My PL100-400 does not like shutter shock

Started Aug 8, 2016 | Discussions thread
OP CrisPhoto Senior Member • Posts: 1,716
Re: My PL100-400 does not like shutter shock

mike_smith_uk wrote:

Hope I'm not being a bit dim here, but what precisiely are you measuring?, the effect of shutter induced vibration through the lens, or the ability of the two stabilisation systems being able to cope with the shutter induced vibrations? I am assuming your tests are using the lens mounted on a tripod rather than handheld?

In days of film when I shot long telephoto lenses there was no image stabilisation to muddy the waters - lens elements were fixed so the image softness variables were from mirror slap vibration and shutter vibration. Long telephoto technique using tripods was one of three or a combination of three well tested methods - cram your face against the eyepiece, rest your free hand on the lens or stick a heavy bean bag on the lens, all three have the same result of changing the vibration frequency running through the lens. Better still on relatively static subjects on higher end cameras was also to use mirror lock-up to prevent mirror slap induced vibration or a shutter release pre-fire of 10 seconds or so to lock the mirror in position before the shutter fires.

We now have some new variables to contend with - in lens stabilisation systems - ie an element which moves to counteract any lens movement or in-body stabilisation where the sensor moves to achieve the same purpose. Neither of these systems seem to be tuned to lens vibration frequency but are designed to counteract large amounts of lens movement from handholding or vertical panning movements. Common wisdom is to disable image stabilisation systems when the lens is mounted on a tripod as the movement frequency falls outside of the image stabilisation system capability and the IS system can actually cause image softness by erroneously moving.

So what is the difference between mechanical shutter, first curtain/0 lag or total electronic exposure on lens vibration - surely these are falling in the camp of inducing differing vibration frequencies running through the lens. Long telephoto lenses by their vey nature magnify the effect of the vibration - a 100-400 lens on 4/3rds systems is the equivalent of 4 to 16 times magnification of the object image field of view. A light lens has inherently less damping effect compared to a heavier lens but the vibration effect will depend very much on the material construction of the lens.

Using full electronic shutter on a mirrorless camera body clearly has an advantage as there is zero induced lens vibration. But in real life situations using proper long lens techniques will probably overcome a lot of the problems being reported using other shutter programs? If what you are measuring is induced lens vibration then it would be interesting to see what effect the three traditional methods of taming this type of vibration may have?

All tests published today were done handheld. This is my normal use of this lens, thanks to its excellent OIS implementation.

In fact, I did some additional tests from tripod. Unfortunately, the lens behaves very similar on tripod. Again, this is very different from most other lenses which get better on tripod.


-- hide signature --

OM-D + Sam7.5, PL15, O60, O75
P7-14, O12-40, O40-150, PL100-400

 CrisPhoto's gear list:CrisPhoto's gear list
Olympus E-M5 II Olympus E-M1 II Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 60mm 1:2.8 Macro Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm F1.8 Rokinon 7.5mm F3.5 UMC Fisheye CS +9 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow