Shutter Shock - Size DOES Matter!

Started 11 months ago | Discussions thread
Anders W
Forum ProPosts: 19,064Gear list
Re: Since it is a vibration/resonance of course size matters.
In reply to tt321, 11 months ago

tt321 wrote:

Anders W wrote:

tt321 wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Paul De Bra wrote:

It is not just the movement of the shutter and the relative weight of the shutter mechanism versus the rest of the camera that causes the visible effect in the pictures. In fact, shutter shock comes from the shutter closing before it opens, so its action is finished before the exposure starts.

That's certainly not the whole story. The shutter opening for exposure (and coming to a halt in open position) has an impact too.

It is vibration and possibly resonance in the camera+lens setup that causes blurred images.

Vibration/resonance is just one possibility. Shock, pure and simple, is another. In my own tests, I have only found evidence of the latter so far. But I am open to the possibility that there are other mechanisms involved with gear combinations (or specific copies of gear combinations) that I don't have access to.

Whether that is significant depends on the exact camera/lens combination and also on how the camera is held (possibly dampening the effect). That makes the visible effect of shutter shock so unpredictable, and some people who do look carefully will not have it while others do.

The general wisdom is that to eliminate the problem the camera should wait after closing the shutter until the vibration is gone. Recent Olympus cameras offer such anti-shock delay. So what really is the problem is manufacturers trying to make their camera too fast, taking a shot before everything is stable.

Again, that's not the whole story. See above.

Since the vibration is caused by the shutter mechanism another way to eliminate it is to make the camera/lens combination much much heavier so the shutter mechanism has negligible influence. On my dslr setup I had before shutter shock was never a problem. The camera was larger and heavier and so were the lenses and the vibrations from the mirror slap were much larger than those from the shutter could ever be.

One problem with weight as the explanation in this case is that the blades of an APS-C or FF shutter are presumably heavier than those of an MFT shutter (since they have to cover a bigger area, four times bigger on FF). Furthermore, the blades on an APS-C or FF shutter have to move faster in order to reach the same flash sync speed (since they have to move a larger distance in the same time). The implication is that there is more kinetic energy and momentum involved in the shutter action of a DSLR than in an MFT camera and that the difference in this regard may well be larger than the difference in body weight that serves to "absorb" the impact.

SLRs have been around for much longer and manufacturers have been known to devise all sorts of anti-shock mechanisms, primarily about mirror shock/vibration as there is none of this closing before opening stuff for the shutter. What does an SLR do when using Live View mode? The same as mirrorless with the shutter sequences? If so it might be interesting to see if shutter shock can be observed.

Unless the SLR has an electronic first curtain shutter, it must use the same shutter sequence as an MFT camera when shot in live view.

SLRs may not be too obsessed with very small optical elements used for focusing/IS as PDAF is not so critical about these things. Maybe this has something to do with the issue? How's shutter shock on M43 when adapting legacy manual lenses?

Among the most shutter-shock-prone lenses that I have encountered so far is the Minolta MD 85/2 that I was using when first encountering the issue. See here (and click on the image to see it clearly):

So yes, it can occur with legacy lenses too. That's not to say that loose lens elements cannot be the culprit. There are reasons to think that we are dealing with multiple mechanisms, as listed here,

although the root cause (the movement of the shutter blades) is the same.

Shutter shock can of course occur with SLRs too. See here for example:

I see.

My personal experience is my slow zooms, esp. the 45-175, exhibit the worst symptoms while the shorter primes (20 and 25) never to a bothersome degree, and legacy zooms or primes being similar to the m43 primes.

The X 45-175 (like X 14-42 and the 14-140 Mk. II) may well be somewhat special cases (more significant problems and at least partly different mechanisms than in other cases).

The camera body is a G3 which has no e-shutter nor IBIS. So I was thinking maybe the ultra-flexible IS and fast AF elements might have something to do with this.

They sometimes may. But there are good reasons to think that this is not the only mechanism and perhaps not the most common one either.

The data you provided are mostly with IBIS-capable bodies (K-7 has IBIS?).

Does your Minolta lens show the same degree of SS on your Panny body?

I don't know. I haven't tested things out systematically with the G1 since I am as a rule not using it any more. I know that shutter shock exists with the G1 too but I haven't bothered to test every one of the lenses I am using with it.

The thing that concluded this for me is when people report vastly different behaviour between e-shutter and mechanical shutter with the same body and lens. From then on the denials sound very hollow.

With an electronic shutter, the test becomes more straightforward of course and that helps. However, even if you have a only a mechanical shutter at your disposal, you have reason to raise an eyebrow when your results at 1/25 are better than those at 1/100 (to mention but one possibility).

 Anders W's gear list:Anders W's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH +21 more
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