is also a big difference in technology among SLR's. Some have just
a strip of foam while others like the Leicaflexes have a very
sophisticated crank-arm mechanism that slows the mirror just before it
strikes (greatly reducing mirror slap).
--
From: [email protected] (Ejkowalski)
...
Check the bumber above the mirror to see if it is indeed gooey and holding
the mirror stuck.
If that is not the problem, I'll bet the shutter curtain springs need
retensioning, with insufficient spring tension to pull the mechanism
through a full stroke. Not an operation for the unknowledgable or the
inexperienced. Camera needs work.
As an aside, the Spotmatics do INDEED have "mirror lockup", although this
not widely known or advertised....
if, after shutter is cocked, the release button is tapped quickly and
lightly with just the right controlled force, the mirror will spring up
without releasing the shutter... pushing the release button again will
cause the rest of a normal shutter release sequence. This procedure can be
learned with a little practice. Learned about it last year in this
Newsgroup. It can also be done with a number of other Pentax mechanical
bodies, including, if I remember correctly, the K1000.
EJKowalski
From: "Eric Freibrun" [email protected]
I disagree that mirror lock-up is an obsolete feature and view it to be
essential if you want to maximize the sharpness that good quality lenses
and fine grain film are capable of producing when combined with good
technique. I've tested my F100 for mirror vibration using a Nikon 80-200
f2.8 (w/tripod collar) on a sturdy Gitzo tripod against a test target 12
feet away with the lens set at 200mm. Not surprisingly, there was
noticeable loss of sharpness at shutter speeds between 1/5 - 1/40 sec.;
1/20, 1/15, 1/10, 1/8, 1/5 were particularly bad. I've done this same
test with an F5 under the same conditions with the mirror locked up and
have not experienced this loss of sharpness. (Without the mirror locked
up, the F5 seems worse than the F100 -- in fact, Nikon advertises that the
F100 has a newly designed mirror-dampening mechanism, which helps a bit.)
As a nature shooter who likes to shoot Velvia (ISO 50) in low light, I
often find myself having to shoot in the "mirror bounce danger zone." In
these circumstances, the F100's lack of mirror lock-up capability proves
to be a handicap in an otherwise fine camera.
Eric
...
[ed. note: thanks again to David Grabowski for sharing these
views!...]
"Ray C." [email protected]
wrote:
My theory is that tripod center colomn rigidity plays more into this
than either mirror up or focal plane vs leaf shuttered lenses do.
However, mirror up still shows gains over no mirror up from 125th
second and slower from my experience. Leaf shutters gain slightly more
in this regard but offer large gains in flash sync.control.
Leaf shutter is said to be king for slow speeds, focal plane shutter
for extra fast speeds, leaf shutter for flash sync, focal plane for
bright landscape shooting or freeze action natural light, where you
might use 1/1000, 1/2000 shutter speeds ( can't go there with leaf
shutters due to natural design).
Leaf shutter is basically a non vibrating mechanism just due to the
fact that all parts counter act one another, all leafs move out and
back in at the same time, counter balancing one another. Though you
can flash sync at all speeds, the leaf shutter action limits shutter
speeds to usually 1/500 or slower ( can not be timed to wider
apertures and maintain EV or non vignetting).
Depending on the focal plane shutter, various limits can be subjected
to the situation, though speed is almost unlimited due to the type of
action of the shutters. Still, and especially in medium format with
larger shutters , there just about has to be a counter acting
vibration set up through the shutter action ( back to the center
colomn rigidity ). Even with leaf shutters attached on a focal plane
camera , you need to be carefull with slower speeds of the leaf
shutter due to syncapation/ sycronization from the focal plane shutter
( yes the focal plane shutter still works with leaf shutter attached
in adapted leaf shutter applications). And so , this is why in many of
my posts I've stressed the use of an all leaf shutter camera for some
applications, particularly so for very slow shutter speed shooting (
often you can't even get the very slow speeds in an adapted system).
As to your harmonics at various shutter speeds in spite of mirror up,
it makes sense to me, though I would have little experience with this
since I use all leaf shutter lenses in medium format. I can tell you
though that there is a huge difference with mirror upvs. no mirror up
in using the RB 67 Pro S from even 125th sec or slower and epecially
so at 1/8 sec. but much of this is back to that tripod again ( have to
be careful with that bugger !).
I don't know much about your E, except that I liked it at a show I
went to . It is a focal plane camera, so I wasn't interested
personally. Sure sells at a bargain rate though.
All of the above is solely personal opinion and personal experience,
don't write a book with the info without very serious disclaimers !
David Grabowski
From SLR Mailing List:
[email protected] wrote:
None of the M42 Pentaxes had an official mirror lock-up, but many will
let you lock the mirror by lightly and quickly tapping the shutter
button. I prefer to flick it; others find that tapping works
better. Either way, it won't work on all of them, but it's definitely
worth trying. If the camera's in good shape it's likely to work.
chris
From SLR Mailing List:
Is mirror lock up with the self timer good enough?Apparently some
Cosina and Vivitar models did this. Check out this site if you haven't
yet.
http://anusf.anu.edu.au/~aab900/photography/cameras/cameras.htm
Dean
From Nikon MF Mailing List;
I shoot landscapes with my F2 so sharpness is absolutely critical to me.
Therefore I use prime lenses, a tripod, MLU, cable release or timer, and
my latest craze is a beanbag on top of the camera*. It occurred to me to
do a bit of testing under controlled conditions to see just what effect
any of this has. So I put my F2 + 105mm + 100 ASA film on a tripod and
pointed it at the backyard fence. I made the following shots:
1) 1/8 sec, MLU + timer release (7.5)
The parenthetical numbers at the end of each entry represent my estimate
of sharpness on a scale of 1 to 10 (based on scans at 2400 ppi, sharpened
to within an nanometer of their lives).
I had read (John Shaw) that the shutter speed range from about 1/8 to 1/15
sec is the most sensitive to internal vibrations, such as mirror slap. My
results certainly affirm that with a vengeance. I had supposed that using
MLU + timer or cable release would completely negate such vibrations.
Looks like I was totally wrong about that!
What's really blowing me away is shot 5, handheld. I shot several other
handhelds on the same roll but none were as sharp as that. Pure luck, I
suppose. However, the purpose of all this are the following questions:
A) can anyone else validate my results that shutter speeds around 1/8 are
poison with or without MLU?
B) does this apply to later models than the F2?
C) what the heck is vibrating inside the camera, given that the mirror is
locked up?
_________________________
*The beanbag comes from a post (photo.net?) from an engineer who did a
similar test series with a sensitive electronic vibration detector
(seismometer perhaps) attached to the camera, to see whether damping the
camera with one's hand on it (my previous practice) helped. He found that
it didn't but that a bean bag on the camera did.
From Nikon MF Mailing List;
Dale Cotton wrote:
An interesting experiment which certainly addresses important aspects of
technique. However, I seem to remember someone (perhaps it was on the
Leica User's Group list - you can imagine how picky they are) saying
that film scans were not an entirely valid method of evaluating image
quality (sharpness, resolving power, or whatever), even at 2400 dpi,
because of the many variables involved in the scanning process. Not
knowing how true this is myself, can anyone offer any insights into this
claim?
Still intrigued by the question of camera vibration, I came up with a
way of conducting my own (equally unscientific) method of isolating
different types of camera vibration, without burning up any film. I
grabbed my trusty old Nikon F (sold my F2's several years ago), and
strapped one of them laser pointers to its bottom with a couple of stout
rubber bands. (Hey, I said it was unscientific!) I oriented the laser
to point in the same general direction as the lens, at a wall 15 feet
away to magnify any camera movement/vibration. (The rubber band
pressure held the button down on the laser pointer.) I placed the
camera on a table, cushioned by a mouse pad so as not to hinder any
camera movement. The results were rather interesting.
First, I found that the laser spot on the wall would indicate camera
movement in both horizontal and vertical axes. Mirror slap caused quite
noticeable laser movement up and down, while shutter operation caused
horizontal laser movement to a much lesser degree. (I won't even begin
to try to quantify these results.)
Firing the camera with the self timer, both with the mirror locked up
and without, proved that the use of the mirror lockup feature can reduce
camera movement. I was surprised to find that a substantial vibration
was caused by the clunk of the self timer at the end of its travel, but
this occurs after exposure with shutter speeds of 1/2 second and
shorter.
After my wife asked me; "What the hell are you doin'?", I ceased my
experiments, but it would be interesting to compare the results of
different SLR cameras, both old and new generation.
Randy Holst
From Nikon MF Mailing List:
Dale Cotton wrote:
Dear Dale,
thank you for sharing your results. As a Nature Photographer, I am
continuously fighting against vibrations, namely when I shoot macro and
wildlife images. Landscape is a less critical issue, at least when using
focal lengths shorter than 150 mm. All Nature Photographers, both amateurs
and professionals, share the same troubles (see
http://www.poelking.de/englisch/ScharfeF.htm).
I use an FM and a F801 (N8008). As you know, the FM has a kind of MLU when
one uses self-timer and F801 does not permit MLU. I took pictures with the
same lens ( AF Sigma 300/4) coupled to either the FM or the F801 and used
self-timer with FM. Well, no image was sharp (10 in your scale, and the
Sigma 300/4 is a sharp lens), and the images taken using the FM were less
sharp than those shot with F801 (shutter speed was 1/125 on Gitzo G1320
tripod and Foba head), despite MLU.
I don't know if the FM vibrates more because its self-timer clockwork
mechanism induces more vibrations or not. But I am sure that the shutter
vibrates, so MLU does not solve all the problems. Now, since vibration
quenching depends on the mass of the camera+lens, it's not meaningful to
give an answer to your question A. I took sharpest images with my AF
Tokina 100-300/4 (@ 300 mm) + TC-14B using 1/8 on tripod. The total mass
(camera+lens+TC) was around 2.5 kg ! and this immensely helps to quench
vibrations. On the same tripod, the same camera coupled to my AIS 200/4
produces blurred images with the same shutter speed, even if the focal
length is much shorter (one half). To shoot wildlife, I love my AF Tokina
ATX 400/5.6. It's a lightweight long tele (less than 1 kg) and it's very
comfortable to use hand-held. Well, it's very difficult to use it on
tripod, due to vibrations, which are not quenched by its low mass. So, I
have to use some tricks to get (orwould be better to say "to try to get")
sharp images. One trick is the use of a finger pressed against the lens
hood. In this way I can take sharp pictures using 1/90 sec. With the cable
release, on tripod, images taken @ 1/90 without the "finger trick" are
unsharp. Unfortunately, the "finger trick" is not 100% reproducible; this
implies that NOT ALL PICTURES taken by pressing the finger against the
hood are sharp.
My 400/5.6 gives rise to sharp images @ 1/8th sec on my Gitzo. The most
"dangerous" shutter speeds are between 1/30 and 1/250 (on tripod !!). And
these are the most common shutter speeds I use with Velvia or 100 ISO
films :(
Another effect which could influence the occurrence of blurring induced by
vibrations (they always exhist!) is the presence or not of the tripod
collar, and its quality. The tripod collar of my Tokina ATX 100-300/4 is
more solidly built & rigid than the collar of the 400/5.6, and this is
crazy!
Anyway, the use of lightweight telephotos on new cameras with improved
shutter mechanics (like F100 and F5) could probably be easier. And any
information from list members using those cameras (even if AF :) ) would
be much appreciated.
Regards,
Riccardo Polini
From Leica User Group:
This is the Mirror Lock Up (MLU) and requires either a cable release or a
button release (Leica part number 14087). I use two cable releases, one
for MLU and the other for the shutter (top of camera.) Some people like a
14087 button for the mirror and a cable release for the shutter. You
should use MLU whenever you are on a tripod and using a shutter speed
1/30th and slower. This keeps camera vibration (from the mirror slapping
up) from causing reduced resolution (blurry pictures.) It (mirror slap)
can kill the recording of fine detail.
Jim
[Ed. note: thanks to Bill Tuthill for sharing these points! ]
I've been trying to avoid saying this, because this is a
Minolta discussion group, but the proper way to implement
modern MLU is the way Canon did it on the Elan 7 (30/33).
A small remote control can trip the shutter, and in mode 2
of MLU, the first signal raises the mirror, and the second
signal takes the photo. (Mode 1 uses a 2-second delay.)
This allows a photographer to wait for the wind to stop!!!
Minolta will finally have a remote control for the "5"
but as far as I can tell, MLU is not in the feature list.
Bill Tuthill
From Nikon Mailing List;
Scott Perkins wrote:
In part, true MLU allows fitting certain older lenses which extend back
into the camera, almost to the shutter curtain. This includes some
fisheyes, and I think some of the early wide-angles. Also, for any type of
photography where vibration is a factor, such as astro-photography, or for
quieter operation where the viewfinder is not needed. I was stunned when I
heard how quiet the F is in this mode.
Pseudo-MLU, such as that on the FM & FE is only for vibration, but may
still not be suitable for telescope mounting, as the mirror returns once
the shot is taken, vibrating the telescope. I have not done this type of
photography, so I'm not certain about how suitable or unsuitable it might
be. I have used this quite a bit in macro and long telephoto shooting, and
it works quite well if exact trigger time is not a factor.
--
[Ed. note: special thanks to KinWan Hui for sharing these tips!]
Here are a few observations I would like to share regarding mirror lockup.
Gear: Nikon F5, Bogen 3221(center column stay down), Gitzo 1276 quick
release ball head no shutter release cable. Other cameras I used - N8008,
FA, FM. Gitzo Report legs with Gitzo ball head.
Area: Landscape, Macro flora
Problem:
F5: As I lockup the mirror on the F5, I can only use MF and Manual
exposure. But since the reading is before the lockup, the reading was off
if one does not shoot it very quick.
In my case, I was shooting at 7pm. The light goes down very fast.
Yet, I was shooting coastal sea waves and need to wait for the waves
to impact and retreat to have proper composition. The result is 1.3 stops
overexposed. There are other shots that came out well.
FM: The timer MLU sucks on the FM. The timer produces too much vibration.
There is a bigger vibration at the end of timer that gives bad results.
FA: The timer MLU is more acceptable with FA compare to FM. The shutter
closes before end of the timer. Still, there is vibration introduced by
the timer.
Also, I think the "long lens shooting technique" is better than
using release cable.
The technique is to have your body (head with eyepiece cup and
left hand rest onto the barrel or tripod collar) and shoot with a light
rolling of the finger tip.
Using shutter release cable, my buddy does not put his face and
hands onto the camera or lens body to absorb the vibration.
One other thing I notice from my buddy's setup (N80, no MLU), the
QR plate is not dead tight.
Even though he has the best tripod, the QR plate is slightly
loose. And he uses the release cable and slowly releases on the tripod.
The result IS worst than finger shooting [see tip above].
Overall, I like the F5 mirror lockup. But it is not user friendly design.
Would better be part of the custom setting such as how many hundred ms
between the lockup and the shutter blade [start of travel].
The landscape grain (using lightbox with 10x Horizon loupe)
difference does come out on the Provia, Velvia, and Astia. I would say
Provia has better detail but not color wise.
Astia sucks on landscape. Velvia is good as long as the exposure
time is less than 1-2 sec. especially before sunset shots. For Night/long
time exposure, I will go with Astia for vivid light [and colors].
And if it is the landscape form but not the color saturation
[that] matters, I will go with Provia.
Another thing I have not yet experienced and would like to hear about is
weight usage/experiments onto the tripod legs.
-Kin, [email protected]
From: Paul Chefurka [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Leica..
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002
Paul Rubin [email protected] wrote:
>When I fire the shutter on my Nikon FM10 (very light cheap mechanical
>SLR), I can really feel the camera body jump. The F3 jumps a lot
>less. I don't see any blatantly obvious vibration blur in the FM10
>pictures, but if I compared them carefully with F3 pictures, there
>might very well be a difference at normal shutter speeds.
Maybe not. A lot of that vibration is produced by the mirror slamming back
down after the shutter is closed. For a look at how vibration perceptions
may not be reality, see
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/645-mlu.htm
Paul
From: [email protected] (Michael Reichmann)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Pentax 645NII MLU Test
Date: 29 Jan 2002
Since its introduction in 1984 there has been a debate as to whether
the Pentax 645 really needed mirror lock up (MLU). Owners said it
didn't because it featured a superior mirror braking system, while
pundits said that it did.
With the introduction of the new 645NII, which does feature MLU, it's
now possible to settle that debate.
The results are at http://www.luminous-landscape.com/645-mlu.htm
Michael
From Nikon mailing list:
From: "rollin" [email protected]
Date: Sun, 5 May 2002
Subject: [Nikon] delay times
Dear Al,
The D-series seem to have a shutter lag of 58 ms, I found no data of the
coolpix
rollin
From contax mailing list:
From: "Alan Naylor" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Contax] RE: Mirror damping Aria - RX
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002
...
FWIW here are two quotes from Zeiss (in the context of achievable resolution
and mirror shake):
"Use the mirror pre-release feature, if your camera has it (Every camera
that has it, needs it. The opposite is not true! Not every camera that comes
without, can
achieve high resolution photos.)" [Camera Lens News No. 4 Spring 1998 page
3]
So, Zeiss must consider that the RTS III mirror is sufficiently 'noisy' to
need the mirror lock-up feature.
"Objects of 4 millimeter in size (approximately 1/6 of an inch) have been
imaged from almost 400 meters distance (more than 1.000 feet) with a 100 mm
Carl Zeiss Makro-Planar lens at f/5.6 and a Contax RTS III 35 mm SLR camera
featuring the unique Contax vacuum pressure plate. Similar results were
obtained with Contax AX 35 mm autofocus SLR, Contax RX 35 mm low noise SLR
... ...." [Camera Lens News No. 2 Fall 1997 page 3]
That would imply that the RX and AX, even with no MLU, have simlilar
performance to the RTS III (presumably with MLU used when necessary).
Alan
From contax mailing list:
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002
From: Jeff Lorriman [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Contax] RE: Mirror damping TEST !!! do this yourself
You can buy a long lens support from Manfrotto that works with any
tripod. It screws into the camera tripod socket and the other end clamps
around a tripod leg. It adjusts in length and position similarly to a
monopod with a small ball head. If you look in the catalogue you'll see
what I mean. It really steadies thing up.
Jeff
From contax mailing list:
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002
From: Joe Doehler [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Contax] RE: Mirror damping TEST !!! do this yourself
Jerzy Kolaczynski wrote:
>...
>I've read once an article about problems with using long lenses like 600 mm,
>when people finally get them and couldn't use it. The advice was: put one
>hand at the end of the lens, because it will stop vibrations! It was here:
>http://www.naturephotographers.net/bh0201-1.html
>...
Some very stiff tripods tend to resonate in response to a shutter being
released; I suppose that is why some photographer prefer wood tripods which
tend to dampen vibrations - the same reason why wood is a preferred
material for speaker cabinets. It helps in some cases not to tighten down
the ball head all the way, but to use its viscous lubricant as a dampener.
Gently holding your camera while on its tripod may also help in certain
circumstances. You need to experiment with your particular setup, as what
was suggested may help at certain shutter speeds and hurt at others.
The trick of coupling a glass of water (or a laser pointer) to the camera
in interesting, but in my opinion, does not not tell whether the vibrations
occurred before, during, or after the exposure.
My 2 cents.
Joe.
From: [email protected] (FLEXARET2)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 29 Jun 2002
Subject: Re: Mirror Lockup Do I Need It?
Let the controversy start:
Using sturdy tripods for tele work to macro - I have never found a need for
mirror lockup even on 35MM cameras which have it.
Since it creates time parallax (not letting you see the subject at time of
exposure) and cannot be used hand-held, it is a very specialized feature
which I think gives the user more of a comfort level than anything else.
I get incredible sharp pictures with Kiev 88CM and Kiev 88 crank model-
and get incredible sharp pictures with Bronica S2A, in which most of the
vibration takes place after the photo is taken and the mirror returns.
I think it is more of a sales feature for very rare use than something
needed in most common photography.
- Sam Sherman
From: fotocord [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment
Subject: Re: Mirror Lockup Do I Need It?
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002
Dan Quinn wrote:
> Herbert Keppler's article in Popular Photography two or three years
> ago was an eye opener. At some speeds a camera can realy shake.
>
Yes it can shake pretty bad. A big HEAVY tripod can eliminate this but MLU
is a lot lighter than a huge tripod. For some things MLU won't work but for
anything it can be used for, especially high magnification work, it's a
good idea. It sure doesn't hurt anything.
I've found I can get away with a 3001/3262 tripod using MLU but need a
3021/3047 (which is almost twice as heavy) to get the same results without
it on 180+mm lenses or macro work. I did some simple testing with a MLU
Kiev 60 facing down with a glass of water on the back and watched while I
triggered just the mirror and then the shutter. Even with it's large focal
plane shutter, the mirror shook the camera much more than the shutter and
it isn't an instant return mirror so all this shake is pre exposure. Of
course with handheld shots, this isn't a problem, between the dampening of
being handheld (+ the shake from being handheld {G}) you'd never see it.
As far as do you need it? Like I said I've found I can get away with a
smaller/lighter tripod if I use a camera that has it and still get good
results. IMHO that in itself is worth it. If you don't have it, you can use
a heavy tripod and solve the problem that way. If you have a camera without
MLU, you have no way to test if the mirror or the shutter is the problem.
--
Stacey
From: "mp" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Mirror Lockup Do I Need It?
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002
> > The degree of vibration and range of shutter speeds affected can range quite
> > a bit more than you've stated. It depends on the camera/lens/tripod
> > combination.
> >
> Not according to John Shaw or my own observations. I do mostly work with
> 35mm, which as you know has much smaller mirrors and thus less mirror slap.
> YMMV
Ok. With 35mm you and John Shaw are probably right. But this is a medium
format newsroup. And medium format SLR's have much bigger (and heavier)
mirrors. With the Hasselblad, I find MLU necessary at anything below 1/60
(and may vary with tripod and lens used). With the Pentax 67, MLU should
probably be used most of the time, especially with the longer lenses.
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002
From: Mark Rabiner [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] MLU & cropping drudgery
Karl Wolz wrote:
>
> Jim,
>
> I'm not weighing in on this argument on either side, but I do have a
> thought on this subject. Although I'm certain you "could" use MLU
> handheld, I'm not quite sure why you would want to. My thought is that
> you cannot see exactly what is in the frame (someone mentioned giving
> generous trim area, but in that case, you might as well use a 35) so
> composition is difficult, but moreover, the motion blur provided by
> handholding is likely to far exceed that saved by MLU. I believe that
> I'll stick with my sticks, THEN use MLU.
>
> Karl Wolz
There's bound to be a time when you get a shot and it goes off with too
much of a bang and you try it again with the mirror locked up, it's
always worth it when you see the final results.
If things are moving slow and my shutter speed is a little slower than i
like and the camera is feeling in the circumstance like there is a
Howitzer going off then I'll brace it, lock it up and get the shot and
it goes off smoothly.
It almost sounds like I'm doing it to hush down the noise as much as
mush. Perhaps I am.
A fella who works at the color lab who shoots weddings told me he feels
this saves his ass several times a wedding.
I told him i do it once or twice maybe and feel the same.
I can see how it may seem not obvious to a good amount of people but
you've got to learn to trust the force once in a while. Turn off the "laser".
Mark Rabiner
Portland, Oregon USA
http://www.markrabiner.com
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: RE: [HUG] MLU & cropping drudgery
I use it a lot when photographing with my 110/2 in very low light. Even in
medium low light if I want some DOF. 1/30th and slower with a 203 focal
plane shutter plus big mirror is a lot of rock and roll.
You hold the camera in to your stomach tightly, press the finder against
your eye (chimney or 45 prism works best for me), take a breath, frame,
focus, let half of your breath out, push MLU with middle finger of left
hand, then the release with your index finger. It is a simple frame/focus,
hold, release, release.
I know a lot of people that do this. You cannot always have a tripod,
especially in establishments with people eating and drinking.
Hand held MLU works wonders at weddings when you want natural window light
on the bride and the entourage getting ready and you don't have time and/or
space for a tripod.
Anyway, it just works! And works very well in many situations that are
otherwise pretty much un-photographable without major intrusion.
:)
Jim
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002
From: Stuart Phillips [email protected]
Subject: RE: [HUG] MLU & cropping drudgery
As I said before, I use pre-release (I called it lockup before)
successfully, kneeling or crouching in dark buildings) with a 501c. If I
had a 2000 model with lock-up, I believe I would use that just as
successfully. I don't move, so I don't change my picture framing. This
is a specialized situation though, just one I happen to find myself in
quite often with the type of photography I am doing - they often don't
allow the use of tripods.
Stuart Phillips
...
From: "Patrick Umlauf" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Mirror Lockup Do I Need It?
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002
I did several tests with my Nikons and a test chart. MLU definitely is the
best way to avoid a decrease in resolution. Even a sturdy and heavy tripod
can't avoid the vibration inside the camera's body. Your ETRSi should be
sturdy enough, though. With a Pentax 645 I noticed a very slight unsharpness
with a 150mm lens, but could eliminate it completely with a bean bag placed
on the lens barrel.
Patrick
"Dan Quinn" [email protected] schrieb
> Herbert Keppler's article in Popular Photography two or three years
> ago was an eye opener. At some speeds a camera can realy shake.
>
> Is that a problem with my ETRSi? Preliminary tests are inconclusive.
Dan
From: [email protected] (Bill Hilton)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 13 Aug 2002
Subject: Re: Vibration question Pentax 645 v. 645N
Photographer Michael Reichmann tested the Pentax 645 vs the 645 NII to see if
the mirror lock up made a difference. You can read his conclusions at this
site ...
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/645-mlu.shtml
>From: "N8" [email protected]
>
>Assuming I'm not terribly interested in the other features of the 645n - How
>does the new Mirror dampening system work?
>
>Secondly... was the Mirror vibration all that bad in the old 645?
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002
From: "slide" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Mirror lock up: sharpness impossible without it
I just found out that I've never taken a sharp photo. In the Sept. Outdoor
Photographer, George Lepp says:
"I often use shutter speeds in the 1/15 to several second range using
neutral-density filters. Without mirror lock-up, a sharp image at these
speeds is impossible."
The majority of the shots I take fall into this shutter-speed range. Since
most of the Canon manual focus cameras do not have mirror lock up, I suppose
no one using the Canon T-90, A-1, AE-1, or F-1 has taken a sharp photo at
these speeds either.
-slide
From: [email protected] (Ralf R. Radermacher)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Mirror lock up: sharpness impossible without it
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002
William E. Graham [email protected] wrote:
> Perhaps mirror lock-up would help a shot taken at 1/15th
> second, but at "several seconds"....I doubt it. Consider the
> percentage of time the camera is being shook by the moving
> mirror, vs. the percentage of time it's sitting there, solid
> as a rock.....
Exactly. From my own experience, focal lengths >300 mm and times between
1/15 and 1 sec are in fact critical.
I've been doing tests with a 5.6/500 mm lens, a quite decent Manfrotoo
tripod, the Manfrotto tele lens bracket, and a number of 35 mm SLRs,
lately. At 1/8 sec, this combination can't be tamed and mirror lockup
would clearly help.
Ralf
Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - K�ln/Cologne, Germany
NEW URL!!! private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de
From: "Wes J" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Mirror lock up: sharpness impossible without it
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002
First I believe the original F1 had mirror lockup. Second, a few years ago
the "hated" magazine Popular Photography did a test on the effects of MLU.
Their conclusion? MLU is a great benefit. They said this even knowing most
of the cameras advertised in their magazine lacked the feature. So much
(again) for PP sucking up to its advertisers!
"slide" [email protected] wrote...
> I just found out that I've never taken a sharp photo. In the Sept. Outdoor
> Photographer, George Lepp says:
>
> "I often use shutter speeds in the 1/15 to several second range using
> neutral-density filters. Without mirror lock-up, a sharp image at these
> speeds is impossible."
>
> The majority of the shots I take fall into this shutter-speed range. Since
> most of the Canon manual focus cameras do not have mirror lock up, I suppose
> no one using the Canon T-90, A-1, AE-1, or F-1 has taken a sharp photo at
> these speeds either.
>
> -slide
From nikon mf mailing list:
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002
From: "George M. Henke" [email protected]
Subject: [Nikon] Mirror lock-up
See George Lepp's article in this month's OUTDOOR
PHOTOGRAPHY. He believes that for professional results
mirror lock up is important when shooting at slow
shutter speeds. I keep my F3HP for this reason
although I shoot most images with my F100.
From: Mark Tuccillo [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Mirror lock up: sharpness impossible without it
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002
In 32 years, I have found only one situation where MLU was essential. That was
shooting through a microscope, and the mirror on my Nikon F was causing
significant shake. I was shooting some slides of body tissue stuff for a friend
who was ( is ) a biology teacher. That was about 25 years ago and although I
have three bodies with some form of MLU, I have never used it since. Pictures
taken with a 500mm mirror lens and a 1.4X on the F100 have come out very sharp,
even at 1/15 sec. The latest Nikon bodies have such well dampened mirrors that
MLU is obsolete. However, George shoots with Canon bodies, which explains his
comments.
Mark
From: "Scott Elliot" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: mirror lockup
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003
Mirror lock-up does make a noticeable difference at slower shutter speeds on
macro shots. You often need slow shutter speeds because you have to use a
small aperture to get enough depth of field.
Some cameras have a type of mirror lock-up by first flipping the mirror,
then releasing the shutter after a 2 second delay to let vibrations quiet
down. This is not very convenient because you often want to time shutter
release when there are pauses in breezes for wildflowers or when an insect
is in the right postion. I don't know about the other cameras you mention,
but on the EOS 3 you can set custom function 12 so that the mirror flips the
first time you press the shutter and the shutter fires with the second
press. (Usually you don't touch the camera, but press the button on the
remote release.) Canon usually doesn't have anything that Nikon and Minolta
don't so those brands must have models with similar functions.
I have the Sigma 105 macro lens. It is very sharp and well made, but I
believe the Tamron is just as good so it doesn't really matter which you
use. If I was replacing my macro lens I would have a good look at the Canon
100 USM macro lens. It has an optional tripod collar which would be handy
for taking macro shots in portrait orientation.
Scott Elliot
http://www3.telus.net/selliot/
...
From: "PSsquare" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: mirror lockup
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003
Yes, mirror lock up will make a big difference in micro photos. Both my
Nikon F4 and FM2 have it. Couldn't do without it. Some of the manual
bodies such as the FM2 flip up the mirror when you use the timer, so you
get mirror lock up with the minor inconvenience of a time delay. In
intermittent breezes this can be a bit of a hassle, but the lightweight FM2
is welcome on long hikes.
I am not fanatic about Nikon and might have gone to Canon just as easiliy.
But, of all the camera makers, Minolta is the one I would avoid given
personal experience doing micro photography in my technical job. Minoltas
were provided, and had poor reliability and irritating automation features
that made camera set up difficult for most of my colleages. AFter about 3
years, we decided the Minolta was not worth repairing again and overrode the
purchasing agent to buy a N60 as I recall.
If I had the extra cash, I would purchase a micro lens made by the camera
body's manufacturer whether it is Nikon, Canon, Pentax etc. I did with my
105mm Nikkor lens and never have regretted it. (Note that I said "micro" not
"macro". Strangely, the terms are applied incorrectly in USA. Macro is the
big picture; micro is the detailed close up view. That is not the only
thing we have mixed up in USA right now.)
Finally, the really critical item for good close up work is a substantial
tripod. There is no such thing as a good, inexpensive, lightweight tripod.
Always use a tripod. Camera positioning is very critical for micro work,
and putting the camera on a tripod brings a certain methodical evaluation of
the composition and depth of field that is beneficial. I have not see
evidence that VR lenses can substitute for a tripod in micro work. (They
are great on a boat etc.)
Have fun. The wildflowers are a comin' soon.
PSsquare
From: "Matt Clara" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: When To Use MLU?
Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2003
> At what shutter speeds should mirror lockup be used? Will MLU make that
> much difference with medium and wide angle lenses?
>
> Cody H.
John Shaw indicates in his books that any shot between 1 second and 1/15th
of a second would benefit from the use of mirror lockup. Anything shorter
and the vibration isn't recorded, and anything longer and the exposure time
required makes the vibration a moot point--it settles down by the time the
image is recorded. Seems like the latter might introduce some minimal soft
focus effect. The medium-format guys tend to go with a wider window, but
their mirrors are a lot bigger and harder to dampen.
mc
From: "Bandicoot" "insert_handle_here"@techemail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: When To Use MLU?
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003
"Bill Hilton" [email protected] wrote
> >From: "Matt Clara" [email protected]
>
> >John Shaw indicates in his books that any shot between 1 second and 1/15th
> >of a second would benefit from the use of mirror lockup. Anything shorter
> >and the vibration isn't recorded, and anything longer and the exposure time
> >required makes the vibration a moot point--it settles down by the time the
> >image is recorded.
>
> In one of John's books he says he uses MLU every time possible, even when
> shooting with a 24 mm at 1/500th sec.
>
> Bill
Any time the camera is on a tripod and I don't actually need to see the
image right up to the moment of exposure, I use MLU - why wouldn't I? Yes
it makes more difference at some speeds than others, and obviously it
matters most with longer lenses, lighter bodies, etc. etc. - but anything
that improves the image is worth doing because I don't (usually) know when I
take it how much I will eventually want to enlarge a given frame. If I do
_know_ it is only snapshot (in the colloquial use of the term) I don't
bother, but that is about it.
Hand-holding with MLU is awkward, but if circumstances force me into hand
holding at speeds I'd much rather not, then once again, it helps.
Peter
From: [email protected] (Bill Hilton)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 09 Mar 2003
Subject: Re: When To Use MLU?
>From: "Matt Clara" [email protected]
>John Shaw indicates in his books that any shot between 1 second and 1/15th
>of a second would benefit from the use of mirror lockup. Anything shorter
>and the vibration isn't recorded, and anything longer and the exposure time
>required makes the vibration a moot point--it settles down by the time the
>image is recorded.
In one of John's books he says he uses MLU every time possible, even when
shooting with a 24 mm at 1/500th sec.
Bill
From: "dr bob" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: MLU
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003
"Stacey" [email protected] wrote
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > At what speed does it become a non-issue. Or does mirror slap affect
> > the image at all speeds?
>
> On a big sturdy tripod it makes little difference. I found with my kievs
> that using MLU in the 1/4-1/60 range, I can get away with using a much
> lighter weight tripod so IMHO is worth having.
> --
> Stacey
About 198x, I was using a lot of 35mm SLRs and was disappointed with the
"crispness" I remembered getting with an old. non-sophisticated Kodak Signet
rangefinder, the metal type. Comparing slides side by side revealed quite a
bit of difference which I attributed to camera shake.
I set up a test using a fairly light weigh tripod and the two cameras with
50mm lenses and Kodachrome. One was the Signet the other was a Nikon FE2.
The subject was a newly constructed church and surrounding gardens. I made
several frames with the Nikon with the MLU (one must use the timer to lock
the mirror on the Nikon) in succession with "normal" shutter operation.
There was considerable difference even with the tripod. (I still think the
slides made in the Signet with its Ektar lens were a little bit crisper and
more saturated than those with the Nikon.)
That experience led me to chose the Koni Omega rangefinder when I moved
(back) to medium format in the '90s. I did another side-by side "test" (not
too sophisticated) with my friend's Hasselblad 501C and the KO. The results
are on Bob Monagham's site. I also obtained a Mamiya C330f from the same
individual. Using the Mamiya with the shoulder strap and my special
foot-cord (connected to the tripod socket) I can produce clear images with
shutter speeds as low as 1/8 second. I am a strong believer in tripods and
MLU (or non-SLR) cameras for most purposes. The exception is in macro
photography and other specialized applications (astro et c.)
Truly, dr bob.
From: "Tom Thackrey" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: MLU
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003
[email protected] wrote:
> At what speed does it become a non-issue. Or does mirror slap affect
> the image at all speeds?
It may have some effect at all speeds, however it is most noticable in about
the 1/60th to 1/2 sec range (highly dependent on the camera!!!)
Longer shutter times tend to negate the mirror slap because it becomes a
small part of the total exposure.
Shorter shutter times tend to negate it because the shutter is open so
briefly.
http://www.photo.net/nature/mlu
--
Tom Thackrey
www.creative-light.com
From: [email protected] (Bill Hilton)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 24 Jul 2003
Subject: Re: MLU
>> [email protected] wrote
>> At what speed does it become a non-issue. Or does mirror slap affect
>> the image at all speeds?
>From: "Jeremy" [email protected]
>It is an issue at all speeds, but my understanding is that certain cameras,
>notably the Pentax 67, 67II and 645, exhibit excessive vibration at speeds
>under 1/30.
The Pentax 67 has serious mirror slap problems, but the Pentax 645 has a
well-damped mirror. Here's an article which tested the older non-MLU 645
against the new model with MLU at a range of speeds like 1/20, 1/10, 1/6 and
1/3 sec and didn't see a bit of difference.
http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/645-mlu.shtml
Most people feel 1/15th sec and 1/8 sec are the trouble spots.
Bill
From: [email protected] (Bob Monaghan)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: MLU
Date: 1 Aug 2003
The bronica S2A has a legendary massive and loud shutter movement. It
would probably start a tsunami in Stacey's water in the glass test ;-)
But it doesn't impact the photos. The really big thundering crashes all
happen AFTER the shutter has opened, exposed the film, and closed. Any
noise or motion after the film has been exposed doesn't impact the image
on film. This is why many users are able to be happy with bronica S2As and
pentax 67 and so on.
A similar flaw in the projection with laser pointer tests, again, because
you don't know the timing of the motion or noise versus whether the film
is exposed or not.
A better vibration issues test is a stereo sound card and microphone, plus
something like a light sensor (CDS..) on the camera, plus the software
that lets you see what is being recorded on the two channels. With this
setup, you can see the noise generated by the camera on one channel, and
the period when the sensor is illuminated on the other. What you find is
that most of the noise does NOT happen during the exposure, but prior to
it and mostly after it.
It is also odd that the peak noise levels of many medium format cameras
are about the same. The mamiya 645 records as 81 dB peak, which is more
than twice (3db) that of the hasselblad 500cm. (see
http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/sounds.html for table etc.).
hth bobm
From: "Brian Ellis" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: MLU
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003
The "mirror slap" that is mentioned so offen with the Pentax 67 is based on
a misunderstanding of what the people who talk about it are actually
hearing. The "slap" sound that is heard when the shutter is tripped after
the mirror has been locked up is the sound of the mirror returning to its
"down" position after the photograph has been made. Since the photograph has
already been made at that point the "slap" obviously has no effect on the
quality of the image.
While it's possible that "mirror slap" is a greater problem with the Pentax
67/67II than with other cameras if mirror lock up isn't used (I don't know,
I've never used any other 6x7 cameras) it's so simple to engage mirror lock
up that I always use it no matter what the shutter speed. The only time I
can think of when you might not use mirror lock up with the Pentax 67 is
when the camera is being hand-held. While it's sometimes feasible to use the
camera hand-held and I've done it on rare occasions with excellent results,
that really isn't the way it generally should be used if you want optimum
image quality.
-
Images and Photography Information www.ellisgalleries.com
...
From: Stacey [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: MLU
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003
Brian Ellis wrote:
> I've never had the first problem with anything I could
> attribute to "mirror slap" or "shutter shake" (the other supposed problem
> with this camera).
Snip
>Of course I do always use a tripod, I do always
> make sure that any tripod I use will adequately support the camera, I do
> always use MLU, I take my time, I carefully focus, etc.
If you always use MLU, how do you know if there is a mirror slap problem or
not? :-)
My test is a fairly simple one. Point the camera down, place a glass of
water on the back and using a cable release fire the shutter on B. If the
water moves, the camera either has a mirror slap or a first curtain slap or
both. My K-60 shook the water without MLU but didn't with MLU so obviously
there is a mirror slap thing going on to some extent and depending on the
use/shutter speed could be an issue.
--
Stacey
From: "Brian Ellis" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: MLU
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003
Do you base your statements that the Pentax 67 camera suffers from "serious
mirror slap problems" on your own testing? If so could you provide us with
the methodology you used in your tests? If not, what is the basis for the
statement? Hopefully it isn't just stuff you've read about on the internet
or that silly "shutter shake" review in Luminous Landscape.
FWIW, I've used a Pentax 67 camera quite a lot for about eight years with
six different lenses on three different tripods, at shutter speeds as slow
as several miutes. I've never had the first problem with anything I could
attribute to "mirror slap" or "shutter shake" (the other supposed problem
with this camera). If I focus carefully and expose correctly my images are
tack sharp, indistingusihable at print sizes up to 11x14 from prints I make
from my 4x5 negatives.Of course I do always use a tripod, I do always make
sure that any tripod I use will adequately support the camera, I do always
use MLU, I take my time, I carefully focus, etc. In other words, I try to
use the camera in a way that I think it was intended to be used. I'm not
always successful but when I'm not I don't blame it on "mirror slap" or
"shutter shake."
The Pentax 67 camera was introduced in 1969 as I recall and remained on the
market in substantially the same form for around 30 years, probably a record
or verl close to it for length of time any camera has remained on the market
without significant changes. I don't understand how anyone can think a
camera could really suffer from "serious mirror slap problems" or "shutter
shake" and still remain on the market for that length of time.
Images and Photography Information www.ellisgalleries.com
"Bill Hilton" [email protected] wrote
> >> [email protected] wrote
>
> >> At what speed does it become a non-issue. Or does mirror slap affect
> >> the image at all speeds?
>
> >From: "Jeremy" [email protected]
> >It is an issue at all speeds, but my understanding is that certain cameras,
> >notably the Pentax 67, 67II and 645, exhibit excessive vibration at speeds
> >under 1/30.
>
> The Pentax 67 has serious mirror slap problems, but the Pentax 645 has a
> well-damped mirror. Here's an article which tested the older non-MLU 645
> against the new model with MLU at a range of speeds like 1/20, 1/10, 1/6 and
> 1/3 sec and didn't see a bit of difference.
>
> http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/645-mlu.shtml
>
> Most people feel 1/15th sec and 1/8 sec are the trouble spots.
>
> Bill
From leica mailing list:
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003
From: Henning Wulff [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Leica] "lag time" and the real world.
David Young wrote:
>For all of those who think lag time is unimportant, I must agree
>that in most instances, with better quality equipment, it is largely
>irrelevant.
>
>However, I have discovered one area where it becomes very
>important... and that is the photographing of lightning.
>
>There are, I have learned, several homebuilt and commercial
>lightening detectors that will trigger the electrical remote
>contacts of a motorized camera... including the R8 w/winder!
>
>Such circuits will respond within 1 ms, but the camera must have a
>quick 'lag time' got get the mirror up and out of the way before the
>lightning bolt is gone. This works with most modern SLR's, as
>lightning flashes can last several hundred milliseconds and often
>come in series, about 40 ms apart.
>
>But if they're on autofocus, or need to meter first, they won't work!
>
>For those gearheads who simply want to know what cameras have what
>shutter lag times, they should consult
>
>http://www.fone.net/~rfrankd/CameraCompatibility6/CameraCompatibility6.htm
>
>Which lists numerous SLR's in various formats.
>
>Personally, I'm with Ted. I won't worry about it. Unless I'm
>selecting another camera, or taking shots of lightning.
>
>Cheers!
>---------
>David Young, | �galit�, libert�,
>Victoria, CANADA | fraternit� et Beaujolais.
I'm a bit suspicious of those 'lag times' on that site. One that
jumps out at me is the supposed lag time of Hasselblads being 10-15ms.
- --
* Henning J. Wulff
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999
From: Greg Erker
Subject: MLU page
From: [email protected] (SpooRL)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: MLU challenged Nikons
>As for telephoto work, I have not encountered a scenario where MLU >would
>have been vital. As far as I'm concerned, the F90X is sufficiently
>damped
>as to not require a MLU for the vast majority of telephoto applications.
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000
From: "Curfman, Donald (GEIS)" [email protected]
Subject: [NIKON] RE: MLU effect
> Perhaps I should do a test. Load up a roll of
> Prove in all my bodies and the F5 with and
> without MLU and see if there is a real difference.
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: MLU challenged Nikons
> There is no hotter issue in the Canon-Nikon war that the absence of mirror
> lock up in some of Nikon's higher end cameras, namely the F100 and the N90s.
> Even many Nikon devotees consider this deficiency to be regrettable.
>
> MLU is most useful in macro and astrophotography. Therefore, it would be
> very interesting to learn of the actual experience of Nikon users in these
> particular areas. Is the mirror slap on the F100 and N90s so well damped (as
> Nikon claims) that the photographic results are acceptable? Have you done
> comparisons with cameras having MLU? Do you find that you must use an MLU
> camera for these special situations?
>
> For the record, I use an N90s, but have not yet felt the need for MLU.
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000
From: Dan Arsenault [email protected]
Subject: [NIKON] MLU
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000
From: John Wall [email protected]
Subject: [NIKON] Re: MLU -- my 0.02 worth
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000
From: Ezequiel Kampel [email protected]
Subject: Subject: Re: [NIKON] Re: MLU effect
Ezequiel
[email protected]
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999
From: Dan Marder [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Autofocus problems
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000
From: James Norris [email protected]
Subject: [NIKON] Re: MLU benefits etc.
From: Ben Czinski [email protected]
Subject: re: [NIKON] MLU benefits etc.
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000
From: Alexander [email protected]
Subject: Re: [NIKON] Mirror Lock Up
>I currently own F100 and FM2n and am basically a landscape/scenery shooter.
>Learning that the scenic pictures are generally shot at the minimum aperture
>and longer than 1/30 sec. exposure by using a tripod, I'm doubting if F100
>is capable of this type of shooting as it doesn't have the mirror lock up
>capability.
From: [email protected]
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000
Subject: Re: What will be the Guide number of 1600 ASA film
To: [email protected]
Sender: [email protected]
To: [email protected] (PENTAX DISCUSS)
b) Single shot with MLU (PZ1P only), horizontal & vertical
********************
OK, where is the math wiz?
__________________________________________-
Thanks again Bob!
[email protected]
[email protected]
From: [email protected]
[1] Re: MLU: Difference between ...
Date: Sun Sep 03 2000
>You will find that true MLU is only required for one or two
>lenses which you will most likely never buy. These protrude
>so far into the body that the mirror MUST be put out of the way.
>Other than that it is more of a religeous feature,
>Henk
>Warrexa wrote:
>> What's the difference between "real" MLU and "pseudo" MLU, i.e., the mirror
>> lock-up on the Canon EOS 3 vs that on the Elan II ? Or rather, what's the
>> advantage of 'real' over 'pseudo'? The pseudo version seems a lot more
>> convenient.
From: [email protected] (Anon)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Mirror Vibrations in Medium Format
From: [email protected] (Paul Secinaro)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: MLU info on Nikons
>Hello, I'm a Nikon user looking to expand from my FE to a camera body with
>
>autofocus capability. Specifically I'm interested in finding out if any of F100
>
>or N90s, N8008s or N80 has mirror lock with the self timer? I have a 1:2 macro
>
>lens but want to try 2:1 or more images. At what magnifications does mirror
>
>vibration produce unsharp images? I've heard that the F100 and N90s have
>dampening mechanisms to reduce mirror shake; to what magnifications would this
>
>be effective? And could someone tell me approximately how many rolls of film
>
>should regular batteries in an FE take me? Thanks for your consideration,
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Latest on N1 availablity
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000
From: Dave Huffman [email protected]
Subject: Re: Subject: 2 Sec. MLU
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000
From: [email protected]
Subject: 2 Sec. MLU
Bill B. (USA)
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001
From: clarck kent [email protected]
Subject: RE: [NIKON] What body besides F4 and F5 have these features
DOF preview
1/250 Flash synch
From: "Bud Cook" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: What's Mirror Lockup
Bud Cook
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 17 Dec 2000
Subject: Re: Pentax Spotmatic
>I have a Pentax Spotmatic camera that I bought used. About every three or
>four pictures, the mirror will open and stay open until I wind another frame
>in and then it will sometimes come back down,. Has anyone out there had
>similar problems with 35mm doing this. Does this particular brand and\ model
>have mirror lock up that I am not aware of. I don't have an owners manual.
>Any help would be appreciated.
>
>Gary
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001
Subject: Re: Mirror lock
From: [email protected] (David Grabowski)
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 645E Mirror Lockup
> My thinking is that different shutter
>speeds inherently cause different amounts of vibration
>and thus different characteristics of clarity.
>
>Has anyone ever tested along these lines or does anyone
>care to state their theories about this?
>Also, how does mirror lockup techniques compare to the
>use of Leaf Shutter (L/S) lens. I presume a L/S lens
>produces the finest results but, are the differences
>trivial or dramatic?
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001
From: Chris Brogden [email protected]
Subject: Re: [SLRMan] Mirror Lock-up on M42 SLRs
> I am trying to find out which M42 screw mount lens SLRs had mirror
> lock-up. With web searching I have only found that some of the Yashicas
> had MLU. Does anyone know of any others?
Date: Fri, 6-Apr-2001
From: Dean Stanley [email protected]
Subject: mirror lock up on M42
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001
From: "Dale Cotton" [email protected]
Subject: 1/8th sec and be elsewhere
2) 1/8 sec, manual shutter release (6)
3) 1/8 sec, MLU + timer release + beanbag (8)
4) 1/125 sec, MLU + timer release + beanbag (10)
5) 1/125 sec, handheld (9.8)
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001
From: Randy Holst [email protected]
Subject: Re: 1/8th sec and be elsewhere
[snip]
> ....and my
> latest craze is a beanbag on top of the camera*. It occurred to me to do a
> bit of testing under controlled conditions to see just what effect any of
> this has.
[snip]
> The parenthetical numbers at the end of each entry represent my estimate of
> sharpness on a scale of 1 to 10 (based on scans at 2400 ppi, sharpened to
> within an nanometer of their lives).
Boise, Idaho
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001
From: "Riccardo Polini" [email protected]
Subject: Re: 1/8th sec and be elsewhere
> I shoot landscapes with my F2 so sharpness is absolutely critical to me.
... snip ...
> A) can anyone else validate my results that shutter speeds around 1/8 are
> poison with or without MLU?
> B) does this apply to later models than the F2?
> C) what the heck is vibrating inside the camera, given that the mirror is
> locked up?
http://space.tin.it/arte/ripolini
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] Re: R6 cable release near lens
From Minolta Mailing List;
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: mirror lockup (MLU)
Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2001
From: William Gartin [email protected]
Subject: Re: MLU and self timers
> In the below message is the statement that MLU is equates
> to self timers in effect.
>
> I have used the self timer on a tripod to get my shakey hands away
> from the camera when I wanted a good picture.
>
> I supposed that if I was really really particular I could lock down
> the mirror to prevent more vibration but I was not that particular
> as I thought my heavy camera on the tripod could not allow the mirror
> operation to cause that much vibration.
>
> Do I not really understand the function of MLU ? what is it for ?
William Gartin [email protected]
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001
From: KinWan Hui [email protected]
To: "'[email protected]'" [email protected]
Subject: MirrorLockUp usage.
Sigma 400 f5.6, Nikon 80-200 f2.8 AF, Nikon 35-70 f2.8 AF, Nikon
24mm AIS.
Film: Velvia, Provia, Astia.
From: "thc" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.misc,rec.photo.technique.people,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Technique of slow shutter hand-holding
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2001
An ability to hand-hold a camera during slow shutter speeds varies with
respect to the particular individual and the particular shooting conditions.
Most photographers have good days and bad days for their hand-holding
ability.
Why not use a short roll (12-exposures) of film to test for your own abilities?
Choose your own combination of film and lens, focus onto an unmoving target,
make a series of tripod-supported exposures and a series of hand-held
exposures at varying shutter speeds, and then analyze the results of your
own ability.
For your information:
Popular Photography (US) magazine (volume 63, number 3, March 1999, page 17)
featured an article about hand-holding versus using a monopod support. Six
photographers used the same Canon "EOS Elan IIe" 35mm format SLR camera with
a 100mm-400mm f/4.5-6.7 zoom lens set at 400mm, focused at a mannequin head
at 26.5 feet distance, using Kodak MAX 800 color-print film. A series of
monopod-supported exposures (at 1/8 second, 1/15, 1/30, 1/60, 1/125, 1/250
second) and hand-held exposures (same series, from 1/8 second - 1/250
second) were made (probably using short 12-exposure rolls of 35mm film), and
8x10-inches enlargements were made of the negatives for comparison.
- Results:
- The steadiest on that particular day of the six photographers was blurry
at 1/8 and 1/15, slightly blurry at 1/30, and sharp at 1/60, 1/125. and
1/250 second when hand-holding; was slightly blurry at 1/8 and 1/30, sharp
at 1/15, 1/60, 1/125, and 1/250 second when monopod-supported.
- The average of the six photographers was very blurry at 1/8 and 1/15,
slightly blurry at 1/30, and sharp at 1/60, 1/125, and 1/250 second when
hand-holding; was slightly blurry at 1/8, sharp at 1/15, 1/30, 1/60, 1/125,
and 1/250 second when monopod-supported.
- The poorest of the six photographers was extremely blurry at 1/8 and 1/15,
slightly blurry at 1/30, and sharp at 1/60, 1/125, and 1/250 second when
hand-holding; was very blurry at 1/8, blurry at 1/15, slightly blurry at
1/30, and sharp at 1/60, 1/125, and 1/250 second when monopod-supported.
In summary, these six photographers all were judged to be sharp at 1/60,
1/125, and 1/250 second exposures regardless of hand-holding or
monopod-support of a 400mm lens on a 35mm SLR camera body. The 1/8 second
exposures by the steadiest photographer were judged to be either blurry
(hand-holding) or slightly blurry (monopod-supported). The 1/8 second
exposures by the poorest photographer were either extremely blurry
(hand-holding) or very blurry (monopod-supported). The 1/15 and 1/30 second
exposures were judged to vary from sharp (at 1/15 second, monopod-support,
by steadiest photographer; at 1/30 second, monopod-support, by average
photographer) to slightly blurry (at 1/30 second, both hand-held and
monopod-supported) to extremely blurry (1/15 second, hand-held, by poorest
photographer).
Another article in Popular Photography magazine (volume 63, number 6, June
1999, page 18) confirmed George Lepp's advice that the mirror-lockup feature
on a SLR camera body used with tripod-support generally gives more sharpness
at 1/8 - 1/60 second shutter speeds than not using the mirror-lockup with
tripod-support.
In short:
Monopod- and tripod-support generally outperform hand-holding in the 1/8
second - 1/15 second -1/30 second exposure range (no big suprise here), but
even a tripod-supported SLR camera gains additional sharpness (up to a 227%
gain in sharpness, when measuring line pairs per millimeter resolution) when
the mirror-lockup feature is utilized in the same exposure range.
> Erich Salomon pioneered available light candid photography in the late
> 1920's with the Ermanox. He often needed 1/4 sec. or longer exposures,
> and initially couldn't use a tripod since he needed to remain incognito.
The (Ernemann A.G. Dresden) Ermanox plate camera of 1924 had either an f/2
100mm or an f/1.8 85mm Ernostar lens, and offered 1/20 second - 1/1,000
second shutter speeds (as described in Rosenblum's "A World History of
Photography," and in McKeown's "Price Guide to Antique & Classic Cameras"),
so Salomon probably didn't have available 1/4 second exposure times with
that particular camera. Maybe the unsharpness and blurriness inherent to his
longer shutter speeds were camouflaged somewhat by the larger film format
(4.5 x 6 cm) of his camera. [Also, I'm uncertain about what size were
printed from Salomon's plates. A 4.5-inch x 6-inch print would be about 2.5x
diameter enlargement. A 35mm frame requires more enlargement for the same
size print.]
> Sure the critical eye will see that some of Weston's famous portraits
> are not critically sharp, yet they're quite good and easily acceptable
> to 8x10.
From minolta mailing list:
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Camera Shake: tele use vs macro use
[email protected] writes:
>>I haven't had problems with either my 300 4.5 >>
I have not had any trouble up to about 300mm either. But when I go past
that point, things get pretty bad. I've tried several approaches that
have been suggested in the literature, like using the mirror lockup,
trying different shutter speeds, and stopping down the lens, but I can't
say that I notice much improvement. I've resorted to using the
mini-bungee cords to "clamp-down" the camera on the tripod -- with most of
these lenses the lens is attached to the tripod and the camera sits well
behind the tripod. That improves things a lot, but does not solve things
completely. I've heard that one tripod for the camera and a separate one
for the lens can make a difference, but I've not tried this method.
From leica topica mailing list:
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] Mirror flapping and tripod dissertation
Henry Ting wrote:
> but quite frankly mirror flapping is
> only detrimental to closeup macro.
Actually, the SLR mirror effects ALL photographs taken with a shutter speed
between a 1/30 and 1/4 second. Not just close-ups. It kills the recording
of fine detail. The reason is that the mirror hits the top and the
diaphragm closes down just before the shutter opens. The mirror vibration
is at its peak just when the shutter is open and the vibration lasts for
roughly 1/30th second. Long enough to be fully captured with a shutter
speed between 1/30 and 1/4 second. Shorter shutter speeds (1/60 and
higher) are over before the vibration wave hits its peak. With longer exposures
(1/2 second and longer,) the vibration is a very small percentage of the
total exposure time and therefore is not recorded.
Carbon fiber and wooden tripods will help dampen camera vibrations by
absorption while steel and other all metal tripods tend to echo the
vibration, and in some cases, amplify the vibrations putting the vulnerable
shutter speeds all the way down to 1 second. The vibration wave sent
through the metal tripod echoes back into the camera as a second vibration
thus extending the vibration period.
Throw a rock into the center of a small pond. The waves radiate out from
the rock hit, toward the bank then echo back, from the bank, to the center,
where the rock hit. It is the same in a metal tripod. The camera vibrations
radiate out (down the legs) and echo back to the camera. This does not
happen in either a wooden tripod or a carbon fiber tripod.
If you have an SLR without MLU and want to photograph in the 1/30 to 1
second range, buy wood.
Jim
From minolta mailing list:
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001
From: "Mark Groep" [email protected]
Subject: Shutter vibration
Hi all,
We all know about the merits of mirror lock-up to reduce vibration
induced problems with sharpness. Has any of you got experience with
shutter vibration? I find that at least as bad as the mirror
vibration, which maybe explains about the threads of blurred
telephoto images with mirror lock-up. Also, are some camera's more
vibration prone than others in the Minolta line-up? I can't help but
feel that my XD-7 / XD-11's vibrate a little more than my XGM because
the vibration of the verical leaf shutter coincides with the vertical
movement of the mirror. Can anyone suggest which is the
least "vibrating" mirror/shutter manual Minolta?
Mark
To: [email protected]
From: [email protected]
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002
Subject: [Contax] Shutter release delay time
May be it�s interesting for some list members, here is the answer from
Kyocera I got to my question about CONTAX shutter release delay times :
....the shutter release delay time for the requested models are as
follows:
RX 68,8ms
Aria 54,0ms
ST 72,0ms
S2 78,8ms
RTS III 21,8ms
and older models:
167 72,0ms
159 80,0ms
137 53,8ms
139 50,0ms
RTS 39,4ms
......
Dieter