RE shutter release delay

[iphoenix]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My RE seems to have a significant delay between pushing the button and the shutter releasing (guessing around 1/15 to 1/8 of a second).

 

Is this normal, is it something I can fix myself, or does it need professional attention?

 

The camera seems to be perfect otherwise.

 

I've tried new batteries and different lenses.

 

[wagner]

Morning!
 

Seems, that your mirror damper needs a clean. Unfortunately the damper is not easy to reach. (located behind the depth of field preview lever)

 

On the Minolta XD , in this respect similar, it's a relatively easy repair, but on the Leica R's it requires some more stripping....

 

Have a look on the open XD (did the repair some years ago). 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

 

Torsten

 

 

[jip]

It's one of the main problems of the Leica R series before the R8 and after the R3

[a.noctilux]

Delay is normal on R4/R5/RE that I used.

 

From memory, the time lag is 80ms-100ms a much longer than about 20ms of Leica M from same period.

[TomB_tx]

I have 2 R4 bodies, and the delay on one is significant, while the other is reasonably quick. The mirror damper might explain it.

[wagner]

The Leica R4s has a tested delay of 160ms. (photo Revue 1985)

 

For comparison :

Minolta X 300: 90ms

Pentax Super A 150ms

Contax MA 110ms

Canon Al1 80ms

Nikon FE2 60ms

Canon T50 170ms

Ricoh XR P 370ms

 

The shutter should release to the ear immediately , If you notice a delay, than it´s a sticky damper.

 

So, the Leica R was not the best , but not the worst either....

[jip]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I wonder what the shutter lag of the Leica S is or the Leica R8, or the Nikon FM3a in electronic or mechanical mode. etc. 

[iphoenix]

Thanks to all.

 

I've been judging it against my experience with Nikon F, F2, F3, Nikkormats, etc. It seems maybe I should improve my ability to anticipate movement in action shots when using the RE.

[SilentShutter]

Thanks to all.

 

I've been judging it against my experience with Nikon F, F2, F3, Nikkormats, etc. It seems maybe I should improve my ability to anticipate movement in action shots when using the RE.

 

Just use the Nikon´s instead and be happy again.............kidding !   

[adan]

Three major reasons why some SLRs "of a certain age" - spreading from the 1970s to the 1980s - have increased shutter lag or delay:

 

1) Trying to be more "rangefinder-like" - a damper (shock-absorbing piston) or some other means of spreading out the motion and sound of the many actions of an SLR to reduce peak camera shake and volume.

 

Leitz/Leica, of course, was especially sensitive to this, since their past reputation came from the smoothness of RFs, and they really wanted to replicate that in their SLRs, at a time when the future of the M system was not assured.

 

But nothing is free in engineering, so reduced shake and noise led to slower response.

 

1a) Eventually, as cameras began to include built-in motor drives for cocking and film advance, one additional technique for producing (1) was using motors or solenoids in place of spring-power to "drive" the mirror up and down and the aperture open and closed (e.g. Canon T50 - but others as well). The motor could be accelerated/decelerated more smoothly to slow rather than slam to a stop - but it took more milliseconds.

 

2) The advent of shutter-priority and "Program" automation. The early "camera sets the f/stop" mechanisms were not always very accurate, so it was the norm to slow down the operation so that either: the aperture-stop-down mechanism could stop more precisely - OR - an intentional pause was built-in after stop-down but before raising the mirror and opening the shutter, for the meter to sneak a last peek through the stopped-down aperture, read the actual light coming though, and tweak the electronic shutter speed to correct for the real aperture acheived. I.E., the camera might tell you you had set 1/250 and would get f/5.6, but only achieve f/4.5 (or f/6) and correct for that with an actual shutter speed (set "on the fly" after a new meter reading through the stopped down aperture) of 1/350th or 1/210th.

 

Nikon's first "PASM" camera, the FA, like the R4 et seq. also had a rather rubbery, squishy, s-t-r-e-t-c-h-e-d-o-u-t shutter response. Especially compared to its clockwork siblings, the FM/FM2 and FE/FE2.

 

Eventually, more advanced engineering (lighter materials with less inertia, more precise aperture-drive mechanisms placed within the lenses themselves) permitted the shutter lag to reduce again.

 

I don't know about the R6/6.2. My impression was that the R7 was "snappier" in response, but that may simply have been that their shock-absorbers were younger and more "fresh from the factory."

[Joop van Heijgen]

"Three major reasons why some SLRs "of a certain age" - spreading from the 1970s to the 1980s - have increased shutter lag or delay"

But not for the Leicaflex SL(2)- production '68 - '76

[wagner]

You mentioned the Nikon FA, Adan and you are quite right, the camera was much slower than the Nikon FE: 215ms...

[wagner]

I wonder what the shutter lag of the Leica S is or the Leica R8, or the Nikon FM3a in electronic or mechanical mode. etc. 

Did just read a testreport Leica vs Contax from 3/2000. And there they mentuioned 208ms for the R8 and 118ms for the R6.2

And the Contax Cameras: RTS III 131ms and for the S2 46ms (Which is actually +- the same value, which was mentioned in a brochure for the Leicaflex)

 

Regards,

 

Torsten

[analogfilms]

Did just read a testreport Leica vs Contax from 3/2000. And there they mentuioned 208ms for the R8 and 118ms for the R6.2

And the Contax Cameras: RTS III 131ms and for the S2 46ms (Which is actually +- the same value, which was mentioned in a brochure for the Leicaflex)

 

Regards,

 

Torsten

 

So looks like mechanical shutters have less lag than electrical

[pascal_meheut]

I've always wondered if the R shutter lag was so bad. I used them for years to shoot racing cars and they seemed ok to me, not the fastest but nothing terrible.

I bought a R6.2 (nostalgia) and found it slow but a softie made things better. Anyhow, I started to try to measure the shutter lag myself. I shot an iPad screen running an App. Each time the arrow reaches a 5 sec mark, I take a picture and I look at the digital value.

Of course, I do it several times and computes the average.

First, I tried to check that the results were "more or less" correct. So I tried with an Olympus OM EM1-II and found 30ms. This is coherent with this site: http://store.lightningtrigger.com/compatibilty.aspx

The M10 gave me 32ms and 42ms in Liveview.

Then I tried with good old film cameras. Here are the figures rounded to the closest millisecond:

R6.2: 40ms

R5: 40ms

R9: 35ms

F3HP: 30ms

M7: 27ms

Of course, this is not as precise as it could be: my response time is taken into account and I may anticipate sometimes (but the figures do not show it).

Anyhow, I do not see how we could get the figures above, i.e. 208ms for the R8 and 118ms for the R6.2. 

As I said, I've used the R8 intensively shooting race cars and 2 tenth of a second of shutter lag is not something that would go unnoticed. 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Radost]

On 12/15/2017 at 9:05 AM, Joop van Heijgen said:

"Three major reasons why some SLRs "of a certain age" - spreading from the 1970s to the 1980s - have increased shutter lag or delay"

But not for the Leicaflex SL(2)- production '68 - '76

I have an SL2. great camera, VIewfinder on mine seams not as bright. 

Got a R4S. Great camera. Shutter lag.

Got an R7. Great Camera. SHutter lag

Is there a way to brighten the SL2 viewfinder?

 

Edited June 11, 2024 by Radost

[adan]

On 6/10/2024 at 8:57 PM, Radost said:

Is there a way to brighten the SL2 viewfinder?

Only by installing a "bright" focusing screen with different optical properties.

And that will require major disassembly and factory-grade precision testing equipment, since the Leicaflexes were not designed or intended for user-swappable focus screens. As well as getting a screen that is the exact area/thickness as the SL2 screen.

The textured thin-plastic screens that were introduced with the Minolta-based R cameras are not compatible.

Interestingly, the Leicaflex SL2 (not to be confused the with the earlier Leicaflex SL or Leicaflex Standard) was noted for having a quite bright screen - for the era.

The original Leicaflex Standard "screen" was also very bright - but that was because it did not focus, except for the microprism circle in the center. It was clear glass elsewhere, with no focal-plane as such. (Leica modeled it on the M system - very bright viewing, but focusing only in a center patch. The "Leica Way"). 

One of those might be physically compatible with the SL/SL2 bodies, if you can find a Standard from which to steal the part(s).

It would throw off the light-metering, however, since the SL/SL2 meter off the focus screen itself and are calibrated for the native (lower) brightness of those screens. Adding a brighter screen will lead to underexposures, unless one re-calibrates the meter circuitry (or simply reduces the set ISO value to a lower number - e.g. setting the meter to ISO 100 or 160 or 200 to get correct exposures on ISO 400 Tri-X).

[Radost]

On 6/13/2024 at 8:50 PM, adan said:

Only by installing a "bright" focusing screen with different optical properties.

And that will require major disassembly and factory-grade precision testing equipment, since the Leicaflexes were not designed or intended for user-swappable focus screens. As well as getting a screen that is the exact area/thickness as the SL2 screen.

The textured thin-plastic screens that were introduced with the Minolta-based R cameras are not compatible.

Interestingly, the Leicaflex SL2 (not to be confused the with the earlier Leicaflex SL or Leicaflex Standard) was noted for having a quite bright screen - for the era.

The original Leicaflex Standard "screen" was also very bright - but that was because it did not focus, except for the microprism circle in the center. It was clear glass elsewhere, with no focal-plane as such. (Leica modeled it on the M system - very bright viewing, but focusing only in a center patch. The "Leica Way"). 

One of those might be physically compatible with the SL/SL2 bodies, if you can find a Standard from which to steal the part(s).

It would throw off the light-metering, however, since the SL/SL2 meter off the focus screen itself and are calibrated for the native (lower) brightness of those screens. Adding a brighter screen will lead to underexposures, unless one re-calibrates the meter circuitry (or simply reduces the set ISO value to a lower number - e.g. setting the meter to ISO 100 or 160 or 200 to get correct exposures on ISO 400 Tri-X).

Is there a way to clean it? Maybe the prism is yellow