Don't be afraid of Shuttershock : here's why

Midwest said:

texinwien said:

Send in the clowns.

Midwest said:

Midwest said:

Google "Shutter Shock" and you will not find a single DSLR article

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

LOL

Midwest said:

Example here :

http://krebsmicro.com/Canon_EFSC/index.html

Click to expand...

Thanks Steen, very interesting.

Here's the first paragraph, emphasis mine:

Those of us using SLR cameras for photomicrography are very much aware of the vibration caused by both the camera mirror mechanism and the camera focal plane shutter. It’s common knowledge that the mirror is the bigger culprit, but at the high magnifications possible with a microscope the camera shutter is also a significant problem.

Click to expand...

Is a mirrorless camera even usable with a microscope? I'd love to see how their shutter shock problem compares in that usage with the minor issue on DSLR's (which is entirely handled by Canon's electronic first shutter curtain).

Click to expand...

Midwest said:

The only time DSLR 'shutter' or 'mirror' shock has been discussed seems to be in the mirrorless forums by people trying to say 'See, our cameras are no worse than DSLR's which also have the same problem.' But unless you've got the camera stuck to a microscope or telescope, it simply does not exist on a DSLR to where anyone can ever see it.

Click to expand...

Midwest said:

texinwien said:

Send in the clowns.

Midwest said:

Midwest said:

Google "Shutter Shock" and you will not find a single DSLR article

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

LOL

Midwest said:

Example here :

http://krebsmicro.com/Canon_EFSC/index.html

Click to expand...

Thanks Steen, very interesting.

Here's the first paragraph, emphasis mine:

Those of us using SLR cameras for photomicrography are very much aware of the vibration caused by both the camera mirror mechanism and the camera focal plane shutter. It’s common knowledge that the mirror is the bigger culprit, but at the high magnifications possible with a microscope the camera shutter is also a significant problem.

Click to expand...

Is a mirrorless camera even usable with a microscope? I'd love to see how their shutter shock problem compares in that usage with the minor issue on DSLR's (which is entirely handled by Canon's electronic first shutter curtain).

The only time DSLR 'shutter' or 'mirror' shock has been discussed seems to be in the mirrorless forums by people trying to say 'See, our cameras are no worse than DSLR's which also have the same problem.' But unless you've got the camera stuck to a microscope or telescope, it simply does not exist on a DSLR to where anyone can ever see it.

Click to expand...

Rehabdoc said:

Anders W said:

Rehabdoc said:

Limburger said:

You say it's with the longer lenses you do see shutter shock. Could it be the weight just causes it (better defined as: changed mass)?

My reasoning is that you change the mass of the system (lighter or heavier, in this case heavier) your ground frequency changes. This would mean that your shutter schock "operates" within a window and is basicly always there. You only are aware of it in your photo within this window.

--
Cheers Mike

Click to expand...

Mass might have something to do with it, but the biggest issue has to be increased magnification. When you magnify an image, you're magnifying the motion blur.

Think about it this way. Lets say you take a picture at 200mm, and you see a 'shock artifact that appears to be 1mm on a 4x6 print.

You could try to see what kind of shock you get at 400mm by attaching a 400mm zoom lens but it's easier to just crop the image on the sensor from your first shot to get a 400mm equivalent.

So when you print a 4x6 of the cropped (400mm equiv) version of that first image, that same "shock artifact" is going to be 2mm.

Click to expand...

Nope. As a rule, magnification and blur due to camera shake of any kind (including shutter shock), has little to do with one another.

The only difference is that at longer distances, rotational (angular) movement of the camera is far worse than translational (up-down, left-right), whereas at very short distance/high magnification, both rotational and translational movements are bad.

Click to expand...

i didn't state whether shock artifact was angular or translational. I only stated the appearance of and magnitude of displacement on the final image, which is affected by magnification in either circumstance. The magnitude of motion as a percentage of the total image size increases with magnification, because the magnitude of motion as a percentage of the subject size stays the same, and the ratio of subject size to image size increases with magnification. I think.

Click to expand...

Rehabdoc said:

Rehabdoc said:

Rehabdoc said:

And I'm pretty sure that "shutter shock" was an issue in DSLRs too. I remember with landscape shots, even with MLU, the really fast and really long shutter speeds gave you the least vibration artifact, because in the former, there was no chance to move, and in the latter, the camera stopped vibrating after a short time and the camera has movement for only a small percentage of the total exposure time.

Click to expand...

That's pretty much on the money!

Click to expand...

Click to expand...