Shutter Shock: My ep5 is bad. Would an em5 do better?

Started Jan 26, 2014 | Discussions
Anders W Forum Pro • Posts: 21,468
Re: Some real world examples of shutter shock, and other random thoughts.

Mr Sincere wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Mr Sincere wrote:

I was kinda hoping this thread would fade off the front page and into obscurity, but since others are bumping it, I might as well too...

Well, I had managed to convince myself to keep the camera, as turning on the short shutter lag option has made a pretty big difference (and, I didn't want to pay a fee to return it, and I otherwise love the camera).

With the short shutter lag option enabled, I'd guestimate that maybe 10% of the shots I'm taking have noticeable signs of shock, and rarely is it bad shock. If I wasn't looking for it, I wouldn't notice it on most.

Until this morning, when I decided to stop and take some photos of a beautiful sunrise. Shutter shock wasn't even on my mind at the time. But of course, I couldn't resist hitting the ol' Z key in Lightroom while reviewing later and, ugh, there it was, clear as day, on 2 of the 10. One of which had my favorite framing of the series. What a bummer that was.

Honestly, at typical screen viewing size nobody would ever notice, so I shouldn't worry about it. But still... it bugs me. I see the blur now, even at normal viewing sizes.

Have you tried the holding technique I would recommend (when the lens is short and light enough as it is in this case)?

Hold the camera with your right hand as you ordinarily would. Hold it with your left hand in roughly the same way as you hold it with your right. Don't support under the lens and (if you use an EVF) don't press the camera to your head. Does that improve your success rate?

Yes, actually, I found that post of yours that you pointed me towards to be quite helpful.

My normal technique with small cameras wasn't too far off: right hand as normal, and then typically cupping the left side of the camera with my thumb up the side and my fingers on the bottom of the camera. I can't say I've ever tried holding a smaller camera by the lens, I suppose because I've never used a lens large enough.

I did some less than scientific testing with different hand holding techniques, such as sandwiching both sides of the camera, with my fingers on the top and thumb on bottom (effectively creating some dampening for any shock). But I really didn't find much variation of note.

Thanks for the suggestion. I may play around some more with different techniques to see how it helps.

Some additional experiments I did myself last night (with the 75/1.8 on the E-M5) suggests that the best left-hand technique is the one I described above, i.e., gripping the camera body via the front and the back. In this test, I found this technique be better than supporting the body with the left hand at the top and bottom, probably because it reduces the likelihood that the displacement takes the form of pitch rather than vertical shift.

 Anders W's gear list:Anders W's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH +28 more
OP Mr Sincere Regular Member • Posts: 336
Re: Some real world examples of shutter shock, and other random thoughts.

Alien from Mars wrote:

Mr Sincere wrote:

I was kinda hoping this thread would fade off the front page and into obscurity, but since others are bumping it, I might as well too...

Honestly, at typical screen viewing size nobody would ever notice, so I shouldn't worry about it. But still... it bugs me. I see the blur now, even at normal viewing sizes.

If I were you I would return this camera while you can. It's not worth it trying to find workarounds and cripple your options just because of a faulty camera body.

I tend to agree.  I'm actually kicking myself for not sending it back Monday morning, like I first planned.  I bought 2nd hand, and the conversation/transaction went something like this:

Me:  "Great price on that camera.  Are you familiar with the shutter shock issue?  Have you ever noticed any?  If I notice it, can I return it?"

Them:  "I'm familiar with the issue, but I've never noticed it on any photo I've taken.  However, I can't accept a return if you notice it.  Here are some example photos that show no signs of shutter shock."

Me (officially being stupid at this point):  "Ok, sold!"

(After receiving the camera, and noticing it quite clearly.)

Me:  "Umm, dude, this thing is shutter shocking like crazy, can I please return it?"

Them:  "*sigh* Well... ok, if you pay a $35 restocking fee."

That was last Saturday, and I'd subsequently decided to keep it, since the workarounds seemed to help enough.  Now, I've put a ton of clicks on it (in both real world shooting and tests).  So even if the offer does still stand, I might feel like a a-hole for returning it now.  But heck, after having my lovely photos this morning "ruined", I think I'd send it back to them with a $50 fee.

 Mr Sincere's gear list:Mr Sincere's gear list
Panasonic LX100
budajoe69 New Member • Posts: 7
Re: Some real world examples of shutter shock, and other random thoughts.

My heart goes out to anyone experiencing this issue.

I've recently purchased the E-P5, and I'm pleased to report no such issue  -- I've tried the 45mm (90mm FL) Pan Leica, both with the IBIS and lens IS, and I've also tried an adapted voigtlander 50mm F1.1 (100mm FL on m4/3) and nothing doing -- didn't see it come up even once -- I covered the shutter speed range of 1/80 - 1/250 and did see anything unsual.

Camera's IBIS is remarkable. I'm curious if we did a poll on the owners of E-P5's, how many would report having this problem.

Best,

B

OP Mr Sincere Regular Member • Posts: 336
Re: Some real world examples of shutter shock, and other random thoughts.

budajoe69 wrote:

My heart goes out to anyone experiencing this issue.

I've recently purchased the E-P5, and I'm pleased to report no such issue -- I've tried the 45mm (90mm FL) Pan Leica, both with the IBIS and lens IS, and I've also tried an adapted voigtlander 50mm F1.1 (100mm FL on m4/3) and nothing doing -- didn't see it come up even once -- I covered the shutter speed range of 1/80 - 1/250 and did see anything unsual.

Camera's IBIS is remarkable. I'm curious if we did a poll on the owners of E-P5's, how many would report having this problem.

Best,

B

Thanks for sharing, and thanks for not being the type to say "my camera is fine, you're obviously incompetent!"  

And that's encouraging to hear about your EP5, as I'm still tempted to try another.

Have you actively looked for shutter shock, as in zooming to 100% on your photos and looking for vertical doubling?

I'm certainly not second guessing your assertion.  I'm more just curious if this is something that can be overlooked if you're not looking for it, and also to reassure myself that it IS possible get an EP5 that doesn't have issues.  

 Mr Sincere's gear list:Mr Sincere's gear list
Panasonic LX100
Paulmorgan Veteran Member • Posts: 7,515
Re: Shutter Shock: My ep5 is bad. Would an em5 do better?

Just had a look at your shots, does the large tree on the rhs exhibit the same degree of blur.

budajoe69 New Member • Posts: 7
Re: Some real world examples of shutter shock, and other random thoughts.

Actually, yes...I did the pixel peeping...both by zooming in to 14x magnified view on the LCD, and then view those same pics on a 27" monitor -- seems clean as far I can tell; my cam seems free from this issue.

I would love to try a 75mm lens (150 equiv) and see how it fares -- I've tried 25mm lens (50mm eq) and there wasn't anything unusual.

I think that if you can be more or less certain that's it not your hand holding technique, and if the issue occurs repeatedly, I would try a new cam.

Also, I do not have the shutter delay thingy, or whatever it's called (not sure the official tech name of it) enabled -- it's currently off.

It's shame that this issue is scaring off potential buyers of this model pen -- assuming the issue is only random, I would try my hand once more with a different copy -- hoping that those that are having problems are still within their return window.

Without this issue, this pen is just an unbelievable little machine -- so versatile & incredible powerful.

Best luck to all.

Paulmorgan Veteran Member • Posts: 7,515
Re: Some real world examples of shutter shock, and other random thoughts.

Mr Sincere wrote:

budajoe69 wrote:

My heart goes out to anyone experiencing this issue.

I've recently purchased the E-P5, and I'm pleased to report no such issue -- I've tried the 45mm (90mm FL) Pan Leica, both with the IBIS and lens IS, and I've also tried an adapted voigtlander 50mm F1.1 (100mm FL on m4/3) and nothing doing -- didn't see it come up even once -- I covered the shutter speed range of 1/80 - 1/250 and did see anything unsual.

Camera's IBIS is remarkable. I'm curious if we did a poll on the owners of E-P5's, how many would report having this problem.

Best,

B

Thanks for sharing, and thanks for not being the type to say "my camera is fine, you're obviously incompetent!"

And that's encouraging to hear about your EP5, as I'm still tempted to try another.

Have you actively looked for shutter shock, as in zooming to 100% on your photos and looking for vertical doubling?

I'm certainly not second guessing your assertion. I'm more just curious if this is something that can be overlooked if you're not looking for it, and also to reassure myself that it IS possible get an EP5 that doesn't have issues.

Thanks for sharing, and thanks for not being the type to say "my camera is fine, you're obviously incompetent!"

In 99.9% of cases the operator probably is

Try another body and see how it goes.

OP Mr Sincere Regular Member • Posts: 336
Re: Shutter Shock: My ep5 is bad. Would an em5 do better?

Paulmorgan wrote:

Just had a look at your shots, does the large tree on the rhs exhibit the same degree of blur.

Yeah, the uncropped shots were actually uploaded at full resolution, so you should be able to zoom in and pan around yourself if you'd like.

 Mr Sincere's gear list:Mr Sincere's gear list
Panasonic LX100
skyglider Veteran Member • Posts: 4,740
Re: Some real world examples of shutter shock, and other random thoughts.

Mr Sincere wrote:

I was kinda hoping this thread would fade off the front page and into obscurity, but since others are bumping it, I might as well too...

Well, I had managed to convince myself to keep the camera, as turning on the short shutter lag option has made a pretty big difference (and, I didn't want to pay a fee to return it, and I otherwise love the camera).

With the short shutter lag option enabled, I'd guestimate that maybe 10% of the shots I'm taking have noticeable signs of shock, and rarely is it bad shock. If I wasn't looking for it, I wouldn't notice it on most.

Until this morning, when I decided to stop and take some photos of a beautiful sunrise. Shutter shock wasn't even on my mind at the time. But of course, I couldn't resist hitting the ol' Z key in Lightroom while reviewing later and, ugh, there it was, clear as day, on 2 of the 10. One of which had my favorite framing of the series. What a bummer that was.

Honestly, at typical screen viewing size nobody would ever notice, so I shouldn't worry about it. But still... it bugs me. I see the blur now, even at normal viewing sizes.

Mr. Sincere,

Thanks for posting your latest pictures. The comparison of the zoomed shutter shock image to what the original image looks like with short release lag-time enabled is very much appreciated.

Since you're experiencing shutter shock even with short release lag-time enabled, I've decided not to buy "any" camera that uses a mechanical shutter that doesn't have electronic first curtain shutter as an option. It's just not worth it to me to have to keep buying and returning bodies and/or lenses to find good copies, or to have to hold the camera in a certain way to "hope" that SS doesn't happen, or live with a certain percentage of SS problems.

I really, really wanted to buy an E-M1 with the 12-40mm F2.8 Pro lens because everything about that system is my perfect camera except for the shutter shock issue. I'm going to consider an Alpha 7 full frame camera since it has electronic first curtain shutter and the body is about the size of an E-M1, after more lenses for it are available. Or I'll just wait another year and see what advances in shutter shock "elimination" occur in the micro 4/3 arena.

Thanks again for taking the time to post your results,
Sky

Ken Strain Regular Member • Posts: 449
Re: Some real world examples of shutter shock, and other random thoughts.

Anders W wrote:

Mr Sincere wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Mr Sincere wrote:

I was kinda hoping this thread would fade off the front page and into obscurity, but since others are bumping it, I might as well too...

Well, I had managed to convince myself to keep the camera, as turning on the short shutter lag option has made a pretty big difference (and, I didn't want to pay a fee to return it, and I otherwise love the camera).

With the short shutter lag option enabled, I'd guestimate that maybe 10% of the shots I'm taking have noticeable signs of shock, and rarely is it bad shock. If I wasn't looking for it, I wouldn't notice it on most.

Until this morning, when I decided to stop and take some photos of a beautiful sunrise. Shutter shock wasn't even on my mind at the time. But of course, I couldn't resist hitting the ol' Z key in Lightroom while reviewing later and, ugh, there it was, clear as day, on 2 of the 10. One of which had my favorite framing of the series. What a bummer that was.

Honestly, at typical screen viewing size nobody would ever notice, so I shouldn't worry about it. But still... it bugs me. I see the blur now, even at normal viewing sizes.

Have you tried the holding technique I would recommend (when the lens is short and light enough as it is in this case)?

Hold the camera with your right hand as you ordinarily would. Hold it with your left hand in roughly the same way as you hold it with your right. Don't support under the lens and (if you use an EVF) don't press the camera to your head. Does that improve your success rate?

Yes, actually, I found that post of yours that you pointed me towards to be quite helpful.

My normal technique with small cameras wasn't too far off: right hand as normal, and then typically cupping the left side of the camera with my thumb up the side and my fingers on the bottom of the camera. I can't say I've ever tried holding a smaller camera by the lens, I suppose because I've never used a lens large enough.

I did some less than scientific testing with different hand holding techniques, such as sandwiching both sides of the camera, with my fingers on the top and thumb on bottom (effectively creating some dampening for any shock). But I really didn't find much variation of note.

Thanks for the suggestion. I may play around some more with different techniques to see how it helps.

Some additional experiments I did myself last night (with the 75/1.8 on the E-M5) suggests that the best left-hand technique is the one I described above, i.e., gripping the camera body via the front and the back. In this test, I found this technique be better than supporting the body with the left hand at the top and bottom, probably because it reduces the likelihood that the displacement takes the form of pitch rather than vertical shift.

Hi Anders,

I came across a technique that, I think, helps to show shutter shock more clearly, and might speed up the kind of grip-testing you are doing.  It arose by chance when I was trying a new lens, checking it was sharp (so had a flash on the camera), and learning how to hold it: I forgot to turn the flash off!

This method depends on the main shock being soon after the shutter opens, at about the same time as the normal (first curtain) flash actuation.  I set the exposure for flash and ambient to be equal: both -1 stop from normal. The flash exposure occurs when the shutter just opens.  The ambient exposure is averaged over the whole exposure time.  The result is, it appears, a clearer double image for even small amounts of shock.

I've not done enough testing to get good statistics, but it looks like the contrast of the shock is enhanced by 5 or 10 times.  My tests were all at 1/60s on an E-PM2, with a focal length around 100mm and Power OIS.

I'm not confident that this always works, but so far in around 100 trials (50 with, 50 without) it makes spotting the shock at the threshold of detection, significantly easier. The target I was using was not very good, so I should try it again with a better one.

What do you think?

Ken

Ken Strain Regular Member • Posts: 449
Re: Some real world examples of shutter shock, and other random thoughts.

Mr Sincere wrote:

budajoe69 wrote:

My heart goes out to anyone experiencing this issue.

I've recently purchased the E-P5, and I'm pleased to report no such issue -- I've tried the 45mm (90mm FL) Pan Leica, both with the IBIS and lens IS, and I've also tried an adapted voigtlander 50mm F1.1 (100mm FL on m4/3) and nothing doing -- didn't see it come up even once -- I covered the shutter speed range of 1/80 - 1/250 and did see anything unsual.

Camera's IBIS is remarkable. I'm curious if we did a poll on the owners of E-P5's, how many would report having this problem.

Best,

B

Thanks for sharing, and thanks for not being the type to say "my camera is fine, you're obviously incompetent!"

And that's encouraging to hear about your EP5, as I'm still tempted to try another.

Have you actively looked for shutter shock, as in zooming to 100% on your photos and looking for vertical doubling?

I'm certainly not second guessing your assertion. I'm more just curious if this is something that can be overlooked if you're not looking for it, and also to reassure myself that it IS possible get an EP5 that doesn't have issues.

As time goes on I see more and more evidence that this phenomenon is significantly variable between cameras of the same type.  Your OP photos look like about as bad as it gets.  It just cannot be that all EP5s are like that!

Ken

Anders W Forum Pro • Posts: 21,468
Re: Some real world examples of shutter shock, and other random thoughts.

Ken Strain wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Mr Sincere wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Mr Sincere wrote:

I was kinda hoping this thread would fade off the front page and into obscurity, but since others are bumping it, I might as well too...

Well, I had managed to convince myself to keep the camera, as turning on the short shutter lag option has made a pretty big difference (and, I didn't want to pay a fee to return it, and I otherwise love the camera).

With the short shutter lag option enabled, I'd guestimate that maybe 10% of the shots I'm taking have noticeable signs of shock, and rarely is it bad shock. If I wasn't looking for it, I wouldn't notice it on most.

Until this morning, when I decided to stop and take some photos of a beautiful sunrise. Shutter shock wasn't even on my mind at the time. But of course, I couldn't resist hitting the ol' Z key in Lightroom while reviewing later and, ugh, there it was, clear as day, on 2 of the 10. One of which had my favorite framing of the series. What a bummer that was.

Honestly, at typical screen viewing size nobody would ever notice, so I shouldn't worry about it. But still... it bugs me. I see the blur now, even at normal viewing sizes.

Have you tried the holding technique I would recommend (when the lens is short and light enough as it is in this case)?

Hold the camera with your right hand as you ordinarily would. Hold it with your left hand in roughly the same way as you hold it with your right. Don't support under the lens and (if you use an EVF) don't press the camera to your head. Does that improve your success rate?

Yes, actually, I found that post of yours that you pointed me towards to be quite helpful.

My normal technique with small cameras wasn't too far off: right hand as normal, and then typically cupping the left side of the camera with my thumb up the side and my fingers on the bottom of the camera. I can't say I've ever tried holding a smaller camera by the lens, I suppose because I've never used a lens large enough.

I did some less than scientific testing with different hand holding techniques, such as sandwiching both sides of the camera, with my fingers on the top and thumb on bottom (effectively creating some dampening for any shock). But I really didn't find much variation of note.

Thanks for the suggestion. I may play around some more with different techniques to see how it helps.

Some additional experiments I did myself last night (with the 75/1.8 on the E-M5) suggests that the best left-hand technique is the one I described above, i.e., gripping the camera body via the front and the back. In this test, I found this technique be better than supporting the body with the left hand at the top and bottom, probably because it reduces the likelihood that the displacement takes the form of pitch rather than vertical shift.

Hi Anders,

I came across a technique that, I think, helps to show shutter shock more clearly, and might speed up the kind of grip-testing you are doing. It arose by chance when I was trying a new lens, checking it was sharp (so had a flash on the camera), and learning how to hold it: I forgot to turn the flash off!

This method depends on the main shock being soon after the shutter opens, at about the same time as the normal (first curtain) flash actuation. I set the exposure for flash and ambient to be equal: both -1 stop from normal. The flash exposure occurs when the shutter just opens. The ambient exposure is averaged over the whole exposure time. The result is, it appears, a clearer double image for even small amounts of shock.

I've not done enough testing to get good statistics, but it looks like the contrast of the shock is enhanced by 5 or 10 times. My tests were all at 1/60s on an E-PM2, with a focal length around 100mm and Power OIS.

I'm not confident that this always works, but so far in around 100 trials (50 with, 50 without) it makes spotting the shock at the threshold of detection, significantly easier. The target I was using was not very good, so I should try it again with a better one.

What do you think?

Sounds like an excellent idea! I'll give it a try as soon as I can just to see how it works. Finding ways of seeing more clearly and quickly what's going on is of quite some importance in this kind of testing, which is boring and time-consuming enough as it is (due to the need for sampling), and where you don't want to spend any more time assessing a particular image than you absolutely must.

 Anders W's gear list:Anders W's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH +28 more
Ken Strain Regular Member • Posts: 449
Re: Some real world examples of shutter shock, and other random thoughts.

Anders W wrote:

Ken Strain wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Mr Sincere wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Mr Sincere wrote:

I was kinda hoping this thread would fade off the front page and into obscurity, but since others are bumping it, I might as well too...

Well, I had managed to convince myself to keep the camera, as turning on the short shutter lag option has made a pretty big difference (and, I didn't want to pay a fee to return it, and I otherwise love the camera).

With the short shutter lag option enabled, I'd guestimate that maybe 10% of the shots I'm taking have noticeable signs of shock, and rarely is it bad shock. If I wasn't looking for it, I wouldn't notice it on most.

Until this morning, when I decided to stop and take some photos of a beautiful sunrise. Shutter shock wasn't even on my mind at the time. But of course, I couldn't resist hitting the ol' Z key in Lightroom while reviewing later and, ugh, there it was, clear as day, on 2 of the 10. One of which had my favorite framing of the series. What a bummer that was.

Honestly, at typical screen viewing size nobody would ever notice, so I shouldn't worry about it. But still... it bugs me. I see the blur now, even at normal viewing sizes.

Have you tried the holding technique I would recommend (when the lens is short and light enough as it is in this case)?

Hold the camera with your right hand as you ordinarily would. Hold it with your left hand in roughly the same way as you hold it with your right. Don't support under the lens and (if you use an EVF) don't press the camera to your head. Does that improve your success rate?

Yes, actually, I found that post of yours that you pointed me towards to be quite helpful.

My normal technique with small cameras wasn't too far off: right hand as normal, and then typically cupping the left side of the camera with my thumb up the side and my fingers on the bottom of the camera. I can't say I've ever tried holding a smaller camera by the lens, I suppose because I've never used a lens large enough.

I did some less than scientific testing with different hand holding techniques, such as sandwiching both sides of the camera, with my fingers on the top and thumb on bottom (effectively creating some dampening for any shock). But I really didn't find much variation of note.

Thanks for the suggestion. I may play around some more with different techniques to see how it helps.

Some additional experiments I did myself last night (with the 75/1.8 on the E-M5) suggests that the best left-hand technique is the one I described above, i.e., gripping the camera body via the front and the back. In this test, I found this technique be better than supporting the body with the left hand at the top and bottom, probably because it reduces the likelihood that the displacement takes the form of pitch rather than vertical shift.

Hi Anders,

I came across a technique that, I think, helps to show shutter shock more clearly, and might speed up the kind of grip-testing you are doing. It arose by chance when I was trying a new lens, checking it was sharp (so had a flash on the camera), and learning how to hold it: I forgot to turn the flash off!

This method depends on the main shock being soon after the shutter opens, at about the same time as the normal (first curtain) flash actuation. I set the exposure for flash and ambient to be equal: both -1 stop from normal. The flash exposure occurs when the shutter just opens. The ambient exposure is averaged over the whole exposure time. The result is, it appears, a clearer double image for even small amounts of shock.

I've not done enough testing to get good statistics, but it looks like the contrast of the shock is enhanced by 5 or 10 times. My tests were all at 1/60s on an E-PM2, with a focal length around 100mm and Power OIS.

I'm not confident that this always works, but so far in around 100 trials (50 with, 50 without) it makes spotting the shock at the threshold of detection, significantly easier. The target I was using was not very good, so I should try it again with a better one.

What do you think?

Sounds like an excellent idea! I'll give it a try as soon as I can just to see how it works. Finding ways of seeing more clearly and quickly what's going on is of quite some importance in this kind of testing, which is boring and time-consuming enough as it is (due to the need for sampling), and where you don't want to spend any more time assessing a particular image than you absolutely must.

I should add I used the little free flash that comes with the Pens.  I have to admit to knowing nothing about whether the trigger times of various flashes are consistent.

Ken

Anders W Forum Pro • Posts: 21,468
Re: Some real world examples of shutter shock, and other random thoughts.

Ken Strain wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Ken Strain wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Mr Sincere wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Mr Sincere wrote:

I was kinda hoping this thread would fade off the front page and into obscurity, but since others are bumping it, I might as well too...

Well, I had managed to convince myself to keep the camera, as turning on the short shutter lag option has made a pretty big difference (and, I didn't want to pay a fee to return it, and I otherwise love the camera).

With the short shutter lag option enabled, I'd guestimate that maybe 10% of the shots I'm taking have noticeable signs of shock, and rarely is it bad shock. If I wasn't looking for it, I wouldn't notice it on most.

Until this morning, when I decided to stop and take some photos of a beautiful sunrise. Shutter shock wasn't even on my mind at the time. But of course, I couldn't resist hitting the ol' Z key in Lightroom while reviewing later and, ugh, there it was, clear as day, on 2 of the 10. One of which had my favorite framing of the series. What a bummer that was.

Honestly, at typical screen viewing size nobody would ever notice, so I shouldn't worry about it. But still... it bugs me. I see the blur now, even at normal viewing sizes.

Have you tried the holding technique I would recommend (when the lens is short and light enough as it is in this case)?

Hold the camera with your right hand as you ordinarily would. Hold it with your left hand in roughly the same way as you hold it with your right. Don't support under the lens and (if you use an EVF) don't press the camera to your head. Does that improve your success rate?

Yes, actually, I found that post of yours that you pointed me towards to be quite helpful.

My normal technique with small cameras wasn't too far off: right hand as normal, and then typically cupping the left side of the camera with my thumb up the side and my fingers on the bottom of the camera. I can't say I've ever tried holding a smaller camera by the lens, I suppose because I've never used a lens large enough.

I did some less than scientific testing with different hand holding techniques, such as sandwiching both sides of the camera, with my fingers on the top and thumb on bottom (effectively creating some dampening for any shock). But I really didn't find much variation of note.

Thanks for the suggestion. I may play around some more with different techniques to see how it helps.

Some additional experiments I did myself last night (with the 75/1.8 on the E-M5) suggests that the best left-hand technique is the one I described above, i.e., gripping the camera body via the front and the back. In this test, I found this technique be better than supporting the body with the left hand at the top and bottom, probably because it reduces the likelihood that the displacement takes the form of pitch rather than vertical shift.

Hi Anders,

I came across a technique that, I think, helps to show shutter shock more clearly, and might speed up the kind of grip-testing you are doing. It arose by chance when I was trying a new lens, checking it was sharp (so had a flash on the camera), and learning how to hold it: I forgot to turn the flash off!

This method depends on the main shock being soon after the shutter opens, at about the same time as the normal (first curtain) flash actuation. I set the exposure for flash and ambient to be equal: both -1 stop from normal. The flash exposure occurs when the shutter just opens. The ambient exposure is averaged over the whole exposure time. The result is, it appears, a clearer double image for even small amounts of shock.

I've not done enough testing to get good statistics, but it looks like the contrast of the shock is enhanced by 5 or 10 times. My tests were all at 1/60s on an E-PM2, with a focal length around 100mm and Power OIS.

I'm not confident that this always works, but so far in around 100 trials (50 with, 50 without) it makes spotting the shock at the threshold of detection, significantly easier. The target I was using was not very good, so I should try it again with a better one.

What do you think?

Sounds like an excellent idea! I'll give it a try as soon as I can just to see how it works. Finding ways of seeing more clearly and quickly what's going on is of quite some importance in this kind of testing, which is boring and time-consuming enough as it is (due to the need for sampling), and where you don't want to spend any more time assessing a particular image than you absolutely must.

I should add I used the little free flash that comes with the Pens. I have to admit to knowing nothing about whether the trigger times of various flashes are consistent.

Hopefully and probably, there is not sufficient variation for that to matter much. At any rate, I have both the little flash included with the E-M5 and the FL-300R to play with.

 Anders W's gear list:Anders W's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH +28 more
OP Mr Sincere Regular Member • Posts: 336
Re: Some real world examples of shutter shock, and other random thoughts.

Mr. Sincere,

Thanks for posting your latest pictures. The comparison of the zoomed shutter shock image to what the original image looks like with short release lag-time enabled is very much appreciated.

You're welcome!  I hoped they could be of use to someone.

Since you're experiencing shutter shock even with short release lag-time enabled, I've decided not to buy "any" camera that uses a mechanical shutter that doesn't have electronic first curtain shutter as an option. It's just not worth it to me to have to keep buying and returning bodies and/or lenses to find good copies, or to have to hold the camera in a certain way to "hope" that SS doesn't happen, or live with a certain percentage of SS problems.

I hear you.  In thinking about this later, I found myself wishing I'd grabbed my LX7 instead of my E-P5 when I took the sunrise photos.  And then I realized there's something very wrong when you feel like you can depend on your $250 camera more than your $700 camera.

That said, I think I'll probably still roll the dice on another Olympus, but this time from somewhere with a hassle free return policy.  There seems to be a bit of consensus that my EP5 is worse than is typical, based on the samples I've shared here.

What can I say... I just have a soft spot for Olympus cameras.  I love their design, build and ergonomics.

Good luck on your own search for your next camera.  

 Mr Sincere's gear list:Mr Sincere's gear list
Panasonic LX100
Steen Bay Veteran Member • Posts: 6,978
Re: Too much religion not any science

Anders W wrote:

Steen Bay wrote:

Anders W wrote:

The evidence texinwien points to indicates that blur due to SS can occur even when shooting from a tripod. It does not demonstrate that the risk of blur due to SS increases when shooting from a tripod.

In my own quite extensive testing with my E-M5, it is clearly the other way around. The risk/magnitude of blur due to SS declines when shooting from a tripod. Furthermore, when using a sufficiently heavy and sturdy "tripod" (such as the floor of my kitchen with tiles on top of conrete), there is no blur at all due to SS even with my 100-300 at 300 mm and no anti-shock delay.

The reason why a tripod can decrease the risk of blur due to SS is that one important mechanism (and the only one I have so far found clear-cut evidence for in the tests I have conducted with my own gear although I remain open to other possibilities) is that shutter action causes a displacement of the camera as a whole. The risk/magnitude of such displacement declines if the camera is put on a reasonably sturdy tripod and is eliminated altogether if it is put on a sufficently heavy and sturdy "tripod" of the type described above. In other words, given that SS causes blur via displacement of the camera as a whole, the risk/magnitude of such blur declines if the camera "has no place to go".

Though, your kitchen floor only prevents movement in one direction (downwards).

No, it effectively prevents it from going upwards too due to the behavior of the normal force (the one counteracting the force of gravity) on a rigid as opposed to a non-rigid surface.

Sorry, but don't quite understand what it is that should prevent the camera from moving upwards/sidewards. My electric shaver will still vibrate if put on hard/heavy surface. Probably less than if put on a carpet, but still.

Anders W Forum Pro • Posts: 21,468
Re: Too much religion not any science

Steen Bay wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Steen Bay wrote:

Anders W wrote:

The evidence texinwien points to indicates that blur due to SS can occur even when shooting from a tripod. It does not demonstrate that the risk of blur due to SS increases when shooting from a tripod.

In my own quite extensive testing with my E-M5, it is clearly the other way around. The risk/magnitude of blur due to SS declines when shooting from a tripod. Furthermore, when using a sufficiently heavy and sturdy "tripod" (such as the floor of my kitchen with tiles on top of conrete), there is no blur at all due to SS even with my 100-300 at 300 mm and no anti-shock delay.

The reason why a tripod can decrease the risk of blur due to SS is that one important mechanism (and the only one I have so far found clear-cut evidence for in the tests I have conducted with my own gear although I remain open to other possibilities) is that shutter action causes a displacement of the camera as a whole. The risk/magnitude of such displacement declines if the camera is put on a reasonably sturdy tripod and is eliminated altogether if it is put on a sufficently heavy and sturdy "tripod" of the type described above. In other words, given that SS causes blur via displacement of the camera as a whole, the risk/magnitude of such blur declines if the camera "has no place to go".

Though, your kitchen floor only prevents movement in one direction (downwards).

No, it effectively prevents it from going upwards too due to the behavior of the normal force (the one counteracting the force of gravity) on a rigid as opposed to a non-rigid surface.

Sorry, but don't quite understand what it is that should prevent the camera from moving upwards/sidewards. My electric shaver will still vibrate if put on hard/heavy surface. Probably less than if put on a carpet, but still.

The camera may still vibrate (relative internal displacements) but it will not be displaced as a whole. Consider, for example, what will happen when the shutter blades accelerate downwards. According to Newton's third law (that of action and reaction), the force accelerating the blades implies that an equally large force is acting on the camera as a whole (apart from the shutter blades) in the opposite direction (upwards). This effectively reduces the downward force of gravity on the camera.

If the camera is sitting on a perfectly rigid surface, the normal force (the one acting upwards, counteracting the force of gravity) will instantly adapt so as to match the reduced downward force. The camera will therefore not move at all. If, instead, the camera is sitting in the soft flesh of your hands, it is effectively sitting on a spring-loaded mechanism. In this case, the normal force cannot be reduced except by having the depressed flesh expand a bit. Consequently, the camera will move upwards until the expansion is sufficient to reach partiy between downward and upward forces.

 Anders W's gear list:Anders W's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH +28 more
Steen Bay Veteran Member • Posts: 6,978
Re: Too much religion not any science

Anders W wrote:

Steen Bay wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Steen Bay wrote:

Anders W wrote:

The evidence texinwien points to indicates that blur due to SS can occur even when shooting from a tripod. It does not demonstrate that the risk of blur due to SS increases when shooting from a tripod.

In my own quite extensive testing with my E-M5, it is clearly the other way around. The risk/magnitude of blur due to SS declines when shooting from a tripod. Furthermore, when using a sufficiently heavy and sturdy "tripod" (such as the floor of my kitchen with tiles on top of conrete), there is no blur at all due to SS even with my 100-300 at 300 mm and no anti-shock delay.

The reason why a tripod can decrease the risk of blur due to SS is that one important mechanism (and the only one I have so far found clear-cut evidence for in the tests I have conducted with my own gear although I remain open to other possibilities) is that shutter action causes a displacement of the camera as a whole. The risk/magnitude of such displacement declines if the camera is put on a reasonably sturdy tripod and is eliminated altogether if it is put on a sufficently heavy and sturdy "tripod" of the type described above. In other words, given that SS causes blur via displacement of the camera as a whole, the risk/magnitude of such blur declines if the camera "has no place to go".

Though, your kitchen floor only prevents movement in one direction (downwards).

No, it effectively prevents it from going upwards too due to the behavior of the normal force (the one counteracting the force of gravity) on a rigid as opposed to a non-rigid surface.

Sorry, but don't quite understand what it is that should prevent the camera from moving upwards/sidewards. My electric shaver will still vibrate if put on hard/heavy surface. Probably less than if put on a carpet, but still.

The camera may still vibrate (relative internal displacements) but it will not be displaced as a whole. Consider, for example, what will happen when the shutter blades accelerate downwards. According to Newton's third law (that of action and reaction), the force accelerating the blades implies that an equally large force is acting on the camera as a whole (apart from the shutter blades) in the opposite direction (upwards). This effectively reduces the downward force of gravity on the camera.

If the camera is sitting on a perfectly rigid surface, the normal force (the one acting upwards, counteracting the force of gravity) will instantly adapt so as to match the reduced downward force. The camera will therefore not move at all. If, instead, the camera is sitting in the soft flesh of your hands, it is effectively sitting on a spring-loaded mechanism. In this case, the normal force cannot be reduced except by having the depressed flesh expand a bit. Consequently, the camera will move upwards until the expansion is sufficient to reach partiy between downward and upward forces.

Yes, understand that, but if the opward force is large enough to overcome the force of gravity, then the camera will move upwards (we're talking microns here), and sidewards if large enough to overcome (just) the friction. That's the case with my electric shaver. The forces/vibrations are strong enough to move it around on a hard floor. A hard/heavy surface certainly helps, but don't think it's impossible that e.g. an E-M1 in burst mode would move a bit around too (it's my impression that the E-M1 has a more 'violent' shutter than the E-M5).

Anders W Forum Pro • Posts: 21,468
Re: Too much religion not any science

Steen Bay wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Steen Bay wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Steen Bay wrote:

Anders W wrote:

The evidence texinwien points to indicates that blur due to SS can occur even when shooting from a tripod. It does not demonstrate that the risk of blur due to SS increases when shooting from a tripod.

In my own quite extensive testing with my E-M5, it is clearly the other way around. The risk/magnitude of blur due to SS declines when shooting from a tripod. Furthermore, when using a sufficiently heavy and sturdy "tripod" (such as the floor of my kitchen with tiles on top of conrete), there is no blur at all due to SS even with my 100-300 at 300 mm and no anti-shock delay.

The reason why a tripod can decrease the risk of blur due to SS is that one important mechanism (and the only one I have so far found clear-cut evidence for in the tests I have conducted with my own gear although I remain open to other possibilities) is that shutter action causes a displacement of the camera as a whole. The risk/magnitude of such displacement declines if the camera is put on a reasonably sturdy tripod and is eliminated altogether if it is put on a sufficently heavy and sturdy "tripod" of the type described above. In other words, given that SS causes blur via displacement of the camera as a whole, the risk/magnitude of such blur declines if the camera "has no place to go".

Though, your kitchen floor only prevents movement in one direction (downwards).

No, it effectively prevents it from going upwards too due to the behavior of the normal force (the one counteracting the force of gravity) on a rigid as opposed to a non-rigid surface.

Sorry, but don't quite understand what it is that should prevent the camera from moving upwards/sidewards. My electric shaver will still vibrate if put on hard/heavy surface. Probably less than if put on a carpet, but still.

The camera may still vibrate (relative internal displacements) but it will not be displaced as a whole. Consider, for example, what will happen when the shutter blades accelerate downwards. According to Newton's third law (that of action and reaction), the force accelerating the blades implies that an equally large force is acting on the camera as a whole (apart from the shutter blades) in the opposite direction (upwards). This effectively reduces the downward force of gravity on the camera.

If the camera is sitting on a perfectly rigid surface, the normal force (the one acting upwards, counteracting the force of gravity) will instantly adapt so as to match the reduced downward force. The camera will therefore not move at all. If, instead, the camera is sitting in the soft flesh of your hands, it is effectively sitting on a spring-loaded mechanism. In this case, the normal force cannot be reduced except by having the depressed flesh expand a bit. Consequently, the camera will move upwards until the expansion is sufficient to reach partiy between downward and upward forces.

Yes, understand that, but if the opward force is large enough to overcome the force of gravity, then the camera will move upwards (we're talking microns here), and sidewards if large enough to overcome (just) the friction. That's the case with my electric shaver. The forces/vibrations are strong enough to move it around on a hard floor. A hard/heavy surface certainly helps, but don't think it's impossible that e.g. an E-M1 in burst mode would move a bit around too (it's my impression that the E-M1 has a more 'violent' shutter than the E-M5).

The upward force created by shutter acceleration is nowhere nearly enough to outdo the downward force of gravity. What you are describing with your shaver is the impact of vibration (relative internal displacement) and this can of course move an object around if sufficiently strong.

But that's not what I was talking about and the reason for conducting my on-the-floor test was precisely to separate vibration from displacement of the whole camera due to forces of the kind described above. Putting the camera on the floor prevents the latter but not the former. The results of my test showed the latter to be the culprit since there was no blur with the camera on the floor although there was when using an ordinary tripod (with my 100-300 at 300). The same result was obtained in this test with a Pentax K-7 (see section 4.2, finding #6).

http://www.falklumo.com/lumolabs/articles/k7shutter/index.html

Of course, that doesn't preclude the possibility that other results might be obtained with other gear (including other specimen of the same gear).

Interestingly, vibrations can be used productively for photography, as exemplified by this panorma app for iPhone 5, which uses the vibration function of the phone to move it around for a panorma sweep.

http://hexus.net/mobile/news/apple/49785-iphone-5-panorama-app-uses-vibrate-function-auto-rotate/

 Anders W's gear list:Anders W's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH +28 more
Ken Strain Regular Member • Posts: 449
Re: Too much religion not any science

Anders W wrote:

Steen Bay wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Steen Bay wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Steen Bay wrote:

Anders W wrote:

The evidence texinwien points to indicates that blur due to SS can occur even when shooting from a tripod. It does not demonstrate that the risk of blur due to SS increases when shooting from a tripod.

In my own quite extensive testing with my E-M5, it is clearly the other way around. The risk/magnitude of blur due to SS declines when shooting from a tripod. Furthermore, when using a sufficiently heavy and sturdy "tripod" (such as the floor of my kitchen with tiles on top of conrete), there is no blur at all due to SS even with my 100-300 at 300 mm and no anti-shock delay.

The reason why a tripod can decrease the risk of blur due to SS is that one important mechanism (and the only one I have so far found clear-cut evidence for in the tests I have conducted with my own gear although I remain open to other possibilities) is that shutter action causes a displacement of the camera as a whole. The risk/magnitude of such displacement declines if the camera is put on a reasonably sturdy tripod and is eliminated altogether if it is put on a sufficently heavy and sturdy "tripod" of the type described above. In other words, given that SS causes blur via displacement of the camera as a whole, the risk/magnitude of such blur declines if the camera "has no place to go".

Though, your kitchen floor only prevents movement in one direction (downwards).

No, it effectively prevents it from going upwards too due to the behavior of the normal force (the one counteracting the force of gravity) on a rigid as opposed to a non-rigid surface.

Sorry, but don't quite understand what it is that should prevent the camera from moving upwards/sidewards. My electric shaver will still vibrate if put on hard/heavy surface. Probably less than if put on a carpet, but still.

The camera may still vibrate (relative internal displacements) but it will not be displaced as a whole. Consider, for example, what will happen when the shutter blades accelerate downwards. According to Newton's third law (that of action and reaction), the force accelerating the blades implies that an equally large force is acting on the camera as a whole (apart from the shutter blades) in the opposite direction (upwards). This effectively reduces the downward force of gravity on the camera.

If the camera is sitting on a perfectly rigid surface, the normal force (the one acting upwards, counteracting the force of gravity) will instantly adapt so as to match the reduced downward force. The camera will therefore not move at all. If, instead, the camera is sitting in the soft flesh of your hands, it is effectively sitting on a spring-loaded mechanism. In this case, the normal force cannot be reduced except by having the depressed flesh expand a bit. Consequently, the camera will move upwards until the expansion is sufficient to reach partiy between downward and upward forces.

Yes, understand that, but if the opward force is large enough to overcome the force of gravity, then the camera will move upwards (we're talking microns here), and sidewards if large enough to overcome (just) the friction. That's the case with my electric shaver. The forces/vibrations are strong enough to move it around on a hard floor. A hard/heavy surface certainly helps, but don't think it's impossible that e.g. an E-M1 in burst mode would move a bit around too (it's my impression that the E-M1 has a more 'violent' shutter than the E-M5).

The upward force created by shutter acceleration is nowhere nearly enough to outdo the downward force of gravity. What you are describing with your shaver is the impact of vibration (relative internal displacement) and this can of course move an object around if sufficiently strong.

But that's not what I was talking about and the reason for conducting my on-the-floor test was precisely to separate vibration from displacement of the whole camera due to forces of the kind described above. Putting the camera on the floor prevents the latter but not the former. The results of my test showed the latter to be the culprit since there was no blur with the camera on the floor although there was when using an ordinary tripod (with my 100-300 at 300). The same result was obtained in this test with a Pentax K-7 (see section 4.2, finding #6).

http://www.falklumo.com/lumolabs/articles/k7shutter/index.html

Of course, that doesn't preclude the possibility that other results might be obtained with other gear (including other specimen of the same gear).

Interestingly, vibrations can be used productively for photography, as exemplified by this panorma app for iPhone 5, which uses the vibration function of the phone to move it around for a panorma sweep.

http://hexus.net/mobile/news/apple/49785-iphone-5-panorama-app-uses-vibrate-function-auto-rotate/

Hi Anders,

perhaps surprisingly, the acceleration might  not be very much less than 1g (9.8m/s/s), at least with an E-PM2 and a light lens.  I can't give an exact number but the maximum lies between 0.2 and 1g. The problem with measurement is that the peak acceleration acts for a very short time which my measurements don't quite resolve.   Also the camera is not rigid and it is hard to measure how its base moves.  I suspect with a heavier lens like the 100-300, the peak acceleration is somewhat lower, and well below 1g (as you observed, in effect).  In measuring this on a few surfaces, it surprised me how massive the support had to be to keep the camera still.  Only a concrete floor (in my case concrete patio) sufficed to reduce vertical motion to what I assume is the minimum.

I don't have records of these rough measurements as the equipment did not allow it.

Ken

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads