Shutter Shock a myth

[S3ZAi]

The gist of the shutter shock myth is that *IF* you go look for it, you will find it. If you don't go look for it, you will probably never encounter it. If you encounter it, all you have to do is choose a different shutter speed, which is very well doable with the high-iso capability of the A7r. I think that was what the op already said in his words.

You don't need to go looking for it to see it, as it is viewable at a lot less than 100%. Some people can't see it but some of those same people claim a photo is pin sharp when it is not either. Not that easy if it effects a number of shutter speeds and it waste time having to select new ISO values if you are in the middle of a shoot and you need to avoid certain shutter speeds. That wasted time could be losing you photos and if your a pro, money.

I didn't mean if you go look for it in the photos, I meant if you try to shoot photos with shutter shock effect visible. It only occurs under very very specific situations. Yes, once it's there, obviously it's visible. But as many many many user reports have proven: under normal usage you won't encounter it. Normal here meaning: 1- don't use lenses with IS from another brand, if you have to, disable IS. 2- Always shoot at more than 1/f 3- Don't be an ass about it.

People insisting there is more to it than this are the people who went looking for it and thought they had found some dealbreaking issue, which it is not, by far.

It might not be deal breaking to you but it is to other people.

Which "other" people are you referring to, the people you are imagining?

 

[secondclaw]

Not being a deal breaker to YOU is not the same as the issue being a myth. This is all I'm saying. Your argument, I would assume, that since the issue is relatively minor to you and the OP), therefore it does not exist. That makes no sense.

I really have no idea why you are so condescending and aggressive toward those experiencing such issues. Is this personal?

If you talk about significance (or lack thereof) of the issues, fine, I may actually agree with you on some of them, especially if occurrence is in a very narrow range of cases. But to go after those reporting such issues and asking for help is just plain wrong.

 

[secondclaw]

... Normal here meaning: 1- don't use lenses with IS from another brand, if you have to, disable IS. 2- Always shoot at more than 1/f 3- Don't be an ass about it.

1 - That's a fair point. If/when Sony has an FE 70-200 OSS lens available, they may find ways to deal with the problem (or automatically disable OSS). Don't know when that will happen. One can argue that A7R was meant only for wide and normal lens shooting, but that's a completely different argument.

2. These ranges are not always avoidable, this is especially true in concerts and other dimly lit scenes. And even on A7R, going above ISO6400 is not all roses ...

3. Aren't you breaking that one?

 

[S3ZAi]

Not being a deal breaker to YOU is not the same as the issue being a myth. This is all I'm saying. Your argument, I would assume, that since the issue is relatively minor to you and the OP), therefore it does not exist. That makes no sense.

Actually, you still don't get it: the issue exists, but it is extremely minor. What causes it to become a myth is the whole issue being blown up by very questionable characters.

I really have no idea why you are so condescending and aggressive toward those experiencing such issues. Is this personal?

Yes it is. I look up someones history and I see the person has only been posting extremely negative comments on a certain camera on purpose, without owning the camera himself. So he is actually NOT experiencing the issue, he is hijacking the issue for hiw own questionable ends. Also this person is not shying away from blatantly lying. Than what do you expect me to do? Forgive him and say he's such a wise, nice person?

Just one example:

http://www.dpreview.com/members/327314283/overview

He wrote this in another thread:

"It's being documented as we speak on about a dozen websites. The threads discussing it on this forum have gone missing though. Shutter shock and shocking moderation! You can't stop the flow of information. It'll get out for sure."

From this post, all sentences are blatant lies. I have following this issue very closely as I own the camera and I would actually choose to return it if there was really an issue. He says: "it's being documented", LIE! It's being discussed, there is no consensus on the problem or the scope of it. He says that some threads have gone missing, as if the issue is being censored. LIE! I have been around here non-stop for weeks, I have not seen a single thread disappearing. I skip the next sentence as it is the same. And than the last bit: "You can't stop the flow of information. It'll get out for sure" Another blatant lie. As if we are trying to hide something here. People like this throw me off as people with no ehical values whatsoever, people without any character and perhaps with a hidden agenda.

If you talk about significance (or lack thereof) of the issues, fine, I may actually agree with you on some of them, especially if occurrence is in a very narrow range of cases. But to go after those reporting such issues and asking for help is just plain wrong.

There have been others reporting problems/issues which are based on the TRUTH, I never felt the need to go after them.

--
Sezai E., philosophy buff, bibliophile and creative photographer
Cheers!

 

[yomasa]

I also do not have Shutter Shock and also returned the EM1.

 

[EdnaBambrick]

FFS - it happens at 1/160 and below and with lenses longer than 140mm. (although some experts see it on 55mm)

Sony A7R Shutter Vibration: Can it Be Mitigated by Sony via Firmware B

diglloyd.com

What is your stand on the moon landing ?

 

[S3ZAi]

FFS - it happens at 1/160 and below and with lenses longer than 140mm. (although some experts see it on 55mm)

http://diglloyd.com/blog/2013/20131220_3-SonyA7R-shutter-vibration.html

What is your stand on the moon landing ?

All the way to the bottom he says:

"If the Sony A7R gets fixed, it will represent the best digital on the market today at the best price with the widest array of lenses.

We could rephrase it as:

"The A7r represent the best digital on the market today at the best price with the widest array of lenses. There is only one minor problem with it under very specific circumtances. If this minor problem gets fixed, it would be utter perfection."

My interpretation I admit, but just as close to the truth as his statement.

 

[captura]

SS is probably a myth with the A7r. No real evidence ever presented, just a lot of babble.

SS certainly exists with the Olympus cameras...I prevent it on my 2 Olympus cameras by setting up for a 1/8 sec. delay. The improvement is noticeable.

 

[secondclaw]

Not being a deal breaker to YOU is not the same as the issue being a myth. This is all I'm saying. Your argument, I would assume, that since the issue is relatively minor to you and the OP), therefore it does not exist. That makes no sense.

Actually, you still don't get it: the issue exists, but it is extremely minor. What causes it to become a myth is the whole issue being blown up by very questionable characters.

You probably don't know what myth is then ... 'minor' is not then same as 'none'. And obviously there are different uses of camera equipment, no? You can't conceive of anyone actually running into these issues constantly, due to their method of shooting? Granted these may be on the outer fringes of the photography curve, but so what? I'm sure if you experience a problem with a camera, and first responses to your issue would be to shut the hell up and take that nonsense elsewhere, you will be set straight. Right?

I really have no idea why you are so condescending and aggressive toward those experiencing such issues. Is this personal?

Yes it is. I look up someones history and I see the person has only been posting extremely negative comments on a certain camera on purpose, without owning the camera himself. So he is actually NOT experiencing the issue, he is hijacking the issue for hiw own questionable ends. Also this person is not shying away from blatantly lying.

Than what do you expect me to do? Forgive him and say he's such a wise, nice person?

Ignore it. There are three outcomes if you do, unless you have some stake in Sony's brand/image (which I doubt):

1. The issue is really insignificant and these posters will eventually go away.

2. The issue is real and people will be looking for a solution, or a way to work around a problem.

3. The issue is not real, and they sell/return camera. Clearly then they shouldn't have bought it in the first place.

Yea it may scare a few from buying a camera, or possibly if a solution is found, it will gain a few more buyers.

Win - Win, isn't it? Working out an issue, as we have (eventually) in the banding/compression thread is much more beneficial than a *****-fest it started out as. Besides, just because someone has a history of posting nonsense, doesn't automatically disqualify them from any future real issues. In that banding thread, onto which I stumbled via search (after experiencing the problem myself), I saw OP's example, and it was exactly the issue I was experiencing. Yet the thread was going nowhere, partly due to you and others like you belittling both OP and myself. Even if you have history with that Max/Edna person, so what? In 5 - 10 normal posts the issue was mostly sorted out (or at least new ideas to look for solutions).

Concerning 'other' people experiencing the SS issue. I have read this all over the web, long before the camera came out. It didn't stop me from buying it, but it has since been noted and confirmed by many:

1. A nice mostly civil thread on FM about it and some solutions (mostly clumsy) on how to fix it.

2. Plenty of discussions and links on SAR and other photography blogs.

3. Many topics here.

4. Diglloyd (whether you believe them or not is a different point - it has been published).

It isn't just one person blowing something out of proportion. Even if someone has an agenda, you think its a conspiracy now? I couldn't replicate the issues, but haven't gone around looking for it, since that shutter speed range is not why I got this camera. But I won't automatically presume it doesn't exist.

 

[S3ZAi]

Not being a deal breaker to YOU is not the same as the issue being a myth. This is all I'm saying. Your argument, I would assume, that since the issue is relatively minor to you and the OP), therefore it does not exist. That makes no sense.

Actually, you still don't get it: the issue exists, but it is extremely minor. What causes it to become a myth is the whole issue being blown up by very questionable characters.

You probably don't know what myth is then

Actually, myth has roughly two meanings, one of which is a 'unrealistic tale' as they have come down to us through the centuries and the second would be something that doesn't exist, but is believed to be existing by some or many. In this sense the shutter shock issue is a myth.

... 'minor' is not then same as 'none'.

Obviousyl it isn't. But there is a bigger difference between 'major' and 'none'. And minor can be quite close to none. When an issue is so small as to probably affect a very very small amount of people, you can disregard it. I assure you, otherwise nothing, really nothing would be left from our scientific world views. We almost always disregard small numbers of anomalies, especially in chemistry and biology and even more so in the humanities.

And obviously there are different uses of camera equipment, no? You can't conceive of anyone actually running into these issues constantly, due to their method of shooting?

Actually, I can conceive of this, but there is a big difference between conceiving something and the thing actually happening or the meaning thereof. I mean, it is always possible someone with a car will have an accident all the time, while others aren't, does this mean there is something wrong with the car or the driver or perhaps the roads or the weather or what?

Granted these may be on the outer fringes of the photography curve, but so what? I'm sure if you experience a problem with a camera, and first responses to your issue would be to shut the hell up and take that nonsense elsewhere, you will be set straight. Right?

I really have no idea why you are so condescending and aggressive toward those experiencing such issues. Is this personal?

Yes it is. I look up someones history and I see the person has only been posting extremely negative comments on a certain camera on purpose, without owning the camera himself. So he is actually NOT experiencing the issue, he is hijacking the issue for hiw own questionable ends. Also this person is not shying away from blatantly lying.

Than what do you expect me to do? Forgive him and say he's such a wise, nice person?

Ignore it. There are three outcomes if you do, unless you have some stake in Sony's brand/image (which I doubt):

1. The issue is really insignificant and these posters will eventually go away.

2. The issue is real and people will be looking for a solution, or a way to work around a problem.

3. The issue is not real, and they sell/return camera. Clearly then they shouldn't have bought it in the first place.

Yea it may scare a few from buying a camera, or possibly if a solution is found, it will gain a few more buyers.

Well, let's hope so.

Win - Win, isn't it? Working out an issue, as we have (eventually) in the banding/compression thread is much more beneficial than a *****-fest it started out as. Besides, just because someone has a history of posting nonsense, doesn't automatically disqualify them from any future real issues. In that banding thread, onto which I stumbled via search (after experiencing the problem myself), I saw OP's example, and it was exactly the issue I was experiencing. Yet the thread was going nowhere, partly due to you and others like you belittling both OP and myself. Even if you have history with that Max/Edna person, so what? In 5 - 10 normal posts the issue was mostly sorted out (or at least new ideas to look for solutions).

Well, I'm happy you sorted your problem out. But you have to admit: at first the problem was presented as a shortcoming of the camera, perhaps not by you, but by the original OP. Was this true? Was it in the end a defect in of the camera?

Concerning 'other' people experiencing the SS issue. I have read this all over the web, long before the camera came out. It didn't stop me from buying it, but it has since been noted and confirmed by many:

1. A nice mostly civil thread on FM about it and some solutions (mostly clumsy) on how to fix it.

I have read it, it's mainly people with very specific needs. For example people who already own many canon lenses with IS or people always shooting with a tripod to have pro quality shots.

2. Plenty of discussions and links on SAR and other photography blogs.

3. Many topics here.

4. Diglloyd (whether you believe them or not is a different point - it has been published).

It isn't just one person blowing something out of proportion. Even if someone has an agenda, you think its a conspiracy now? I couldn't replicate the issues, but haven't gone around looking for it, since that shutter speed range is not why I got this camera. But I won't automatically presume it doesn't exist.

I never thought the issue itself was a conspiracy, there are photos proving it exists, to a certain extent. But I do believe that there have been individuals who have hijacked this issue for their own ends. If you would like to discredit something or someone and people actually find an issue, wouldn't you gladly take up that issue, blow it out of proportions and use it for your own end? Isn't this what happens in politics on a daily basis?

--

Sezai E., philosophy buff, bibliophile and creative photographer.
Cheers!

 

[secondclaw]

Actually, myth has roughly two meanings, one of which is a 'unrealistic tale' as they have come down to us through the centuries and the second would be something that doesn't exist, but is believed to be existing by some or many. In this sense the shutter shock issue is a myth.

Sorry I still don't get it then. The story of SS is realistic - as you admitted yourself. You may call the issue being 'severe', or that it impacts majority of shooters a myth - I agree. But as long as it exists, and you yourself believe it exists, its no longer a myth. Hell, had this thread been titled - "Impact of shutter shock being severe is a myth" - I would have actually agreed with it. I know we may be parsing words, but in languages I do know, Myth means it's not real, not that its minor.

Win - Win, isn't it? Working out an issue, as we have (eventually) in the banding/compression thread is much more beneficial than a *****-fest it started out as. Besides, just because someone has a history of posting nonsense, doesn't automatically disqualify them from any future real issues. In that banding thread, onto which I stumbled via search (after experiencing the problem myself), I saw OP's example, and it was exactly the issue I was experiencing. Yet the thread was going nowhere, partly due to you and others like you belittling both OP and myself. Even if you have history with that Max/Edna person, so what? In 5 - 10 normal posts the issue was mostly sorted out (or at least new ideas to look for solutions).

Well, I'm happy you sorted your problem out. But you have to admit: at first the problem was presented as a shortcoming of the camera, perhaps not by you, but by the original OP. Was this true? Was it in the end a defect in of the camera?

Well, let's see ... I have had my wide-gamut monitor for 3 years, during which time I shot with 5D2 and NEX-7, and I have not observed this behavior with any of them. It may simply mean that a wide-gamut display magnifies whatever A7R is creating (due to higher contrast or shifting colors on such a display) - I am not completely sold on the issue being completely unrelated. At least I have something to research now. I will try and get uncompressed raw D800E files with similar characteristics for comparison.

Unfortunately I spent too much time in that thread deflecting snark and ridicule from you and others like you, before we got to something meaningful.

Concerning 'other' people experiencing the SS issue. I have read this all over the web, long before the camera came out. It didn't stop me from buying it, but it has since been noted and confirmed by many:

1. A nice mostly civil thread on FM about it and some solutions (mostly clumsy) on how to fix it.

I have read it, it's mainly people with very specific needs. For example people who already own many canon lenses with IS or people always shooting with a tripod to have pro quality shots.

So it's certainly not a myth for them. By the way, I shoot mostly with a tripod when on location. I only shoot handheld when out casually or when photographing wildlife (and I won't use A7R for that). I imagine many landscape shooters are on tripods to get f/11 or f/16 shots. But that group is less likely to have SS issues. I did try my canon 70-200 with IS on on the tripod, and saw the blur (I expected it, same happens with Canon, as the lens can't always detect tripod mount). Then tried it with IS off, and it was perfectly fine, but I wasn't in that SS sweet spot. Since I don't usually go into it, I stopped caring about the issue.

2. Plenty of discussions and links on SAR and other photography blogs.

3. Many topics here.

4. Diglloyd (whether you believe them or not is a different point - it has been published).

It isn't just one person blowing something out of proportion. Even if someone has an agenda, you think its a conspiracy now? I couldn't replicate the issues, but haven't gone around looking for it, since that shutter speed range is not why I got this camera. But I won't automatically presume it doesn't exist.

I never thought the issue itself was a conspiracy, there are photos proving it exists, to a certain extent. But I do believe that there have been individuals who have hijacked this issue for their own ends. If you would like to discredit something or someone and people actually find an issue, wouldn't you gladly take up that issue, blow it out of proportions and use it for your own end? Isn't this what happens in politics on a daily basis?

So are you going to assume anyone that posts an issue minor to you has an agenda? Based on what, their post history? You clearly thought I had an agenda - what was that based on - thought I was OP in disguise or something??? So what if OP was blaming the camera? Maybe he's right and maybe he's wrong. Do you know for sure?

There are two nefarious agendas at work. One - people who magnify minor issues, to discredit a particular camera (unless they are shills, I don't know why they would bother) and there are plenty of these (m4/3 versus Alpha, etc). Two - people who belittle posters of minor issues to defend a particular camera line (again, unless their shills, I don't know why they bother). Do you only see the first one as an issue? Would you stand up to the other category and call them out as well?

--

Sezai E., philosophy buff, bibliophile and creative photographer.
Cheers!

 

[S3ZAi]

Actually, myth has roughly two meanings, one of which is a 'unrealistic tale' as they have come down to us through the centuries and the second would be something that doesn't exist, but is believed to be existing by some or many. In this sense the shutter shock issue is a myth.

Sorry I still don't get it then. The story of SS is realistic - as you admitted yourself. You may call the issue being 'severe', or that it impacts majority of shooters a myth - I agree. But as long as it exists, and you yourself believe it exists, its no longer a myth. Hell, had this thread been titled - "Impact of shutter shock being severe is a myth" - I would have actually agreed with it. I know we may be parsing words, but in languages I do know, Myth means it's not real, not that its minor.

Win - Win, isn't it? Working out an issue, as we have (eventually) in the banding/compression thread is much more beneficial than a *****-fest it started out as. Besides, just because someone has a history of posting nonsense, doesn't automatically disqualify them from any future real issues. In that banding thread, onto which I stumbled via search (after experiencing the problem myself), I saw OP's example, and it was exactly the issue I was experiencing. Yet the thread was going nowhere, partly due to you and others like you belittling both OP and myself. Even if you have history with that Max/Edna person, so what? In 5 - 10 normal posts the issue was mostly sorted out (or at least new ideas to look for solutions).

Well, I'm happy you sorted your problem out. But you have to admit: at first the problem was presented as a shortcoming of the camera, perhaps not by you, but by the original OP. Was this true? Was it in the end a defect in of the camera?

Well, let's see ... I have had my wide-gamut monitor for 3 years, during which time I shot with 5D2 and NEX-7, and I have not observed this behavior with any of them. It may simply mean that a wide-gamut display magnifies whatever A7R is creating (due to higher contrast or shifting colors on such a display) - I am not completely sold on the issue being completely unrelated. At least I have something to research now. I will try and get uncompressed raw D800E files with similar characteristics for comparison.

Unfortunately I spent too much time in that thread deflecting snark and ridicule from you and others like you, before we got to something meaningful.

Concerning 'other' people experiencing the SS issue. I have read this all over the web, long before the camera came out. It didn't stop me from buying it, but it has since been noted and confirmed by many:

1. A nice mostly civil thread on FM about it and some solutions (mostly clumsy) on how to fix it.

I have read it, it's mainly people with very specific needs. For example people who already own many canon lenses with IS or people always shooting with a tripod to have pro quality shots.

So it's certainly not a myth for them. By the way, I shoot mostly with a tripod when on location. I only shoot handheld when out casually or when photographing wildlife (and I won't use A7R for that). I imagine many landscape shooters are on tripods to get f/11 or f/16 shots. But that group is less likely to have SS issues. I did try my canon 70-200 with IS on on the tripod, and saw the blur (I expected it, same happens with Canon, as the lens can't always detect tripod mount). Then tried it with IS off, and it was perfectly fine, but I wasn't in that SS sweet spot. Since I don't usually go into it, I stopped caring about the issue.

2. Plenty of discussions and links on SAR and other photography blogs.

3. Many topics here.

4. Diglloyd (whether you believe them or not is a different point - it has been published).

It isn't just one person blowing something out of proportion. Even if someone has an agenda, you think its a conspiracy now? I couldn't replicate the issues, but haven't gone around looking for it, since that shutter speed range is not why I got this camera. But I won't automatically presume it doesn't exist.

I never thought the issue itself was a conspiracy, there are photos proving it exists, to a certain extent. But I do believe that there have been individuals who have hijacked this issue for their own ends. If you would like to discredit something or someone and people actually find an issue, wouldn't you gladly take up that issue, blow it out of proportions and use it for your own end? Isn't this what happens in politics on a daily basis?

So are you going to assume anyone that posts an issue minor to you has an agenda? Based on what, their post history? You clearly thought I had an agenda - what was that based on - thought I was OP in disguise or something??? So what if OP was blaming the camera? Maybe he's right and maybe he's wrong. Do you know for sure?

There are two nefarious agendas at work. One - people who magnify minor issues, to discredit a particular camera (unless they are shills, I don't know why they would bother) and there are plenty of these (m4/3 versus Alpha, etc). Two - people who belittle posters of minor issues to defend a particular camera line (again, unless their shills, I don't know why they bother). Do you only see the first one as an issue? Would you stand up to the other category and call them out as well?

--

Sezai E., philosophy buff, bibliophile and creative photographer.
Cheers!

Well, to sum it up: the shutter shock issue is [perhaps, discussions are still ongoing] real, but the fact that it affects the camera as a whole is a myth. The fact is that people with very specific setups are able to 'create' the issue, some others are also able to 'recreate' the issue when they follow the specific parameters given by those first few, but common users keep reporting that it doesn't affect their real everyday usage. It just isn't a black and white issue, so the moment one makes it black and white, it becomes a myth. That's how I think about it anyway.

I offer you my apologies for my misconduct in that thread. But you have to admit, I was also the one that gave you the idea of making a screenshot to prove you have a problem of your own. I gave you the benefit of the doubt when I realised that you had a genuine problem. I also stopped posting in that thread after I did this and decided to wait it out.

Yes indeed, I thought you were the op in disguise. I am a very regular visitor to these forums, you will agree with me if you are also a regular: there is always some people with biased opinions who just go around trying to trip others off, but the last few weeks or months, since the A7 and A7r have been released, this has gone totally haywire. We are getting more and more vicious attacks from m43 users or other groups. Also users that somehow haven't posted a lot suddenly becoming active, with the sole purpose of playing down those cameras. At some point it becomes quite fuzzy who is for real and who isn't. So some mixups and irritations aren't inevitable I guess. I just hope the forum will soon return to it's previous a bit more mild nature. I hope moderators were away for a while and will kick in soon and sort the nonsense from the real people who are looking for answers.

--
Sezai E., philosophy buff, bibliophile and creative photographer.
Cheers!

 

[Keit ll]

If shutter shock exists & I think that there is evidence that it does then it doesn't just affect longer telephoto lenses - it affects all lenses at certain shuter speeds , it's just that the movement affects longer lenses in a more easily seen manner.

I prefer to use low ISO's & often shoot images using the affected shutter speeds & this is a very real deterrent to me getting one of these cameras. The option of using higher ISO's in order to get higher shutter speeds does not seem am acceptable long-term solution to me. In the UK there is not blazing sunshine most of the time which forces us to use ND filters & the like to tame potential over -exposure :-D

The fact that it seems to cause problems with IS systems is a double blow as I personally like to use IS whenever possible. These issues suggest that Sony rushed these cameras to market without properly considering this issue , I just hope that there is a firmware solution to the problem but I fear that there may not be one ?

 

[Stu 5]

The gist of the shutter shock myth is that *IF* you go look for it, you will find it. If you don't go look for it, you will probably never encounter it. If you encounter it, all you have to do is choose a different shutter speed, which is very well doable with the high-iso capability of the A7r. I think that was what the op already said in his words.

You don't need to go looking for it to see it, as it is viewable at a lot less than 100%. Some people can't see it but some of those same people claim a photo is pin sharp when it is not either. Not that easy if it effects a number of shutter speeds and it waste time having to select new ISO values if you are in the middle of a shoot and you need to avoid certain shutter speeds. That wasted time could be losing you photos and if your a pro, money.

I didn't mean if you go look for it in the photos, I meant if you try to shoot photos with shutter shock effect visible. It only occurs under very very specific situations. Yes, once it's there, obviously it's visible. But as many many many user reports have proven: under normal usage you won't encounter it. Normal here meaning: 1- don't use lenses with IS from another brand, if you have to, disable IS. 2- Always shoot at more than 1/f 3- Don't be an ass about it.

You are only talking about lenses that have I.S. So what about all the telephoto lenses that the same problem has been reported with, that do not have I.S in the first place?

People insisting there is more to it than this are the people who went looking for it and thought they had found some dealbreaking issue, which it is not, by far.

It might not be deal breaking to you but it is to other people.

Which "other" people are you referring to, the people you are imagining?

All the people that have been reporting on websites they are having the problem.

--
Sezai E., philosophy buff, bibliophile and creative photographer
Cheers!

 

[quezra]

Well, to sum it up: the shutter shock issue is [perhaps, discussions are still ongoing] real, but the fact that it affects the camera as a whole is a myth. The fact is that people with very specific setups are able to 'create' the issue, some others are also able to 'recreate' the issue when they follow the specific parameters given by those first few, but common users keep reporting that it doesn't affect their real everyday usage. It just isn't a black and white issue, so the moment one makes it black and white, it becomes a myth. That's how I think about it anyway.

Actually to sum it up, the degree to which shutter shock affects the A7R is inversely proportional to the amount of words that have been spent discussing it.

 

[captura]

If shutter shock exists & I think that there is evidence that it does then it doesn't just affect longer telephoto lenses - it affects all lenses at certain shuter speeds , it's just that the movement affects longer lenses in a more easily seen manner.

I prefer to use low ISO's & often shoot images using the affected shutter speeds & this is a very real deterrent to me getting one of these cameras. The option of using higher ISO's in order to get higher shutter speeds does not seem am acceptable long-term solution to me. In the UK there is not blazing sunshine most of the time which forces us to use ND filters & the like to tame potential over -exposure :-D

The fact that it seems to cause problems with IS systems is a double blow as I personally like to use IS whenever possible. These issues suggest that Sony rushed these cameras to market without properly considering this issue , I just hope that there is a firmware solution to the problem but I fear that there may not be one ?

I have not seen a shred of evidence of shutter shock with the 7r. I've examined all the links including Digilloyd and it's all misinformation, far as I can see, shutter shock is present in my 2 M43 cameras. (E-PL1 and E-PM1.) Putting in the 1/8 sec. delay works. Sorry for introducing this here but to me it is relevant to my point.

But I believe that IS is a separate issue on those cameras. An early 2-dimensional in-camera IBIS system, I have seen it cause very similar vibrations all by itself, (and while the 1/8 sec. delay was ON, ensuring that this occurence was shutter-shock independent.)

Turning off IBIS enhanced the picture effect in the same way as invoking the 1/8 second delay. But I am satisfied that IS effect and shutter-shock are separate issues, on these Olympus cameras.

I cannot speak to a similar effect caused by in-lens IS systems like Sony's OSS.

If you can accept that the A7r may indeed not have shutter shock effect, then you may like to ask; what, if anything, did Sony perform in the A7r design that prevents SS?

 

[Nigel Wilkins]

I have been using the a7R, EA-LA4, 70-400mm combo and also the 70-300mm and I am getting really detailed and sharp images. The only thing is you have to go by the old rule when shooting with a zoom. Your shutter speed has to be as high as the focal length. Ect. at 300mm you need to be 1/300th or faster. This images are typical of what I am seeing.

I go back to what I said before if the sensor doesn't move like with the in body IS cameras it's just a matter of getting the camera steady and using a high enough shutter speed.

I sold my E-M1 because of the low amount of keepers I was getting. I can push the ISO so much higher on the a7R there is seldom need of IS.

And what if I want to shoot at 1/100 sec on a tripod for effect? For example, to get a helicopters rotors blurred while keeping the background & people sharp?

 

[cosmonaut]

Well I tend to agree about moving on but still I seen others not buy into this system due to the myth. It's sad a system can get a bad rap so quickly over nothing. If I was a Sony engineer I would be banging my head against the wall. Sure its more difficult to get sharp images but it has nothing to do with shutter shock. I think we have all become so spoiled to IS as other features we have forgotten how to take pictures. When you are dealing with a camera this small and put a big lens on it with no IS it takes a little work to get a crisp picture.

I had the E-M5 and E-M1 and there is defiantly something going on with those. I have since left Olympus but is the IS not working or shutter shock I don't know but my personal keeper rate was around 75-80%. The Olympus system just doesn't suit me. How can one be 100% sure it's shutter shock or the IS failing? Without seeing inside the camera it's just a good guess.

I never intended to use the a7R for wildlife as I really think it's not made for that nor sports but I wanted to explore the shutter shock issue. Again mirrorless technology is still a long ways from the performance of a DSLR/SLT.

But I see no failures on the cameras part. When I miss focus it my fault and not a moving sensor or a slapping shutter. I think the myth is from the loud shutter sound.


www.gregmccary.com

 

[cosmonaut]

I have been using the a7R, EA-LA4, 70-400mm combo and also the 70-300mm and I am getting really detailed and sharp images. The only thing is you have to go by the old rule when shooting with a zoom. Your shutter speed has to be as high as the focal length. Ect. at 300mm you need to be 1/300th or faster. This images are typical of what I am seeing.

I go back to what I said before if the sensor doesn't move like with the in body IS cameras it's just a matter of getting the camera steady and using a high enough shutter speed.

I sold my E-M1 because of the low amount of keepers I was getting. I can push the ISO so much higher on the a7R there is seldom need of IS.

And what if I want to shoot at 1/100 sec on a tripod for effect? For example, to get a helicopters rotors blurred while keeping the background & people sharp?

 

[11saje]

In reply to the mythic bloggers

Your posts here are of the same vein as your writings in the thread “aA7R Shutter Shake Analysis Review”. Detailed studies have shown that there is an annoying problem with the shutter shock of the alpha A7r. You deny and deny and deny.... Why? Are you able to present a proof of what you are saying? Do you have comparison shots at different shutter speeds? You have to realize that if many users are willing to buy this camera, it still represents a large amount of money. These potential buyers want to know the experiences of photographers already having the camera and doing clever tests, no more, no less.