M6 II "hidden features" thread

Alastair Norcross wrote:

wddxnyr wrote:

I fully understand what claimed 4 stops means. I am saying that for this comparison we should fully eliminate even the slightest hand shake by testing on a tripod.

You are still confused. There are two relevant comparisons. One is testing for shutter shock, by comparing mechanical shutter with e-shutter. The other is testing the effectiveness of IS. You said in your previous post that the 18-150 lens doesn't really have 4 stops of IS. You claimed to back this up with a test you did a while ago on a different lens using a tripod. So, doubly confused. You used a tripod to test the IS, and the test you did was on a different lens from the one in question. If you think you can come to any reliable conclusions about how effective IS is by doing a tripod-mounted test, then no, you don't fully understand what claimed 4 stops of IS means. Now, as to your other claim, that we need to do tripod-mounted tests to determine shutter shock, that is a different matter. Your objection to R2's demonstration centered on your claim that a handheld shot at that shutter speed (1/60) and focal length would suffer from camera shake, rendering the comparison of e-shutter and mechanical meaningless, because, presumably, both images would be softened by camera shake, so we wouldn't be able to detect any further softening from shutter shock. As I pointed out, though, 1/60 at that focal length with IS enabled is enough to eliminate camera shake, contrary to what you said about the IS not being enough. And it is. It is equivalent to 1/1000 without IS. Furthermore, as others have pointed out, R2's images were very sharp. So, even if, somehow there was still a bit of camera shake covering up whatever softening there might be from shutter shock (on the mechanical shutter shot), that he can get results this good handheld with mechanical shutter demonstrates that whatever theoretical softening there might have been from shutter shock is entirely trivial.

Wow, (was gone for a day) and you guys have saved me a lot of typing!

Very well put Alastair!

I did add a bunch more “data points” in a different thread here…

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4599974

I think the OP is indeed conflating a number of different concepts and needs to apply more of the scientific method to his reasoning here. He’ll gain more understanding of exactly what is happening with the various shutter modes.

TLDR is definitely NOT the solution.  

I do absolutely encourage him to proceed with his project though, as there are valid uses for all of the shutter modes! Obviously more than he is currently aware of.

R2

wddxnyr wrote:

My whole point is: EFCS is useful and should be included;

if technically possible - yes it should

it hasn't been established that it is technically possible without bugs

shutter shock is a problem under some cases.

"some" is a "very small" measure for me considering the workarounds and availability of e-shutter

While a few people here tried to tell me that:

1. No EFCS is fine (for all kind of reasons)

there are compromises to all cameras

if it is technically possible, which hasn't been established, and you haven't proven yet, then it isn't fine

2. Shutter shock is not an issue at all (xx didn't see it)

I've seen it on small IS lenses - not primes or more expensive IS systems

- it has to do with the vibration with these cheap IS systems (imagine held up by springs and rubber bands

3. XX camera also has XX problems

it is the system - cheap IS lenses + a bit harsher mechanical shutter

In their world pointing out a few drawbacks of their camera is too much for them.

to be fair -

every camera has its drawbacks

I'd like it to have EFCS if technically possible - which hasn't been established

I love the e-shutter workaround so much, I wouldn't buy the m50 II that has efcs

My RP has only EFCS and has cutoff bokeh issues because it doesn't have mechanical shutter above ss 1/1000 with f1.4/f1.2 lenses

you would be better off toning it down and agreeing that e-shutter is a nice feature and workaround and you are working on the code to see if it is technically possible.

wddxnyr wrote:

I am willing to share with most people but he thinks it's not an issue. https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65861754

That post doesn't mean that, but you missed the irony.

(It's not worth replying.  Don't bother.)

wddxnyr wrote:

My whole point is: EFCS is useful and should be included; shutter shock is a problem under some cases.

And no one disagrees with that.

While a few people here tried to tell me that:

1. No EFCS is fine (for all kind of reasons)

2. Shutter shock is not an issue at all (xx didn't see it)

3. XX camera also has XX problems

In their world pointing out a few drawbacks of their camera is too much for them.

I don't think anyone in this discussion is making any of those claims, except #3.

Some of the features are a pain in the neck. I, for one, bought the camera being fully aware of the disadvantages. If you look closely, I think you will find most or all people responding here have pointed out problems with the equipment and have tried to mitigate the problems.

I'm sure everyone agrees that a repeating e-shutter and EFCS would be very nice to implement if it can be done without bugs.  And thank you for working on this.  We certainly encourage it.