You'll get horizontal compression/expansion, then, just like when panning up or down in Landscape orientation.
Planetary subjects are bright and don’t require long exposure times. And so an equatorial tracking platform isn’t of much benefit other than to keep your subject in the centre of the frame where your optics generally perform better. But without tracking you can centre your subject, wait a few seconds for vibrations to die down and then fire a burst (cable remote or tether app) and you will get dozens of frames well before the planet has drifted too far.
Thanks I didn't think of portrait orientation!You might be able to reduce the effect by rotating the camera to portrait orientation for panning shots?Wow I had to look again at the top two, it looks like two birds merged together!Birds in flight will be more of a challenge wrt rolling shutter on the R7. If you have a fairly uniform background the effects aren’t as noticeable and I’ve gotten lots of in flight shots that I’m happy with using the R7 but rolling shutter can be an issue. The nice thing is that you do get 15fps EFCS and rolling shutter in that mode is pretty much undetectable.
Something I dont understand-- why dont all camera manufacturers implement electronic shutter the same way they do movie mode? Why do we see these slow read out rates? From what I read, I gather it's 1/30th of a second in R7? I can use EFCS but another purpose I wanted to use electronic shutter for was to eliminate shutter wear, since I do take a lot of images and usually in sustained bursts.
Are there any shutter speed limits with electronic shutter (I also wanted to use it for long exposure astrophotography.)
If the bird is flying from left to right or right to left away from or landing on a feeder or perch does that reduce the electronic shutter artifacts?
These we’re all taken at 1/3200s. Freezing the wings requires a really fast shutter speed
Looks like the hummingbird is the problem, not the camera!
Thanks, this helped me picture it much better! I have seen some displaced wings in even my seagull shots (I had IS on), but when I turned IS off, it actually helped reduce the artifacts. For hummingbirds like you said, it may be a total no go because of the wings rotating like airplane propellers!
Tonight might be a good time to try looks like clear skies finally have comePlanetary subjects are bright and don’t require long exposure times. And so an equatorial tracking platform isn’t of much benefit other than to keep your subject in the centre of the frame where your optics generally perform better. But without tracking you can centre your subject, wait a few seconds for vibrations to die down and then fire a burst (cable remote or tether app) and you will get dozens of frames well before the planet has drifted too far.
The issue with the R7 might be the buffer depth.
If atmospheric seeing is poor then you will find lots of bad images regardless of how well everything else is working for you. If you’re getting 1 good frame out of 10 then you’re doing well. Stack only the very best of the good frames. You may need to shoot lots of bursts to get the good frames you want.
I’ve been waiting for clear sky to shoot Saturn and Jupiter. I normally use my E-M1 II or III but now I have the R7 to try
Peter
Oh I wanted to ask why the 75-300 lens might not be the best idea-- not enough focal length? I have seen a couple of images from it in the M43 forum where Saturn's rings were visible as well as a few bands on Jupiter (and its moons.) How long of a burst do you think I may need? 10 seconds? Under a minute? Thanks!Something I can't quite get my head around on this. Could you perhaps clarify;
To achieve the same exposure value, if you cannot read the whole sensor fast enough, the pixels you manage to read later also need to start recording a bit later. If you want a 1/500 sec exposure, and you take at least 1/50 sec to read through the sensor, the last pixel row would be read about 1/50 second after the first one. But since your intended exposure is 10 times faster, you would basically be moving a slit of active pixels from top to bottom. The last row pixels would start recording just about 1/500 sec before the end of exposure. The main thing to understand is that the pixel behaves like a bucket of photons, you start filling it, producing some charge and then read off the charge you accumulate.
There are no dim questions, we all figure these things out at some point
OK, thanks for that. So a 1/500 exposure is in several slices which might start and end at different times.To achieve the same exposure value, if you cannot read the whole sensor fast enough, the pixels you manage to read later also need to start recording a bit later. If you want a 1/500 sec exposure, and you take at least 1/50 sec to read through the sensor, the last pixel row would be read about 1/50 second after the first one. But since your intended exposure is 10 times faster, you would basically be moving a slit of active pixels from top to bottom. The last row pixels would start recording just about 1/500 sec before the end of exposure. The main thing to understand is that the pixel behaves like a bucket of photons, you start filling it, producing some charge and then read off the charge you accumulate.
This means different parts of frame have to be exposed at different times, so if your subject moves during that duration, you will have distortion
With mechanical, you don't have to synchronize readout and actual exposure. You let the 1/500 second mechanical shutter slit move across the frame quickly, then wait for all the pixels to be read independent of exposure
Leaving out fine nuances, this is the basic idea
There are no dim questions, we all figure these things out at some point
AFAIK, it is difficult to do it with CMOS, and is most easily done with CCD, which has a lot more noise at high ISOs.
The actual shutter speed is largely irrelevant. It purely depends on the characteristics of the shutter itself, and motion in your frame that competes against it. Mechanical shutters also take some time to move across the frame, typically 1/250 sec on modern sensors. Anything faster than that is achieved by moving a slit across the frame (2nd curtain following the 1st, before the 1st curtain has cleared the frame). So the idea is same as what you do on electronic shutter. Just that 1/250 sec is fast enough for most motion in frame. You can still see some rolling effect with mechanical shutter if you looked at extremely fast moving things. See example thread here: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64908392
Do you (or anyone reading) know about how fast the sensor readout of the R7 is?
I haven’t seen a number floating for R7. For R5, it seemed to be 1/60 (15ms), A9 II is about 1/160 (6ms) and R3 should be in similar ballpark
I should probably clarify my last sentence above. The readout speed doesn’t change for mechanical shutter. But since the physical shutter moves across faster than readout capability, it renders the slower readout moot (we are reading in dark), the actual mechanical shutter sync speed becomes the new limiting factor
Thanks!
Easy answer is yes, its the same. Canon has 3 modes for shutter right now, Full mechanical shutter, electronic first curtain shutter (EFCS) and full electronic shutter.
Nice explanation, well done! Most everyone would get the R3 if it wasn't for one major drawback --> the price, LOL.
Great explanation. The only thing I'd add is that the R7 does exhibit shutter shock on EFCS with some lenses.
At high frame rates, perhaps also when combining relatively slow shutter speed (less than 1/200) with a high (h+) frame rate.
