Shutter Shock a myth

Started Jan 1, 2014 | Discussions thread
secondclaw Regular Member • Posts: 247
Re: Shutter Shock a myth

S3ZAi wrote:

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.

Sorry I still don't get it then. The story of SS is realistic - as you admitted yourself. You may call the issue being 'severe', or that it impacts majority of shooters a myth - I agree. But as long as it exists, and you yourself believe it exists, its no longer a myth. Hell, had this thread been titled - "Impact of shutter shock being severe is a myth" - I would have actually agreed with it. I know we may be parsing words, but in languages I do know, Myth means it's not real, not that its minor.

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?

Well, let's see ... I have had my wide-gamut monitor for 3 years, during which time I shot with 5D2 and NEX-7, and I have not observed this behavior with any of them. It may simply mean that a wide-gamut display magnifies whatever A7R is creating (due to higher contrast or shifting colors on such a display) - I am not completely sold on the issue being completely unrelated. At least I have something to research now. I will try and get uncompressed raw D800E files with similar characteristics for comparison.

Unfortunately I spent too much time in that thread deflecting snark and ridicule from you and others like you, before we got to something meaningful.

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.

So it's certainly not a myth for them. By the way, I shoot mostly with a tripod when on location. I only shoot handheld when out casually or when photographing wildlife (and I won't use A7R for that). I imagine many landscape shooters are on tripods to get f/11 or f/16 shots. But that group is less likely to have SS issues. I did try my canon 70-200 with IS on on the tripod, and saw the blur (I expected it, same happens with Canon, as the lens can't always detect tripod mount). Then tried it with IS off, and it was perfectly fine, but I wasn't in that SS sweet spot. Since I don't usually go into it, I stopped caring about the issue.

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?

So are you going to assume anyone that posts an issue minor to you has an agenda? Based on what, their post history? You clearly thought I had an agenda - what was that based on - thought I was OP in disguise or something??? So what if OP was blaming the camera? Maybe he's right and maybe he's wrong. Do you know for sure?

There are two nefarious agendas at work. One - people who magnify minor issues, to discredit a particular camera (unless they are shills, I don't know why they would bother) and there are plenty of these (m4/3 versus Alpha, etc). Two - people who belittle posters of minor issues to defend a particular camera line (again, unless their shills, I don't know why they bother). Do you only see the first one as an issue? Would you stand up to the other category and call them out as well?

-- hide signature --

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

 secondclaw's gear list:secondclaw's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Sony Alpha NEX-7 Sony Alpha a7R Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L +10 more
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