Testing out my new Oly 45 1.8... I'm Astounded!

Moti wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Moti wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Moti wrote:

Timbukto wrote:

And I'm not sure if yours would have cut it with my OCD behavior ;p.

Here is a shot of the last 45mm 1.8 I had with my E-PM2. I'm a believer in shutter shock (i.e. not blind to the facts) and this is shot in shutter shock territory, but if you know about it you can attempt to brace the camera a little better to minimize it. Regardless I ditched the E-PM2 because I wanted a shutter shock free body which many of the newer Oly's now are.

I don't believe in shutter shock because I never saw any evidence with any of my mirror less cameras, and your cute photo here, is another prove to it, because there is nothing wrong with it.

So how did you test it? Like this?

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3651827

Or like this?

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3591884

Neither. I just look at the photo and judge the sharpness. If it is sharp, that is good enough for me. Up to now, I didn't have any deviation from my target sharpness that could suggest the effect of SS on my Oly cameras.

OK. So what you tested, at best, is whether the shutter shock is strong enough to be a problem given your personal target sharpness. A negative answer to that question obviously does not imply a negative answer to the question of whether shutter shock exists or not. That it does has already been established by better evidence, for example that to which I linked.

Well, you certainly have a point here. I guess that it may exist one way or another in some cases otherwise so many people wouldn't have complained.

OTOH, if the level of sharpness in my photos is within the tolerance I am requesting, even if the SS effect does exists but the result of it is invisible to my naked eye, I would consider it as non existant.

Two arguments that do not wash:

• I have not seen it therefore it does not exist
• I have faith that it does not exist because someone wrote it somewhere

Consider quitting while you are behind. Repeating your "reasons" over and over does nothing to convince the rest of us that you have some kind of valid position here.

A valid position:

• I have not seen it and therefore I do not care that it exists

You can try that one and see how it flies.

Personally, I have never encountered any case of SS on any of my cameras in any situation and that is all I can say.

Yet that is not what you said. You said "I do not believe that it exists" ... that's a very different assertion.

Having said that, I have seen some cases where people show blurry photos and complained about SS, where it is clear that the problem is different. The photo I have commented about earlier, is an example.

And again, not an argument against the existence of shutter shock.