On Sun, 16 Aug 1998 21:33:57 GMT, mreg@panix.com (Mitchell Regenbogen) wrote:
>In article <6r7h30$3g6$1@news10.ispnews.com>, "Mac Breck" wrote:
David Ruether wrote:

>>>Try synching flash at 1/250th with your FM2's - you may be pleasantly
>>>surprised, as I was after David Rosen suggested trying it...;-)

>>OK.

>>>Somehow I find it difficult to believe an aluminum shutter would be
>>>more durable than one made of titanium, but.....;-)

>>Me too. That's why I think they did it for economical reasons, and had to
>>cover it with some other story. To me, the aluminum shutter of the FM2n
>>should weigh more, and therfore be harder to sync at higher speeds due to
>>increased inertia. You don't get much more exotic than titaniun blades
>>etched in a honeycomb design to reduce mass and increase strength. That's
>>got to cost some bucks. They probably found out it was overkill, and wanted
>>to cut costs, and have fewer shutters to stock in their lineup.

>I (think I) read somewhere that the new shutter is an unusual aluminum alloy,
>not just aluminum, and that it's stronger and lighter than the previous
>titanium shutter, without having to be etched. Nikon never seems to care
>about the costs -- they just tack it on to the price :-)

Ah, another good story...;-)
Most thin aluminum I've had experience with is pretty soft, and
doesn't wear well, but there could always be a stronger variant...
BTW, I once had a chance to compare the bendability of an
F3 titanium prism shell with its brass counterpart. The brass was
easily bent with fingers, but the titanium resisted even a screwdriver
set against it and hit quite hard with a large carpenter's hammer...
The story I heard was that it was too environmentally unfriendly
to make the titanium shutter blades, but I lean toward the economic
explanation for the change...;-)