-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Sutter Shock? Pictures from the holy land.
- Thread starter photohounds
- Start date
- Status
GTOz
Well-known member
That looks like Canberra - if so definitely no Holy Land. No chance of a Messiah arising from there, despite the aspirations of many. Our present Great Leader, formerly known as the "Mad Monk", will have to satisfy himself with one of his own neo-knighthoods because the guy upstairs (or even the one in Rome) will certainly not be elevating him to a higher plane of holiness. Sorry to the non-Aussies for this digression.....
Re Shutter Shock: I have not experienced it as new to M4/3 with a GM1 only at present. However the evidence as presented on this forum and many other places seems convincing enough to me. The logic that it cannot exist just because you have not experienced it is far less convincing.
GT
Re Shutter Shock: I have not experienced it as new to M4/3 with a GM1 only at present. However the evidence as presented on this forum and many other places seems convincing enough to me. The logic that it cannot exist just because you have not experienced it is far less convincing.
GT
Last edited:
pede59
Senior Member
No doubt there's some visible shutter bounce.
But actual shake, "caused" by it?
.
The pictures (the first AND second batch) I posted simply do not it.
I have not put on the 1.3 firmware yet. I just hold a camera correctly
.
With all-electronic shutters the USER will provide the shake - and probably STILL blame the camera ...
.
Monty Python and HHGTTG talked at length about the existence of a certain deity, I'll leave it at that
.
We had a s/h Kowa Six in the shop once.
I played with it, but never ran a roll through ..
Ontario Gone
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 3,494
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 1,545
Exactly. I don't have an EM1 so i can't prove the extent of ShSh but i know how inertia works. The lighter the camera is, the more it is affected by any influence, including shutter vibrations. There is a reason Olympus themselves are admitting it exists by adding FW to combat it, and many users supporting that idea.
I also know that if you want to test for it, you must be precise. Use raw, at low ISO, on a tripod, with non moving subjects, with a remote to avoid camera shake. Take a shot with each setting to compare. If you make all other factors of the IQ as perfect as you can, ShSh will stand out more. If you are careless with testing you may as well not test.
What I find odd about the SS issue is that we're usually happy to remove any potential source of unwanted instability or vibration from our photography. We should all be happy to see the inclusion of an electronic first curtain shutter feature in a camera, whether we use it (or need it) or not. Use of EFCS doesn't make a person less of a photographer, yet I get the feeling that some would avoid those drive modes for that belief.
To me, there's no more need for heated argument over the existence of shutter shock (or the need for EFCS) than there is to debate the inclusion of a high speed drive mode. Some people want or need the feature, while others don't, but I don't think there have been dozens of nasty spats over the need for high still frame rates.
To me, there's no more need for heated argument over the existence of shutter shock (or the need for EFCS) than there is to debate the inclusion of a high speed drive mode. Some people want or need the feature, while others don't, but I don't think there have been dozens of nasty spats over the need for high still frame rates.
photohounds
Senior Member
And yet with an EM-1 handheld, there's no trace of the great evil - shutter shock.Wasn't sure about shutter shock but did some simple tests after installing the 1.3 firmware. You can clearly see a difference between the new 0s AS setting and normal release. I'd recommend you do that before concluding that all those people just can't hold the camera right.No doubt there's some visible shutter bounce.
But actual shake, "caused" by it?
.
The pictures (the first AND second batch) I posted simply do not it.
I have not put on the 1.3 firmware yet. I just hold a camera correctly
Pics:
http://photohounds.smugmug.com/
Oly and other .. Gear test samples:
http://photohounds.smugmug.com/Gear-tests
"all those people"? umm, right.
Neither of us KNOW about their ability, biases, methods, or credibility. Mine has a simple source - "HERE are my pics - show me where SS is".
.
I believe that I handhold a camera reasonably well, and squeeze the shutter like I learned with my first rangefinder.
NONE who claim to have this "problem" can point to an issue in a single photo here
HOW is it possible for this evil to live among us and for MOST users, including me, to NEVER see it.
.
Maybe if I suspend the thing off a bit of fishing line or stab the shutter while holding it with 2 fingers, I might see it?
I AM saying I have NO idea how a tiny minority of users can create or exacerbate a camera moving slightly (as most do) to the extent they get blurred images.
Last edited:
photohounds
Senior Member
GT, Short 'n sour is some alternative? Crikey ... </digression>
An apparently tiny minority seem to shake, rattle and roll. The pictures tell the story. Yes I'll whack on the 1.3 FW some time, why not, if it makes the EM-1 even smoother?
.
Of course the camera must move, physics demands it, but 1/5 of a gram of moving mass vs 1.2kg mass of the EM-1, 12-40, grip and manfrotto QR (always there) will not move it much.
.
It appears to me much more like a poor handholding issue which Olympus seem to be keen to assist with, to their credit.
--
Well designed gear performs better for longer than well marketed gear.
Pics:
photohounds
Keen on photography since youth. Built a darkroom. Shoot for quality pro results over a range of styles. Also keen on music (I shoot a bit of live) and freedom for all people. I can travel - your shout :)
photohounds.smugmug.com
Chances are you'll never see shutter shock on your GM1 thanks to its redesigned shutter with electronic first curtain.
What is the point of denying the existence of possible small blur due to shutter vibrations at certain shutterspeeds?
I'm curious to know your motivations?
And another question : why do you think Olmypus did include the 0s antischock option in E-M1s FW 1.3?
--
Cheers,
Frederic
http://azurphoto.com/
I'm curious to know your motivations?
And another question : why do you think Olmypus did include the 0s antischock option in E-M1s FW 1.3?
--
Cheers,
Frederic
http://azurphoto.com/
Last edited:
photohounds
Senior Member
SIr,
If you use a too-light or poor quality tripod, QR, or do not bolt it all together securely? Yes it IS user error.
I also wonder if increasing lens sharpness makes visible that which was not before. Anyway, show me one of mine (as I KNOW the test conditions) where this is visible. I described my methodology in the OP, and for hand-held snaps I judge the sharpness to be completely acceptable.
If I get weekend time off from other activities, including shooting for fun and profit, maybe calibrating my pano head for some of the new lenses, etc. I might attach the 75 and tripod mount it as some suggest and look for < 2 pixels total blur in the shots.
I'm playing with the new firmware now, interesting to see if it affects me.
If you use a too-light or poor quality tripod, QR, or do not bolt it all together securely? Yes it IS user error.
I also wonder if increasing lens sharpness makes visible that which was not before. Anyway, show me one of mine (as I KNOW the test conditions) where this is visible. I described my methodology in the OP, and for hand-held snaps I judge the sharpness to be completely acceptable.
If I get weekend time off from other activities, including shooting for fun and profit, maybe calibrating my pano head for some of the new lenses, etc. I might attach the 75 and tripod mount it as some suggest and look for < 2 pixels total blur in the shots.
I'm playing with the new firmware now, interesting to see if it affects me.
photohounds
Senior Member
photohounds
Senior Member
First claim:
"some idiot" removed exdeejjjaaaa's posting? Really?
.
Second claim:
Does anyone see oversharpening? Remember to full size them ...
.
I want someone to show me that if _I_ take a bit of care, I will still get a bouncing camera. Is that too much to ask in light of the claims?
.
Facts can convince me but sloppy work on a poorly stabilised tripod do not sway me one bit.
--
Well designed gear performs better for longer than well marketed gear.
Pics:
photohounds.smugmug.com
Oly and other .. Gear test samples:
"some idiot" removed exdeejjjaaaa's posting? Really?
.
Second claim:
Does anyone see oversharpening? Remember to full size them ...
.
I want someone to show me that if _I_ take a bit of care, I will still get a bouncing camera. Is that too much to ask in light of the claims?
.
Facts can convince me but sloppy work on a poorly stabilised tripod do not sway me one bit.
--
Well designed gear performs better for longer than well marketed gear.
Pics:
photohounds
Keen on photography since youth. Built a darkroom. Shoot for quality pro results over a range of styles. Also keen on music (I shoot a bit of live) and freedom for all people. I can travel - your shout :)
photohounds.smugmug.com
Maybe your EM1 doesn't suffer from shutter impact. Have you ever heard of sample variation?
At 1/500 you shouldn't see any issues, I only have issues at values bellow 1/200 and that's where you shouldn't be holding a camera just by your hands anyway. For my mind this is an end user related issue and not one with the camera itself.
Not denying? Your quote : "Quite frankly I believe in the fairy at the bottom of the garden more"
A lot have been written on the subject, the informations are easy to find.
Why would other care about your pictures? Everybody who owns an E-M1 can easily make the test to see the effects of the 0s antischock.
You're surely right. But it does not prove anything.
You should have begun with that.
You forgot to reply to my second question :
why do you think Olmypus did include the 0s antischock option in E-M1s FW 1.3?
Please provide an honest answer.
--
Cheers,
Frederic
http://azurphoto.com/
Last edited:
In fact the E-PL5, which I had briefly, had indeed a vibration problem which affected it between 1/100 and 1/200, but it was v. visible, and it was documented almost immediately. I don't notice it with the PM1 which should have the same shutter generation, so perhaps O. cured it.
The E-M5 never had it, in fact it has the gentlest shutter by comparison. Vibrations are always possible, and have been for half a century since the actuations became much harder than the sweet Compurs.
Of course it's the generalizing that is stupid, not mentioning the exceptions. If vibrations ruined the shot at all times, a camera maker might as well kill himself
Instead it v. easy to ruin a shot with a light mirrorless camera, despite the IBIS, for not holding it well, or having the shakes, but what deepens the stupidity, is that I have never seen anybody accepting user error. That's human nature, but stupidity nevertheless. So to me the whole debate is flawed.
Am.
See my new blog in the sign: it's fun!
photohounds
Senior Member
OK,
There's no need for name calling.
I am not a "denier", throwing you under the bus, arrogant or whatever.
.
I merely say that I can't see any evidence of the camera causing blur.
I have acknowledged elsewhere that the laws of physics mean that there must be SOME movement. However with 1/5 gram shutter and (in my case) a1,2kg setup with EM-1, grip, 12-40, hood and the QR attached as I leave it there, I cannot see any EVIDENCE of it being visible - at all.
.
Slurs:
As for the oversharpened claim "infamous Olympus overly strong NR and oversharpening (as Oly cam jpegs are intended to be seen strongly downsized", please max a few pics and show me if you see evidence of it. In some areas of sky, at MAX res, sharpening is just visible - that's about a 900x1200mm pic.
I have never printed that nig, actually, if you have, lucky you!
.
How do my results justify the oversharpening slur above?
.
Where did you read how Oly intends images from its camera to be seen?
Your statement MAY be true, but I've seen no official statement of that either and in any case images are mainly viewed on screen - in our lucky cases on high-ish res monitors. Again I do not see it.
.
Your experience:
I am sorry that you and the EM-1 were not compatible and I will make NO blanket statements regarding that.
.
I DO tire of unsubstantiated or poorly substantiated opinion presented as fact and I repeat: I am NOT saying a camera cannot shake, I AM saying I see no evidence of any of your claims - at least hand held.
.
I also know that many tripods and heads do not provide the support and rigidity they should, I have 6-7 tripods and some are only suitable in emergencies or as light stands
.
I now HAVE the 1,3 FW and will try some tests when it is next light - Winter is coming here ... I will however use my sturdiest tripod and head. If I use one of the flimsier ones, then I am not making sufficient effort. I see they even have 1/th sec
.
Do you use the old trick of hanging weight off the centre of the tripod legs, say with a camera bag??.
One weakness I find with lower end QRs is that they wobble a bit
--
Well designed gear performs better for longer than well marketed gear.
Pics:
http://photohounds.smugmug.com/
Oly and other .. Gear test samples:
http://photohounds.smugmug.com/Gear-tests
Last edited:
LOL, guy!
Ifirst saw it when I compared some photos I took with my E-PM1 and my little Panny travel cam (I forget the exact letters and numbers -- TZ something?).
I was ASTONISHED at how bad the m43 images were.
Cheers, geoff
photohounds
Senior Member
First I thought the supposed SS would be WORSE and easier to see handheld. But it is not even apparent. I doubted that I am any steadier than my better tripods!
.
That you didn't bother to look and max a few pics means you have made up your mind before seeing and that's your own business.
.
If you have trouble with it and I cannot create it - with the same gear, Occam's razor comes to mind. " .. among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.". In software problem solving we ask "what's changed, what's different" - that is the most likely cause.
The 1.3 update was for quite a few things.
I see they have provided 1/8, 1/4 etc lags too .
.
If they have lessened shake that bothers YOU, and others that's GREAT, though it was not a problem here - nor with my EM-5. I can only answer from my experience. It certainly won't hurt my results or sales.
.
I clearly said how I tested and shared. The results are valid for me, as someone who (it seems) is reasonably good at holding cameras.
Panning with an RB-67 and no prism was always fun!
--
Well designed gear performs better for longer than well marketed gear.
Pics:
http://photohounds.smugmug.com/
Oly and other .. Gear test samples:
http://photohounds.smugmug.com/Gear-tests
.
That you didn't bother to look and max a few pics means you have made up your mind before seeing and that's your own business.
.
If you have trouble with it and I cannot create it - with the same gear, Occam's razor comes to mind. " .. among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.". In software problem solving we ask "what's changed, what's different" - that is the most likely cause.
The 1.3 update was for quite a few things.
I see they have provided 1/8, 1/4 etc lags too .
.
If they have lessened shake that bothers YOU, and others that's GREAT, though it was not a problem here - nor with my EM-5. I can only answer from my experience. It certainly won't hurt my results or sales.
.
I clearly said how I tested and shared. The results are valid for me, as someone who (it seems) is reasonably good at holding cameras.
Panning with an RB-67 and no prism was always fun!
--
Well designed gear performs better for longer than well marketed gear.
Pics:
http://photohounds.smugmug.com/
Oly and other .. Gear test samples:
http://photohounds.smugmug.com/Gear-tests
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum