Call For Caution on "Shutter Shock" Posts

[Anders W]

There have been recent posts alleging varying degrees sharpness of photos with OMD-EM1 with differing shutter speeds. These findings have been attributed to "shutter shock" or similar phenomena. However, in at least some of these cases, the "tester" was keeping the exposure constant. Hence, the aperture varied. The result was comparing sharpness at, say f8 vs. f 3.5 and attributing the differences to "shutter shock". Recall that varying the aperature

1. Changes the depth of field, giving appearance of sharpness at smaller apertures

2. Changes the behavior of the lens. Many lenses have "sweet spots"- f8 being a common one.

Hand holding is also a poor way to evaluate this as the results will vary from shot to shot and would require inspection of many images to draw a firm conclusion.

Therefore, I make a plea to be cautious about blaming one variable for changes in sharpness when multiple variables are changed.

While there is every reason to warn against conclusions drawn on the basis of naive attempts to test for shutter shock (and I have seen quite a few of those here), the two points you make above are not serious impediments to proper testing. If you use a proper target. like the one shown below (this is a 100 percent crop and the print screen structure is the factor key importance), it is not difficult to tell blur due to camera shake apart from blur due to variations in lens performance or precise choice of focus (where problems with focus can of course be minimized with a bit of care). I would actually recommend keeping exposure constant (and thus vary aperture when you vary shutter speed) since differences in image brightness makes it difficult to evaluate the results.

And while you are certainly right that the results from hand-held shooting will vary on a shot-to-shot basis and therefore require fairly large samples before any clear conclusions can be drawn, the impact of shutter shock in hand-held shooting is certainly something we would want to test for. Although shutter-shock can be a problem even when shooting from a tripod (especially with very long FLs), you cannot generalize the results of tripod-based tests to hand-held shooting. If you want to know what happens when you shoot hand-held, you need to test hand-held however cumbersome that may be (and I know it is since I have done it and surely shot more than 1,000 images in the process).

I agree. However, neither tripod test nor hand held test isolates the shutter's influence from other factors, either in conjunction with shutter motion or independently but contributing in an accumulated fashion.

A proper shutter shock test would be to use a kind of gel structure (the stuff they use to test for ballistic impact on humans for instance) and sit the camera on that - this would simulate a completely stationary hand, i.e. what would happen if the hand is 100% steady. Triggering with wireless remote completes the picture.

Failing that, one might consider suspending the camera on a net of strings in mid air.

Good thinking, now go execute it....

I´m 100% sure this will show even more shuttershock then hand held.

But the thing is that it is not important if there is user interaction. If you have much more unsharp shots in a certain shutter range then expected, it is important to know. And what else then shutter shock can it be, mirror slap? Either avoid the range or find better holding techniques. In fact if keepers are important it is good to know your statistics, for every lens and camera combo you own.

When I went from a 45-200 to a 40-150 I had better sharpness results handheld, on a tripod results were equal. Why? No idea, maybe weight? But it is important to know.

Probably weight distribution. Weight itself is good if it is added under the body. When it is in front of the body, moving the point of gravity outwards from the shutter, it is bad for reasons described here (i.e., it increases the risk that the shutter forms part of the moment arm I talk about in the post I link to):

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51554589

 

[simpy]

I agree that one should be careful not to point fingers at any one camera or component when there are many possible sources of blur. However, since I've received my E-M1 3 weeks ago I've been less than delighted with the sharpness of my pictures, and in particular those of the 17mm/1.8 that I bought at the same time.

Today, I finally got around to do some proper testing. I followed these steps:

1. Taped an old magazine to the wall.
2. Mounted the camera on a tripod, selected LOW ISO and varied the aperture to get an overview of attainable lens sharpness at all apertures. [used 2-sec timer and 1/8s anti-shock]
3. Set the camera to M with auto ISO.
4. Took a series of handheld shots varying the shutter speed (from 1/8 to 1/1000) and keep the f-stop within f/4-5.6 if possible.
5. Repeated step (4) with the following settings: (a) 1/8s anti-shock and 'fast' release mode; (b) 'fast' release mode; (c) 'normal' release mode; and all of the above with IS auto and IS off.
6. Inspected RAW images at 200% in Lightroom (although it is obvious that something is wrong also at lower ratios; that's why I started looking into this in the first place).

So far I have used 3 lenses: 17mm/1.8, 11-22mm at 17mm and the 45mm/1.8. Note that I am mostly looking at the wider end of the spectrum, which may not be representative for the way others use their cameras.

I am aware that handheld shooting requires some decent statistics to make hard statements. Nevertheless, let me state my preliminary conclusions:

• Indeed, I get many blurred shots in the 1/100-1/250s range, when handheld.
• No significant blurring is present when the camera is mounted on a tripod (11-22mm and 17mm tested).
• On the 11-22m, turning off IS fixes the issue!
• Unfortunately, IS makes little to no difference for the 17mm and 45mm (lighter lenses) at the relevant shutter speeds.
• Enabling 1/8s anti-shock seems to make a slight difference for the 11-22mm at low shutter speeds (1/30-1/125s).

The difference in behaviour between the 11-22mm and the m4/3 lenses is interesting. Of course, the 11-22mm is heavier, which might explain a difference in baseline behaviour. But I had not expected IS to make things worse, which it does. Another explanation would be that the shutter movement somehow rattles the lighter focusing groups in the 17mm and 45mm lenses. Clearly more testing is required.

Two other random observations:

• The E-M1's lack of AA filter is very handy for sharpness testing. If a piece of small newspaper text produces colourful fringes you can assume the lens is projecting a sharp image
• In the E-M1 SCP, the IS modes appear to be mislabelled. The explanatory text for IS-1 is 'auto' and for IS-auto 'landscape panning'. I am using the IS-auto setting all the way to the right, because that was the initial setting. I'm assuming it is not the landscape panning mode.

I fear I may need to do a bit more testing over the coming weeks, but it seems there is no simple explanation...

Simon

 

[frameman]

This site http://cameraergonomics.blogspot.co.uk has made reference to the problem. Apparently on or off a tripod, Panasonic and Olympus. The fact that Panasonic has introduced E shutter and Olympus has used a delay in the shutter system would suggest to me that both companies are aware of the problem, even if they don't openly admit to it. Dp review has experienced it as have others, but not all users. Maybe this is unit dependant problem rather than an entire system failure but it does exist. For sure one has to be sure that their camera has it before saying ist has shutter shock so why can someone not devise a standard proceedure that proves or disproves the problem. Why have the makers not been a little more forthright in this, or would the cost of recall and repar be too high. Finally, had I paid £2000 for a camera and lens of a reputedly pro camera only to find that I got double images in the vertical pain, on or off a tripod at shutter speeds commonly used, I would be seething. Then again untill Oly/ Panasonic sort the problem once and for all, I'm not buying in to 4/3. I guess there are others like wise. I have come to the conclusion that the problem is unit weight and a sensor suspended on magnets coupled with user techniquè in some instances. I'm probably wrong as usual.

 

[Anders W]

I agree that one should be careful not to point fingers at any one camera or component when there are many possible sources of blur. However, since I've received my E-M1 3 weeks ago I've been less than delighted with the sharpness of my pictures, and in particular those of the 17mm/1.8 that I bought at the same time.

Today, I finally got around to do some proper testing.

1. Taped an old magazine to the wall.
2. Mounted the camera on a tripod, selected LOW ISO and varied the aperture to get an overview of attainable lens sharpness at all apertures. [used 2-sec timer and 1/8s anti-shock]
3. Set the camera to M with auto ISO.
4. Take a series of handheld shots varying the shutter speed (from 1/8 to 1/1000) and keep the f-stop within f/4-5.6 if possible.
5. Repeat step (4) with the following settings: (a) 1/8s anti-shock and 'fast' release mode; (b) 'fast' release mode; (c) 'normal' release mode.
6. Repeat step (5) with IS auto and IS off
7. Inspect pictures at 200% (although it is obvious that something is wrong also at lower ratios; that's why I started looking into this in the first place).

So far I have used 3 lenses: 17mm/1.8, 11-22mm at 17mm and the 45mm/1.8. Note that I am testing the wide end of the spectrum, which may not be representative for others.

I am aware that handheld shooting requires some decent statistics to make hard statements. Nevertheless, let me state my preliminary conclusions:

• Indeed, I get many blurred shots in the 1/100-1/250s range, when handheld.
• No significant blurring is present when the camera is mounted on a tripod (11-22mm and 17mm tested).
• On the 11-22m, turnging off IS fixes the issue!
• Unfortunately, IS makes little to no difference for the 17mm and 45mm (lighter lenses) at the relevant shutter speeds.
• Enabling 1/8s anti-shock seems to make a slight difference for the 11-22mm at low shutter speeds (1/30-1/125s).

Two other random observations:

• The E-M1's lack of AA filter is very handy for sharpness testing. If a piece of small newspaper text produces colourful fringes you can assume the lens is projecting a sharp image
• In the E-M1 SCP, the IS modes appear to be mislabelled. The explanatory text for IS-1 is 'auto' and for IS-auto 'landscape panning'. I am using the IS-auto setting all the way to the right, because that was the initial setting. I'm assuming it is not the landscape panning mode.

I fear I may need to do a bit more testing over the coming weeks, but it seems there is no simple explanation...

The only thing that really surprises me is your conclusion that you find a difference between IBIS on and off, if only for one lens. I have found no clear signs that IBIS on or off makes a difference in my very extensive testing with the E-M5 (which like the E-M1 has the new 5-axes IBIS).

With short and light lenses like the 17/1.8 and 45/1.8, you should be able to get pretty good results in spite of the shutter-shock issue just by holding the camera right. Right in this case means that you should avoid supporting the camera under the lens with your left hand (support the body instead) and avoid much in the way of head support. This minimizes the risk that the shutter forms part of the moment arm I talk about in the post to which I link below:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51554589

A longer and heavier lens barrel, like that of the 11-22, is likely to make things worse, everything else equal, since it moves the center of gravity outwards from the shutter, thereby increasing the risk that the shutter forms part of the above-mentioned moment arm. It also makes it more difficult to support the camera in the way I describe above. You might try supporting the lens with your thumb and fingertip very close to the mount and you may also try very gentle head support.

 

[Anders W]

This site http://cameraergonomics.blogspot.co.uk has made reference to the problem. Apparently on or off a tripod, Panasonic and Olympus. The fact that Panasonic has introduced E shutter and Olympus has used a delay in the shutter system would suggest to me that both companies are aware of the problem, even if they don't openly admit to it. Dp review has experienced it as have others, but not all users. Maybe this is unit dependant problem rather than an entire system failure but it does exist. For sure one has to be sure that their camera has it before saying ist has shutter shock so why can someone not devise a standard proceedure that proves or disproves the problem.

It is anything but easy to devise such a procedure due to the many variables involved and the problem being probabilistic (varying on a shot-to-shot basis) as well as dependent on the hand-hold techniques and abilities of individual users.

Why have the makers not been a little more forthright in this, or would the cost of recall and repar be too high.

The problem is to a large extent not a matter of repair for individual units. Any camera with a mechanical curtain shutter (not just MFT cameras or mirrorless cameras) has the problem, just more or less so. The manufacturers probably don't like to talk about the problem unless they have a solution ready to roll out.

One such solution that already exists is to use a shutter with an electronic first curtain (so that the mechanical shutter is used only for ending the exposure). At least some NEX as well as Canon cameras have that. Another solution is a rolling electronic shutter, like the one available on recent Panasonic bodies. However, such a shutter can be used without drawbacks only for reasonably static targets. A third solution, that will hopefully appear in a not too distant future, is a global electronic shutter, i.e., an electronic shutter that can completely replace the mechanical shutter for all kinds of shooting.

Finally, had I paid £2000 for a camera and lens of a reputedly pro camera only to find that I got double images in the vertical pain, on or off a tripod at shutter speeds commonly used, I would be seething. Then again untill Oly/ Panasonic sort the problem once and for all, I'm not buying in to 4/3. I guess there are others like wise. I have come to the conclusion that the problem is unit weight and a sensor suspended on magnets coupled with user techniquè in some instances. I'm probably wrong as usual.

 

[frameman]

My only answer is to remove the variables. If say a variable is hand holding then mount the camera and test, even using a variety of mounts. If the problem is resolved then shooting technique is tested hand held by method and application. I know I get occasional camera shake when I shoot hand held at times, and on a tripod in a strong wind, but in a still invironment on a tripod I definately don't. If one can eliminate the obvious then the un-obvious has to come into play. I'm no engineer. My reasoning is this, it's a camera system, a principle of engineering applies, if this were a car then it would be fixed PDQ. Admitting a fault implies blame and there fore repair under warranty, I'm still amazed this problem has lasted so long.

 

[Anders W]

My only answer is to remove the variables. If say a variable is hand holding then mount the camera and test, even using a variety of mounts. If the problem is resolved then shooting technique is tested hand held by method and application. I know I get occasional camera shake when I shoot hand held at times, and on a tripod in a strong wind, but in a still invironment on a tripod I definately don't. If one can eliminate the obvious then the un-obvious has to come into play. I'm no engineer.

That's probably why you don't realize how difficult it is to accomplish what you ask for. There are already a couple of machines that can simulate human hand-shake. The French FNAC labs have one and so does LensRentals. However, for shutter-shock purposes, you'd additionally have to simulate the moment-absorbing abilities of human hands and indeed the entire human body.

Good general evidence that shutter shock is real has been around for quite a while. It's another thing to say how bad it is for a certain user, with a certain specific body and a certain specific lens. If that specific user is you, then the best solution is simply to test it for yourself provided you know how. It's not particularly difficult to do, just time-consuming since the results vary on a shot-to-shot basis so that you need reasonably large samples to draw any reasonably clear conclusions.

My reasoning is this, it's a camera system, a principle of engineering applies, if this were a car then it would be fixed PDQ. Admitting a fault implies blame and there fore repair under warranty, I'm still amazed this problem has lasted so long.

There are lots of things in cars that aren't fixed or that were fixed although certainly not PDQ.

 

[simpy]

The only thing that really surprises me is your conclusion that you find a difference between IBIS on and off, if only for one lens. I have found no clear signs that IBIS on or off makes a difference in my very extensive testing with the E-M5 (which like the E-M1 has the new 5-axes IBIS).

At the moment, this conclusion is only drawn from a small sample of shots, and it seems the blurring is generally less than on the smaller lenses. It might not hold up to closer scrutiny.

With short and light lenses like the 17/1.8 and 45/1.8, you should be able to get pretty good results in spite of the shutter-shock issue just by holding the camera right. Right in this case means that you should avoid supporting the camera under the lens with your left hand (support the body instead) and avoid much in the way of head support. This minimizes the risk that the shutter forms part of the moment arm I talk about in the post to which I link below:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51554589

Interesting. I just tried and I didn't see a massive difference, but the light is failing so I'm mostly looking at noise. I will try again some other time.

A longer and heavier lens barrel, like that of the 11-22, is likely to make things worse, everything else equal, since it moves the center of gravity outwards from the shutter, thereby increasing the risk that the shutter forms part of the above-mentioned moment arm. It also makes it more difficult to support the camera in the way I describe above. You might try supporting the lens with your thumb and fingertip very close to the mount and you may also try very gentle head support.

Actually, I think a larger lens has two effects that seem to work in opposite directions. On the one hand, shifting the centre of mass will increase the moment arm. On the other hand, the moment of inertia also increases, so it's not immediately obvious that a similar shock will lead to an increased net rotation.

Simon

 

[LeeS]

• In the E-M1 SCP, the IS modes appear to be mislabelled. The explanatory text for IS-1 is 'auto' and for IS-auto 'landscape panning'. I am using the IS-auto setting all the way to the right, because that was the initial setting. I'm assuming it is not the landscape panning mode.

I think you are misinterpreting the labels. My interpretation of the manual's description:

In IS-1 the camera attempts to stabilize in all 5 axes (same in M5 and M1).

In IS-auto the camera detects panning a switches to IS-2 or IS-3 as appropriate (new to the M1).

Lee

 

[Anders W]

The only thing that really surprises me is your conclusion that you find a difference between IBIS on and off, if only for one lens. I have found no clear signs that IBIS on or off makes a difference in my very extensive testing with the E-M5 (which like the E-M1 has the new 5-axes IBIS).

At the moment, this conclusion is only drawn from a small sample of shots, and it seems the blurring is generally less than on the smaller lenses. It might not hold up to closer scrutiny.

With short and light lenses like the 17/1.8 and 45/1.8, you should be able to get pretty good results in spite of the shutter-shock issue just by holding the camera right. Right in this case means that you should avoid supporting the camera under the lens with your left hand (support the body instead) and avoid much in the way of head support. This minimizes the risk that the shutter forms part of the moment arm I talk about in the post to which I link below:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51554589

Interesting. I just tried and I didn't see a massive difference, but the light is failing so I'm mostly looking at noise. I will try again some other time.

If you really want to do your testing right, make sure you have a good target such as this one (this is a 100 percent crop), that lets you see quickly and clearly how much blur there is. The print screen structure, whose visibility is strongly affected by even small amounts of camera shake, is the key component. You can do the test even in artificial light (as I often did when I tested the matter). Just make sure you have sufficient light directly on the target.

A longer and heavier lens barrel, like that of the 11-22, is likely to make things worse, everything else equal, since it moves the center of gravity outwards from the shutter, thereby increasing the risk that the shutter forms part of the above-mentioned moment arm. It also makes it more difficult to support the camera in the way I describe above. You might try supporting the lens with your thumb and fingertip very close to the mount and you may also try very gentle head support.

Actually, I think a larger lens has two effects that seem to work in opposite directions. On the one hand, shifting the centre of mass will increase the moment arm. On the other hand, the moment of inertia also increases, so it's not immediately obvious that a similar shock will lead to an increased net rotation.

You are right that there are two mechanisms involved and that they work in opposite direction, one increasing the risk of blur and the other decreasing it. However, based on my testing so far, the former is regrettably of greater importance.

 

[Brian Mosley]

A shame nearly every thread becomes a shouting match. I tend to imagine the physical manifestation of this forum as something akin to the bar in Star Wars.....

You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy...



Brian

 

[simpy]

• In the E-M1 SCP, the IS modes appear to be mislabelled. The explanatory text for IS-1 is 'auto' and for IS-auto 'landscape panning'. I am using the IS-auto setting all the way to the right, because that was the initial setting. I'm assuming it is not the landscape panning mode.

I think you are misinterpreting the labels. My interpretation of the manual's description:

In IS-1 the camera attempts to stabilize in all 5 axes (same in M5 and M1).

In IS-auto the camera detects panning a switches to IS-2 or IS-3 as appropriate (new to the M1).

Ah. Thanks.

I would have sworn my camera arrived set to IS-auto, but that might be a mistake then. Switching to IS-1 now!

 

[Adrian Harris]

I use both a Panasonic G1 and a Sony A77 APS-C camera. With both I find picture 'shock'/'blur' anomalies from time to time.

With low light hi-ISO images on the A77 I often get a 'double-edge' image when shooting around 1/125. As a mirrorless camera the A77 shutter I should imagine goes through the same process when shooting as the Olympus and Panasonic M4/3 cameras. I know not what else to contribute the double-edge to on the Sony, yet I never hear of shutter shock complained about in forums relating to Sony cameras.

On the Panasonic I more frequently get a soft image and not double edged images. This only happens with the 45-200 lens when shooting above half way on its zoom range. I have even tried seriously sturdy tripods and used optimum F settings, etc. For testing the G1 camera is normally at 1/160-1/250 shutter speed (which is needed for the subject). So I did wonder if it could have been down the the lenses stabilisation 'wobbling' when the shutter fires.

One other issue, ALL cameras other than compacts do shake when a shutter is fired, this usually shows up with very long lenses and I have seen professional Canon and Nikon users wrap themselves over a long lens to dampen the effect when shooting birds a long way away - and they are using tripods I would even dream of trying to carry anywhere!

So maybe 'shutter shock' is something we all have to accept to some degree or other whatever camera we use, its just annoying if its within the [parameters that we specifically want to shoot in (

 

[frameman]

If this is variable and lens dependant for example, what are the differences per lens to cause or lessen the cause, it has to be mechanical. If it is vaiable to the shutter actuation speed then this has to be mechanical. If it only happens between set shutter speeds, then this has to be mechanical. The Panasonic e shutter(it has limits I know) removes the problem, so the mechanical shutter is the problem. My thinking is to first remove the mechanical error that seems to promote the problem. This cannot be insurmountable if the present system remains. For example: perhaps the shutter leaves are too heavy for their intended purpose and existant inertia is a problem (I'm guessing). Once the non variables are sorted then there is only one reason left, the human element. Reproduction of the camera shake is an altogether different thing as how each of us shoots a camera varies but the more important issue is how much that contributes to the problem.

Whilst I admit to not being an engineer, I have worked with equipment that can and does shake itself to bits. I have extensively studied whole body vibration in various vehicals and other equipment. Toyota had made a vehical throttle failure and recalled 1.5 million units. Nikon didn't with an oily shutter on the D600, they made a new model. Realisticly I cannot understand why this problem still exists. It has to be a financial thing.

 

[jimbeaux]

There have been recent posts alleging varying degrees sharpness of photos with OMD-EM1 with differing shutter speeds. These findings have been attributed to "shutter shock" or similar phenomena. However, in at least some of these cases, the "tester" was keeping the exposure constant. Hence, the aperture varied. The result was comparing sharpness at, say f8 vs. f 3.5 and attributing the differences to "shutter shock". Recall that varying the aperature

1. Changes the depth of field, giving appearance of sharpness at smaller apertures

2. Changes the behavior of the lens. Many lenses have "sweet spots"- f8 being a common one.

Hand holding is also a poor way to evaluate this as the results will vary from shot to shot and would require inspection of many images to draw a firm conclusion.

Therefore, I make a plea to be cautious about blaming one variable for changes in sharpness when multiple variables are changed.

Well said. I am in 100% agreement.

 

[Anders W]

If this is variable and lens dependant for example, what are the differences per lens to cause or lessen the cause, it has to be mechanical. If it is vaiable to the shutter actuation speed then this has to be mechanical. If it only happens between set shutter speeds, then this has to be mechanical. The Panasonic e shutter(it has limits I know) removes the problem, so the mechanical shutter is the problem.

Yes, the mechanical shutter is the root cause. The effect with regard to blur is different for different lenses since a) any kind of camera shake causes more blur as the focal length increases and b) a long and heavy lens barrel increases the risk that the shutter forms part of a moment arm. Why the latter matters is explained here:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51554589

My thinking is to first remove the mechanical error that seems to promote the problem. This cannot be insurmountable if the present system remains. For example: perhaps the shutter leaves are too heavy for their intended purpose and existant inertia is a problem (I'm guessing). Once the non variables are sorted then there is only one reason left, the human element. Reproduction of the camera shake is an altogether different thing as how each of us shoots a camera varies but the more important issue is how much that contributes to the problem.

Whilst I admit to not being an engineer, I have worked with equipment that can and does shake itself to bits. I have extensively studied whole body vibration in various vehicals and other equipment. Toyota had made a vehical throttle failure and recalled 1.5 million units. Nikon didn't with an oily shutter on the D600, they made a new model. Realisticly I cannot understand why this problem still exists. It has to be a financial thing.

The only way to really get rid of the problem is to eliminate the mechanical curtain shutter. That isn't (or rather wasn't) all that easy or it would surely have been done long ago. Using a leaf shutter in each lens is a potential solution but a costly one, not only in an economic sense but also because leaf shutters aren't quite as fast as curtain shutters.

The electronic shutter solutions I outlined in my first reply to you are already implemented in some cameras and more and more future bodies will surely have them. So although shutter shock remains a problem right now, it is likely to disappear from the horizon in a not very distant future.

 

[frameman]

I truly hope that the solution is not far off, I think that M4/3 system is just about right in image quality and size for my purpose. Time will tell no doubt, it's been good discussing this and who knows , perhaps some Oly/Pan bod will read it and push for a resuly. I don't think. Anyway I have to be away from the desktop soon, it's good to talk.

 

[Anders W]

I truly hope that the solution is not far off, I think that M4/3 system is just about right in image quality and size for my purpose. Time will tell no doubt, it's been good discussing this and who knows , perhaps some Oly/Pan bod will read it and push for a resuly. I don't think. Anyway I have to be away from the desktop soon, it's good to talk.

Glad to be of help. If you find MFT attractive on other grounds, I don't think you should let the shutter-shock issue deter you from jumping in. First, it is not an MFT-specific thing. Other cameras have it too and a major reason why there is so much talk about it with respect to MFT is simply that talk on the Internet generates more talk. It doesn't necessarily mean that MFT cameras are much more seriously affected than others. Second, not all lenses are significantly affected, at least in my testing/experience. Third, there are ways to work around the problem (electronic shutter, anti-shock delay, holding the camera right, avoiding certain shutter speeds etc.). Fourth, I'd expect the problem to disappear entirely in a not very distant future due to the appearance of an electronic first curtain shutter or a global electronic shutter.

 

[frameman]

Thankyou very much, should have gone a while ago, blasted computers, bye for now.

 

[Stuart]

Another variable is the jpeg engine. The EM1 is supposed to do all sorts of corrections.These may vary with exposure parameters etc. The effects can be huge..see cameralabs review of nex6. So far, all testing on this forum has been done with jpegs.