there is always more than one definition, but my definition was correct because it was based on usage in the sentence.
my view is, your argument about focal length affecting vibration intensity is not wrong.
correct.
did you read his conclusion?
we should be able to agree that medium format was much worse than the a7r is.
Yes. Where does it say the D800/D810 has as much or more of a problem than the A7R as you claimed it does?
Do I think or care that the absolute MTF numbers are useful? No. Do I think that the relative difference between the values gives an approximation as to the magnitude of the effect? Yes.
It was mirror slap that was the big problem; that's why you used the dual cable release on an RB67 to trip the shutter after the mirror was up.
Exactly where did I make that claim?
"My interpretation of the curves is that the mirror slap of the D800E induces a lower frequency forcing function than that of the shutter winding operation and first curtain motion of the a7R, when combined with the slightly higher mass of the Nikon, allows the D800E to reach the full resolution potential of the lens at 1/500 second handheld. However, the D800E’s mirror and shutter system delivers a larger shock to the camera body than the shutter system of the a7R, causing the D800E to fare worse at the slower shutter speeds."
if i had to guess, i'd say that's because: 1)you don't know what scientific procedure is, 2)you don't have a clue how imatest works, because you've never used it.
the only claim i made was based on the link you posted, which you obviously never read, per the above.
oh, you said something good about the a7r in this thread? where?
irrelevant to the thread, as i pointed out earlier.
It would be great if Sony could implement electronic first curtain on the a7R, even if it's only for shutter speeds up to say 1/250s.
EFC is not a software thing, it is hardware (sensor related). So Sony can use an improved sensor for the successor of the A7r, but they can't create the EFC in the existing camera by FW. The only thing they can do is put a delay between shutter close and exposure so the vibration dies out.
Olympus did it.
Indeed, Olympus did the delay thing, no EFC.
BTW, electronic first curtain is nothing more than powering on each row in sequence, which every sensor does today unless it has circuitry for global shutter. The only issue is the timing. Even the a7 has issues at higher shutter speeds with EFC.
They implemented EFC up to 1/320s.
You're right! I'm wrong! Thanks I learn something new everyday!
That is interesting. The fact that they limited it, though, sounds to me like they maybe were working on EFCS originally for the EM1, but had some problems at higher shutter speeds and decided to skip the feature. Going back and enabling it still says the hardware needs to support it. Apparently the EM1 sensor does support it.
Olympus did not employ the normally used EFCS in order to solve their shutter shock problem, already occuring in the high-end model E-M1. Instead, they became creative. For years, an owner always had a choice to choose from a choice of delays in their M43 cameras. (I always selected 1/8 sec. in the menu.) Now for the first time some unique methods ere used to eliminate shutter shock right out of the box. With zero time delay required. With a new Firmware Update....
Do you have a link for that? And what about the E-M10 and the E-M5?
