Call For Caution on "Shutter Shock" Posts

I've shot close to 3000 images with the EM5, using various ZD, MZD and PL lenses. That's the best test one can perform, to use it as one would normally use it.

My goal in posting my findings is to give the residents of 1041 a perspective, what one is likely to encounter when they use the camera to capture photographs, that they're not specifically looking for trobule. And that perspective is - this 'shutter shock' thing has been greatly overblown. I haven't seen it in a year and a half of use, though I'm not specifically looking for it.

I am also seeing a number of posts claiming 'shutter shock', when the errant shot looks to have been poorly focused, indifferently exposed, what have you... not the horizontal displacement of OOF areas that 'shutter shock' is reported to cause. To those people, I will suggest - if you haven't correctly identified why the image wasn't what you expected it to be, you won't take the appropriate corrective action. Much as I'd like to blame my gear, the problems I encounter are almost always operator induced, which means upgrading the gear and not the operator knowledge base will not get better images.

No, I'm not deliberately trying to bring out an issue. That's not why I bought an expensive camera and expensive lenses. I simply reviewed a great number of my shots, taken from the perspective of someone looking to capture images instead of reproducing an obscure issue, that were in the general range of where 'shutter shock' is reported to be seen, to find out if I was seeing it in my own shots.

And the short answer is - I am not.

TrapperJohn said:

I've shot close to 3000 images with the EM5, using various ZD, MZD and PL lenses. That's the best test one can perform, to use it as one would normally use it.

Click to expand...

The only thing you can test by shooting as you normally would and then inspecting your images is whether things work out to your personal and subjective satisfaction. It certainly isn't a good test for the impact of shutter shock.

TrapperJohn said:

My goal in posting my findings is to give the residents of 1041 a perspective, what one is likely to encounter when they use the camera to capture photographs, that they're not specifically looking for trobule. And that perspective is - this 'shutter shock' thing has been greatly overblown. I haven't seen it in a year and a half of use, though I'm not specifically looking for it.

Click to expand...

How can you see it if you aren't looking for it and not making comparisons of the kind that would make you able to see it?

TrapperJohn said:

I am also seeing a number of posts claiming 'shutter shock', when the errant shot looks to have been poorly focused, indifferently exposed, what have you... not the horizontal displacement of OOF areas that 'shutter shock' is reported to cause. To those people, I will suggest - if you haven't correctly identified why the image wasn't what you expected it to be, you won't take the appropriate corrective action. Much as I'd like to blame my gear, the problems I encounter are almost always operator induced, which means upgrading the gear and not the operator knowledge base will not get better images.

No, I'm not deliberately trying to bring out an issue. That's not why I bought an expensive camera and expensive lenses. I simply reviewed a great number of my shots, taken from the perspective of someone looking to capture images instead of reproducing an obscure issue, that were in the general range of where 'shutter shock' is reported to be seen, to find out if I was seeing it in my own shots.

And the short answer is - I am not.

Click to expand...

While it's certainly nice for you personally that you are satisfied with your images, I don't see how that has anything to do with the presence or absence of shutter-shock effects.

My approach is a bit different. If I suspect that I could take better images with my gear by doing things this way rather than that way, I set up a controlled to see whether it makes a difference. If it does, I try to do things this way rather than that way in the future. I do this even in cases where I am already pretty satisfied, inspired by the simple idea that nothing is so good that it can't be made better.

Or how about Fan boys who cannot stand the thought of someone criticising their brand (because of course it's perfect) just not comment, or... Actually give a fellow forum member advice and actually use science and facts to show they are wrong? And if you can't, are you so sure it's you who is right?

TrapperJohn said:

I've shot close to 3000 images with the EM5, using various ZD, MZD and PL lenses. That's the best test one can perform, to use it as one would normally use it.

My goal in posting my findings is to give the residents of 1041 a perspective, what one is likely to encounter when they use the camera to capture photographs, that they're not specifically looking for trobule. And that perspective is - this 'shutter shock' thing has been greatly overblown. I haven't seen it in a year and a half of use, though I'm not specifically looking for it.

I am also seeing a number of posts claiming 'shutter shock', when the errant shot looks to have been poorly focused, indifferently exposed, what have you... not the horizontal displacement of OOF areas that 'shutter shock' is reported to cause. To those people, I will suggest - if you haven't correctly identified why the image wasn't what you expected it to be, you won't take the appropriate corrective action. Much as I'd like to blame my gear, the problems I encounter are almost always operator induced, which means upgrading the gear and not the operator knowledge base will not get better images.

Click to expand...

I have submitted a number of images showing a problem and tried to prove many times that i was wrong and not the camera. At that point you could have been specific by telling me what to do or what was wrong with the procedure. Trying to dismiss everything without being factual does not help.
It was DP review who brought up the issue and people are free to use this information.
Poorly focussing, what do you mean ? The photographer is simply using the camera's AF system.
Lets go back to basics, inspect the images and i will be very happy if you can prove that i am wrong.

TrapperJohn said:

No, I'm not deliberately trying to bring out an issue. That's not why I bought an expensive camera and expensive lenses. I simply reviewed a great number of my shots, taken from the perspective of someone looking to capture images instead of reproducing an obscure issue, that were in the general range of where 'shutter shock' is reported to be seen, to find out if I was seeing it in my own shots.

Click to expand...

Obscure issue ?? Did you read the DP review of the E P5 ?? No doubt a lot of happy owners will be glad to report positive findings. The EM 5 is very successful and so will be the E M1.
A fantastic versatile system with some sample variation like with many other camera's

TrapperJohn said:

And the short answer is - I am not.

Click to expand...

Pedal2Floor said:

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

Click to expand...

So it seems I misunderstood how it works - again. From the description I figured that IS-auto switches between IS-2 and IS-3 automatically. Apparently, it switches from IS-1 to IS-2 or IS-3 if needed. Back to IS-auto then

I have clear statistical evidence (data set of 1000+ images) for shutter shock between 1/60th sec and 1/160th sec with my copy of the EM-5



So far, shooting in the same range with my EM-1 I have no evidence of the effect



This could just as easily be the result of sample to sample differences within a body type as evidence of a systematic difference between models though

Brian

I have just received my replacement EM1. It has exactly the same issue as the original and will be going back.

Of the settings I have tried, the effect is worst with my MZuiko 9-18 (surprisingly, worst of all at the 9 mm end of the range) and 1/250 sec shutter speed.

IBIS on/off makes no difference. Setting release lag time to "short" also makes no difference. Anti-shock engaged at 1/8 sec reduces but doesn't remove the blur completely. Shouldn't need it at 1/250 anyway.

I haven't tried it on a tripod, as that's irrelevant to me. If I can't hand hold a wide angle lens at 1/250, the camera is useless to me.

With my original EM1, which I returned to the shop, the salesman had no trouble reproducing the problem, so if it's user error, we both had the same error. I expect he will also have no trouble when I return the replacement tomorrow.

As I have stated in my previous posts about this, I have owned an EM5 for over a year, without a hint of this problem. Shots taken at this morning with the EM1 and EM5, same lens, identical settings, clearly show the difference. I'm not going to post any more, though, because the fanboys just dismiss them.

Weirdly, there is no sign of this issue with my 45mm 1.8.

I have no theory on what's causing it.

If you have the 9-18, I'd be interested to hear if you can reproduce the issue - ie at 9 mm and 1/250.

I might add, not in response to your post, but in general, that this has been very time consuming, stressful and disappointing and some of the mocking posts in this thread (and elsewhere) only make it worse. Finding amusement in someone else's misfortune is pretty low.

Regards

--
Michael Kilpatrick
www.pbase.com/mrk03

Do you see the issue with other lenses? Did you try the options in other threads such as the anti-shock setting or the shutter release option? Just trying to see conditions have affected you.

Edit: I see you don't see the issue on the 45mm. Is it only the 9-18 showing this? Out of curiosity, were you able to test with a different 9-18 lens?

Thanks for the post. Are you only seeing these effects at 100% view ?

I know you don't want to post but would appreciate a reply to this specific question.

Do you only see this effect at 100% magniification ?

Thanks ! I was only using that as an example, not for a specific camera/format. However, if shots of 3 dimensional objects were more blurry at a lower aperture, one must consider depth of field problems before proposing other explanations.

It's also evident with my 12-50, but not as bad. I don't have access to another 9-18, but, as I mentioned, on my EM5 this lens is not showing the problem at all with those same settings.

It's most obvious at 100%. At 50% the EM5 shot is noticeably sharper, but the double image isn't really visible on my monitor. At "fill screen" view in Lightroom, the EM5 shot is still visibly sharper.

Both images shot in raw, processed in Olympus Viewer with default settings and imported into Lightroom as jpgs.

Cheers

Michael Kilpatrick said:

It's also evident with my 12-50, but not as bad. I don't have access to another 9-18, but, as I mentioned, on my EM5 this lens is not showing the problem at all with those same settings.

--
Michael Kilpatrick
www.pbase.com/mrk03

Click to expand...

Thanks. Unfortunately I don't have either of those two lenses so I can't try to duplicate.

"If you have the 9-18, I'd be interested to hear if you can reproduce the issue - ie at 9 mm and 1/250."

I have got the lens and used it at 1/250 (in the range 1/160th - 1/250th) and have seen no sign of it with the EM-1



I'm more than ever convinced there is body to body variation in this effect (which is why there are the two pantomime camps: "Oh yes it is" vs "Oh no it isn't" )



Sorry to hear you have had wto duff EM-1 bodies, my replacement seems to be working fine at the moment (the other suffered repeated lock-ups and loss of IS function)

OK, well thanks for checking. If you were getting the problem I'm getting, you would definitely see it.

Regards

[No message]

Aleo Veuliah said:

If plan A doesn't work, the alphabet has 25 more letters, keep calm.

Click to expand...

Sounds like David Brent.