E-P5 and "shtter Shock"

Started Oct 6, 2013 | Discussions thread
tt321
Senior MemberPosts: 4,006Gear list
Like?
Re: Shock vs. shake
In reply to Andy Westlake, Oct 7, 2013

Andy Westlake wrote:

3DrJ wrote:

In recent threads it was discussed how DPR seemed to obfuscate the issue in the EP5, stating differences when using touch screen vs. shutter button. In other words, if we believe DPR's idea, the source of "shake" that affects images is broader than just the mechanical action of the shutter, thus confusion among camera owners as well as testers.

'Shutter shock' should look like mirror shock on SLRs, and have the same characteristics. Crucially, mirror shock is visible on a tripod, and 100% reproducible shot-to-shot. It's also independent of how the shutter is released (shutter button, remote release, touchscreen etc). This is well known, and it's why most SLRs have a mirror lock-up function.

The phenomenon we observed with the E-P5 does not look this at all. With the camera on a tripod, there's absolutely no hint of blurring, in all the test shots I've taken (which runs into hundreds). This is true not just on the properly-solid tripods I normally use for testing, but also on the lightest, flimsiest tripod I own, which is very wobbly indeed (I wouldn't dream of using the E-P5 on it normally). The shake also substantially goes away if you use the touchscreen to release the shutter when shooting handheld. This doesn't fit a 'shutter shock' explanation at all.

The shake does substantially go away if you shoot-hand with 1/8 sec anti-shock. It's visible again if you shoot hand-held with a 2 second self-timer, and my impression is that this has often been considered clinching proof of a shutter shock mechanism. The problem is that this comparison changes two variables at once, which any trained experimentalist will tell you is a bad idea. The correct comparison with 2 second self-timer is 2 second anti-shock - and in my testing, shake is (perhaps unexpectedly) similarly visible with both - it comes back again with the longer anti-shock delay. Again, I don't see how this observation can fit a 'shutter shock' mechanism.

Removing shake, but giving shock a chance to shine, I'd have thought one should place the camera stably on a hard surface, but not screwed down so that whatever that surface is made of does not become the same body, thus increasing the mass.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow