E-P5 and "shtter Shock"

Started 9 months ago | Discussions
captura
Forum ProPosts: 12,929Gear list
Like?
Re: One small point
In reply to Anders W, 9 months ago

Anders W wrote:

captura wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Alien from Mars wrote:

Andy Westlake wrote:

Equally, though, if the shake were due to shutter shock, it should be just as 'fixed' with 2 second anti-shock as it is with 1/8 second. In practice, 2 second anti-shock gives just as much shake as 2 second self-timer. That's difficult for me to fit with a shutter shock explanation.

At this point, while there are certainly other tests which could be done to try to pin things down, it starts to look like a lot of time spent for minimal benefit. What matters here are the two simple observations - the E-P5 seems unusually prone to producing blurred images, and the anti-shake setting looks like an option worth trying for users who notice this and consider it a problem.

Andy,

Both self-timer and "anti-shock" lag could not help against shock occurring DURING exposure, when the first curtain comes to hard stop.

Anti-shock could counteract initial closing of the shutter, self-timer could help against hard pressing on the button.

If you did not see this example please take a look:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/42417970

That's the easiest way to catch "shutter shock" and separate it from any other sources of blur - use moving targets like water droplets from a spray bottle.

Precisely. And this is of course why anti-shock is but a partial help, not a panacea.

You ignored my suggestion about employing a EFCS. Simple and effective.

Didn't ignore it. I have been arguing for a long time myself that this (or a global electronic shutter) is what we really need to get rid of the shutter-shock problem.

Nikon 1's solution to anti-shake may be even better...it seems SO effective. Can't speak on it as I just bought a new 1J1 model.

That's a rolling shutter like the one on recent Panasonic MFT cams. A good thing to have when it can be used without drawbacks. Regrettably, that's not always the case.

I have steady hands, but I noticed that even with a bit of my movement, the image on the screen on the Nikon 1 holds the image steady for a short while. Very unusual.

 captura's gear list:captura's gear list
Fujifilm X10 Sony Alpha NEX-7 NEX5R Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R Sony E 55-210mm F4.5-6.3 OSS +9 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
captura
Forum ProPosts: 12,929Gear list
Like?
Re: One small point
In reply to Timbukto, 9 months ago

Timbukto wrote:

Andy Westlake wrote:

Overall, it seems to me that the only real point of disagreement left is that I don't think the specific vertical double-image I see with the E-P5 comes from the same mechanism as the 'shutter shock' images I have - the blur is just so much stronger. Here there's one specific point worth discussing:

Anders W wrote:

However, what you said about your own test results in a prior post (i.e., that you see the same blur with the E-P5 when you shoot with as much as two-second self-release or anti-shock delay) rules out, to my mind, the possibility that it is the shock due to button-pressing that is the culprit. As far as I can see, there is no way the "shock" due to button-pressing could last as long as two seconds.

Equally, though, if the shake were due to shutter shock, it should be just as 'fixed' with 2 second anti-shock as it is with 1/8 second. In practice, 2 second anti-shock gives just as much shake as 2 second self-timer. That's difficult for me to fit with a shutter shock explanation.

At this point, while there are certainly other tests which could be done to try to pin things down, it starts to look like a lot of time spent for minimal benefit. What matters here are the two simple observations - the E-P5 seems unusually prone to producing blurred images, and the anti-shake setting looks like an option worth trying for users who notice this and consider it a problem.

-- hide signature --

Andy Westlake
dpreview.com

There have been users that felt that the E-PM1/2 or E-PL3/5 camera's also behave a bit differently in regards to shock compared to EM-5 but it has never been mentioned in previous reviews. Is this because these are less premium products and not as much review time is given to them, or is it because they legitimately have less 'noticeable' issues than even the new E-P5? Technically these camera's are the lightest of the bunch, and possibly the most prone to these issues.

I would say that when I hold my E-PM2 via supporting the bottom and I turn off IBIS when not needed, I would never get anything objectionable at 17mm. Overall IBIS is very iffy to me. Anti-shock can help, but it seems like its very much a wash for me where I can just try to support the camera to my best ability and the faster shot rate easily makes up for any difference there.

I have found the same thing with my E-PM1. I'm getting the best results with IBIS turned OFF and with a 1/8 second delay.

I like the camera...once optimized to non-default settings it is very much like any of the 12 mp cameras only faster.

 captura's gear list:captura's gear list
Fujifilm X10 Sony Alpha NEX-7 NEX5R Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R Sony E 55-210mm F4.5-6.3 OSS +9 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
captura
Forum ProPosts: 12,929Gear list
Like?
Re: This whole thread is making me glad I bought the EPM2.
In reply to Timbukto, 9 months ago

Timbukto wrote:

herebefore wrote:

Yes, I can "force" the EPM2 to give me what looks like shutter-shock, but it is mostly accomplished by having the IS turned on when I dont need it.

Its sounding to me like there might be a "design flaw" causing the blurred images.

-- hide signature --

Larry Lynch
Mystic, Connecticut
Be Careful, sleep can be a symptom of caffeine deprivation
..
I figured out why I cant lose weight! The only exercise Im good at is CHEWING
..
Don't take yourself so seriously. No one else does
..
In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane.
Oscar Wilde

E-PM2 has it as well, but never so bad that it could possibly mess up a 35mm equivalent shot (i.e. the 17mm). Also you are correct once I turn off IBIS, and firmly support the bottom of the camera (and not just left hand on the lens), I can basically fire 8fps of decent shots where the throwaways are usually my fault or too slow shutter, etc.

I've only tested as far as my 45mm, my 45-150 I truly get mixed results sometimes and will need to play with it some more and see if its also a better when IBIS is off lens. Another interesting thing is I am able to specify the focal length on my IBIS...but I thought that should have been automatic for native lenses...but maybe I'm missing something.

How do you feel about anti-shock? Sometimes I feel it can give me the sharpest pictures...and sometimes I feel that shooting 8 fps with firm support is just as good...

It's this kind of shooting where the Nikon 1 shows it's superiority.

 captura's gear list:captura's gear list
Fujifilm X10 Sony Alpha NEX-7 NEX5R Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R Sony E 55-210mm F4.5-6.3 OSS +9 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
jack Hoggard
Contributing MemberPosts: 823Gear list
Like?
Re: E-P5 and "shtter Shock"
In reply to John Dyke, 9 months ago

I hope you left out a "u" rather than an "i". 

-- hide signature --

jaxupra

 jack Hoggard's gear list:jack Hoggard's gear list
Olympus E-M1 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm 1:1.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 17mm 1:1.8 Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
captura
Forum ProPosts: 12,929Gear list
Like?
Re: One small point
In reply to Anders W, 9 months ago

Anders W wrote:

captura wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Alien from Mars wrote:

Andy Westlake wrote:

Equally, though, if the shake were due to shutter shock, it should be just as 'fixed' with 2 second anti-shock as it is with 1/8 second. In practice, 2 second anti-shock gives just as much shake as 2 second self-timer. That's difficult for me to fit with a shutter shock explanation.

At this point, while there are certainly other tests which could be done to try to pin things down, it starts to look like a lot of time spent for minimal benefit. What matters here are the two simple observations - the E-P5 seems unusually prone to producing blurred images, and the anti-shake setting looks like an option worth trying for users who notice this and consider it a problem.

Andy,

Both self-timer and "anti-shock" lag could not help against shock occurring DURING exposure, when the first curtain comes to hard stop.

Anti-shock could counteract initial closing of the shutter, self-timer could help against hard pressing on the button.

If you did not see this example please take a look:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/42417970

That's the easiest way to catch "shutter shock" and separate it from any other sources of blur - use moving targets like water droplets from a spray bottle.

Precisely. And this is of course why anti-shock is but a partial help, not a panacea.

You ignored my suggestion about employing a EFCS. Simple and effective.

Didn't ignore it. I have been arguing for a long time myself that this (or a global electronic shutter) is what we really need to get rid of the shutter-shock problem.

Nikon 1's solution to anti-shake may be even better...it seems SO effective. Can't speak on it as I just bought a new 1J1 model.

That's a rolling shutter like the one on recent Panasonic MFT cams. A good thing to have when it can be used without drawbacks. Regrettably, that's not always the case.

The Nikon 1's mechanical shutter is switchable ON/OFF but it's EFCS (electronic first curtain shutter) is always on.

Sadly m43 don't see fit to install EFCF, so they get Shutter Shock requiring the 1/8 sec. delay, etc.

 captura's gear list:captura's gear list
Fujifilm X10 Sony Alpha NEX-7 NEX5R Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R Sony E 55-210mm F4.5-6.3 OSS +9 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Anders W
Forum ProPosts: 17,083Gear list
Like?
Re: One small point
In reply to captura, 9 months ago

captura wrote:

Anders W wrote:

captura wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Alien from Mars wrote:

Andy Westlake wrote:

Equally, though, if the shake were due to shutter shock, it should be just as 'fixed' with 2 second anti-shock as it is with 1/8 second. In practice, 2 second anti-shock gives just as much shake as 2 second self-timer. That's difficult for me to fit with a shutter shock explanation.

At this point, while there are certainly other tests which could be done to try to pin things down, it starts to look like a lot of time spent for minimal benefit. What matters here are the two simple observations - the E-P5 seems unusually prone to producing blurred images, and the anti-shake setting looks like an option worth trying for users who notice this and consider it a problem.

Andy,

Both self-timer and "anti-shock" lag could not help against shock occurring DURING exposure, when the first curtain comes to hard stop.

Anti-shock could counteract initial closing of the shutter, self-timer could help against hard pressing on the button.

If you did not see this example please take a look:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/42417970

That's the easiest way to catch "shutter shock" and separate it from any other sources of blur - use moving targets like water droplets from a spray bottle.

Precisely. And this is of course why anti-shock is but a partial help, not a panacea.

You ignored my suggestion about employing a EFCS. Simple and effective.

Didn't ignore it. I have been arguing for a long time myself that this (or a global electronic shutter) is what we really need to get rid of the shutter-shock problem.

Nikon 1's solution to anti-shake may be even better...it seems SO effective. Can't speak on it as I just bought a new 1J1 model.

That's a rolling shutter like the one on recent Panasonic MFT cams. A good thing to have when it can be used without drawbacks. Regrettably, that's not always the case.

The Nikon 1's mechanical shutter is switchable ON/OFF but it's EFCS (electronic first curtain shutter) is always on.

OK. I didn't know that Nikon 1 had EFCS, only that at least some Canon and Sony cams have it. With regard to Nikon 1, I was only aware of the rolling, completely electronic shutter. Is EFCS available on all Nikon 1 bodies or only some?

Sadly m43 don't see fit to install EFCF, so they get Shutter Shock requiring the 1/8 sec. delay, etc.

I am sure it's just a matter of (hopefully short) time before MFT has it too. It's certainly something that comes very high on my wish list for future MFT bodies.

 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
lester11
Regular MemberPosts: 386Gear list
Like?
Re: A relevant question...
In reply to Anders W, 9 months ago

Anders W wrote:

Michael J Davis wrote:

Has anybody yet tested (I haven't) the shutter shock issue using the battery grip on the E-M5?

I might have seen one or more tests regarding the impact of the grip but I no longer remember the details well enough to search for them more effectively than you can do yourself.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52298210 and http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52294229

-- hide signature --

Lester

 lester11's gear list:lester11's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS30 Olympus PEN E-PL3 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Leica D Summilux Asph 25mm F1.4 +13 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Simon Cowell
Senior MemberPosts: 2,498
Like?
Re: E-P5 and "shtter Shock"
In reply to Anders W, 9 months ago

Anders W wrote:

Simon Cowell wrote:

Anders W wrote:

OK. But even if the Panasonic OIS worked perfectly, that wouldn't help if the sensor moved uncontrollably. The OIS system doesn't expect and can't even know about any sensor movement. It assumes the sensor to stay perfectly put and if it doesn't, you'd see significant blur even if the OIS worked perfectly. Hence, the fact that the OIS on the 14-45 reduces the blur to a significant extent indicates that uncontrollable sensor movement (due to the magnets not being able to hold the sensor rigidly in place) is not a factor or at least not a major factor.

OK, I get it, this reasoning sounds plausible. But have you thought about the possibility that the shutter causes a shock to the whole body including the lens and this is what makes the OIS work?

Sure. That's exactly what I think happens.

The vibration/shock (call it any way you want) may cause proportionally more uncontrollable movement to the sensor if the IBIS is unable to rigidly stabilize the sensor. And this may explain why using an OIS lens may reduce the blur but not completely eliminate it. All hypothetical of course.

No that wouldn't explain it. This is exactly the scenario we've already talked about. The OIS accounts for the shock and provided that the sensor stays put, the image is fine. If the sensor wouldn't stay put, the result would be blurred even if OIS did the job right.

I think we say the same thing here.

Of course, the more samples the better, but since a digital camera is an electronic device (or micro-electro-mechanical one) don't you think the blur should be reproducible even after taking into account some error tolerances and copy-to-copy variations?

In hand-held shooting, absolutely not. In tripod-based shooting, the variation would be significantly smaller but still there to at least some extent.

Yes, no system can be absolutely perfect but when DPR is talking about 60% of shots being blurred this variation is too much IMO (even if this is for handheld shots). Of course we knew IBIS is not perfect anyway.

In the test of Falk Lumo that I linked to, there is virtually no blur at these shutter speeds when the camera is placed on a heavy tripod (see section 4.2, the one I already referred to). I don't have such a tripod to test with but get the same result when placing the camera on something still heavier and rigid: a concrete floor.

So what is left to explain?

Hmm, DPR though say that there was blur even when they used a tripod. I think it would be good to have an explanation as to why shutter shock is proportionally higher for shots in this range of speeds (1/80-1/250s). Cameras are instruments that should work in predictable ways and the average user would like to know why the variation of blurred shots may be higher for this speed range rather than, say, for the range 1/20-1/60s (or you think this is not the case?).

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Michael J Davis
Senior MemberPosts: 2,427Gear list
Like?
Re: A relevant question...
In reply to lester11, 9 months ago

lester11 wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Michael J Davis wrote:

Has anybody yet tested (I haven't) the shutter shock issue using the battery grip on the E-M5?

I might have seen one or more tests regarding the impact of the grip but I no longer remember the details well enough to search for them more effectively than you can do yourself.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52298210 and http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52294229

Thanks Lester, well done! I find your 'peak' at 1/40sec interesting while everyone is saying 1/80 - 1/150sec.

I have been so busy lately that I haven't had a chance to take a photo for 5 days, much less set up tests!!

Mike

-- hide signature --

Mike Davis
Photographing the public for over 50 years
www.flickr.com/photos/watchman

 Michael J Davis's gear list:Michael J Davis's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Anders W
Forum ProPosts: 17,083Gear list
Like?
Re: E-P5 and "shtter Shock"
In reply to Simon Cowell, 9 months ago

Simon Cowell wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Simon Cowell wrote:

Anders W wrote:

OK. But even if the Panasonic OIS worked perfectly, that wouldn't help if the sensor moved uncontrollably. The OIS system doesn't expect and can't even know about any sensor movement. It assumes the sensor to stay perfectly put and if it doesn't, you'd see significant blur even if the OIS worked perfectly. Hence, the fact that the OIS on the 14-45 reduces the blur to a significant extent indicates that uncontrollable sensor movement (due to the magnets not being able to hold the sensor rigidly in place) is not a factor or at least not a major factor.

OK, I get it, this reasoning sounds plausible. But have you thought about the possibility that the shutter causes a shock to the whole body including the lens and this is what makes the OIS work?

Sure. That's exactly what I think happens.

The vibration/shock (call it any way you want) may cause proportionally more uncontrollable movement to the sensor if the IBIS is unable to rigidly stabilize the sensor. And this may explain why using an OIS lens may reduce the blur but not completely eliminate it. All hypothetical of course.

No that wouldn't explain it. This is exactly the scenario we've already talked about. The OIS accounts for the shock and provided that the sensor stays put, the image is fine. If the sensor wouldn't stay put, the result would be blurred even if OIS did the job right.

I think we say the same thing here.

Good.

Of course, the more samples the better, but since a digital camera is an electronic device (or micro-electro-mechanical one) don't you think the blur should be reproducible even after taking into account some error tolerances and copy-to-copy variations?

In hand-held shooting, absolutely not. In tripod-based shooting, the variation would be significantly smaller but still there to at least some extent.

Yes, no system can be absolutely perfect but when DPR is talking about 60% of shots being blurred this variation is too much IMO (even if this is for handheld shots). Of course we knew IBIS is not perfect anyway.

I was speaking about the extent to which the magnitude of the blur varies from one shot to another. You are speaking about the overall percentage of blurred shots. Two different things.

In the test of Falk Lumo that I linked to, there is virtually no blur at these shutter speeds when the camera is placed on a heavy tripod (see section 4.2, the one I already referred to). I don't have such a tripod to test with but get the same result when placing the camera on something still heavier and rigid: a concrete floor.

So what is left to explain?

Hmm, DPR though say that there was blur even when they used a tripod.

Note that I said "heavy tripod".

I think it would be good to have an explanation as to why shutter shock is proportionally higher for shots in this range of speeds (1/80-1/250s). Cameras are instruments that should work in predictable ways and the average user would like to know why the variation of blurred shots may be higher for this speed range rather than, say, for the range 1/20-1/60s (or you think this is not the case?).

The peak tends to be about 1/125 and the problem declines gradually on either side of this peak. The reason there is gradually less blur at shutter speeds lower than 1/125 is that the short-lived shock affects a gradually smaller proportion of the total exposure time. The reason there is gradually less blur at shutter speeds higher than 1/125 is that the exposure will cover a gradually smaller proportion of the total camera movement due to the shock.

 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
texinwien
Senior MemberPosts: 2,650Gear list
Like?
Re: A relevant question...
In reply to Michael J Davis, 9 months ago

Michael J Davis wrote:

lester11 wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Michael J Davis wrote:

Has anybody yet tested (I haven't) the shutter shock issue using the battery grip on the E-M5?

I might have seen one or more tests regarding the impact of the grip but I no longer remember the details well enough to search for them more effectively than you can do yourself.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52298210 and http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52294229

Thanks Lester, well done! I find your 'peak' at 1/40sec interesting while everyone is saying 1/80 - 1/150sec.

It's perhaps important to note that lester's peak at 1/40 was with the grip attached. Without the grip attached, his peak was 1/80.

Furthermore, this phenomenon seems to be affected by a number of different variables - camera body, lens, photographer's camera-holding technique, to name a few.

The point is that I don't think it would be too surprising to find that one photographer's statistical peak, all other things (camera body, lens, etc.) being equal, was different than another photographer's, due to potentially hard-to-quantify differences in camera-holding technique.

 texinwien's gear list:texinwien's gear list
Canon EOS 300D Olympus OM-D E-M5 Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G Vario 100-300mm F4-5.6 OIS +14 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Anders W
Forum ProPosts: 17,083Gear list
Like?
Re: A relevant question...
In reply to texinwien, 9 months ago

texinwien wrote:

Michael J Davis wrote:

lester11 wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Michael J Davis wrote:

Has anybody yet tested (I haven't) the shutter shock issue using the battery grip on the E-M5?

I might have seen one or more tests regarding the impact of the grip but I no longer remember the details well enough to search for them more effectively than you can do yourself.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52298210 and http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52294229

Thanks Lester, well done! I find your 'peak' at 1/40sec interesting while everyone is saying 1/80 - 1/150sec.

It's perhaps important to note that lester's peak at 1/40 was with the grip attached. Without the grip attached, his peak was 1/80.

Judging by his report, Lester appears to think that you can put an equal sign between shutter shock and double contours. I don't. Ordinary camera shake can give rise to double contours too and shutter shock can manifest itself without. Furthermore, it is unclear to me whether he realizes the need to consider things from a statistical point of view and has tested accordingly. Finally, I find no reason to think that the shutter speed at which the problem peaks should be strongly affected by whether the grip (and its additional weight) is attached or not.

Furthermore, this phenomenon seems to be affected by a number of different variables - camera body, lens, photographer's camera-holding technique, to name a few.

The point is that I don't think it would be too surprising to find that one photographer's statistical peak, all other things (camera body, lens, etc.) being equal, was different than another photographer's, due to potentially hard-to-quantify differences in camera-holding technique.

While I think a lot might depend on personal variation, the point at which the problem peaks is not among them.

 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
texinwien
Senior MemberPosts: 2,650Gear list
Like?
Re: A relevant question...
In reply to Anders W, 9 months ago

Anders W wrote:

texinwien wrote:

Michael J Davis wrote:

lester11 wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Michael J Davis wrote:

Has anybody yet tested (I haven't) the shutter shock issue using the battery grip on the E-M5?

I might have seen one or more tests regarding the impact of the grip but I no longer remember the details well enough to search for them more effectively than you can do yourself.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52298210 and http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52294229

Thanks Lester, well done! I find your 'peak' at 1/40sec interesting while everyone is saying 1/80 - 1/150sec.

It's perhaps important to note that lester's peak at 1/40 was with the grip attached. Without the grip attached, his peak was 1/80.

Judging by his report, Lester appears to think that you can put an equal sign between shutter shock and double contours. I don't.

Nor do I, and it's a good point. Too many think that an absence of clearly visible double contours in a photo is proof that the photo doesn't suffer from the effects of shutter shock.

As I've pointed out multiple times in these most recent discussions, shutter shock can also show up as a slight loss of resolution. As a matter of fact, I'd guess it shows up more often as a slight loss of resolution than as clear vertical doubling.

Ordinary camera shake can give rise to double contours too and shutter shock can manifest itself without. Furthermore, it is unclear to me whether he realizes the need to consider things from a statistical point of view and has tested accordingly. Finally, I find no reason to think that the shutter speed at which the problem peaks should be strongly affected by whether the grip (and its additional weight) is attached or not.

Furthermore, this phenomenon seems to be affected by a number of different variables - camera body, lens, photographer's camera-holding technique, to name a few.

The point is that I don't think it would be too surprising to find that one photographer's statistical peak, all other things (camera body, lens, etc.) being equal, was different than another photographer's, due to potentially hard-to-quantify differences in camera-holding technique.

While I think a lot might depend on personal variation, the point at which the problem peaks is not among them.

Interesting. I'll have to think about that a little bit, but I think I can see why that could be correct.

 texinwien's gear list:texinwien's gear list
Canon EOS 300D Olympus OM-D E-M5 Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G Vario 100-300mm F4-5.6 OIS +14 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
exdeejjjaaaa
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,688Gear list
Like?
Re: E-P5 and "shtter Shock"
In reply to Anders W, 9 months ago

Anders W wrote:

Note that I said "heavy tripod".

just the mass of tripod means nothing, you can have a heavy tripod w/ legs very prone to vibrations... as you perfectly know aluminium tripods have mass more than carbon fiber however nobody in a sane mind 'd go for an aluminium tripod unless it has solid legs cast in solid aluminium and anchored in concrete.

 exdeejjjaaaa's gear list:exdeejjjaaaa's gear list
Olympus E-M1 Sony Alpha 7 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Panasonic Leica DG Macro-Elmarit 45mm F2.8 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH +20 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
captura
Forum ProPosts: 12,929Gear list
Like?
Re: One small point
In reply to Anders W, 9 months ago

Anders W wrote:

captura wrote:

Anders W wrote:

captura wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Alien from Mars wrote:

Andy Westlake wrote:

Equally, though, if the shake were due to shutter shock, it should be just as 'fixed' with 2 second anti-shock as it is with 1/8 second. In practice, 2 second anti-shock gives just as much shake as 2 second self-timer. That's difficult for me to fit with a shutter shock explanation.

At this point, while there are certainly other tests which could be done to try to pin things down, it starts to look like a lot of time spent for minimal benefit. What matters here are the two simple observations - the E-P5 seems unusually prone to producing blurred images, and the anti-shake setting looks like an option worth trying for users who notice this and consider it a problem.

Andy,

Both self-timer and "anti-shock" lag could not help against shock occurring DURING exposure, when the first curtain comes to hard stop.

Anti-shock could counteract initial closing of the shutter, self-timer could help against hard pressing on the button.

If you did not see this example please take a look:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/42417970

That's the easiest way to catch "shutter shock" and separate it from any other sources of blur - use moving targets like water droplets from a spray bottle.

Precisely. And this is of course why anti-shock is but a partial help, not a panacea.

You ignored my suggestion about employing a EFCS. Simple and effective.

Didn't ignore it. I have been arguing for a long time myself that this (or a global electronic shutter) is what we really need to get rid of the shutter-shock problem.

Nikon 1's solution to anti-shake may be even better...it seems SO effective. Can't speak on it as I just bought a new 1J1 model.

That's a rolling shutter like the one on recent Panasonic MFT cams. A good thing to have when it can be used without drawbacks. Regrettably, that's not always the case.

The Nikon 1's mechanical shutter is switchable ON/OFF but it's EFCS (electronic first curtain shutter) is always on.

OK. I didn't know that Nikon 1 had EFCS, only that at least some Canon and Sony cams have it. With regard to Nikon 1, I was only aware of the rolling, completely electronic shutter. Is EFCS available on all Nikon 1 bodies or only some?

Not a rolling shutter.

ARTICLE: LV mode and Low Vibration mode in DSLR cameras, Nikon, Canon, Sony

" Nikon 1 V1 and V2 have both vertical-run focal plane mechanical shutter and electronic shutter. Nikon 1 J1 and J2 has no mechanical shutter."

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/7710807187/lv-mode-and-low-vibration-mode-in-dslr-cameras-nikon-canon-sony/print

With my 1 J1, I can fire off up to 60 photo. frames per second. At 10 fps, I get contiuous auto-focus. In high speed video mode, I can play-back in slow motion.

Sadly m43 don't see fit to install EFCF, so they get Shutter Shock requiring the 1/8 sec. delay, etc.

I am sure it's just a matter of (hopefully short) time before MFT has it too. It's certainly something that comes very high on my wish list for future MFT bodies.

 captura's gear list:captura's gear list
Fujifilm X10 Sony Alpha NEX-7 NEX5R Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R Sony E 55-210mm F4.5-6.3 OSS +9 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Michael J Davis
Senior MemberPosts: 2,427Gear list
Like?
Re: A relevant question...
In reply to texinwien, 9 months ago

texinwien wrote:

Anders W wrote:

texinwien wrote:

Michael J Davis wrote:

lester11 wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Michael J Davis wrote:

Has anybody yet tested (I haven't) the shutter shock issue using the battery grip on the E-M5?

I might have seen one or more tests regarding the impact of the grip but I no longer remember the details well enough to search for them more effectively than you can do yourself.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52298210 and http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52294229

Thanks Lester, well done! I find your 'peak' at 1/40sec interesting while everyone is saying 1/80 - 1/150sec.

It's perhaps important to note that lester's peak at 1/40 was with the grip attached. Without the grip attached, his peak was 1/80.

Judging by his report, Lester appears to think that you can put an equal sign between shutter shock and double contours. I don't.

Nor do I, and it's a good point. Too many think that an absence of clearly visible double contours in a photo is proof that the photo doesn't suffer from the effects of shutter shock.

As I've pointed out multiple times in these most recent discussions, shutter shock can also show up as a slight loss of resolution. As a matter of fact, I'd guess it shows up more often as a slight loss of resolution than as clear vertical doubling.

Ordinary camera shake can give rise to double contours too and shutter shock can manifest itself without. Furthermore, it is unclear to me whether he realizes the need to consider things from a statistical point of view and has tested accordingly. Finally, I find no reason to think that the shutter speed at which the problem peaks should be strongly affected by whether the grip (and its additional weight) is attached or not.

Furthermore, this phenomenon seems to be affected by a number of different variables - camera body, lens, photographer's camera-holding technique, to name a few.

The point is that I don't think it would be too surprising to find that one photographer's statistical peak, all other things (camera body, lens, etc.) being equal, was different than another photographer's, due to potentially hard-to-quantify differences in camera-holding technique.

While I think a lot might depend on personal variation, the point at which the problem peaks is not among them.

Interesting. I'll have to think about that a little bit, but I think I can see why that could be correct.

To all of which, I guess, there's no solution but to carry out one's own tests!...

Mike

-- hide signature --

Mike Davis
Photographing the public for over 50 years
www.flickr.com/photos/watchman

 Michael J Davis's gear list:Michael J Davis's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
lester11
Regular MemberPosts: 386Gear list
Like?
Re: A relevant question...
In reply to Anders W, 9 months ago

Anders W wrote:

Judging by his report, Lester appears to think that you can put an equal sign between shutter shock and double contours. I don't. Ordinary camera shake can give rise to double contours too and shutter shock can manifest itself without.

Hi Anders

My first objective was to obtain reproducible shutter shock.  That is, indisputable visual evidence that would survive the rigours of, erm, forum review.  The first step was to define shutter shock (for my purposes) in a way that meant it could not be dismissed as just some kind of perfectly familiar blur or camera shake by a sceptical reader.  I thought there would be little point joining the discussion here with a blurred image and attempting to claim evidence of shutter shock (smile).

Furthermore, it is unclear to me whether he realizes the need to consider things from a statistical point of view and has tested accordingly.

In one of my other lives I am an experimental statistician (smile).  But I want to avoid a stochastic analysis and associated data for as long as possible.  Instead, I want to demonstrate a reproducible "something" -- shutter shock -- at every instance, so that it could not be dismissed as some kind of artefact (I guess I am repeating myself here) by a sceptical reader.  Not that I am knocking scepticism, it is a necessary attribute of a successful experimenter, but there are a couple of enthusiastically loud sceptics here whose noise can drown signal...

Finally, I find no reason to think that the shutter speed at which the problem peaks should be strongly affected by whether the grip (and its additional weight) is attached or not.  While I think a lot might depend on personal variation, the point at which the problem peaks is not among them.

So I'm just starting a journey you have travelled well.  Nevertheless it is not yet clear to me that the problem I'm working on (double image ghosting in one dimension in the E-M5 and E-PL3) is independent of shutter speed.  Instead (to my surprise) I have found adding the grip is a factor which I have yet to analyse further.  It could be the additional mass.  It could be the different pivot point (ie different rotational impulse) offered by portrait instead of landscape orientation when the camera is held only in a crooked right hand.

-- hide signature --

Lester

 lester11's gear list:lester11's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS30 Olympus PEN E-PL3 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Leica D Summilux Asph 25mm F1.4 +13 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Anders W
Forum ProPosts: 17,083Gear list
Like?
Re: E-P5 and "shtter Shock"
In reply to exdeejjjaaaa, 9 months ago

exdeejjjaaaa wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Note that I said "heavy tripod".

just the mass of tripod means nothing, you can have a heavy tripod w/ legs very prone to vibrations... as you perfectly know aluminium tripods have mass more than carbon fiber however nobody in a sane mind 'd go for an aluminium tripod unless it has solid legs cast in solid aluminium and anchored in concrete.

We were talking about a specific test by Falk Lumo in which he uses what I called here, for short, a "heavy tripod", i.e. "a tripod which is very massive (like 100 kg) and has zero slackness in the junction to the camera. An example is a camera clamped to a massive stone table. Or an equivalent tripod" (a class A tripod according to his classification).

http://www.falklumo.com/lumolabs/articles/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
Anders W
Forum ProPosts: 17,083Gear list
Like?
Re: A relevant question...
In reply to lester11, 9 months ago

lester11 wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Judging by his report, Lester appears to think that you can put an equal sign between shutter shock and double contours. I don't. Ordinary camera shake can give rise to double contours too and shutter shock can manifest itself without.

Hi Anders

My first objective was to obtain reproducible shutter shock. That is, indisputable visual evidence that would survive the rigours of, erm, forum review. The first step was to define shutter shock (for my purposes) in a way that meant it could not be dismissed as just some kind of perfectly familiar blur or camera shake by a sceptical reader. I thought there would be little point joining the discussion here with a blurred image and attempting to claim evidence of shutter shock (smile).

Furthermore, it is unclear to me whether he realizes the need to consider things from a statistical point of view and has tested accordingly.

In one of my other lives I am an experimental statistician (smile). But I want to avoid a stochastic analysis and associated data for as long as possible. Instead, I want to demonstrate a reproducible "something" -- shutter shock -- at every instance, so that it could not be dismissed as some kind of artefact (I guess I am repeating myself here) by a sceptical reader. Not that I am knocking scepticism, it is a necessary attribute of a successful experimenter, but there are a couple of enthusiastically loud sceptics here whose noise can drown signal...

Finally, I find no reason to think that the shutter speed at which the problem peaks should be strongly affected by whether the grip (and its additional weight) is attached or not. While I think a lot might depend on personal variation, the point at which the problem peaks is not among them.

So I'm just starting a journey you have travelled well. Nevertheless it is not yet clear to me that the problem I'm working on (double image ghosting in one dimension in the E-M5 and E-PL3) is independent of shutter speed. Instead (to my surprise) I have found adding the grip is a factor which I have yet to analyse further. It could be the additional mass. It could be the different pivot point (ie different rotational impulse) offered by portrait instead of landscape orientation when the camera is held only in a crooked right hand.

Hi Lester,

While I appreciate your efforts to help out with the testing, it is regrettably not possible to determine, with certainty, the presence or absence of shutter shock by the presence or absence of double contours. Such contours may accompany shutter shock but not always do. Similarly, double contours can appear as a result of camera shake not produced by the shutter.

Since the impact of shutter shock as well as other sources of blur vary on a shot-to-shot basis it is additionally impossible to bypass the need for statistical testing. In other words, you need to shoot quite a few images under the two (or more) conditions you wish to compare, not just a single one.

Since checking lots of and lots of shots for sharpness is tedious and time-consuming, it is additionally important to use a target that allows you to tell, quickly as well as reliably, how good or bad a certain shot is with regard to sharpness. Here's an example of a good target, similar to the one I have used in my own testing. The print screen structure is very effective in revealing even the slightest amount of blur.

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

When testing for vertical as opposed to horizontal blur, however, you might want to use a grid of some kind or some other target with vertical as well as horizontal lines, such as the one used here:

http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/artnov12/dw-SonyNEX5N.html

As to shutter speed, neither I nor anyone else is saying that the problem is independent of shutter speed. On the contrary, it is well known by now that the problem peaks at about 1/125 s (give or take 1/3 EV) and gradually declines on either side of the peak.

Adding a grip is likely to reduce (but not eliminate) the impact of shutter shock due to adding weight at a suitable location (right below the shutter).

 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
Anders W
Forum ProPosts: 17,083Gear list
Like?
Re: One small point
In reply to captura, 9 months ago

captura wrote:

Anders W wrote:

captura wrote:

Anders W wrote:

captura wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Alien from Mars wrote:

Andy Westlake wrote:

Equally, though, if the shake were due to shutter shock, it should be just as 'fixed' with 2 second anti-shock as it is with 1/8 second. In practice, 2 second anti-shock gives just as much shake as 2 second self-timer. That's difficult for me to fit with a shutter shock explanation.

At this point, while there are certainly other tests which could be done to try to pin things down, it starts to look like a lot of time spent for minimal benefit. What matters here are the two simple observations - the E-P5 seems unusually prone to producing blurred images, and the anti-shake setting looks like an option worth trying for users who notice this and consider it a problem.

Andy,

Both self-timer and "anti-shock" lag could not help against shock occurring DURING exposure, when the first curtain comes to hard stop.

Anti-shock could counteract initial closing of the shutter, self-timer could help against hard pressing on the button.

If you did not see this example please take a look:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/42417970

That's the easiest way to catch "shutter shock" and separate it from any other sources of blur - use moving targets like water droplets from a spray bottle.

Precisely. And this is of course why anti-shock is but a partial help, not a panacea.

You ignored my suggestion about employing a EFCS. Simple and effective.

Didn't ignore it. I have been arguing for a long time myself that this (or a global electronic shutter) is what we really need to get rid of the shutter-shock problem.

Nikon 1's solution to anti-shake may be even better...it seems SO effective. Can't speak on it as I just bought a new 1J1 model.

That's a rolling shutter like the one on recent Panasonic MFT cams. A good thing to have when it can be used without drawbacks. Regrettably, that's not always the case.

The Nikon 1's mechanical shutter is switchable ON/OFF but it's EFCS (electronic first curtain shutter) is always on.

OK. I didn't know that Nikon 1 had EFCS, only that at least some Canon and Sony cams have it. With regard to Nikon 1, I was only aware of the rolling, completely electronic shutter. Is EFCS available on all Nikon 1 bodies or only some?

Not a rolling shutter.

ARTICLE:LV mode and Low Vibration mode in DSLR cameras, Nikon, Canon, Sony

" Nikon 1 V1 and V2 have both vertical-run focal plane mechanical shutter and electronic shutter. Nikon 1 J1 and J2 has no mechanical shutter."

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/7710807187/lv-mode-and-low-vibration-mode-in-dslr-cameras-nikon-canon-sony/print

But but ... that article says exactly what I initially claimed. That the Nikon 1's have a non-global (rolling) electronic shutter but lacks an EFCS (electronic first curtain shutter).

With my 1 J1, I can fire off up to 60 photo. frames per second. At 10 fps, I get contiuous auto-focus. In high speed video mode, I can play-back in slow motion.

That's all very nice but has little to do with what we are discussing in this thread.

Sadly m43 don't see fit to install EFCF, so they get Shutter Shock requiring the 1/8 sec. delay, etc.

I am sure it's just a matter of (hopefully short) time before MFT has it too. It's certainly something that comes very high on my wish list for future MFT bodies.

 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
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads