Few MF SLR's weigh much more than a Nikon F5 or EOS 1v. However the
mirrors on a MF SLR are substantially heavier. And they scale at a
higher rate than (frame side)^2 for mechanical reasons, the mirror must
be thicker to withstand the extra stress and it must move faster at the
equivalent shutter speed because it has further to go (Barring an
unusual arrangement like the Bronica D with it's fold/slide mirror)
I own a 35mm with truly bad mirror slap, my Ricoh KR-5sv (heavy mirror,
poor damping, very light plastic body). I've not seen worse in any of
the 20+ other SLR's I've shot with in my day. Yet it's slap is milder
than a Hasselblad 500CM, whihc isn't noted for bad mirror slap.
And it's not a blanket statement, you'll note I said 'Most MF SLR's' not
All MF SLR's. I would expect that you can find a MF SLR, likely a 645
format with less mirror slap than certain 35mm jobs, and I'm aware that
certain mirror arrangements, like the Bronica D's and the Leica R's cam
operated mirror reduce mirror slap significantly at the cost of
mechanical complexity.
-Adam
Mishka wrote:
this is a blank statement that doesn't mean much. what excatly
MF 35mm SLR are you comparing?
i am also curious about your reasoning (since i doubt you did an extensive
first-hand research):
the mass of mirror scales as (frame side)^2 -- as film area
the mass of camera scales as (frame side)^3
so, one could argue that for MF mirror slap is *less* important,
considering the equivalent lens FOV.
best,
mishka
On 11/21/05, Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Most MF SLR's have far worse mirror slap than even a cheap 35mm. So
you'd likely see far more benefit from MLU. Especially since they're
more difficult to hand-hold in the first place.
-Adam
