E-P5 and "shtter Shock"

Started Oct 6, 2013 | Discussions
John Dyke
Regular MemberPosts: 138
Like?
Re: E-P5 and "shtter Shock"
In reply to John Dyke, Oct 8, 2013

I started this thread a few days ago and I have read every reply but I have not seen an answer to the following question:

If one uses a lightweight in-lens stabilized lens ( such as the Panasonic 14 - 45 ) and switches the E-P5 IBIS off, is there still a problem with "double image or is the problem solved?

If the problem disappears, one could assume that the E-P5 IBIS is the source of the "double image".JD

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Anders W
Forum ProPosts: 18,402Gear list
Like?
Re: E-P5 and "shtter Shock"
In reply to John Dyke, Oct 8, 2013

John Dyke wrote:

I started this thread a few days ago and I have read every reply but I have not seen an answer to the following question:

If one uses a lightweight in-lens stabilized lens ( such as the Panasonic 14 - 45 ) and switches the E-P5 IBIS off, is there still a problem with "double image or is the problem solved?

It is very difficult to generalize about these matters because individual bodies and lenses (as well as the combination of the two) may work differently with respect to the things you are asking about.

In my testing/experience (with an E-M5 rather than an E-P5) the OIS on the Panasonic 14-45 is a bit special in that it appears to be capabable of actually counteracting the shutter shock (unlike the E-M5 IBIS and unlike the OIS on other Panasonic lenses I have, i.e., 45-200 and 100-300).

In general, I have also found that light lenses with short barrels have less problems with shutter shock than others, even with the FL held constant.

However, certain particular lenses, such as the Pansonic X 14-42 PZ are known to be particularly problematic as far as shutter shock is concerned, in spite of having OIS as well as a short and light barrel. Presumably, a negative interaction between the shutter shock and the OIS of this particular lens is the culprit in this case.

If the problem disappears, one could assume that the E-P5 IBIS is the source of the "double image".JD

No, one couldn't. What DPR has apparently already tested is that with an unstabilized lens, turning the IBIS of the E-P5 on or off doesn't change much. I have obtained the same result when testing with the E-M5. This shows that IBIS doesn't help against the shock but doesn't do much if anything to exacerbate it either.

If the problem disappears when you put a stabilized lens on the camera and turn IBIS off, as you suggest, it shows that the OIS of the lens in question can counteract the shutter shock rather than that IBIS is the source of it.

Note that different IBIS and OIS implementations may work differently in this respect. My description above refers to the new IBIS first appearing in the E-M5, but does not necessarily apply to older Oly IBIS versions.

 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
3DrJ
Senior MemberPosts: 1,027Gear list
Like?
Re: Pshaw, or "blowing in the wind"
In reply to Bob Tullis, Oct 8, 2013

Bob Tullis wrote:

Simon Cowell wrote:

... in my view outdoor shots cannot be used for experimentation because simply you cannot control all the parameters.

For instance, at 1/60 even a slight wind may cause the leaves to sway.

Unless you're talking about a close up of leaves only, there will usually be supporting elements in a composition that won't be affected by the wind, providing clear evidence of one's precision.

I believe the "1/60" was referring to my post showing a blur resembling shutter shock, but probably due to other motion blur.  Test photos were made on a quite windless day.  Besides, if blur is due to wind-induced subject motion, I don't think it would look like the perfect vertically doubled effect we're talking about.

So I'm inclined to agree with your comment in this instance.

Jules.

-- hide signature --

...Bob, NYC
http://www.bobtullis.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bobtullis/
.
"Well, sometimes the magic works. . . Sometimes, it doesn't." - Chief Dan George, Little Big Man
.

-- hide signature --

Artists must not only see, but see what they are seeing.

 3DrJ's gear list:3DrJ's gear list
Olympus E-1 Olympus E-3 Olympus PEN E-P3 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Simon Cowell
Senior MemberPosts: 2,503
Like?
Re: Pshaw.
In reply to Bob Tullis, Oct 8, 2013

Bob Tullis wrote:

Simon Cowell wrote:

... in my view outdoor shots cannot be used for experimentation because simply you cannot control all the parameters.

For instance, at 1/60 even a slight wind may cause the leaves to sway.

Unless you're talking about a close up of leaves only, there will usually be supporting elements in a composition that won't be affected by the wind, providing clear evidence of one's precision.

True, but there have been image samples in other threads where the shutter shock appears to be visible in a specific part of the image *only*. So it's not a clear-cut scenario.

I can't find the original version but I recall that shutter shock was visible in the nostrils only (just above the little girl's arm)

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Simon Cowell
Senior MemberPosts: 2,503
Like?
Re: E-P5 and "shtter Shock"
In reply to Anders W, Oct 8, 2013

Certainly these are all interesting ideas, but how do we know that it is indeed possible to conduct tests for shutter shock with normal photographic apparatus?

I mean, we know that IBIS is designed to counteract human shake (which must be of low frequency) but shutter shock may be due to vibrations in specific (higher) frequency range produced by the shutter at speeds 1/80 to 1/200. Exact tests to find the root cause may only be feasible with specialized equipment in a company (Olympus?) laboratory.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Anders W
Forum ProPosts: 18,402Gear list
Like?
Re: E-P5 and "shtter Shock"
In reply to Simon Cowell, Oct 8, 2013

Simon Cowell wrote:

Certainly these are all interesting ideas, but how do we know that it is indeed possible to conduct tests for shutter shock with normal photographic apparatus?

I mean, we know that IBIS is designed to counteract human shake (which must be of low frequency) but shutter shock may be due to vibrations in specific (higher) frequency range produced by the shutter at speeds 1/80 to 1/200. Exact tests to find the root cause may only be feasible with specialized equipment in a company (Olympus?) laboratory

Why wouldn't it be possible to test the things I reported on in my previous post? I have tested them so I know it is possible with normal photographic apparatus. You choose a suitable target (one which easily reveals the slightest blur), shoot a fairly large number of images at each setting (since the problem is probabilistic and varies on a shot-to-shot basis), vary the settings (with regard to for example IBIS on and IBIS off), and check the average outcome with regard to sharpness.

 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
Simon Cowell
Senior MemberPosts: 2,503
Like?
Re: E-P5 and "shtter Shock"
In reply to Anders W, Oct 8, 2013

Anders W wrote:

Simon Cowell wrote:

Certainly these are all interesting ideas, but how do we know that it is indeed possible to conduct tests for shutter shock with normal photographic apparatus?

I mean, we know that IBIS is designed to counteract human shake (which must be of low frequency) but shutter shock may be due to vibrations in specific (higher) frequency range produced by the shutter at speeds 1/80 to 1/200. Exact tests to find the root cause may only be feasible with specialized equipment in a company (Olympus?) laboratory

Why wouldn't it be possible to test the things I reported on in my previous post? I have tested them so I know it is possible with normal photographic apparatus. You choose a suitable target (one which easily reveals the slightest blur), shoot a fairly large number of images at each setting (since the problem is probabilistic and varies on a shot-to-shot basis), vary the settings (with regard to for example IBIS on and IBIS off), and check the average outcome with regard to sharpness.

That's right, you can conduct such a test, I agree, and don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be negative, I really appreciate your (and others') efforts.

What I meant was that with such a test you can observe the evidence of the effect (as DPR have done) but will it offer a good explanation as to what the root cause is?

It seems to me that the two main variables here, shutter and IBIS, need to be disengaged from each other and this is because IBIS is probably still working even when it's turned off (if I recall correctly the "theory" is that the sensor is floating in an electromagnetic field and is not rigidly mounted in the body even with IBIS off). This can only be done by Olympus I think.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Anders W
Forum ProPosts: 18,402Gear list
Like?
Re: E-P5 and "shtter Shock"
In reply to Simon Cowell, Oct 8, 2013

Simon Cowell wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Simon Cowell wrote:

Certainly these are all interesting ideas, but how do we know that it is indeed possible to conduct tests for shutter shock with normal photographic apparatus?

I mean, we know that IBIS is designed to counteract human shake (which must be of low frequency) but shutter shock may be due to vibrations in specific (higher) frequency range produced by the shutter at speeds 1/80 to 1/200. Exact tests to find the root cause may only be feasible with specialized equipment in a company (Olympus?) laboratory

Why wouldn't it be possible to test the things I reported on in my previous post? I have tested them so I know it is possible with normal photographic apparatus. You choose a suitable target (one which easily reveals the slightest blur), shoot a fairly large number of images at each setting (since the problem is probabilistic and varies on a shot-to-shot basis), vary the settings (with regard to for example IBIS on and IBIS off), and check the average outcome with regard to sharpness.

That's right, you can conduct such a test, I agree, and don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be negative, I really appreciate your (and others') efforts.

What I meant was that with such a test you can observe the evidence of the effect (as DPR have done) but will it offer a good explanation as to what the root cause is?

It seems to me that the two main variables here, shutter and IBIS, need to be disengaged from each other and this is because IBIS is probably still working even if it's turned off (if I recall correctly the "theory" is that the sensor is floating in an electromagnetic field and is not rigidly mounted in the body even with IBIS off). This can only be done by Olympus I think.

Yes IBIS is still working even when it is turned off in the sense that electromagnetic force is needed to hold the sensor in place. What is therefore impossible to test (unless you have special resources at your disposal) is how well the camera would do with regard to shutter shock if it had a mechanically fixed sensor and no IBIS.

What we can still test is whether the IBIS control system is somehow fooled by the shock. As far as the new (E-M5 and later) IBIS is concerned, my answer to this question is negative. In the main, I find little difference, when it comes to shutter-shock resistance, between IBIS on and IBIS off. If there is such a difference, it is marginal.

So if this IBIS version would somehow cause problems from a shutter-shock perspective, it would be because the electromagnets are too weak to hold the sensor in place with sufficient rigor. I personally deem that unlikely but I can't say I know for sure. However, one indication that this cannot be a major problem is that enabling the OIS of my 14-45 (and turning IBIS off) gives significantly less blur due to shutter shock than I get with IBIS on (and OIS off) or with both stabilization systems off. If the inabiliity of IBIS to simply hold the sensor in place with sufficient rigor would be a major factor, the OIS of the 14-45 wouldn't be able to help much.

 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
3DrJ
Senior MemberPosts: 1,027Gear list
Like?
Re: "sh_tter Shock": multiple cases and causes?
In reply to Anders W, Oct 8, 2013

Anders W wrote:

3DrJ wrote:

Anders W wrote:

3DrJ wrote:

Great term! Especially the "fill-in-the-blank" missing vowel between 'h' and 't'.

Putting a 'u' in there, and reading the numerous posts about it, quite a few hypotheses have been put forward that might account for unexpectedly blurry images. So it seems not a settled issue.

iple "explanations" for something, leathan one thing going on. Perhaps the "cause" of blur is different in e so easy.

So it's conceivable the problem could be "shutter button jab", shutter vibration, IS or AF mechanism "looseness", other factors not yet teased out, or >=2 of these at the same time.

As a side note, it's good to see this being investigated rather calmly and patiently, without "hysterics" that sometimes have been evident with other issues.

I've had instances of mysterious blur with the E-M5, but I've just started to review the situations re: lens, shutter speeds, etc., and consistent patterns not yet emerged. However, I'm going to keep looking at it, and maybe will have more to report later.

If you search for "shutter shock" on this forum (which you potentially might do even more effectively via google than the internal search function), you will encounter a large number of prior threads on the subject as well as quite a few tests. Many of the comments in the threads on the subject that have surfaced during the past few days are poorly informed because the posters aren't informed about what has been said and done in the past. In reality, I think we have a pretty good understanding of what's going on and not.

Can't say how informed posters have been, but to me it's pretty clear subtly blurred images can occur via an array of factors. Shutter-induced blur is not necessarily easy to distinguish from camera or subject motion blur.

Here's an example: I had a series of shots at different shutter speeds, holding the camera at a distance, using the monitor for framing. Of course, this is likely to give inconsistent results (vs. camera on a tripod), but illustrates what one might encounter in "real-world" camera use.

This scene was the test subject:  ...

.... I am among those who on the forum who have been testing for this phenomenon most extensively. Consequently, I am of course perfectly aware of all of the above. In order to test in a manner that allows you to draw reasonably firm conclusions, you have to shoot quite a few images (especially if you are testing hand-held since the problem is probabilistic rather than deterministic; it isn't perfectly reproducible on a shot-to-shot basis), use a target that readily lets you see any minor blur such as the one exemplified here (the print-screen structure is particularly revealing)

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52237265

inspect the results carefully and average them across the sample, and carefully compare differences in shooting conditions (e.g., the shutter speed used), taking care to vary only one condition at a time.

Can't disagree at all.  I didn't regard my off the cuff results as definitive tests, but illustrating the possible confusing foms of blur that can appear at random in images.

Here's an example of fairly recent thread (two months ago) which contributes some new tests as well as links to previous ones:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51907504

Thanks for the reference. However I've seen the topic and read a good number of threads over the last 3-4 years or so. The fact that the topic emerges fairly regularly, and new tests are invented, seems to suggest variability of the shutter shake phenomenon. Naturally, interest in it arises with new camera models as each introduction potentially brings with it twists in how the problem presents and where it stems from.

Yes, the phenomenon is likely to vary not only on a shot-to-shot basis but also depending on factors such as for example holding technique, body used, and lens used (not only FL but also other things like length, weight, and OIS might make a difference) to name but a few. The fact that the results vary depending on such parameters does not mean that we do not or cannot have a reasonably firm grasp of the general nature of the problem. It just makes it more difficult to achieve it.

I wonder if the difficulty in pinning it down has to do with intrinsic variability of mechanical or optical devices, but perhaps also there are a number of unknown variables that remain unaccounted for.  Obviously factors we cannot parameterize skew results unpredictably and make conclusions tenuous.

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.

I wouldn't use a word like "obfuscate" but I am somewhat sceptical of DPR's idea that the shutter button and the way it is pressed is the main culprit as far as the E-P5 is concerned (particularly since some recent reports by Andy Westlake here on the forum indicates that the problem persists even with a self-release or anti-shock delay of as much as two seconds, which is sufficiently long to remove any shake due to the button-press itself).

Obviously, camera shake has many sources and that fact may well confuse users as well as testers. However, for reasons spelled out above, it remains possible to isolate the impact of shutter-shock from other sources of blur, provided you are ready to think carefully about how to do it and then carry out the test in a sufficiently rigorous and extensive way.

Here you are alluding to a great dilemma of experimental science.  It's necessary to eliminate variables in order to test the hypothesis, but then it is unclear what the test result means in "real-world" circumstances when other variables are uncontrolled.  This is seen in medical research all the time.

Considering the fuzziness that seems to be associated with shutter shock testing, even if specific tests point to factors that produce image blur, narrowness of the test environment and the stochastic nature of results makes it hard to know how to apply the test findings to everyday camera use.

The best we can do may be formulating a partial solution.  That is, to refine knowledge of factors we can determine, e.g., shutter shock, techniques of releasing shutter, lens/OIS/IBIS effects and so on.  Apply this knowledge to the best of our abilities to reduce undesirable blur, and this will be helpful.  But in the end, we have to accept that photography is kind of a gamble, there is a certain probability a shot will be blurry, and some images will unaccountably show it.

It never pays to argue with mother nature ....

Jules.

-- hide signature --

Artists must not only see, but see what they are seeing.

 3DrJ's gear list:3DrJ's gear list
Olympus E-1 Olympus E-3 Olympus PEN E-P3 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
grendak
Junior MemberPosts: 30Gear list
Like?
Re: E-P5 and "shtter Shock"
In reply to John Dyke, Oct 8, 2013

John Dyke wrote:

I started this thread a few days ago and I have read every reply but I have not seen an answer to the following question:

If one uses a lightweight in-lens stabilized lens ( such as the Panasonic 14 - 45 ) and switches the E-P5 IBIS off, is there still a problem with "double image or is the problem solved?

If the problem disappears, one could assume that the E-P5 IBIS is the source of the "double image".JD

I have not tried that particular lens (as I don't own it), however I tested the E-P5 with 3 lenses, the Panasonic 20mm, Oly 75mm and Panasonic 100-300.  The 20mm sometimes was a little "soft" but did not have any major issues.  The 75mm started showing signs of blur.  The panasonic 100-300 was a complete disaster.  The longer the focal length, the more obvious it was and the larger problem I had trying to avoid it.  But going back to your original question, I tried it with OIS on and IBIS off, OIS off and IBIS auto, OIS off and IBIS1.  The same combo with 1/8 anti-shock and the same combo with short shutter response.  It seemed that OIS on / IBIS off was the best choice, but still had major issues with blur and double images.  But while the IBIS is "off", the camera still has to hold the "floating" sensor in one place, which it doesn't seem to do very well.  Granted, I wouldn't call this a "lightweight" in-lens stabilized lens, but figured I would mention it since I did test all of the various IS settings.

 grendak's gear list:grendak's gear list
Olympus PEN E-PL5 Olympus OM-D E-M10 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 100-300mm F4-5.6 OIS +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Anders W
Forum ProPosts: 18,402Gear list
Like?
Re: "sh_tter Shock": multiple cases and causes?
In reply to 3DrJ, Oct 8, 2013

3DrJ wrote:

Anders W wrote:

3DrJ wrote:

Anders W wrote:

3DrJ wrote:

Great term! Especially the "fill-in-the-blank" missing vowel between 'h' and 't'.

Putting a 'u' in there, and reading the numerous posts about it, quite a few hypotheses have been put forward that might account for unexpectedly blurry images. So it seems not a settled issue.

iple "explanations" for something, leathan one thing going on. Perhaps the "cause" of blur is different in e so easy.

So it's conceivable the problem could be "shutter button jab", shutter vibration, IS or AF mechanism "looseness", other factors not yet teased out, or >=2 of these at the same time.

As a side note, it's good to see this being investigated rather calmly and patiently, without "hysterics" that sometimes have been evident with other issues.

I've had instances of mysterious blur with the E-M5, but I've just started to review the situations re: lens, shutter speeds, etc., and consistent patterns not yet emerged. However, I'm going to keep looking at it, and maybe will have more to report later.

If you search for "shutter shock" on this forum (which you potentially might do even more effectively via google than the internal search function), you will encounter a large number of prior threads on the subject as well as quite a few tests. Many of the comments in the threads on the subject that have surfaced during the past few days are poorly informed because the posters aren't informed about what has been said and done in the past. In reality, I think we have a pretty good understanding of what's going on and not.

Can't say how informed posters have been, but to me it's pretty clear subtly blurred images can occur via an array of factors. Shutter-induced blur is not necessarily easy to distinguish from camera or subject motion blur.

Here's an example: I had a series of shots at different shutter speeds, holding the camera at a distance, using the monitor for framing. Of course, this is likely to give inconsistent results (vs. camera on a tripod), but illustrates what one might encounter in "real-world" camera use.

This scene was the test subject: ...

.... I am among those who on the forum who have been testing for this phenomenon most extensively. Consequently, I am of course perfectly aware of all of the above. In order to test in a manner that allows you to draw reasonably firm conclusions, you have to shoot quite a few images (especially if you are testing hand-held since the problem is probabilistic rather than deterministic; it isn't perfectly reproducible on a shot-to-shot basis), use a target that readily lets you see any minor blur such as the one exemplified here (the print-screen structure is particularly revealing)

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52237265

inspect the results carefully and average them across the sample, and carefully compare differences in shooting conditions (e.g., the shutter speed used), taking care to vary only one condition at a time.

Can't disagree at all. I didn't regard my off the cuff results as definitive tests, but illustrating the possible confusing foms of blur that can appear at random in images.

Here's an example of fairly recent thread (two months ago) which contributes some new tests as well as links to previous ones:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51907504

Thanks for the reference. However I've seen the topic and read a good number of threads over the last 3-4 years or so. The fact that the topic emerges fairly regularly, and new tests are invented, seems to suggest variability of the shutter shake phenomenon. Naturally, interest in it arises with new camera models as each introduction potentially brings with it twists in how the problem presents and where it stems from.

Yes, the phenomenon is likely to vary not only on a shot-to-shot basis but also depending on factors such as for example holding technique, body used, and lens used (not only FL but also other things like length, weight, and OIS might make a difference) to name but a few. The fact that the results vary depending on such parameters does not mean that we do not or cannot have a reasonably firm grasp of the general nature of the problem. It just makes it more difficult to achieve it.

I wonder if the difficulty in pinning it down has to do with intrinsic variability of mechanical or optical devices, but perhaps also there are a number of unknown variables that remain unaccounted for. Obviously factors we cannot parameterize skew results unpredictably and make conclusions tenuous.

What makes this problem particularly difficult to pin down is the human factor as far as hand-held shooting is concerned plus the variability of tripods and the surface they are standing on in tripod-based tests. The variability across body models, lens models, and combinations thereof is of course a problem too. Finally, there is the possibility of copy-to-copy variations within bodies/lenses but I doubt that this is in reality a factor of major importance.

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.

I wouldn't use a word like "obfuscate" but I am somewhat sceptical of DPR's idea that the shutter button and the way it is pressed is the main culprit as far as the E-P5 is concerned (particularly since some recent reports by Andy Westlake here on the forum indicates that the problem persists even with a self-release or anti-shock delay of as much as two seconds, which is sufficiently long to remove any shake due to the button-press itself).

Obviously, camera shake has many sources and that fact may well confuse users as well as testers. However, for reasons spelled out above, it remains possible to isolate the impact of shutter-shock from other sources of blur, provided you are ready to think carefully about how to do it and then carry out the test in a sufficiently rigorous and extensive way.

Here you are alluding to a great dilemma of experimental science. It's necessary to eliminate variables in order to test the hypothesis, but then it is unclear what the test result means in "real-world" circumstances when other variables are uncontrolled. This is seen in medical research all the time.

Considering the fuzziness that seems to be associated with shutter shock testing, even if specific tests point to factors that produce image blur, narrowness of the test environment and the stochastic nature of results makes it hard to know how to apply the test findings to everyday camera use.

While what you say about experimental science is true in general, the only major factor at play in this regard in the present case, as I see it, is the variability with regard to hand-holding techniques (and tripod characteristics). What you'd ideally want is a set of testers/tripods or a machine that can emulate various techniques. But that ideal is rarely meet. Nevertheless, multiple tests/testers plus a bit of discussion on the forum appear to take us at least some steps forward.

In other regards, it's not difficult to make the test scenario sufficiently realistic to be in a position to generalize, I think, at least if we restrict the generalization to the particular body and lens models actually tested.

The best we can do may be formulating a partial solution. That is, to refine knowledge of factors we can determine, e.g., shutter shock, techniques of releasing shutter, lens/OIS/IBIS effects and so on. Apply this knowledge to the best of our abilities to reduce undesirable blur, and this will be helpful. But in the end, we have to accept that photography is kind of a gamble, there is a certain probability a shot will be blurry, and some images will unaccountably show it.

It never pays to argue with mother nature ....

I have no problem agreeing with any of that.

 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
Simon Cowell
Senior MemberPosts: 2,503
Like?
Re: E-P5 and "shtter Shock"
In reply to Anders W, Oct 8, 2013

Anders W wrote:

So if this IBIS version would somehow cause problems from a shutter-shock perspective, it would be because the electromagnets are too weak to hold the sensor in place with sufficient rigor. I personally deem that unlikely but I can't say I know for sure. However, one indication that this cannot be a major problem is that enabling the OIS of my 14-45 (and turning IBIS off) gives significantly less blur due to shutter shock than I get with IBIS on (and OIS off) or with both stabilization systems off. If the inabiliity of IBIS to simply hold the sensor in place with sufficient rigor would be a major factor, the OIS of the 14-45 wouldn't be able to help much.

Hmm, a counter argument might be that "the inability of IBIS to simply hold the sensor in place with sufficient rigor" could still produce some shake but which is within the safe bounds of OIS (and that's why you get less blur). After all, the double image effect that we see in the images posted here do not show a very high level of blur, it's the kind of blur that one might associate with subtle camera movement.

I think that apart from mechanical vibrations, there may other variables that may play a role here and these need to discounted first, for example, electromagnetic fields produced by shutter movements that may affect the IBIS, circuit stability etc. But only Olympus can do this kind of testing in my view.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Anders W
Forum ProPosts: 18,402Gear list
Like?
Re: E-P5 and "shtter Shock"
In reply to Simon Cowell, Oct 8, 2013

Simon Cowell wrote:

Anders W wrote:

So if this IBIS version would somehow cause problems from a shutter-shock perspective, it would be because the electromagnets are too weak to hold the sensor in place with sufficient rigor. I personally deem that unlikely but I can't say I know for sure. However, one indication that this cannot be a major problem is that enabling the OIS of my 14-45 (and turning IBIS off) gives significantly less blur due to shutter shock than I get with IBIS on (and OIS off) or with both stabilization systems off. If the inabiliity of IBIS to simply hold the sensor in place with sufficient rigor would be a major factor, the OIS of the 14-45 wouldn't be able to help much.

Hmm, a counter argument might be that "the inability of IBIS to simply hold the sensor in place with sufficient rigor" could still produce some shake but which is within the safe bounds of OIS (and that's why you get less blur).

How would you define the "safe bounds of OIS"? If the OIS worked as it should but the sensor moved uncontrollably due to the shock, the image would be blurred.

After all, the double image effect that we see in the images posted here do not show a very high level of blur, it's the kind of blur that one might associate with subtle camera movement.

I think that apart from mechanical vibrations,

We have evidence (via the experiment described below but also via the investigation reported here

http://www.falklumo.com/lumolabs/articles/k7shutter/index.html

section 4.2) that the blur due to shutter-shock is not a matter vibration but of brute extraneous movement. Shock, pure and simple.

there may other variables that may play a role here and these need to discounted first, for example, electromagnetic fields produced by shutter movements that may affect the IBIS, circuit stability etc. But only Olympus can do this kind of testing in my view.

One can always dream up additional variables that may play a role but I think the possibilities you mention are rather far-fetched. They are also contradicted by the evidence at our disposal. One of the experiments I have performed is to place my E-M5 with the 100-300 at 300 mm (i.e., the most blur-sensitive combination possible) on the tiled concrete floor of my kitchen and fire it. There is no evidence of blur due to shutter-shock in that case. This rules out vibration as a cause (the floor prevents the camera from moving but not from vibrating) and also the factors you mention (or we'd still have blur).

 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
tsammyc
Regular MemberPosts: 360
Like?
Re: Shock vs. shake
In reply to Anders W, Oct 9, 2013

Anders W wrote:

Andy Westlake wrote:

The key point I'd really like to make, though, is that the specific shake issue we see with the E-P5 is not something we see in normal shooting with the E-M5. The two cameras behave differently, so whatever you've learned about the E-M5 may not apply.

I realize that this is your key point but wouldn't be so sure that you are right. While I certainly can't know for sure at this stage, my guess is that you will in the end find the root cause to be the same (shutter shock) although it may well manifest itself in slightly different ways.

If the two of you can't even agree on the definition of shutter shock, there will never be anyone who is "right" in the other's eyes.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Anders W
Forum ProPosts: 18,402Gear list
Like?
Re: Shock vs. shake
In reply to tsammyc, Oct 9, 2013

tsammyc wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Andy Westlake wrote:

The key point I'd really like to make, though, is that the specific shake issue we see with the E-P5 is not something we see in normal shooting with the E-M5. The two cameras behave differently, so whatever you've learned about the E-M5 may not apply.

I realize that this is your key point but wouldn't be so sure that you are right. While I certainly can't know for sure at this stage, my guess is that you will in the end find the root cause to be the same (shutter shock) although it may well manifest itself in slightly different ways.

If the two of you can't even agree on the definition of shutter shock, there will never be anyone who is "right" in the other's eyes.

Perhaps correct. So what?

At present I don't even see that the premise of your conditional statement (that we disagree about the definition) is met.

 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
tsammyc
Regular MemberPosts: 360
Like?
Re: Shock vs. shake
In reply to Anders W, Oct 9, 2013

Anders W wrote:

tsammyc wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Andy Westlake wrote:

The key point I'd really like to make, though, is that the specific shake issue we see with the E-P5 is not something we see in normal shooting with the E-M5. The two cameras behave differently, so whatever you've learned about the E-M5 may not apply.

I realize that this is your key point but wouldn't be so sure that you are right. While I certainly can't know for sure at this stage, my guess is that you will in the end find the root cause to be the same (shutter shock) although it may well manifest itself in slightly different ways.

If the two of you can't even agree on the definition of shutter shock, there will never be anyone who is "right" in the other's eyes.

Perhaps correct. So what?

At present I don't even see that the premise of your conditional statement (that we disagree about the definition) is met.

Perhaps it's me reading this too simply, but Andy says its internal vibrations like mirror slap, you say its not.

Anyway, I just hope that by replying so aggressively, you haven't chased him away from what was becoming a very interesting discussion. So that you know, I've always appreciated both your contributions and Andy's.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Anders W
Forum ProPosts: 18,402Gear list
Like?
Re: Shock vs. shake
In reply to tsammyc, Oct 9, 2013

tsammyc wrote:

Anders W wrote:

tsammyc wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Andy Westlake wrote:

The key point I'd really like to make, though, is that the specific shake issue we see with the E-P5 is not something we see in normal shooting with the E-M5. The two cameras behave differently, so whatever you've learned about the E-M5 may not apply.

I realize that this is your key point but wouldn't be so sure that you are right. While I certainly can't know for sure at this stage, my guess is that you will in the end find the root cause to be the same (shutter shock) although it may well manifest itself in slightly different ways.

If the two of you can't even agree on the definition of shutter shock, there will never be anyone who is "right" in the other's eyes.

Perhaps correct. So what?

At present I don't even see that the premise of your conditional statement (that we disagree about the definition) is met.

Perhaps it's me reading this too simply, but Andy says its internal vibrations like mirror slap, you say its not.

Yes, we disagree about that. But I wouldn't consider that to be a disagreement about the definition. Rather, this is a disagreement about the facts. The difference is important since disagreement about facts can be resolved by observation (measurements, tests) whereas disagreement about definitions cannot, at least not in a direct way.

My provisional definition of the problem of shutter shock would be something like "blur due to shutter movement". But the blur can be linked to shutter movement via several different mechanisms. One potential mechanism is that the camera as a whole moves slightly. Another potential mechanism is that it vibrates. These two alternative mechanisms have been tested and the evidence to which I pointed suggests that the first mechanism rather than the second is the important one.

Anyway, I just hope that by replying so aggressively, you haven't chased him away from what was becoming a very interesting discussion.

I honestly don't think I was aggressive. I just called things as I see them, i.e., tried to make it clear where we agreed and disagreed and what my reasons for disagreeing were. Hopefully, he will return to respond and if he doesn't, I doubt that the reason has much to do with the way I worded things.

So that you know, I've always appreciated both your contributions and Andy's.

Thanks. Glad to hear that.

 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
John Dyke
Regular MemberPosts: 138
Like?
Re: E-P5 and "shtter Shock"
In reply to grendak, Oct 9, 2013

Thank you Anders W, Sinon Cowell and Grendak, this is getting very interesting and I am learning a lot of new things which I would otherwise never have heard about.

The E-P5 is really a remarkable little camera. It is like buying a very beautiful, superb pedigree, expensive puppy....which turns out to be high strung and unpredictable but very, very talented. A puppy you really fall for and enjoy once you get to know it and it gets to know you..

I am getting some very pleasing photographs with it. As far as lenses go I have had no SERIOUS problems. I use the Pans. 20mm f1.7,the Olympus 45mm f1.8, the Pana 14 - 45' the Pana 13 - 35, Pana 70 -200' Pana 100 - 300 and the Sigma  60mm f 2.8

I have noticed no double image at all with the 13 - 35, 14 -45 and the 45 f 1.8, none what-so-ever. The longer lenses I have not had a chance to test

If Olympus can find a fix for the double image problem they will have a winner and that would be nice for everyone

Yes,I know the menu is absolutely awful but I have learned to live with it. I also have a GH3 which is a sublime camera but surprisingly heavy when you are 81.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ken Strain
Regular MemberPosts: 256
Like?
Re: "sh_tter Shock": multiple cases and causes?
In reply to Anders W, Oct 9, 2013

Anders W wrote:

3DrJ wrote:

Anders W wrote:

3DrJ wrote:

Anders W wrote:

3DrJ wrote:

Great term! Especially the "fill-in-the-blank" missing vowel between 'h' and 't'.

Putting a 'u' in there, and reading the numerous posts about it, quite a few hypotheses have been put forward that might account for unexpectedly blurry images. So it seems not a settled issue.

iple "explanations" for something, leathan one thing going on. Perhaps the "cause" of blur is different in e so easy.

So it's conceivable the problem could be "shutter button jab", shutter vibration, IS or AF mechanism "looseness", other factors not yet teased out, or >=2 of these at the same time.

As a side note, it's good to see this being investigated rather calmly and patiently, without "hysterics" that sometimes have been evident with other issues.

I've had instances of mysterious blur with the E-M5, but I've just started to review the situations re: lens, shutter speeds, etc., and consistent patterns not yet emerged. However, I'm going to keep looking at it, and maybe will have more to report later.

If you search for "shutter shock" on this forum (which you potentially might do even more effectively via google than the internal search function), you will encounter a large number of prior threads on the subject as well as quite a few tests. Many of the comments in the threads on the subject that have surfaced during the past few days are poorly informed because the posters aren't informed about what has been said and done in the past. In reality, I think we have a pretty good understanding of what's going on and not.

Can't say how informed posters have been, but to me it's pretty clear subtly blurred images can occur via an array of factors. Shutter-induced blur is not necessarily easy to distinguish from camera or subject motion blur.

Here's an example: I had a series of shots at different shutter speeds, holding the camera at a distance, using the monitor for framing. Of course, this is likely to give inconsistent results (vs. camera on a tripod), but illustrates what one might encounter in "real-world" camera use.

This scene was the test subject: ...

.... I am among those who on the forum who have been testing for this phenomenon most extensively. Consequently, I am of course perfectly aware of all of the above. In order to test in a manner that allows you to draw reasonably firm conclusions, you have to shoot quite a few images (especially if you are testing hand-held since the problem is probabilistic rather than deterministic; it isn't perfectly reproducible on a shot-to-shot basis), use a target that readily lets you see any minor blur such as the one exemplified here (the print-screen structure is particularly revealing)

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52237265

inspect the results carefully and average them across the sample, and carefully compare differences in shooting conditions (e.g., the shutter speed used), taking care to vary only one condition at a time.

Can't disagree at all. I didn't regard my off the cuff results as definitive tests, but illustrating the possible confusing foms of blur that can appear at random in images.

Here's an example of fairly recent thread (two months ago) which contributes some new tests as well as links to previous ones:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51907504

Thanks for the reference. However I've seen the topic and read a good number of threads over the last 3-4 years or so. The fact that the topic emerges fairly regularly, and new tests are invented, seems to suggest variability of the shutter shake phenomenon. Naturally, interest in it arises with new camera models as each introduction potentially brings with it twists in how the problem presents and where it stems from.

Yes, the phenomenon is likely to vary not only on a shot-to-shot basis but also depending on factors such as for example holding technique, body used, and lens used (not only FL but also other things like length, weight, and OIS might make a difference) to name but a few. The fact that the results vary depending on such parameters does not mean that we do not or cannot have a reasonably firm grasp of the general nature of the problem. It just makes it more difficult to achieve it.

I wonder if the difficulty in pinning it down has to do with intrinsic variability of mechanical or optical devices, but perhaps also there are a number of unknown variables that remain unaccounted for. Obviously factors we cannot parameterize skew results unpredictably and make conclusions tenuous.

What makes this problem particularly difficult to pin down is the human factor as far as hand-held shooting is concerned plus the variability of tripods and the surface they are standing on in tripod-based tests. The variability across body models, lens models, and combinations thereof is of course a problem too. Finally, there is the possibility of copy-to-copy variations within bodies/lenses but I doubt that this is in reality a factor of major importance.

I think such variation should not be ruled out. I only have weak evidence: my E-PL2 had shock approaching an order of magnitude worse than my E-PM2 and E-PM1 which are roughly similar. This is based on similar photographs taken at different times with the same lenses and holding technique. The older camera was close to useless due to vertical double images. Your suggested holding technique helped. Fortunately a monopod also helped.

OK, those are different bodies, but similar size and perhaps similar IBIS design.  Most E-PL2s CANNOT have been that bad or that would have been talked about.

Ken

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.

I wouldn't use a word like "obfuscate" but I am somewhat sceptical of DPR's idea that the shutter button and the way it is pressed is the main culprit as far as the E-P5 is concerned (particularly since some recent reports by Andy Westlake here on the forum indicates that the problem persists even with a self-release or anti-shock delay of as much as two seconds, which is sufficiently long to remove any shake due to the button-press itself).

Obviously, camera shake has many sources and that fact may well confuse users as well as testers. However, for reasons spelled out above, it remains possible to isolate the impact of shutter-shock from other sources of blur, provided you are ready to think carefully about how to do it and then carry out the test in a sufficiently rigorous and extensive way.

Here you are alluding to a great dilemma of experimental science. It's necessary to eliminate variables in order to test the hypothesis, but then it is unclear what the test result means in "real-world" circumstances when other variables are uncontrolled. This is seen in medical research all the time.

Considering the fuzziness that seems to be associated with shutter shock testing, even if specific tests point to factors that produce image blur, narrowness of the test environment and the stochastic nature of results makes it hard to know how to apply the test findings to everyday camera use.

While what you say about experimental science is true in general, the only major factor at play in this regard in the present case, as I see it, is the variability with regard to hand-holding techniques (and tripod characteristics). What you'd ideally want is a set of testers/tripods or a machine that can emulate various techniques. But that ideal is rarely meet. Nevertheless, multiple tests/testers plus a bit of discussion on the forum appear to take us at least some steps forward.

In other regards, it's not difficult to make the test scenario sufficiently realistic to be in a position to generalize, I think, at least if we restrict the generalization to the particular body and lens models actually tested.

The best we can do may be formulating a partial solution. That is, to refine knowledge of factors we can determine, e.g., shutter shock, techniques of releasing shutter, lens/OIS/IBIS effects and so on. Apply this knowledge to the best of our abilities to reduce undesirable blur, and this will be helpful. But in the end, we have to accept that photography is kind of a gamble, there is a certain probability a shot will be blurry, and some images will unaccountably show it.

It never pays to argue with mother nature ....

I have no problem agreeing with any of that.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Andy Westlake
Senior MemberPosts: 2,928Gear list
Like?
Nothing wrong with debate
In reply to Anders W, Oct 9, 2013

Just to be clear, I have no objections to this discussion at all, but I can't spend all my time on this forum arguing my case - I have a job to do. So here's a quick summary of my thinking:

1) I think Anders is absolutely correct about way shutter shock is transmitted in Olympus cameras - I can see no evidence whatsoever that the shutter specifically vibrates to the sensor internally. The entire camera has to move (and, obviously, tilt). So the 'floating' IS system is not to blame.

2) I can see shutter shock on the E-P5 quite clearly, if I look hard enough. But I have to use a 40-150mm at 150mm on a 'wobbly' tripod to do so, and the shake pattern is distinctly different to what I see in handheld shooting. I can't see the same effect with ether the 60mm F2.8 Macro or the 45mm F1.8 at shutter speeds which give hand-held blurring.

3) When I can see shutter shock, it's absolutely reproducible shot-to-shot, as you'd predict. But the handheld effect is both much larger in magnitude, and random in its occurrence - it affects perhaps 60% of shots using the 60mm macro at 1/160sec. I've done a *lot* of testing of camera shake and image stabilisation systems for all sorts of camera/lens combinations, and this is relatively high in my experience.

4) Images that show blurring just don't look much different with or without IS enabled. To me, the simplest explanation is that the IS simply doesn't correct it, for whatever reason.

My main point is still that the E-P5 really is different to the E-M5, in terms of image blurring when shooting hand-held. That is why we called it out in the review. Richard knows the E-M5 very well - he reviewed it - and I own one and use it for much of my personal shooting, so we're not lacking in perspective. Of course we both have a lot of experience across loads of cameras of many types.

I don't think that shutter-shock tests done on other cameras, however well-conducted, can be generalised across to everything else out there - I've shot with countless cameras over the six years I've been working for DPReview, and they all have different characteristics. I see no reason not to believe that such things as shutter button design and placement could influence camera movements, and the E-M5's has a much longer travel, and softer feel, than the E-P5's.

The good news, though, is that 1/8 sec anti-shock seems to fix the E-P5's shakes..

-- hide signature --

Andy Westlake
dpreview.com

 Andy Westlake's gear list:Andy Westlake's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix F30 Zoom Olympus Stylus Verve S Olympus XZ-2 iHS Canon EOS 5D Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 +11 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads