CanadaMark wrote: MRomine wrote: CanadaMark wrote: There are only 2 cameras on the entire market I'm aware of with a sensor shield (Z8/Z9) and the only reason they have them is because their stacked sensors are fast enough to completely forego a mechanical shutter so there is room for it. Everyone else seems to manage, though I can't say it wouldn't be better if it had one.
I thought the a1 was the first and succeeding models also have this feature, am I wrong about that?
The A1 has a regular mechanical shutter as well so therefore it does not have a purpose-built sensor shield, but it has an option to use the actual shutter as a dust shield, which is better than nothing, you just need to be super careful around it. The A1 sensor is a bit slower than the Z8/Z9 but not by much, it could have gotten away without a shutter as well but the mechanical shutter gives them the option of 1/400 flash sync which is nice for some people.
Everone tries to make a big deal about this and who was first and Nikon's BS about damaging the shutter.
All film cameras had the shutter down to protect the film when changing lenses. I don't read about this causing users to damage the shutters.
Could it be because there was a mirror between the mount and the shutter?
Any way you look at it, protecting the rather robust sensor glass with a clearly fragile shutter is a terrible idea.
This has nothing to do with brands, it's basic common sense.
Cheers,
Bernard
What is actual common sense is the facts of history.
The millions of cameras pre slr had their shutters closed when changing lenses. No mirrors in them, that history negates your logic about that.
The Leica cameras from the very first digital M decades ago had the shutter down during lens changes. That also flies in the face of your definition of common sense.
The hundreds of thousands maybe millions of current digital cameras being sold with this feature also are not having this problem. This includes your own A9III (you may be choosing not to use it) and are not having problems. This also negates your claim of common sense.
In my opinion an optional feature that adds value like keeping dust from negatively impacting your images without creating problems makes common sense to include.
With such a long period of time and such a huge sample base from which to draw conclusions, it makes more common sense to include the feature than using theoretical risk with no data to back it up as a reason to delete the feature.
This is not just about the 6III, it is about the whole Nikon ICL mirrorless line. Common sense says that Nikon should at the very minimum give it's users the option.
Some answers:
1. The pre-DSLR cameras sold in much lower volumes than what you indicate, there was no other choice, the mounts were smaller in diameter and deeper (the shutter was less likely to be accidentally hit), the shutter type were much cruder, and therefore a lot less fragile, than modern shutters syncing at 1/250 or faster. So there is really no comparison and your historical "data" is of low relevance I am afraid,
2. The a9III doesn't have a shutter, it has a dedicated shield like the Z8/Z9 which is much more robust than a shutter. Which itself confirms the fragility of the shutter, why would Sony have spend cash designing a dedicated shield if the shutter were robust enough?
3. Where are the data enabling you to claim that nobody is breaking shutters when using them as sensor protectors?
CanadaMark wrote: MRomine wrote: CanadaMark wrote: There are only 2 cameras on the entire market I'm aware of with a sensor shield (Z8/Z9) and the only reason they have them is because their stacked sensors are fast enough to completely forego a mechanical shutter so there is room for it. Everyone else seems to manage, though I can't say it wouldn't be better if it had one.
I thought the a1 was the first and succeeding models also have this feature, am I wrong about that?
The A1 has a regular mechanical shutter as well so therefore it does not have a purpose-built sensor shield, but it has an option to use the actual shutter as a dust shield, which is better than nothing, you just need to be super careful around it. The A1 sensor is a bit slower than the Z8/Z9 but not by much, it could have gotten away without a shutter as well but the mechanical shutter gives them the option of 1/400 flash sync which is nice for some people.
Everone tries to make a big deal about this and who was first and Nikon's BS about damaging the shutter.
All film cameras had the shutter down to protect the film when changing lenses. I don't read about this causing users to damage the shutters.
Could it be because there was a mirror between the mount and the shutter?
Any way you look at it, protecting the rather robust sensor glass with a clearly fragile shutter is a terrible idea.
This has nothing to do with brands, it's basic common sense.
Cheers,
Bernard
What is actual common sense is the facts of history.
The millions of cameras pre slr had their shutters closed when changing lenses. No mirrors in them, that history negates your logic about that.
The Leica cameras from the very first digital M decades ago had the shutter down during lens changes. That also flies in the face of your definition of common sense.
The hundreds of thousands maybe millions of current digital cameras being sold with this feature also are not having this problem. This includes your own A9III (you may be choosing not to use it) and are not having problems. This also negates your claim of common sense.
In my opinion an optional feature that adds value like keeping dust from negatively impacting your images without creating problems makes common sense to include.
With such a long period of time and such a huge sample base from which to draw conclusions, it makes more common sense to include the feature than using theoretical risk with no data to back it up as a reason to delete the feature.
This is not just about the 6III, it is about the whole Nikon ICL mirrorless line. Common sense says that Nikon should at the very minimum give it's users the option.
Some answers:
1. The pre-DSLR cameras sold in much lower volumes than what you indicate, there was no other choice, the mounts were smaller in diameter and deeper (the shutter was less likely to be accidentally hit), the shutter type were much cruder, and therefore a lot less fragile, than modern shutters syncing at 1/250 or faster. So there is really no comparison and your historical "data" is of low relevance I am afraid,
2. The a9III doesn't have a shutter, it has a shield like the Z8/Z9
3. Where are the data enabling you to claim that nobody is breaking shutters when using them as sensor protectors?
CanadaMark wrote: MRomine wrote: CanadaMark wrote: There are only 2 cameras on the entire market I'm aware of with a sensor shield (Z8/Z9) and the only reason they have them is because their stacked sensors are fast enough to completely forego a mechanical shutter so there is room for it. Everyone else seems to manage, though I can't say it wouldn't be better if it had one.
I thought the a1 was the first and succeeding models also have this feature, am I wrong about that?
The A1 has a regular mechanical shutter as well so therefore it does not have a purpose-built sensor shield, but it has an option to use the actual shutter as a dust shield, which is better than nothing, you just need to be super careful around it. The A1 sensor is a bit slower than the Z8/Z9 but not by much, it could have gotten away without a shutter as well but the mechanical shutter gives them the option of 1/400 flash sync which is nice for some people.
Everone tries to make a big deal about this and who was first and Nikon's BS about damaging the shutter.
All film cameras had the shutter down to protect the film when changing lenses. I don't read about this causing users to damage the shutters.
Could it be because there was a mirror between the mount and the shutter?
Any way you look at it, protecting the rather robust sensor glass with a clearly fragile shutter is a terrible idea.
This has nothing to do with brands, it's basic common sense.
Cheers,
Bernard
What is actual common sense is the facts of history.
The millions of cameras pre slr had their shutters closed when changing lenses. No mirrors in them, that history negates your logic about that.
The Leica cameras from the very first digital M decades ago had the shutter down during lens changes. That also flies in the face of your definition of common sense.
The hundreds of thousands maybe millions of current digital cameras being sold with this feature also are not having this problem. This includes your own A9III (you may be choosing not to use it) and are not having problems. This also negates your claim of common sense.
In my opinion an optional feature that adds value like keeping dust from negatively impacting your images without creating problems makes common sense to include.
With such a long period of time and such a huge sample base from which to draw conclusions, it makes more common sense to include the feature than using theoretical risk with no data to back it up as a reason to delete the feature.
This is not just about the 6III, it is about the whole Nikon ICL mirrorless line. Common sense says that Nikon should at the very minimum give it's users the option.
Some answers:
1. The pre-DSLR cameras sold in much lower volumes than what you indicate, there was no other choice, the mounts were smaller in diameter and deeper (the shutter was much more difficult to accidentally hit), the shutter type were much cruder, and therefore a lot less fragile, than modern shutters syncing at 1/250 or faster. So there is really no comparison and your historical "data" is of low relevance I am afraid,
2. The a9III doesn't have a shutter, it has a shield like the Z8/Z9
3. Where are the data enabling you to claim that nobody is breaking shutters when using them as sensor protectors?
CanadaMark wrote: MRomine wrote: CanadaMark wrote: There are only 2 cameras on the entire market I'm aware of with a sensor shield (Z8/Z9) and the only reason they have them is because their stacked sensors are fast enough to completely forego a mechanical shutter so there is room for it. Everyone else seems to manage, though I can't say it wouldn't be better if it had one.
I thought the a1 was the first and succeeding models also have this feature, am I wrong about that?
The A1 has a regular mechanical shutter as well so therefore it does not have a purpose-built sensor shield, but it has an option to use the actual shutter as a dust shield, which is better than nothing, you just need to be super careful around it. The A1 sensor is a bit slower than the Z8/Z9 but not by much, it could have gotten away without a shutter as well but the mechanical shutter gives them the option of 1/400 flash sync which is nice for some people.
Everone tries to make a big deal about this and who was first and Nikon's BS about damaging the shutter.
All film cameras had the shutter down to protect the film when changing lenses. I don't read about this causing users to damage the shutters.
Could it be because there was a mirror between the mount and the shutter?
Any way you look at it, protecting the rather robust sensor glass with a clearly fragile shutter is a terrible idea.
This has nothing to do with brands, it's basic common sense.
Cheers,
Bernard
What is actual common sense is the facts of history.
The millions of cameras pre slr had their shutters closed when changing lenses. No mirrors in them, that history negates your logic about that.
The Leica cameras from the very first digital M decades ago had the shutter down during lens changes. That also flies in the face of your definition of common sense.
The hundreds of thousands maybe millions of current digital cameras being sold with this feature also are not having this problem. This includes your own A9III (you may be choosing not to use it) and are not having problems. This also negates your claim of common sense.
In my opinion an optional feature that adds value like keeping dust from negatively impacting your images without creating problems makes common sense to include.
With such a long period of time and such a huge sample base from which to draw conclusions, it makes more common sense to include the feature than using theoretical risk with no data to back it up as a reason to delete the feature.
This is not just about the 6III, it is about the whole Nikon ICL mirrorless line. Common sense says that Nikon should at the very minimum give it's users the option.
Some answers:
1. The pre-DSLR cameras sold in much lower volumes than what you indicate, there was no other choice and their shutter type were much cruder, and therefore a lot less fragile, than modern shutters syncing at 1/250 or faster
2. The a9III doesn't have a shutter, it has a shield like the Z8/Z9
3. Where are the data enabling you to claim that nobody is breaking shutters when using them as sensor protectors?
Cheers,
Bernard
Jun 19, 2024 at 02:32 AM
Previous versions of bernardl's message #16575099 « Official Z6 III Thread - »
