Reading mode: Light Dark

Call For Caution on "Shutter Shock" Posts

Go to last post
Stuart said:
Another variable is the jpeg engine. The EM1 is supposed to do all sorts of corrections.These may vary with exposure parameters etc. The effects can be huge..see cameralabs review of nex6. So far, all testing on this forum has been done with jpegs.
Click to expand...
Again, if you the test right (e.g., low ISO, default settings), I see no problem doing the test with jpegs.

Note that I am not at all trying to defend sloppy testing or uncritical acceptance of the results of such testing. I am just trying to make clear what factors I consider more or less important for those who want to test properly. Here's an example of a really good test, but I am not saying everyone has to go to that extreme: ;-)

http://www.falklumo.com/lumolabs/articles/k7shutter/index.html
 
Last edited:
Anders W said:
Stuart said:
Another variable is the jpeg engine. The EM1 is supposed to do all sorts of corrections.These may vary with exposure parameters etc. The effects can be huge..see cameralabs review of nex6. So far, all testing on this forum has been done with jpegs.
Click to expand...
Again, if you the test right (e.g., low ISO, default settings), I see no problem doing the test with jpegs.

Note that I am not at all trying to defend sloppy testing or uncritical acceptance of the results of such testing. I am just trying to make clear what factors I consider more or less important for those who want to test properly. Here's an example of a really good test, but I am not saying everyone has to go to that extreme: ;-)

http://www.falklumo.com/lumolabs/articles/k7shutter/index.html
Click to expand...
E M1 owners without problems please report back.

Good to see refined test procedures but my take is that obvious shutter shock problems can easily be detected with simple procedures. That is the way i detected my problems.
After completion of a simple set of tests i had a walk around in my village and the problem was worse then i thought. What happens in real life ???
All pictures taken at 1/320 and 1/20 were razor sharp anything between 1/250 and 1/40 showed the blur.

No it is not refraction, no shaky hands it was simply a real problem. No there is no relationship with my finances nor i am ignorant about exposure settings and al the other non relevant arguments used to downplay opinions.


I do not understand the call for caution regarding shuttershock, the problem is real for some camera's. It would be nice if the E M1 owners who do not have this problem report back just to get a balanced view. I spent 5 days to prove that i am wrong.
 
It would be interesting to see tests where f setting and exposure is held constant, shutter speed is varied, and high quality ND filters are used to maintain the constant exposure. Of course, then you would have the variability caused by the ND filters to consider (along with the other variables such as IBIS, hand held shake, shock dynamics when doing tripod shots, and many other variables.) Also, I think all such testing (whether handheld or tripod mounted) should include the use of a wireless shutter release.

The whole subject is interesting, but it IS getting tiresome to read the many threads that attempt to deal with the subject in a cursory way.
 
Last edited:
Stuart said:
Many lenses have "sweet spots"- f8 being a common one.
Click to expand...
I agree with what you said except for this statement. No native m4/3s lens except for the exceptionally bad 14-42mm lens has a sweet spot at F8.0. Most good m4/3s lenses have a sweet spot within 1 stop of wide open.
 
bgalb said:
It would be interesting to see tests where f setting and exposure is held constant, shutter speed is varied, and high quality ND filters are used to maintain the constant exposure. Of course, then you would have the variability caused by the ND filters to consider (along with the other variables such as IBIS, hand held shake, shock dynamics when doing tripod shots, and many other variables.)
Click to expand...
I really don't think it's necessary to keep the f-stop constant. With the right kind of target (like the one I exemplified in an earlier post), you have no difficulties distinguishing blur due to shake from general lens performance. However, you should of course avoid f-stop settings where the lens is sure to provide flaky results even in the absence of shake, such as f/16 and f/22 (strong to very strong diffraction effects) or wide open (if it's a lens known to do poorly at that setting).
bgalb said:
Also, I think all such testing (whether handheld or tripod mounted) should include the use of a wireless shutter release.
Click to expand...
A wireless shutter release isn't such a good idea in hand-held shooting since it's hard to use in that case without deviating from the way you would ordinarily hold the camera. Better to use self-release if you want to isolate the shutter shock from the effect of pressing the shutter button. In tripod-based testing, either way works well of course.
bgalb said:
The whole subject is interesting, but it IS getting tiresome to read the many threads that attempt to deal with the subject in a cursory way.
Click to expand...
You can say that again. ;-)
 
Anders W said:
If you really want to do your testing right, make sure you have a good target such as this one (this is a 100 percent crop), that lets you see quickly and clearly how much blur there is. The print screen structure, whose visibility is strongly affected by even small amounts of camera shake, is the key component. You can do the test even in artificial light (as I often did when I tested the matter). Just make sure you have sufficient light directly on the target.
Click to expand...
Yes, that seems like a good type of target. I will see what I have around.

I used a section of the paper with text and a fine line illustration. It was mounted sufficiently far away that resolving the text with a sharp f-stop resulted in moire. That's an easy indicator of sharpness (albeit not directly quantifiable).

Re: lighting, I don't have any good directional lighting other than flashes, but they aren't much use in testing for shutter shock. In fact, that's one of the reasons I started looking into this. My flash shots came out much sharper than my available light shots at supposedly good shutter speeds.
Anders W said:
You are right that there are two mechanisms involved and that they work in opposite direction, one increasing the risk of blur and the other decreasing it. However, based on my testing so far, the former is regrettably of greater importance.
Click to expand...
Ah. That's useful information.

Thanks for all your comments. I'm not sure when I'll have time to follow up with more tests, but I will keep them in mind when I do.

Simon
 
simpy said:
Anders W said:
If you really want to do your testing right, make sure you have a good target such as this one (this is a 100 percent crop), that lets you see quickly and clearly how much blur there is. The print screen structure, whose visibility is strongly affected by even small amounts of camera shake, is the key component. You can do the test even in artificial light (as I often did when I tested the matter). Just make sure you have sufficient light directly on the target.
Click to expand...
Yes, that seems like a good type of target. I will see what I have around.

I used a section of the paper with text and a fine line illustration. It was mounted sufficiently far away that resolving the text with a sharp f-stop resulted in moire. That's an easy indicator of sharpness (albeit not directly quantifiable).
Click to expand...
Yes, presence/absence of color moiré may be a good indicator too if you find a target that gives rise to very clear moiré when things are tack sharp. However, I suspect it might be more sensitive to minor focus errors or the general optical performance of the lens and the variation in that performance across f-stops than the print-screen structure.
simpy said:
Re: lighting, I don't have any good directional lighting other than flashes, but they aren't much use in testing for shutter shock. In fact, that's one of the reasons I started looking into this. My flash shots came out much sharper than my available light shots at supposedly good shutter speeds.
Click to expand...
Yes, flashes are for obvious reasons not of much help in this case (unless you have some old magnesium ones to burn ;-) ). I just used an ordinary reading lamp (20 W spotlight). That works if you put it close enough to a bright target. And, of course, you need sufficient light on a small part of the target only. In addition, it isn't strictly necessary to keep ISO at rock bottom if the target as such is good enough.
simpy said:
simpy said:
You are right that there are two mechanisms involved and that they work in opposite direction, one increasing the risk of blur and the other decreasing it. However, based on my testing so far, the former is regrettably of greater importance.
Click to expand...
Ah. That's useful information.
Click to expand...
Perhaps I should mention that my results in this regard are based on testing different lenses at the same FL, specifically the Oly 45 (short and light barrel) versus the Oly 40-150 (longer and heavier barrel), and Pany 45-200 (still longer and heavier barrel).
simpy said:
Thanks for all your comments. I'm not sure when I'll have time to follow up with more tests, but I will keep them in mind when I do.
Click to expand...
Glad to be of help.
 
Last edited:
Stuart said:
There have been recent posts alleging varying degrees sharpness of photos with OMD-EM1 with differing shutter speeds. These findings have been attributed to "shutter shock" or similar phenomena. However, in at least some of these cases, the "tester" was keeping the exposure constant. Hence, the aperture varied. The result was comparing sharpness at, say f8 vs. f 3.5 and attributing the differences to "shutter shock". Recall that varying the aperature

1. Changes the depth of field, giving appearance of sharpness at smaller apertures

2. Changes the behavior of the lens. Many lenses have "sweet spots"- f8 being a common one.

Hand holding is also a poor way to evaluate this as the results will vary from shot to shot and would require inspection of many images to draw a firm conclusion.

Therefore, I make a plea to be cautious about blaming one variable for changes in sharpness when multiple variables are changed.
Click to expand...
I consider the shock issue to be of little importance to me so have never sat down to devise a proper test procedure to see when it appears and how to get it to appear reliably.

To keep camera setting changes to a minimum it would make sense to keep to a few set shutter speeds that are right in the middle of the suspicious range and keep the aperture constant and the ISO constant and only use manual focus.

That means the variable needs to be the light intensity and that can be handled by a floodlight moved closer to and further away from the test target each time the shutter speed changes until the exposure is correct.

Some people clearly demonstrated weird IS problems and shake problems using falling raindrops as the subject, maybe some wet waterworks setup is in my testing future.

An interesting subject but sadly way too much emphasis is being placed on a problem that many users don't even notice that it happens. I've seen it a only few times in a few years.

Regards.... Guy
 
Adrian Harris said:
I use both a Panasonic G1 and a Sony A77 APS-C camera. With both I find picture 'shock'/'blur' anomalies from time to time.

With low light hi-ISO images on the A77 I often get a 'double-edge' image when shooting around 1/125. As a mirrorless camera the A77 shutter I should imagine goes through the same process when shooting as the Olympus and Panasonic M4/3 cameras. I know not what else to contribute the double-edge to on the Sony, yet I never hear of shutter shock complained about in forums relating to Sony cameras.

On the Panasonic I more frequently get a soft image and not double edged images. This only happens with the 45-200 lens when shooting above half way on its zoom range. I have even tried seriously sturdy tripods and used optimum F settings, etc. For testing the G1 camera is normally at 1/160-1/250 shutter speed (which is needed for the subject). So I did wonder if it could have been down the the lenses stabilisation 'wobbling' when the shutter fires.

One other issue, ALL cameras other than compacts do shake when a shutter is fired, this usually shows up with very long lenses and I have seen professional Canon and Nikon users wrap themselves over a long lens to dampen the effect when shooting birds a long way away - and they are using tripods I would even dream of trying to carry anywhere!

So maybe 'shutter shock' is something we all have to accept to some degree or other whatever camera we use, its just annoying if its within the [parameters that we specifically want to shoot in :o(
Click to expand...
 
Beach Bum said:
Beach Bum said:
...
Click to expand...
The reviewers (DPReview included) find blurring at 1/80 to 1/250s with the E-P5 and they somehow conclude that it's not the same problem that affected the Panasonic 45-175x, which also had a problem at those exact same shutter speeds.

Very poor reasoning IMO. The shutter speeds being affected are the key and the commonality.

If you call this "shutter shock" on the 45-175 lens, then it only stands to reason that it should be called "shutter shock" on the E-P5. I have some doubt that it's due to the "improved" 5-axis IBIS (but not much), just like the shake on the Panasonic lens was due to the improved Power OIS.

From the remainder of this thread, I'll simply refer to this issue as "IS shake syndrome", so as to avoid irritating anyone by referring to it as "shutter shock".

It's quite clear to me that certain improvements in the IS system (either IBIS or OIS) can lead to unexpected blurring at certain shutter speeds.

Of note, DPReview did not mention the same issues with the E-M1 that they had with the E-P5. But, IMO, at least some E-P5 samples suffer from the same affliction (whatever you want to call it) that the Panasonic 45-175 had, and I believe the root cause is the same.
Click to expand...
I think it's important to make sure similar looking problems are really the same. I had an E-M5 and 45-175 over a year ago. I saw issues with that lens at the speeds you do and generally if I turned off IS, the images were better. But I was only seeing the issue on that lens. I no longer have that lens or body so I can't compare with the E-M1. But the fact that someone else seeing a similar looking problem on a different lens on the E-M1 doesn't necessarily mean it's the same problem. One could be a bug in the IBIS, another could be shutter shock (or a defective camera).

In any case it's clear not everyone is being affected the same. It could be defective units, it could be combinations of technique, lenses, and other factors. That's why people should avoid jumping to conclusions based on insufficient data.

One last comment. DPreview did not fail to mention shutter shock on the E-M1. They explicitly said they looked for it and could not find any evidence of the problem in their review.
 
Last edited:
Since I'm seeing everything but the US budget deficit blamed on shutter shock, and they may get around to that before the year is out, I thought I'd chip in with my 0.02, as I've had my EM5 since April, 2012.

First, here is one I thought might have been... turns out it wasn't. I had thought there was some ghosting on the right side of the snakes where the one is lying on top of the other, but when I get in real close, it's actually one snake's body behind the other, hard to tell with things out of focus. You can fake yourself out real easy if you're not careful.

They do make a cute couple, don't they?



snakes.JPG




Since this is alleged to happen at longer focal lengths (highly unlikely, if this genuinely is a problem with the shutter and sensor, focal length won't matter), here's the longest shot I can find. Nikkor 400 with TCON301 2x TC, making it 800mm, or 1600mm FF AOV. No shock of any sort here. Obviously...



moon41.JPG




this wasn't shot handheld.

So, upon reexamination of my own images, I just can't find this happening.

I'm not saying I don't get bad images, just that I don't see any evidence of mechanical problems. I do see evidence of poor composition, bad use of light, improper exposure, missed focus, wobbly camera, just plain uninspired person holding the camera, and a host of other problems that can be found on just about any camera.

But 'shutter shock'? I just don't see it.
 
TrapperJohn said:
I'm not saying I don't get bad images, just that I don't see any evidence of mechanical problems. I do see evidence of poor composition, bad use of light, improper exposure, missed focus, wobbly camera, just plain uninspired person holding the camera, and a host of other problems that can be found on just about any camera.
But 'shutter shock'? I just don't see it.
Click to expand...
It seems that most reports of 'shutter shock' are accompanied by images that were shot hand-held at various apertures, IS on or off not specified, other settings not given, and so on -- basically, so totally uncontrolled that it would be impossible to determine what the cause of any blur was.

The same issue with 'AF problems' seems to often occur.

Unless you are mentioning a 'problem' that can easily be verified (e.g. my left cursor arrow on the E-M1 squeaks when pressed near the outer edge: should be able to verify if yours does so as well), then you have to do a bit of thinking and work out how to isolate it and reliably replicate it. Not doing so simply results in multiple threads of argument between frustrated people asserting a problem on the one hand, and equally frustrated people trying to assist those with the problem on the other (and becoming increasingly annoyed at wasting their time trying to replicate a problem and not finding it).
 
Guy Parsons said:
Stuart said:
There have been recent posts alleging varying degrees sharpness of photos with OMD-EM1 with differing shutter speeds. These findings have been attributed to "shutter shock" or similar phenomena. However, in at least some of these cases, the "tester" was keeping the exposure constant. Hence, the aperture varied. The result was comparing sharpness at, say f8 vs. f 3.5 and attributing the differences to "shutter shock". Recall that varying the aperature

1. Changes the depth of field, giving appearance of sharpness at smaller apertures

2. Changes the behavior of the lens. Many lenses have "sweet spots"- f8 being a common one.

Hand holding is also a poor way to evaluate this as the results will vary from shot to shot and would require inspection of many images to draw a firm conclusion.

Therefore, I make a plea to be cautious about blaming one variable for changes in sharpness when multiple variables are changed.
Click to expand...
I consider the shock issue to be of little importance to me so have never sat down to devise a proper test procedure to see when it appears and how to get it to appear reliably.

To keep camera setting changes to a minimum it would make sense to keep to a few set shutter speeds that are right in the middle of the suspicious range and keep the aperture constant and the ISO constant and only use manual focus.
Click to expand...
Good idea.

If you get focus shift from aperture changes then you'd have to manually focus each time, but otherwise leave the focus set.
Guy Parsons said:
That means the variable needs to be the light intensity and that can be handled by a floodlight moved closer to and further away from the test target each time the shutter speed changes until the exposure is correct.
Click to expand...
Yes.
Guy Parsons said:
Some people clearly demonstrated weird IS problems and shake problems using falling raindrops as the subject, maybe some wet waterworks setup is in my testing future.

An interesting subject but sadly way too much emphasis is being placed on a problem that many users don't even notice that it happens. I've seen it a only few times in a few years.
Click to expand...
If you can get a repeatable result -- repeated 'shutter shock' for each frame -- you can then start changing variables. Was IS on? Then turn it off. Using a solid tripod? Change to a light-weight one. Settings being used to prevent 'shutter shock'? Turn them off (one at a time). Or vice versa.

If you are willing to do this then you can post a thread with useful information that can be checked properly, and potentially assist everyone who runs into the problem.

If you aren't willing to do this -- well, have fun with the endless arguments.
 
simpy said:
LeeS said:
simpy said:
  • In the E-M1 SCP, the IS modes appear to be mislabelled. The explanatory text for IS-1 is 'auto' and for IS-auto 'landscape panning'. I am using the IS-auto setting all the way to the right, because that was the initial setting. I'm assuming it is not the landscape panning mode.
Click to expand...
I think you are misinterpreting the labels. My interpretation of the manual's description:

In IS-1 the camera attempts to stabilize in all 5 axes (same in M5 and M1).

In IS-auto the camera detects panning a switches to IS-2 or IS-3 as appropriate (new to the M1).
Click to expand...
Ah. Thanks.

I would have sworn my camera arrived set to IS-auto, but that might be a mistake then. Switching to IS-1 now!
Click to expand...
Your not wrong. IS-Auto is default out of the box
 
TrapperJohn said:
Since I'm seeing everything but the US budget deficit blamed on shutter shock, and they may get around to that before the year is out, I thought I'd chip in with my 0.02, as I've had my EM5 since April, 2012.

First, here is one I thought might have been... turns out it wasn't. I had thought there was some ghosting on the right side of the snakes where the one is lying on top of the other, but when I get in real close, it's actually one snake's body behind the other, hard to tell with things out of focus. You can fake yourself out real easy if you're not careful.

They do make a cute couple, don't they?

snakes.JPG


Since this is alleged to happen at longer focal lengths (highly unlikely, if this genuinely is a problem with the shutter and sensor, focal length won't matter), here's the longest shot I can find. Nikkor 400 with TCON301 2x TC, making it 800mm, or 1600mm FF AOV. No shock of any sort here. Obviously...

moon41.JPG


this wasn't shot handheld.

So, upon reexamination of my own images, I just can't find this happening.

I'm not saying I don't get bad images, just that I don't see any evidence of mechanical problems. I do see evidence of poor composition, bad use of light, improper exposure, missed focus, wobbly camera, just plain uninspired person holding the camera, and a host of other problems that can be found on just about any camera.

But 'shutter shock'? I just don't see it.
Click to expand...


You haven't at all done the work necessary to demonstrate the problem, if one happens to exist.



The affected shutter speeds are in the 1/80s to 1/250s range, so your photo of snakes is way off and wouldn't demonstrate the effect.



Your moon shot, while in the correct shutter speed range doesn't appear to display an image so finely detailed that you'd be able to easily see a difference in sharpness. I'm assuming the moon shot is cropped and not resized. If it were resized, then you would have no chance of seeing the effect, as you have to view the original image at 100% to notice it.



To effectively demonstrate shutter shock, you should have one image taken within the shutter speed danger zone and one outside of the danger zone (for comparison). The images should be of something richly detailed.



Without the comparison, a soft image may not be as easy to detect and might be attributed to a soft lens.
 
Corkcampbell said:
... the Rifle that Fired the 'Magic Bullet' had Shutter Shock
Click to expand...
Possible. The image in the OVF stutters when you pull the trigger on the shoot. And then it settles. I think it is common for MILRs (Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Rifles)
Corkcampbell said:
And he didn't even have an EM1...
Click to expand...
They sound differently though, MILC is more tick tick, the DSLRs flap flap and the MILR bang bang.

As the EM5 doesn't seem to be affected, it might be a software error. Resetting the IBIS values on full press maybe? Because the sensor will be stabilized differently during the shoot this is a high probability programming error. If there is a CHDK lookalike for the EM1 someone can take a peek and check.
 
Brian Caslis said:
Beach Bum said:
Brian Caslis said:
...
Click to expand...
The reviewers (DPReview included) find blurring at 1/80 to 1/250s with the E-P5 and they somehow conclude that it's not the same problem that affected the Panasonic 45-175x, which also had a problem at those exact same shutter speeds.

Very poor reasoning IMO. The shutter speeds being affected are the key and the commonality.

If you call this "shutter shock" on the 45-175 lens, then it only stands to reason that it should be called "shutter shock" on the E-P5. I have some doubt that it's due to the "improved" 5-axis IBIS (but not much), just like the shake on the Panasonic lens was due to the improved Power OIS.

From the remainder of this thread, I'll simply refer to this issue as "IS shake syndrome", so as to avoid irritating anyone by referring to it as "shutter shock".

It's quite clear to me that certain improvements in the IS system (either IBIS or OIS) can lead to unexpected blurring at certain shutter speeds.

Of note, DPReview did not mention the same issues with the E-M1 that they had with the E-P5. But, IMO, at least some E-P5 samples suffer from the same affliction (whatever you want to call it) that the Panasonic 45-175 had, and I believe the root cause is the same.
Click to expand...
I think it's important to make sure similar looking problems are really the same. I had an E-M5 and 45-175 over a year ago. I saw issues with that lens at the speeds you do and generally if I turned off IS, the images were better. But I was only seeing the issue on that lens. I no longer have that lens or body so I can't compare with the E-M1. But the fact that someone else seeing a similar looking problem on a different lens on the E-M1 doesn't necessarily mean it's the same problem. One could be a bug in the IBIS, another could be shutter shock (or a defective camera).

In any case it's clear not everyone is being affected the same. It could be defective units, it could be combinations of technique, lenses, and other factors. That's why people should avoid jumping to conclusions based on insufficient data.

One last comment. DPreview did not fail to mention shutter shock on the E-M1. They explicitly said they looked for it and could not find any evidence of the problem in their review.
Click to expand...
"And thankfully, the image shake issue that has plagued some Olympus cameras does not appear to be a problem in the E-M1 as compared to the E-P5."

This is the only blurb I found on the topic in their review. I don't know if they said anything else about it in their multi-page review, but that's not exactly saying that there's no issue at all.

Also, if they had gotompoes' camera, they surely would have seen the same problems he did. Reading over his thread, it seems he pretty comprehensively demonstrated the problem. Does DPReview get their cameras by luck of the draw or are they "donated"?
 
Stuart said:
There have been recent posts alleging varying degrees sharpness of photos with OMD-EM1 with differing shutter speeds. These findings have been attributed to "shutter shock" or similar phenomena. However, in at least some of these cases, the "tester" was keeping the exposure constant. Hence, the aperture varied. The result was comparing sharpness at, say f8 vs. f 3.5 and attributing the differences to "shutter shock". Recall that varying the aperature

1. Changes the depth of field, giving appearance of sharpness at smaller apertures

2. Changes the behavior of the lens. Many lenses have "sweet spots"- f8 being a common one.

Hand holding is also a poor way to evaluate this as the results will vary from shot to shot and would require inspection of many images to draw a firm conclusion.

Therefore, I make a plea to be cautious about blaming one variable for changes in sharpness when multiple variables are changed.
Click to expand...
Again, look at all the work done in this thread:

Received my E M1 with 12-40 mm today

I received an EM1 a couple of weeks ago that was showing very obvious vertical ghosting in the images, which was worst at 1/250 sec with a small, light lens on the camera (the M43 9-18mm in my case). I returned it to the shop and had to deal with an initially scornful salesman, who, after 10...
www.dpreview.com www.dpreview.com

It's not like he just got up one day and randomly decided to post about this. He's obviously put a lot of work into the testing, including using tripods and multiple apertures. Most of the posts here are way too dismissive.

I'd like to see others actually do similar testing with their E-M1's to see if this is a common or rare problem rather than just dismiss it all out of hand.

In summary, I believe what he has shown is probably shutter shock, and it's really incumbent on others to take a similar series of shots with their cameras to demonstrate that they don't have an issue with this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top