Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/09/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Jem, Sorry, I wasn't trying to make an arguement with you. Just the point that the opto is not the only way the electrics could sense the frame advance. I think sprocketless 35mm has come up from time to time. Lens coverage being the rub if you enlarge the area. Thinking more about the relative costs and I suspect the sprocket and microswitch would be more $$ than the IR sensor. Dennis Jem Kime wrote: > > Dennis, > I wasn't arguing for or against sprockets. In terms of what might be more > desirable in the future, lets head sprocketless and increase the available > film size for a 'Super 35mm' format. Retaining the same ration one could > envisage a 30x45mm neg size, increasing the negative area by over 50%! > Of course new lens ranges, enlargers, scanners and cameras would have to be > built but that's what the industry thrives on, new products! > Jem > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dennis Painter [SMTP:dpainter@bigfoot.com] > Sent: 12 September 2000 04:59 > To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us > Subject: Re: [Leica] HEXAR RF vs. M5 vs. M6 > > So why do sprokets have to drive the film? they could just measure the > movement. They would need a sensor to indicate one frame. A microswitch > would suffice. Would it be better than their ir sensor? would either be > better than an even more mechanical method? I don't know and doubt > anyone on this list does know save Tom. > > Dennis > > Jem Kime wrote: > > > > Dante, > > I see what you mean, having revisited the brochure. > > Having no sprockets to drive the film, the motorised collecting spool > needs > > to be told when to stop rotating. > > I suppose it's a moot point whether the optical/electronic route for the > > Konica will be of greater longevity than the mechanical route perpetuated > > by Leica. From the last 30 years of camera electronics one might be > tempted > > to argue in favour of the tried and trusted formula, though where would > we > > be without innovation? > > > > Jem > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Dante A Stella [SMTP:dante@umich.edu] > > > > It has a tiny sensor that counts the number of sprocket holes going by > > (instead of that double-toothed spool found in most cameras), so as the > > takeup > > spool gets more full, it doesn't have an effect on spacing. I don't know > > how > > constant the spacing is with superwideangles - but the film rails do look > > relatively low, so I imagine it would be ok. > > > > Dante > > > > Jem Kime wrote: > > > > > Dante, > > > Can you illuminate me on this point please? Do you mean the Konica > > advances > > > the film precisely so as to present a constant width between each > > negative > > > irrespective of focal length used or other factors? > > > Jem > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Dante A Stella [SMTP:dante@umich.edu] > > > > > > ...the Hexar RF does its frame spacing optically - so there are far > fewer > > > parts to replace. > > > > > > Dante Stella > > > http://www-personal.umich.edu/~dante > > > > -- > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Dante Stella > > http://www-personal.umich.edu/~dante