Shutter Shock a myth

Started Jan 1, 2014 | Discussions thread
S3ZAi Contributing Member • Posts: 885
Re: Shutter Shock a myth

secondclaw wrote:

S3ZAi wrote:

secondclaw wrote:

Not being a deal breaker to YOU is not the same as the issue being a myth. This is all I'm saying. Your argument, I would assume, that since the issue is relatively minor to you and the OP), therefore it does not exist. That makes no sense.

Actually, you still don't get it: the issue exists, but it is extremely minor. What causes it to become a myth is the whole issue being blown up by very questionable characters.

You probably don't know what myth is then

Actually, myth has roughly two meanings, one of which is a 'unrealistic tale' as they have come down to us through the centuries and the second would be something that doesn't exist, but is believed to be existing by some or many. In this sense the shutter shock issue is a myth.

... 'minor' is not then same as 'none'.

Obviousyl it isn't. But there is a bigger difference between 'major' and 'none'. And minor can be quite close to none. When an issue is so small as to probably affect a very very small amount of people, you can disregard it. I assure you, otherwise nothing, really nothing would be left from our scientific world views. We almost always disregard small numbers of anomalies, especially in chemistry and biology and even more so in the humanities.

And obviously there are different uses of camera equipment, no? You can't conceive of anyone actually running into these issues constantly, due to their method of shooting?

Actually, I can conceive of this, but there is a big difference between conceiving something and the thing actually happening or the meaning thereof. I mean, it is always possible someone with a car will have an accident all the time, while others aren't, does this mean there is something wrong with the car or the driver or perhaps the roads or the weather or what?

Granted these may be on the outer fringes of the photography curve, but so what? I'm sure if you experience a problem with a camera, and first responses to your issue would be to shut the hell up and take that nonsense elsewhere, you will be set straight. Right?

I really have no idea why you are so condescending and aggressive toward those experiencing such issues. Is this personal?

Yes it is. I look up someones history and I see the person has only been posting extremely negative comments on a certain camera on purpose, without owning the camera himself. So he is actually NOT experiencing the issue, he is hijacking the issue for hiw own questionable ends. Also this person is not shying away from blatantly lying.

Than what do you expect me to do? Forgive him and say he's such a wise, nice person?

Ignore it. There are three outcomes if you do, unless you have some stake in Sony's brand/image (which I doubt):

1. The issue is really insignificant and these posters will eventually go away.

2. The issue is real and people will be looking for a solution, or a way to work around a problem.

3. The issue is not real, and they sell/return camera. Clearly then they shouldn't have bought it in the first place.

Yea it may scare a few from buying a camera, or possibly if a solution is found, it will gain a few more buyers.

Well, let's hope so.

Win - Win, isn't it? Working out an issue, as we have (eventually) in the banding/compression thread is much more beneficial than a bitch-fest it started out as. Besides, just because someone has a history of posting nonsense, doesn't automatically disqualify them from any future real issues. In that banding thread, onto which I stumbled via search (after experiencing the problem myself), I saw OP's example, and it was exactly the issue I was experiencing. Yet the thread was going nowhere, partly due to you and others like you belittling both OP and myself. Even if you have history with that Max/Edna person, so what? In 5 - 10 normal posts the issue was mostly sorted out (or at least new ideas to look for solutions).

Well, I'm happy you sorted your  problem out. But  you have to admit: at first the problem was presented as a shortcoming of the camera, perhaps not by you, but by the original OP. Was this true? Was it in the end a defect in of the camera?

Concerning 'other' people experiencing the SS issue. I have read this all over the web, long before the camera came out. It didn't stop me from buying it, but it has since been noted and confirmed by many:

1. A nice mostly civil thread on FM about it and some solutions (mostly clumsy) on how to fix it.

I have read it, it's mainly people with very specific needs. For example people who already own many canon lenses with IS or people always shooting with a tripod to have pro quality shots.

2. Plenty of discussions and links on SAR and other photography blogs.

3. Many topics here.

4. Diglloyd (whether you believe them or not is a different point - it has been published).

It isn't just one person blowing something out of proportion. Even if someone has an agenda, you think its a conspiracy now? I couldn't replicate the issues, but haven't gone around looking for it, since that shutter speed range is not why I got this camera. But I won't automatically presume it doesn't exist.

I never thought the issue itself was a conspiracy, there are photos proving it exists, to a certain extent. But I  do believe that there have been individuals who  have hijacked this issue for their own ends. If you would like to discredit something or someone and people actually find an issue, wouldn't you gladly take up that issue, blow it out of proportions and use it for your  own end? Isn't this what happens in politics on a daily basis?

-- hide signature --

Sezai E., philosophy buff, bibliophile and creative photographer.

 S3ZAi's gear list:S3ZAi's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-7 Sony Alpha a7R Sony E 35mm F1.8 OSS Sony FE 55mm F1.8
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow