OMD Shutter shock revisited...and a possible solution inside!

[Anders W]

Timbukto wrote:

Than based on my findings the E-PM2 does not have much shutter shock but does have a more flaky IBIS. If true than I prefer the fault of the E-PM2 as I can turn it off, but I obviously can't turn off a shutter actuation.

I would guess the shutters are similar, but perhaps the mechanical support of lack thereof of the sensor differs from 2-axis vs 5-axis stabilization.

Yes, it might be that the difference between our results/experiences has to do with differences between the two IBIS systems and the way they interact with the shutter shock. As I said, I have done a lot of testing with my E-M5 but have no experience at all with the older IBIS used on the PENs (the E-P5 excepted).

 

[Anders W]

photofan1986 wrote:

Anders W wrote:
"Now if the bracket does indeed turn out to significantly reduce the
effect of the shock (and you need more extensive tests, with larger
samples, than those you have so far performed to conclusively
determine that), I doubt that the explanation I have outlined above is
the whole story or even the primary story, simply because the increase
in camera body mass is rather modest.
However, there are at least two other possibilities that require
consideration. The first is that a heavier body will depress the flesh
in your hands more strongly when you hold it, thereby lessening the
cushioning provided by that flesh. This firmer connection between the
camera body and your body may effectively increase the value of M that
we have to reckon with when we consider the law of preservation of
momentum. If the camera could somehow be rigidly fixed to your own
body, then that M would suddenly increase from some 500 g to about 150
times more (depending on your own personal body mass).
The second possibility is that the bracket makes you hold the camera
slightly differently than you otherwise would. This might not only
affect the cushioning effect already discussed but also the extent to
which the movement takes the form of shift (in this case most likely
vertical shift), i.e., a movement upwards or downwards without any
angular change, rather than the form of pitch or yaw (in this case
most likely pitch), i.e., a change of angle such that the lens points
more upwards or downwards than it previously did. A mere shift of the
magnitude at issue here would yield very little blur at anything but
very short subject distances. An angular shift of similar magnitude,
however, might cause significant blur at any subject distance."

Thanks for your explanation, Anders.
Indeed, it seems like it is more complicated than that.
According to further testing, the added weight definitely makes things
better, but that's not the whole story. There are at least two
factors: the added weight (and the fact that it is screwed at the
bottom of the camera) seems to dampen the shutter shock quite a bit,
or at least it seems, as the pictures are less blurred.
The other factor is that the way you hold the camera makes a
significant difference. You were right about that one. And this, to
me, is even more odd.

Holding the camera very steadily with the right hand while holding the
lens with the other is a solution for blurred pictures, at 1/100 ( and
also with lenses like my 14 2.5!). On the other hand, holding the
camera firmly with the right hand but softly with the left hand gives
a much much better keepers ratio.The difference is amazing.
Next, I tried adding the weight and I tried various way of holding the
camera. It seems like the added weight has a very positive effect, but
is not always sufficient. Holding the camera the right way AND adding
the weight seems to take care of all blur, according to my testing (at
least with my 45 1.8).
So here are the different grip positions:

Rock solid, to AVOID AT ALL COSTS!

Those who have never experienced shutter shock, set the camera to s mode, 1/100, hold the camera this way and shoot a couple of pics, then come back and tell us...

Not good either.

Good position, best results.

Now here are the results:

bad grip, no weight

bad grip, weight

good grip, no weight

good grip, weight

The best results come from the good grip/weight combo. The worst, by far, from the bad grip/no weight. The interesting point is that the weight helps significantly when holding the camera the bad way.

I think you are on the right track in pretty much every regard here.

First, one thing I forgot to mention in my previous reply is that it is of course not just the amount of weight added that matters but above all exactly where it is added. We add far more weight than the flash bracket when we put a long tele zoom such as the 100-300 (nearly 500 g) on the body. However, in that case, the weight is added in front of the body, so as to move the center of gravity forward, away from the point where the shutter moves up and down. The effect is to increase the risk that the shutter movement will result in a change of pitch (angular movement) rather than a mere shift of the body upwards or downwards. And the change of pitch is likely to have far more serious consequence in terms of blur. Adding weight just below the body itself, as the bracket does, by contrast, will most likely have the effect of moving the center of gravity closer to the center of the shutter, which is ideal if we want to minimize the risk that the movement takes the form of a change of pitch.

Second, your results when it comes to holding technique conforms well with my own experience as well as with the way I would provisionally explain that experience. Again, I think a main point here is to try to hold the camera such as to minimize the risk that the movement results in a change of pitch. With a short and light lens like the 45/1.8, I think your illustration of "good position" is one that works well. Another alternative is to use the left hand (or rather the fingertips and/or knuckles of the left hand) to add support directly underneath the body itself, not underneath the lens.

With a longer and heavier lens than the 45/1.8 on the body, both of these holding techniques become less comfortable. In that case, one technique that in my experience works better than any other I have tried is to press the thumb and index finger of your left hand together so as to form a narrow crotch/fork and then place that crotch/fork underneath the lens but, importantly, as close to the mount as possible. Again, the idea is that this is likely to minimize the risk that the movement results in a change of pitch.

 

[Lars Henrik Oern]

Hi Again

I think all this makes a lot of sense.

As I have earlier mentioned its to a great extent about resonance. When I in one of my earlier posts said it was my nose, I am sure it is. When my nose is touching the camera, it is stopped by the bone in the nose. and then the cameras small movements comes to a sudden halt. If this happens in the middle of IBIS calculations, I think it might lead to strange artifacts in the pictures. And if touching the camera with my nose it looks like shuttershock. The course could be that pictures taken with shutterspeeds between 60-160 is the right (or wrong) interval for the camras IBIS calculations. I have also experimented a bit during the day (home whith a sick child), and you are completely right about the holding of the camera is very critical. If done as you sugests (or with one hand lightly supporting the lens (if it is big as the oly 40-150), i am getting details that I never before have seen before.

Thank you for a nice rewarding, engaged and friendly discussion

And have a nice day

 

[Anders W]

Lars Henrik Oern wrote:

Hi Again

I think all this makes a lot of sense.

As I have earlier mentioned its to a great extent about resonance.

For reasons spelled out here, resonance in all likelihood has little or nothing to do with the blur caused by the shutter shock:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51503568

When I in one of my earlier posts said it was my nose, I am sure it is. When my nose is touching the camera, it is stopped by the bone in the nose. and then the cameras small movements comes to a sudden halt. If this happens in the middle of IBIS calculations, I think it might lead to strange artifacts in the pictures. And if touching the camera with my nose it looks like shuttershock. The course could be that pictures taken with shutterspeeds between 60-160 is the right (or wrong) interval for the camras IBIS calculations. I have also experimented a bit during the day (home whith a sick child), and you are completely right about the holding of the camera is very critical. If done as you sugests (or with one hand lightly supporting the lens (if it is big as the oly 40-150), i am getting details that I never before have seen before.

Thank you for a nice rewarding, engaged and friendly discussion

And have a nice day

 

[s_grins]

Anders W wrote:
Yes shutter shock most likely has to do with the mass of the camera. However, based on the most ambitious investigation of shutter shock that I am so far aware of

http://falklumo.blogspot.se/2010/07/lumolabs-shutter-induced-blur-with-slr.html

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

as well as my own more modest studies of the phenomenon, the explanation is unlikely to run quite along the lines you suggest.

First, there is most likely nothing special about the range of exposure times affected other than that they let us see the impact of the shock more clearly than longer or shorter times. For longer times, the movement due to the shutter shock will affect only a small part of the exposure time and its effect will therefore be less visible. For shorter times, the movement that takes place while the shutter is open will be too small to yield much blur and/or the movement will partly take place after the exposure is finished.

Second, there is no evidence that I am aware of that resonance vibrations are of much importance in this case. Most likely we are mainly dealing with shock, pure and simple. One important law of physics in the context of shock is the law of conservation of momentum, with momentum being generally defined as m*v, where m is mass and v velocity.

Just before the shutter blades come to a halt inside the camera, their momentum is thus given by m*v, where m is the very small mass of the shutter blades and v their rather high velocity. After they come to a halt relative to the camera body, the law of the preservation of momentum implies that the entire body will have a momentum of M*V (where M is the mass of the body and V the velocity of the body), which must be equal in size to the momentum of the shutter blades before they came to a halt. In other words, m*v = M*V.

Now M is of course much larger than m, which in turn implies that V is much smaller than v. Furthermore, the bigger M gets, the smaller V will be, everything else equal. However, it also follows that you need a lot of additional mass to significantly reduce V. For example, if you double the mass of the body, giving the E-M5 roughly the same weight as an FF body, you will only manage to reduce V by 50 percent. Your bracket (I happen to have a similar one) has a mass of about 100 g (possibly slightly more), which means that it will increase the weight of the E-M5 (with 45/1.8 mounted) by some 20 to 25 percent and reduce velocity by roughly the same amount.

Now if the bracket does indeed turn out to significantly reduce the effect of the shock (and you need more extensive tests, with larger samples, than those you have so far performed to conclusively determine that), I doubt that the explanation I have outlined above is the whole story or even the primary story, simply because the increase in camera body mass is rather modest.

However, there are at least two other possibilities that require consideration. The first is that a heavier body will depress the flesh in your hands more strongly when you hold it, thereby lessening the cushioning provided by that flesh. This firmer connection between the camera body and your body may effectively increase the value of M that we have to reckon with when we consider the law of preservation of momentum. If the camera could somehow be rigidly fixed to your own body, then that M would suddenly increase from some 500 g to about 150 times more (depending on your own personal body mass).

The second possibility is that the bracket makes you hold the camera slightly differently than you otherwise would. This might not only affect the cushioning effect already discussed but also the extent to which the movement takes the form of shift (in this case most likely vertical shift), i.e., a movement upwards or downwards without any angular change, rather than the form of pitch or yaw (in this case most likely pitch), i.e., a change of angle such that the lens points more upwards or downwards than it previously did. A mere shift of the magnitude at issue here would yield very little blur at anything but very short subject distances. An angular shift of similar magnitude, however, might cause significant blur at any subject distance.

MV = FT

Shutter movement creates internal forces. Adding mass can't change anything because internal forces do not change MV

Looking for equilibrium...

 

[Anders W]

s_grins wrote:

Anders W wrote:
Yes shutter shock most likely has to do with the mass of the camera. However, based on the most ambitious investigation of shutter shock that I am so far aware of

http://falklumo.blogspot.se/2010/07/lumolabs-shutter-induced-blur-with-slr.html

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

as well as my own more modest studies of the phenomenon, the explanation is unlikely to run quite along the lines you suggest.

First, there is most likely nothing special about the range of exposure times affected other than that they let us see the impact of the shock more clearly than longer or shorter times. For longer times, the movement due to the shutter shock will affect only a small part of the exposure time and its effect will therefore be less visible. For shorter times, the movement that takes place while the shutter is open will be too small to yield much blur and/or the movement will partly take place after the exposure is finished.

Second, there is no evidence that I am aware of that resonance vibrations are of much importance in this case. Most likely we are mainly dealing with shock, pure and simple. One important law of physics in the context of shock is the law of conservation of momentum, with momentum being generally defined as m*v, where m is mass and v velocity.

Just before the shutter blades come to a halt inside the camera, their momentum is thus given by m*v, where m is the very small mass of the shutter blades and v their rather high velocity. After they come to a halt relative to the camera body, the law of the preservation of momentum implies that the entire body will have a momentum of M*V (where M is the mass of the body and V the velocity of the body), which must be equal in size to the momentum of the shutter blades before they came to a halt. In other words, m*v = M*V.

Now M is of course much larger than m, which in turn implies that V is much smaller than v. Furthermore, the bigger M gets, the smaller V will be, everything else equal. However, it also follows that you need a lot of additional mass to significantly reduce V. For example, if you double the mass of the body, giving the E-M5 roughly the same weight as an FF body, you will only manage to reduce V by 50 percent. Your bracket (I happen to have a similar one) has a mass of about 100 g (possibly slightly more), which means that it will increase the weight of the E-M5 (with 45/1.8 mounted) by some 20 to 25 percent and reduce velocity by roughly the same amount.

Now if the bracket does indeed turn out to significantly reduce the effect of the shock (and you need more extensive tests, with larger samples, than those you have so far performed to conclusively determine that), I doubt that the explanation I have outlined above is the whole story or even the primary story, simply because the increase in camera body mass is rather modest.

However, there are at least two other possibilities that require consideration. The first is that a heavier body will depress the flesh in your hands more strongly when you hold it, thereby lessening the cushioning provided by that flesh. This firmer connection between the camera body and your body may effectively increase the value of M that we have to reckon with when we consider the law of preservation of momentum. If the camera could somehow be rigidly fixed to your own body, then that M would suddenly increase from some 500 g to about 150 times more (depending on your own personal body mass).

The second possibility is that the bracket makes you hold the camera slightly differently than you otherwise would. This might not only affect the cushioning effect already discussed but also the extent to which the movement takes the form of shift (in this case most likely vertical shift), i.e., a movement upwards or downwards without any angular change, rather than the form of pitch or yaw (in this case most likely pitch), i.e., a change of angle such that the lens points more upwards or downwards than it previously did. A mere shift of the magnitude at issue here would yield very little blur at anything but very short subject distances. An angular shift of similar magnitude, however, might cause significant blur at any subject distance.

MV = FT

Shutter movement creates internal forces. Adding mass can't change anything because internal forces do not change MV

As I pointed out, the momentum, MV, does not change when the mass of the camera body, M, changes. But the velocity of the body, V, decreases as M increases, and V is what matters when it comes to the amount of blur. In short, the higher the M, the lower the V, and the less blur, everything else equal.

Looking for equilibrium...

 

[s_grins]

Anders W wrote:

s_grins wrote:

Anders W wrote:
Yes shutter shock most likely has to do with the mass of the camera. However, based on the most ambitious investigation of shutter shock that I am so far aware of

http://falklumo.blogspot.se/2010/07/lumolabs-shutter-induced-blur-with-slr.html

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

as well as my own more modest studies of the phenomenon, the explanation is unlikely to run quite along the lines you suggest.

First, there is most likely nothing special about the range of exposure times affected other than that they let us see the impact of the shock more clearly than longer or shorter times. For longer times, the movement due to the shutter shock will affect only a small part of the exposure time and its effect will therefore be less visible. For shorter times, the movement that takes place while the shutter is open will be too small to yield much blur and/or the movement will partly take place after the exposure is finished.

Second, there is no evidence that I am aware of that resonance vibrations are of much importance in this case. Most likely we are mainly dealing with shock, pure and simple. One important law of physics in the context of shock is the law of conservation of momentum, with momentum being generally defined as m*v, where m is mass and v velocity.

Just before the shutter blades come to a halt inside the camera, their momentum is thus given by m*v, where m is the very small mass of the shutter blades and v their rather high velocity. After they come to a halt relative to the camera body, the law of the preservation of momentum implies that the entire body will have a momentum of M*V (where M is the mass of the body and V the velocity of the body), which must be equal in size to the momentum of the shutter blades before they came to a halt. In other words, m*v = M*V.

Now M is of course much larger than m, which in turn implies that V is much smaller than v. Furthermore, the bigger M gets, the smaller V will be, everything else equal. However, it also follows that you need a lot of additional mass to significantly reduce V. For example, if you double the mass of the body, giving the E-M5 roughly the same weight as an FF body, you will only manage to reduce V by 50 percent. Your bracket (I happen to have a similar one) has a mass of about 100 g (possibly slightly more), which means that it will increase the weight of the E-M5 (with 45/1.8 mounted) by some 20 to 25 percent and reduce velocity by roughly the same amount.

Now if the bracket does indeed turn out to significantly reduce the effect of the shock (and you need more extensive tests, with larger samples, than those you have so far performed to conclusively determine that), I doubt that the explanation I have outlined above is the whole story or even the primary story, simply because the increase in camera body mass is rather modest.

However, there are at least two other possibilities that require consideration. The first is that a heavier body will depress the flesh in your hands more strongly when you hold it, thereby lessening the cushioning provided by that flesh. This firmer connection between the camera body and your body may effectively increase the value of M that we have to reckon with when we consider the law of preservation of momentum. If the camera could somehow be rigidly fixed to your own body, then that M would suddenly increase from some 500 g to about 150 times more (depending on your own personal body mass).

The second possibility is that the bracket makes you hold the camera slightly differently than you otherwise would. This might not only affect the cushioning effect already discussed but also the extent to which the movement takes the form of shift (in this case most likely vertical shift), i.e., a movement upwards or downwards without any angular change, rather than the form of pitch or yaw (in this case most likely pitch), i.e., a change of angle such that the lens points more upwards or downwards than it previously did. A mere shift of the magnitude at issue here would yield very little blur at anything but very short subject distances. An angular shift of similar magnitude, however, might cause significant blur at any subject distance.

MV = FT

Shutter movement creates internal forces. Adding mass can't change anything because internal forces do not change MV

As I pointed out, the momentum, MV, does not change when the mass of the camera body, M, changes. But the velocity of the body, V, decreases as M increases, and V is what matters when it comes to the amount of blur. In short, the higher the M, the lower the V, and the less blur, everything else equal.

Looking for equilibrium...

Yes, I've read what you've pointed out, and I've no idea what it is all about.

Back to school.

 

[Anders W]

s_grins wrote:

Anders W wrote:

s_grins wrote:

Anders W wrote:
Yes shutter shock most likely has to do with the mass of the camera. However, based on the most ambitious investigation of shutter shock that I am so far aware of

http://falklumo.blogspot.se/2010/07/lumolabs-shutter-induced-blur-with-slr.html

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

as well as my own more modest studies of the phenomenon, the explanation is unlikely to run quite along the lines you suggest.

First, there is most likely nothing special about the range of exposure times affected other than that they let us see the impact of the shock more clearly than longer or shorter times. For longer times, the movement due to the shutter shock will affect only a small part of the exposure time and its effect will therefore be less visible. For shorter times, the movement that takes place while the shutter is open will be too small to yield much blur and/or the movement will partly take place after the exposure is finished.

Second, there is no evidence that I am aware of that resonance vibrations are of much importance in this case. Most likely we are mainly dealing with shock, pure and simple. One important law of physics in the context of shock is the law of conservation of momentum, with momentum being generally defined as m*v, where m is mass and v velocity.

Just before the shutter blades come to a halt inside the camera, their momentum is thus given by m*v, where m is the very small mass of the shutter blades and v their rather high velocity. After they come to a halt relative to the camera body, the law of the preservation of momentum implies that the entire body will have a momentum of M*V (where M is the mass of the body and V the velocity of the body), which must be equal in size to the momentum of the shutter blades before they came to a halt. In other words, m*v = M*V.

Now M is of course much larger than m, which in turn implies that V is much smaller than v. Furthermore, the bigger M gets, the smaller V will be, everything else equal. However, it also follows that you need a lot of additional mass to significantly reduce V. For example, if you double the mass of the body, giving the E-M5 roughly the same weight as an FF body, you will only manage to reduce V by 50 percent. Your bracket (I happen to have a similar one) has a mass of about 100 g (possibly slightly more), which means that it will increase the weight of the E-M5 (with 45/1.8 mounted) by some 20 to 25 percent and reduce velocity by roughly the same amount.

Now if the bracket does indeed turn out to significantly reduce the effect of the shock (and you need more extensive tests, with larger samples, than those you have so far performed to conclusively determine that), I doubt that the explanation I have outlined above is the whole story or even the primary story, simply because the increase in camera body mass is rather modest.

However, there are at least two other possibilities that require consideration. The first is that a heavier body will depress the flesh in your hands more strongly when you hold it, thereby lessening the cushioning provided by that flesh. This firmer connection between the camera body and your body may effectively increase the value of M that we have to reckon with when we consider the law of preservation of momentum. If the camera could somehow be rigidly fixed to your own body, then that M would suddenly increase from some 500 g to about 150 times more (depending on your own personal body mass).

The second possibility is that the bracket makes you hold the camera slightly differently than you otherwise would. This might not only affect the cushioning effect already discussed but also the extent to which the movement takes the form of shift (in this case most likely vertical shift), i.e., a movement upwards or downwards without any angular change, rather than the form of pitch or yaw (in this case most likely pitch), i.e., a change of angle such that the lens points more upwards or downwards than it previously did. A mere shift of the magnitude at issue here would yield very little blur at anything but very short subject distances. An angular shift of similar magnitude, however, might cause significant blur at any subject distance.

MV = FT

Shutter movement creates internal forces. Adding mass can't change anything because internal forces do not change MV

As I pointed out, the momentum, MV, does not change when the mass of the camera body, M, changes. But the velocity of the body, V, decreases as M increases, and V is what matters when it comes to the amount of blur. In short, the higher the M, the lower the V, and the less blur, everything else equal.

Looking for equilibrium...

Yes, I've read what you've pointed out, and I've no idea what it is all about.

Back to school.

For you perhaps. ;-) But you are right that MV = FT. So far so good. ;-)

 

[peppermonkey]

Sorry, I haven't read through this whole thread...but

I know about the shutter shock when it comes to the Panny PZ 14-42mm X lens on most m43 cameras (except for those with an electronic shutter), but this is the first i have heard of Oly cameras having a problem with this in general... so the question is, is it an OMD thing? Is it just with Oly? And if so, which ones Oly? Or is this something that all m42 cameras have a problem with (and I just haven't noticed in mine). Just curious because I'm sorta looking into getting a second hand Oly, and would like to know which I should stay away from if any.

 

[Anders W]

peppermonkey wrote:

Sorry, I haven't read through this whole thread...but

I know about the shutter shock when it comes to the Panny PZ 14-42mm X lens on most m43 cameras (except for those with an electronic shutter), but this is the first i have heard of Oly cameras having a problem with this in general... so the question is, is it an OMD thing? Is it just with Oly? And if so, which ones Oly? Or is this something that all m42 cameras have a problem with (and I just haven't noticed in mine). Just curious because I'm sorta looking into getting a second hand Oly, and would like to know which I should stay away from if any.

This is something all MFT cameras have a problem with (more or less) as well as other cameras (more or less). It is certainly not an E-M5 thing only. Nor is it an Oly thing only or a Pany thing only.

 

[peppermonkey]

Anders W wrote:

peppermonkey wrote:

Sorry, I haven't read through this whole thread...but

I know about the shutter shock when it comes to the Panny PZ 14-42mm X lens on most m43 cameras (except for those with an electronic shutter), but this is the first i have heard of Oly cameras having a problem with this in general... so the question is, is it an OMD thing? Is it just with Oly? And if so, which ones Oly? Or is this something that all m42 cameras have a problem with (and I just haven't noticed in mine). Just curious because I'm sorta looking into getting a second hand Oly, and would like to know which I should stay away from if any.

This is something all MFT cameras have a problem with (more or less) as well as other cameras (more or less). It is certainly not an E-M5 thing only. Nor is it an Oly thing only or a Pany thing only

Ahh, alright.

In that case, is it more of a problem then normal with the OMD? Oly? M43?

 

[Anders W]

peppermonkey wrote:

Anders W wrote:

peppermonkey wrote:

Sorry, I haven't read through this whole thread...but

I know about the shutter shock when it comes to the Panny PZ 14-42mm X lens on most m43 cameras (except for those with an electronic shutter), but this is the first i have heard of Oly cameras having a problem with this in general... so the question is, is it an OMD thing? Is it just with Oly? And if so, which ones Oly? Or is this something that all m42 cameras have a problem with (and I just haven't noticed in mine). Just curious because I'm sorta looking into getting a second hand Oly, and would like to know which I should stay away from if any.

This is something all MFT cameras have a problem with (more or less) as well as other cameras (more or less). It is certainly not an E-M5 thing only. Nor is it an Oly thing only or a Pany thing only

Ahh, alright.

In that case, is it more of a problem then normal with the OMD? Oly? M43?

I suspect that's a question noone has a really good answer to, although a lot of people might answer it, and answer it differently. ;-)

Among the MFT cameras most talked about when it comes to shutter shock (although it has not always been called by that name) are the E-M5 (right now), early PENs (several years ago, when the first problems with unexpected blur surfaced) and the GX1 (when the first X-lenses were released at about the same time as that body). But that doesn't necessarily mean that these cameras are indeed more seriously affected than others. With the E-M5, for example, one significant part of the explanation is surely that the camera is very popular and thus bought and used by many people. Another piece in the puzzle is surely that once people start talking about something on internet fora, that fact alone generates more talk of the same kind.

MFT versus other cameras? Hard to say. It might conceivably be that the peculiar characteristics of MFT cameras relative to DSLRs (lighter/smaller body, no mirror flap but instead double shutter action) increase the risk of blur due to shutter shock but I am personally far from sure that such is actually the case.

 

[peppermonkey]

Anders W wrote:

I suspect that's a question noone has a really good answer to, although a lot of people might answer it, and answer it differently. ;-)

Among the MFT cameras most talked about when it comes to shutter shock (although it has not always been called by that name) are the E-M5 (right now), early PENs (several years ago, when the first problems with unexpected blur surfaced) and the GX1 (when the first X-lenses were released at about the same time as that body). But that doesn't necessarily mean that these cameras are indeed more seriously affected than others. With the E-M5, for example, one significant part of the explanation is surely that the camera is very popular and thus bought and used by many people. Another piece in the puzzle is surely that once people start talking about something on internet fora, that fact alone generates more talk of the same kind.

MFT versus other cameras? Hard to say. It might conceivably be that the peculiar characteristics of MFT cameras relative to DSLRs (lighter/smaller body, no mirror flap but instead double shutter action) increase the risk of blur due to shutter shock but I am personally far from sure that such is actually the case.

Thank you for the indepth answer. Much appreciated. I guess, if this is the case, then we probably don't have to worry 'too' much about it then. I certainly haven't really noticed it on my GF1 but then again, I haven't ever tested this out with a tripod, etc (and I probably not much of a pixel peeper...).

In any case, going forward, at least there is a chance that this problem would just disappear with the use of electronic shutters...though I think it's only available on the new Panny's right now (not sure about the new E-P5). Assuming there's no technical hurdles to go through, I would think electronic shutters would be cheaper then mechanical ones...

Oddly, although I read this forum all the time, I really haven't noticed any concern about shutter shock 'except' when all the buzz came about with the Panny x zooms.

Anyhow, thanks again.

 

[Anders W]

peppermonkey wrote:

Anders W wrote:

I suspect that's a question noone has a really good answer to, although a lot of people might answer it, and answer it differently. ;-)

Among the MFT cameras most talked about when it comes to shutter shock (although it has not always been called by that name) are the E-M5 (right now), early PENs (several years ago, when the first problems with unexpected blur surfaced) and the GX1 (when the first X-lenses were released at about the same time as that body). But that doesn't necessarily mean that these cameras are indeed more seriously affected than others. With the E-M5, for example, one significant part of the explanation is surely that the camera is very popular and thus bought and used by many people. Another piece in the puzzle is surely that once people start talking about something on internet fora, that fact alone generates more talk of the same kind.

MFT versus other cameras? Hard to say. It might conceivably be that the peculiar characteristics of MFT cameras relative to DSLRs (lighter/smaller body, no mirror flap but instead double shutter action) increase the risk of blur due to shutter shock but I am personally far from sure that such is actually the case.

Thank you for the indepth answer. Much appreciated. I guess, if this is the case, then we probably don't have to worry 'too' much about it then. I certainly haven't really noticed it on my GF1 but then again, I haven't ever tested this out with a tripod, etc (and I probably not much of a pixel peeper...).

You are welcome. My own personal take in brief: Do I think shutter shock is a significant problem? Yes. Do I consider it a "deal breaker"? No. Do I think there are reasonable work-arounds most of the time? Yes.

In any case, going forward, at least there is a chance that this problem would just disappear with the use of electronic shutters...though I think it's only available on the new Panny's right now (not sure about the new E-P5).

Haven't followed the news about the E-P5 close enough to tell but I'd guess the answer is no in that case. Recent Pany's (G5, G6, GH3) have an electronic shutter that provides a nice work-around whenever the subject is reasonably static and you are not shooting at very high ISOs (I think the limit is ISO 1600). It doesn't work for moving subjects unfortunately (unless you are looking for "interesting" effects) since exposing the entire sensor takes on the order of 1/10 s even though the exposure time for each line on the sensor can be much shorter.

Sooner or later (hopefully sooner), I am sure we will have a global electronic shutter, i.e., one that can completely replace the mechanical shutter since the sensor can be instantly reset as well as read. Depending on how far off such a sensor is, we may see what is referred to as an electronic first curtain before that. An electronic first curtain means that the sensor can be reset (prepared for exposure) without closing the mechanical shutter first. This in turn get rids of the first two phases of shutter action on MFT cameras (shutter closing to prepare for exposure and shutter opening for exposure) so that only the last two remain (shutter closing to finish exposure and read the sensor and shutter opening to resume live view). Probably, it also eliminates most or all of the shutter-shock problem. Canon and Sony already have an electronic first curtain on at least some of their cameras and I hope/think we might see already in the next MFT sensor generation unless we get a global electronic shutter right away.

Assuming there's no technical hurdles to go through, I would think electronic shutters would be cheaper then mechanical ones...

Surely. What we will be paying for initially is the R&D work required. Once we have sensors with a global electronic shutters, they are unlikely to cost more to manufacture than current sensors. And the mechanical shutter, which does cost something to make, can be eliminated.

Oddly, although I read this forum all the time, I really haven't noticed any concern about shutter shock 'except' when all the buzz came about with the Panny x zooms.

Oh, there has been a quite a bit of talk about but not all the time. These things come and go in phases. It has been rather quiet about the problem for a while now, but several threads over the last week, probably with one thread prompting another.

 

[s_grins]

Your answer has met my expectations.

:-D

 

[Prairie Pal]

photofan1986 wrote:

I know, the issue has been beaten to death on this forum. However, I think I have some new

Now, I would like some people to confirm (or not) that the HLD-6 makes a difference for them.
If the grip solves the problem like my flash bracket, I think we've found an acceptable solution!

Photofan

Most interesting information, and fantastic documentation.

I have the E-M5, the 45mm lens, and a flash bracket much like the one you experimented with. I would like to try this for myself.

I have been a strong supporter of adding a built-in grip to the E-M5, and this could be another arguement to Olympus to do just that.

OLYMPUS- you OWE your loyal supporters alot for all the field research and support we give each other. I hope you have the integrity to give back to the enthusiastic M4/3 community with firmware upgrades and support that we request !!

 

[Timbukto]

jalywol wrote:

Timbukto wrote:

That I spent $100 bucks and will be trying the VF-3 shortly. I know its not a spectacular EVF...I just want to see how my shots are when I actually choose to stabilize via EVF. Pressing my forehead against the back of my hotshoe flash while shooting made a positive influence. I am hoping I can get the same with EVF shooting.

I just got the EPM2 last week, and on my first outing (just before dusk), half of my photos were definitely not sharp. Then I remembered about the IBIS and the "danger zone" shutter speeds, and yeah, it turned out my shots were all in that range that day.

I went out again the next day, and turned off the IBIS, and VOILA, for me, problem solved. I do use the 1/8 second delay anyway, but found that it was the IBIS that was giving me hiccups, not the shutter action. So, I now just use the camera as if it was without IBIS (just like all my prior Panasonics), and I'm getting very sharp output. I only turn IBIS on now when I have an unstabilized lens and the shutter speed is 1/30 or lower, since it does seem effective in that range, for me anyway.

I do have the VF-4 on order, but that's more because I can't see the LCD well enough to frame scenes carefully without reading glasses (getting old is just such a picnic)....and I want the bigger magnification the VF-4 has over the VF-2 or 3.

After making that adjustment, I have to say I am VERY impressed with the EPM2. Huge image quality in a really, really tiny body...

-J

I don't know how much it has in common with OM-D except that looking at the OPs pictures almost perfectly describes the micro-blur problem I experience with my E-PM2 as well. The only reason I think some people ignore this micro-blur is that better is the enemy of good, and in truth if you do a 50% resize of the micro-blurred images or don't print big some of your shots will still be perfectly presentable. There are also plenty of people that shoot DSLRs contently without MFA, and will look at their pictures and be unable to critically access that their focus is ever so slightly off even though it just might be.

However I come to the E-PM2 because with the VF3 and IBIS off I get just as *good* IQ as some of the best DSLRs! This can not be said if you have micro-blur, but when you resolve that issue, just as the DPReview studio shots show...you do really get outstanding IQ.

 

[copejorg1]

Anders W wrote:

Sooner or later (hopefully sooner), I am sure we will have a global electronic shutter, i.e., one that can completely replace the mechanical shutter since the sensor can be instantly reset as well as read. Depending on how far off such a sensor is, we may see what is referred to as an electronic first curtain before that. An electronic first curtain means that the sensor can be reset (prepared for exposure) without closing the mechanical shutter first. This in turn get rids of the first two phases of shutter action on MFT cameras (shutter closing to prepare for exposure and shutter opening for exposure) so that only the last two remain (shutter closing to finish exposure and read the sensor and shutter opening to resume live view). Probably, it also eliminates most or all of the shutter-shock problem. Canon and Sony already have an electronic first curtain on at least some of their cameras and I hope/think we might see already in the next MFT sensor generation unless we get a global electronic shutter right away.

I think it'll soon be verified that the new EP-5 has an electronic first shutter curtain, such as you described above. It has a new menu setting called "Release Lag-Time", with the options of "Normal" and "Short". When "Short" is chosen, the release lag time reduces to as little as 44 milliseconds (if IS is disabled and the shutter has already been half-pressed, according to Olympus literature). This sounds very similar to the shutter response achieved by the Sony Alpha and NEX models when the optional electronic first shutter curtain is in use.

It's difficult to see how the .044s response time could be achieved without eliminating the double shutter action otherwise inherent in a live-view camera, so I'm pretty confident that the EP-5 is indeed equipped with an optional electronic front curtain (and optimistic that other upcoming Olympus µ4/3 models will be as well). If so, this should simultaneously address the issue of shutter shock, as you noted above.

Regards,

Greg

 

[Anders W]

copejorg1 wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Sooner or later (hopefully sooner), I am sure we will have a global electronic shutter, i.e., one that can completely replace the mechanical shutter since the sensor can be instantly reset as well as read. Depending on how far off such a sensor is, we may see what is referred to as an electronic first curtain before that. An electronic first curtain means that the sensor can be reset (prepared for exposure) without closing the mechanical shutter first. This in turn get rids of the first two phases of shutter action on MFT cameras (shutter closing to prepare for exposure and shutter opening for exposure) so that only the last two remain (shutter closing to finish exposure and read the sensor and shutter opening to resume live view). Probably, it also eliminates most or all of the shutter-shock problem. Canon and Sony already have an electronic first curtain on at least some of their cameras and I hope/think we might see already in the next MFT sensor generation unless we get a global electronic shutter right away.

I think it'll soon be verified that the new EP-5 has an electronic first shutter curtain, such as you described above. It has a new menu setting called "Release Lag-Time", with the options of "Normal" and "Short". When "Short" is chosen, the release lag time reduces to as little as 44 milliseconds (if IS is disabled and the shutter has already been half-pressed, according to Olympus literature). This sounds very similar to the shutter response achieved by the Sony Alpha and NEX models when the optional electronic first shutter curtain is in use.

It's difficult to see how the .044s response time could be achieved without eliminating the double shutter action otherwise inherent in a live-view camera, so I'm pretty confident that the EP-5 is indeed equipped with an optional electronic front curtain (and optimistic that other upcoming Olympus µ4/3 models will be as well). If so, this should simultaneously address the issue of shutter shock, as you noted above.

I'd love it if you were right but I fear you are not. According to what I have seen so far, the E-P5 has the same sensor as the E-M5, E-PL5, and E-PM2. If it were possible to use an electronic first curtain with that sensor, I am pretty sure it would have been done already on the E-M5. And I doubt that this is something that can be added by simply "tweaking" the same basic sensor design.

 

[copejorg1]

Anders W wrote:

I'd love it if you were right but I fear you are not. According to what I have seen so far, the E-P5 has the same sensor as the E-M5, E-PL5, and E-PM2. If it were possible to use an electronic first curtain with that sensor, I am pretty sure it would have been done already on the E-M5. And I doubt that this is something that can be added by simply "tweaking" the same basic sensor design.

Hi Anders,

You make a good point, and I don't have a good explanation as to why Olympus would have released the E-M5 et al without an electronic first curtain if the sensor supported it.

But perhaps they did (maybe there were other challenges involved, apart from the sensor, that they didn't have ironed out yet when the previous models were released?). Or perhaps the E-P5 sensor is an evolution of the E-M5 sensor (same basic technology, but with something "extra"). Or maybe I'm completely off-base here.

But the thing is, I can't think of how they would manage to achieve a shutter lag that short (44 ms) in the E-P5 without eliminating the double-shutter action. And that's what keeps me optimistic that it actually does have an electronic first curtain that's enabled by the "Short" Release Lag-Time option.

Regards,

Greg