[thibs]

A focal plane shutter is, in essence, a rolling shutter when it gets above the sync speed.

I wouldn't quote say so but it's clear both are based on the same idea.

[normhead]

A focal plane shutter is, in essence, a rolling shutter when it gets above the sync speed.

Some day we'll have to revisit the old "focal plane shutter vs leaf shutter" debates.

[Davy]

Ik hoop ook op een 150-600mm teleobjectief dat niet te veel weegt van gewicht. Of een 400 mm prime.

I hope a 150-600mm lens is not too heavy. Or a 400mm prime.

(Moderator added English. Posts are to be in English only)

[Wheatfield]

This seems like a discussion of "distinction without a difference".

At one time I photographed a fan to demonstrate "rolling shutter" on a 'Q'. The first photo shows use of the Electronic Shutter on my Q-7.



Then I photographed the same fan with my K-30.



The shutter speed I chose did not quite 'stop' the blades. but that is not the point. The K-30 photo shows a clearly recognizable fan, and there is no noticeable blurring resulting from my own movement.


Likewise, my photograph {with a long lens } of a bird was clearly recognizable as a "Baltimore Oriole", with no noticeable 'loss' because I hand-held the camera instead of running inside to grab a tripod {while the bird flew away}.

As you can see in the picture of the fan, the blades are distorted. This is the rolling shutter effect from the moving slit.
You appear to want some sort of debate about whether a focal plane shutter emulates a rolling shutter when the shutter speeds get above sync.
I don't quite understand why, when it is so plain that it does. Your picture proves it. The effect will be more pronounced the faster the shutter speed is and the faster the object being photographed is moving.
Camera manufacturers didn't give up on horizontal run shutters for fun, they gave up on them to get higher sync speeds to get away from the rolling shutter effect as well as to give flash photographers a better chance of balancing daylight.
At that, we have only seen at best a 2 stop increase in sync speed over a camera like the Nikon F3 (sync at 1/80) to the Nikon F5 (sync at 1/300)
Here in Pentax land, our latest and greatest camera gives a 1/200 second sync speed, or about 1-1/3 stop faster than the LX.

[GlassJunkie]

I guess the lack of telephotos has become apparent to them.
All with SR, meaning, there must be a camera coming with combination IBIS and SR integration? Maybe? Or more likely you just turn SR off like I did with my Sigma 120-400.

Turned mine off too, in the 150-500 too

[reh321]

As you can see in the picture of the fan, the blades are distorted. This is the rolling shutter effect from the moving slit.
You appear to want some sort of debate about whether a focal plane shutter emulates a rolling shutter when the shutter speeds get above sync.
I don't quite understand why, when it is so plain that it does. Your picture proves it. The effect will be more pronounced the faster the shutter speed is and the faster the object being photographed is moving.
Camera manufacturers didn't give up on horizontal run shutters for fun, they gave up on them to get higher sync speeds to get away from the rolling shutter effect as well as to give flash photographers a better chance of balancing daylight.
At that, we have only seen at best a 2 stop increase in sync speed over a camera like the Nikon F3 (sync at 1/80) to the Nikon F5 (sync at 1/300)
Here in Pentax land, our latest and greatest camera gives a 1/200 second sync speed, or about 1-1/3 stop faster than the LX.

No, I did look into “rolling shutter” on the “Q” at the time.
All I am saying is that I have never seen a similar effect on the “K”,
and subject motion issues have always been a bigger issue for my use of telephoto lenses than camera motion issues are.

[TwoUptons]

Camera manufacturers didn't give up on horizontal run shutters for fun, they gave up on them to get higher sync speeds to get away from the rolling shutter effect as well as to give flash photographers a better chance of balancing daylight.
At that, we have only seen at best a 2 stop increase in sync speed over a camera like the Nikon F3 (sync at 1/80) to the Nikon F5 (sync at 1/300)
Here in Pentax land, our latest and greatest camera gives a 1/200 second sync speed, or about 1-1/3 stop faster than the LX.

I don't think I've ever seen a rolling shutter effect on something I've shot with a mechanical shutter -- certainly not that it registered as such...
Now I want to see if I can do it without breaking out the Graflex...

I'm guessing the H1a (1/50 s flash sync on a horizontal-travelling cloth curtain) would be a better choice than the PZ-1p (1/250 s flash sync on a vertical metal shutter)...

In the past, all of my propeller photos have come out as nicely-behaved blurs, but I didn't generally shoot from inside the plane... and not a lot of travel these days...

I wonder what the best thing to try and shoot is...

-Eric

[Wheatfield]

I don't think I've ever seen a rolling shutter effect on something I've shot with a mechanical shutter -- certainly not that it registered as such...
Now I want to see if I can do it without breaking out the Graflex...

I'm guessing the H1a (1/50 s flash sync on a horizontal-travelling cloth curtain) would be a better choice than the PZ-1p (1/250 s flash sync on a vertical metal shutter)...

In the past, all of my propeller photos have come out as nicely-behaved blurs, but I didn't generally shoot from inside the plane... and not a lot of travel these days...

I wonder what the best thing to try and shoot is...

-Eric

I'm not sure how "A focal plane shutter is, in essence, a rolling shutter when it gets above the sync speed." turned into some sort of internet contest.

Here is how Adobe defines a rolling shutter:

"A rolling shutter is a type of image capture in cameras that records the frame line by line on an image sensor instead of capturing the entire frame all at once. The rolling shutter sensor scans from the top of the image to the bottom, so the top of the frame is recorded slightly earlier than the bottom."

Does that sound similar to what a focal plane shutter is doing at high speed?

[normhead]

No, I did look into “rolling shutter” on the “Q” at the time.
All I am saying is that I have never seen a similar effect on the “K”,
and subject motion issues have always been a bigger issue for my use of telephoto lenses than camera motion issues are.

I can't find the image, it's possible I didn't keep it, but I had an action shot of my dog Tia running behind a tree, and she looked like an oversize furry wiener dog. The rolling shutter happened to be going the same way she was and it probably made her 50% longer. That would be my most notable one. It's also important to note that if shed been running in the other direction, she would have been shorter.

[TwoUptons]

I'm not sure how "A focal plane shutter is, in essence, a rolling shutter when it gets above the sync speed." turned into some sort of internet contest.

Here is how Adobe defines a rolling shutter:

"A rolling shutter is a type of image capture in cameras that records the frame line by line on an image sensor instead of capturing the entire frame all at once. The rolling shutter sensor scans from the top of the image to the bottom, so the top of the frame is recorded slightly earlier than the bottom."

Does that sound similar to what a focal plane shutter is doing at high speed?

Oh, of course... I'm not trying to argue... I just realized that while I'm familiar with rolling shutter from an antique perspective (big slow shutters on large pieces of film) and from a modern perspective on a phone (or whatever), I've never seen it on film at an extent where I would notice it (or really on digital outside of a phone since I normally use the mechanical shutter).

And while I could grab the Graflex and try and shoot something like a car or bicycle, I'd rather see if I could replicate the effect on a 35mm camera (none of my medium format cameras have focal plane shutters).

I'll move the question over to a more appropriate sub-forum...

-Eric

[angerdan]

I hope a 150-600mm lens is not too heavy. Or a 400mm prime.

A 400mm f4.5 prime would weight less than 2kg.
DA* 400mm F4 coming! - Page 3 - PentaxForums.com

Pentax has the patent for a 400mm f4.5 optical design by Jun Hirakawa:
Pentax - Thoughts on making a DA*/DFA 400mm F4? - PentaxForums.com

[luftfluss]

A 400mm f4.5 prime would weight less than 2kg.
DA* 400mm F4 coming! - Page 3 - PentaxForums.com

Based on the recent history of premium Pentax lenses, I would expect a hypothetical D FA* 400/4.5 to weigh more than the Minolta 400/4.5.

The new Pentax 50/1.4, 85/1.4, and 70-200/2.8 lenses are among the heaviest in their class. And, of course, the hypothetical D FA* 400/4.5 would have a more complex, more corrected design than the old Minolta lens.

[Serkevan]

Based on the recent history of premium Pentax lenses, I would expect a hypothetical D FA* 400/4.5 to weigh more than the Minolta 400/4.5.

The new Pentax 50/1.4, 85/1.4, and 70-200/2.8 lenses are among the heaviest in their class. And, of course, the hypothetical D FA* 400/4.5 would have a more complex, more corrected design than the old Minolta lens.

In fact, IIRC the 70-200/2.8 is the heaviest such zoom. It sits at a hefty 1940 g with tripod foot, while other manufacturers stay at around 1500-1600 g (the Nikon FL is the lightest at 1430 g with foot, a full half kilo lighter than the DFA*).

Ditto for the 150-450, compared to (admittedly, slightly shorter) 100-400 lenses from other manufacturers it's ~500-800 g heavier.

As per the primes, I think only the Zeiss Otus are heavier than either of the two DFA*s. Nope, DFA*s are heaviest in class by ~50-100 g.

Long teles at Star designation are gonna have to come with a Sherpa subscription .

[totsmuyco]

I wonder if it's possible that they can develop alight weight compact 100-400. I'd love to have a light weight long lens.

Nevertheless, for Pentax to continue developing new lenses is a good sign. It shows that company still has a positive outlook at the photo industry.

Personally, it boosts my confidence that Ricoh is committed to Pentax.

[lotech]

including
①70-300mm F4.5-5.6 SR
②100-400mm F4.5-5.8 SR
③150-600mm F5-6.3 SR
④125-600mm F5-5.6 SR

??2021-140140 | ???????IP Force?

Pentax is getting lens design patent, who said Pentax is dying !? despite being slow advancing there are something big going on in Pentax. I remember not long ago I read in this forum Pentax is patented a telephoto lens design with dehumidifier built in, but don't know where the tech will be put in use. The other 'dying' brand I like is Olympus, it has long history like Pentax, had lot of innovations in the design, I would get an OM sometimes soon mainly because it is tiny and light to carry.