JustShootMe wrote: 1bwana1 wrote: bernardl wrote: 1bwana1 wrote:
I didn't think you were coming after Sony or Canon. I just disagree with your position on using a closed shutter as a shield.
Your claim of a mirror being in the way ignores the millions of RF cameras built. Don't forget that reflex cameras are a later technology. The Leica M cameras have always closed their shutters when not actually exposing the image. Leica believes in this so strongly that on the newest model, the M11 it closes the shutter even if turned on but detects that the lens is being removed.
Before leaving this exchange, probably 99% of the range finder cameras built (themselves representing a tiny volume compared to SLRs) were film cameras so the shutter had to stay closed. Digital M bodies sold what, perhaps a few hundred thousands total at most? So un-representative enough to be left out of the discussion IMHO.
Besides, as I already wrote, much deeper mounts than mirrorless ones so the shutter was/is a lot less exposed to accidendal hits.
Having used the Z8/Z9 for 2+ years now, I can testify that the shield is robust enough to take the kind of light accidental hits that can happen during lens change. I would not want to try these with a functional shutter.
And back to the topic of this thread, the specs listed in the latest rumors are IMHO not very appealing.
Cheers,
Bernard
Here is a link to a video regarding a broken Z9 sensor shield. Yes the camera was dropped to cause the problem. But it shows that it is no built as robustly as some think.
What is up with it having been melted prior to being dropped? Is it just made out of some sort of soft plastic? How can that happen? Very strange...
Anyway, still better to have it than not in my opinion.
He dropped it with no lens attached , and by the looks of the cover , it hit something.
This is not Nikon's problem , this is a stupid mistake by the photographer.
I don't think it is Nikon's problem either. That is not my point. This is just a continuation of a conversation I was having with Bernard.
According to Matt Granger the melted (not scuffed) marks on the shutter shield were not caused by the drop. They pre-existed that. He believes that they are melted marks caused by light being focused on the shield by lenses pointed into the sun. That makes me question what material they are made of. Still better too mark the shield than to burn the sensor though. We should all keep such things in mind when handling our cameras.
By the way, below is a picture of what happened to the Sony camera that he dropped the Z9 on to. Yes, the Z9 is that big and heavy but in comparison it held up very well.
JustShootMe wrote: 1bwana1 wrote: bernardl wrote: 1bwana1 wrote:
I didn't think you were coming after Sony or Canon. I just disagree with your position on using a closed shutter as a shield.
Your claim of a mirror being in the way ignores the millions of RF cameras built. Don't forget that reflex cameras are a later technology. The Leica M cameras have always closed their shutters when not actually exposing the image. Leica believes in this so strongly that on the newest model, the M11 it closes the shutter even if turned on but detects that the lens is being removed.
Before leaving this exchange, probably 99% of the range finder cameras built (themselves representing a tiny volume compared to SLRs) were film cameras so the shutter had to stay closed. Digital M bodies sold what, perhaps a few hundred thousands total at most? So un-representative enough to be left out of the discussion IMHO.
Besides, as I already wrote, much deeper mounts than mirrorless ones so the shutter was/is a lot less exposed to accidendal hits.
Having used the Z8/Z9 for 2+ years now, I can testify that the shield is robust enough to take the kind of light accidental hits that can happen during lens change. I would not want to try these with a functional shutter.
And back to the topic of this thread, the specs listed in the latest rumors are IMHO not very appealing.
Cheers,
Bernard
Here is a link to a video regarding a broken Z9 sensor shield. Yes the camera was dropped to cause the problem. But it shows that it is no built as robustly as some think.
What is up with it having been melted prior to being dropped? Is it just made out of some sort of soft plastic? How can that happen? Very strange...
Anyway, still better to have it than not in my opinion.
He dropped it with no lens attached , and by the looks of the cover , it hit something.
This is not Nikon's problem , this is a stupid mistake by the photographer.
I don't think it is Nikon's problem either. That is not my point. This is just a continuation of a conversation I was having with Bernard.
According to Matt Granger the melted (not scuffed) marks on the shutter shield were not caused by the drop. They pre-existed that. He believes that they are melted marks caused by light being focused on the shield by lenses pointed into the sun. That makes me question what material they are made of. Still better too mark the shield than to burn the sensor though. We should all keep such things in mind when handling our cameras.
Feb 02, 2024 at 12:41 PM
Previous versions of 1bwana1's message #16460625 « Finally, Z6 III rumors »
