Shutter Vibration

[k-hawinkler]

Similar to the E-M1 don't the A7/Rs have diffraction correction builtin for their native lenses?

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Not sure but my Zeiss 135 F2 is not a Sony mount . Its a ZF.2 Nikon

 

[k-hawinkler]

Not sure but my Zeiss 135 F2 is not a Sony mount . Its a ZF.2 Nikon

Yes, of course, there diffraction correction doesn't apply.
I played with this feature on my E-M1, native lenses could be pushed to smaller apertures with increased DOF, non-native lenses couldn't as much.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Just not sure the tech behind these diffraction corrections that they are using. Seems to me your fighting physics.

 

[k-hawinkler]

Just not sure the tech behind these diffraction corrections that they are using. Seems to me your fighting physics.

Search for

photographic diffraction correction, deconvolution

will get you an idea what is involved.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Thanks as soon as you wrote the word deconvolution a bell went off. LOL

I will check it out

 

[baudolino]

Off topic: The more I read about the "shutter vibration issue" from the A7r or any other high resolution DSLR camera, the more convinced I am about my good decision to stick with the Leica S2 for 36MP purposes, even though the bloody thing breaks my back and shoulders. And when it comes to telephoto duty, my second-hand Hassy HC210 lens, via an adapter, on the CS setting, delivers every time, on a tripod, at any shutter speed, without any motion blur - thanks to the leaf shutter. It is quite liberating not having to investigate "issues" all the time - shutter vibration today, back/front focus tomorrow... I know it is an expensive system and I don't want to sound arrogant, but exactly these forum discussions have taught me to ignore all the "lower cost miracle solutions", like the A7r until it is 100% clear that they deliver what they've promised.

 

[algrove]

Native lenses help IMHO. But then again some old glass seems to work just fine. Maybe it's the not so old non-native glass that is part of the issue in addition to shutter issues.

 

[philber]

OK, here are my $0.02.
At first, I was surprised by the noise level and perceived vibration, and it took me a while to get decent handheld sharpness from my A7R. That is not no longer an issue.
When the matter of the "shake" came up, I mounted my only long lens (Contax C/Y 180mm f:2.8), and shot it handheld. Sharp shot. If anything, because of the lens mass, the vibration felt less than with the very light FE 35. I began to think: tempest in a teapot. Still, I did a quick-and-dirty replication of the conditions indicated by the whistleblowers as "bad": long lens, 1/100s. I mounte dit on my lightweight Gitzo 0541, a lot less stable and rigid than their super-rigs, and shot a target quite far away (around 20m, or 60'), which should, if I am correct, show shake-induced blur to a greater degree than a close target, when viewed at 100%. It was a quick-and-dirty test, not taking any special care whatsoever. Shoot. Chimp. Boom, shot is sharp enough, again IMHO.
Of course, I include a picture, just about 100% crop, centre. Remember, the lens itself is not a sharpness fiend, and I am shooting maybe 20 times further out than the reference. Picture is SOOC except for partial CA removal in LightRoom.
I can no more prove that the shake is not there than I can prove that BigFoot or Nessie don't exist. What I can say is that I could not make "enough of it, whatever that means" happen even though I fairly closely replicated the conditions under which it is supposed to be a problem. Definitely not going to lose sleep over it.

[/url]
DSC09864-1 par philippeberend, sur Flickr[/IMG]

 

[mjm6]

Philippe,

You aren't viewing it at 1100%. Then, it will be clearly unsharp.



Just kidding, with a lighthearted reference to a lively thread on the FM forum...

I think this all comes down to expectations and practicing good technique. 36MP has raised the bar of expectations and also pushed the need for good shooting practice. That is pretty much it.



---Michael

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Its no different than the warning I expressed with the D800e when it was released. One difference though we added adapters to this and that is another variable that could influence results. Any Medium Format shooter is going to say the same thing. It just takes care to ring the blood out of it. Big mental problem for folks and this Sony is Oh its small i can run around like a chicken and shoot. NOT going to happen, just think of yourself as a really big cow with a nice slow deliberate motion. ROTFLMAO

Im going to go take a nap in the shade now.

 

[Vivek]

:ROTFL:

 

[ferrellmc]

Ferell, it certainly is a factor, like it is with just about any other camera. The extent of which depends on the complete system (including what the tripod rests on). This was just a quick test series to see how this lens fares in general, and as I had mentioned at the end of my post, I am planning to repeat them more thoroughly once the variable ND filter I had ordered has arrived (it still hasn't :banghead. Then I will be able to do tests over a wide range of shutter speeds with all other factors remaining constant...

Edit: please also note my comment about the Leica STA-1. It is a very un-Leica-like piece of kit made of plastic and therefore not nearly as stiff as it should be. Rainer Burzynski used to make a very nice collar, but it is currently out of production...

Ron, yes I agree that it is a factor if you are referring to it's existence and if that existence exceeds our subjective standards. However, it is "not a factor" if the shutter vibration effect (blur) is on par with other cameras in the industry. We can't buy our way out of it so we live with it. Like the steering wheel in my car vibrates but it is expected and on par with other cars therefore it is not a factor in deciding if I will drive the car.

I'm looking forward to your tests once you have the ND filter.

 

[ferrellmc]

After looking very carefully over my 50 ZM planar tests, my view is this (and I reserve the right to change it, if I get different results next time I cannot see any change in resolution resulting from shutter vibration. I CAN see a change in centre resolution resulting from a change in aperture.

The shots at F8 and with shutter speeds in the danger zone from my 90mm tests (1/20-1/60th, roughly) are less sharp on centre than those shots at 1/320th... however, those shots were shot at a slightly higher ISO and wider aperture (about f5 I recall). it is very clear that the reduction in central resolution is a result of aperture changes and not vibration, because the peripheral sharpness is commensurately lower than the F8 shots (which had weaker centres).

If Chambers is having real issues with the 55 1.8 FE, I am wondering if this is due to the lens being longer, or something to do with his tripod rig vs mine?

Regarding his central premise that 'professionals need need cameras that have no quirks', I think this is both untrue and out of kilter with the reality of professional work. While I completely agree that this issue needs to be fixed and is a pain in the butt for some people, the real issue is 'cost benefit analysis' for everyone. No quirks is better, but its rare we get perfection. Everything is compromised somewhere.

The fact is that ALL pros go into EVERY shoot, with compromises and maybe some (or a number of) quirks. If they are any kind of a pro they know where the weaknesses (because they know their kit) are and work around them as best they can. If a pro decides a bit of kit is not working for them, then they move on (or don't buy it in the first place). We know our lenses and apertures, DOF and focal length (and differences between lenses of the same FL even on the same format).

We all make decisions based on what we need and are prepared to tolerate. The assertion that the A7R is unsuitable for professional use is total rubbish. I'd love to see him decide to tote his D800 and lenses up mountains instead of an A7R kit, for example. I'd personally put up with some vibration workarounds for sparing myself that particular misery, loss of fluids, larger pack catching the wind.... the list goes on.

Hopefully Sony will be able to improve it with firmware, but Chambers and his supported posts are the ones who do not understand the concept of personal choices. There seems to be an authoritarian streak in some of his proclamations. Disagree with him and 'you're not a real pro'....

Excellent, Well done! If Lloyd is finding shutter vibration blur in the 55mm 1.8 FE I am certain the problem is somewhere in his equipment, or the set up, or other external conditions like floor vibrations (traffic nearby or people walking on floor etc.).
Lloyd called me a MORON on twitter which I thought was very unprofessional. I have never corresponded with him, I simply did my tests and reported them, which btw didn't agree with Lloyds results.

I have tested the 35mm FE 2.8 and Nikon 85mm 1.4 and found no significant shutter vibration. The tests with the Nikon 70-200mm is in progress, awaiting the arrival of the Novoflex adapter.

 

[ferrellmc]

Way I see it he is either:

1. Calling Ferrell McCollough a moron.
2. Calling all of us that feel "shuttergate" is not as huge of an issue _for us_ as some are trying to convince rest of the world it is.
3. Both of the above.

Regardless of which one it is I don't care, I am not a professional tester, I am in photography for the art part of it and I am happy with the results from my A7R. If I would get on Sony's case about anything it would be what seems to me as (in)accuracy of metering, not "shutter shock".

Now if you will excuse me, my A7R is waiting on me for what it has been actually made for: Some photography.

Lloyd's tweet with my link after it.

 

[fotografz]

Off topic: The more I read about the "shutter vibration issue" from the A7r or any other high resolution DSLR camera, the more convinced I am about my good decision to stick with the Leica S2 for 36MP purposes, even though the bloody thing breaks my back and shoulders. And when it comes to telephoto duty, my second-hand Hassy HC210 lens, via an adapter, on the CS setting, delivers every time, on a tripod, at any shutter speed, without any motion blur - thanks to the leaf shutter. It is quite liberating not having to investigate "issues" all the time - shutter vibration today, back/front focus tomorrow... I know it is an expensive system and I don't want to sound arrogant, but exactly these forum discussions have taught me to ignore all the "lower cost miracle solutions", like the A7r until it is 100% clear that they deliver what they've promised.

That may have more to do with mass, and other factors of a larger sensor, than the leaf-shutter.

Unlike the Hasselblad H series exclusive leaf-shutter cameras, when shooting the Leica S2/S in CS mode, the focal plane shutter is still involved.

So, other than the higher sync speed (1/750 with HC lenses and 1/1000 with S lenses), there is no typical leaf-shutter advantage in the S2's CS mode.

- Marc

 

[fotografz]

I got a second A7R body today and in some quite close tests, it seems to me that there's a reasonable chance that the new body is more affected by shake on a tripod than the old one. Maybe. Possibly. I haven't had a problem with the old body but then I didn't try it for this problem until it had done quite a few frames: so maybe there's some mileage in the theory that the new shutters have more torque, more initial clunk and bash, and that when they are worn in a bit, loosen up, the lube has spread, whatever, it calms down.

Maybe. Possibly. I'm not going to post examples because I was actually testing something else so my shots aren't any kind of a proof - but I have my suspicions and when the festive schedule allows, I will take a closer look...

Honest to God, that same thought crossed my mind ... it seems with use the thing is calming down a tiny bit ... but I dismissed that possibility as just familiarity ... until I read your post.

I wonder what it'll feel like in a few months?

- Marc

 

[k-hawinkler]

Honest to God, that same thought crossed my mind ... it seems with use the thing is calming down a tiny bit ... but I dismissed that possibility as just familiarity ... until I read your post.

I wonder what it'll feel like in a few months?

- Marc

Why don't you measure the vibrations over the next few months?
It's easy to do with an iPhone or equivalent device.
Thanks.

 

[cunim]

I remain somewhat confused by all this. So far, I have looked at three lenses. The cronR 50 and the cronM 90 (Novoflex adapters) both show subtle but repeatable and consistent effects of shutter vibration pretty much independent of mounting system. It occurs in the range which has been well discussed above. One exception to mounting system independence is that resonant mounting (e.g. a tabletop tripod with steel legs) can lead to very severe and obvious vibration. Depends if the resonance is excited or not.

Using the FE55, mounted on my Induro lightweight tripod and Kirk ball head, I do not see vibration in the range between 1/2 and 1/160 sec. Note - My failure to observe an effect does not mean it is not there. It may be that my observations are flawed.

Knowing how thoroughly Japanese design groups tend to test, I was puzzled as to why shake was such a factor. Now I wonder if Sony just tested light lenses with center of mass close to the focal plane. The native lenses are like that so it would be reasonable to test that way. That set of conditions may minimize shake.

Anyway, this is good news for me. I will snap away with the 55 with less paranoia about shutter speeds.

 

[iiiNelson]

I remain somewhat confused by all this. So far, I have looked at three lenses. The cronR 50 and the cronM 90 (Novoflex adapters) both show subtle but repeatable and consistent effects of shutter vibration pretty much independent of mounting system. It occurs in the range which has been well discussed above. One exception to mounting system independence is that resonant mounting (e.g. a tabletop tripod with steel legs) can lead to very severe and obvious vibration. Depends if the resonance is excited or not.

Using the FE55, mounted on my Induro lightweight tripod and Kirk ball head, I do not see vibration in the range between 1/2 and 1/160 sec. Note - My failure to observe an effect does not mean it is not there. It may be that my observations are flawed.

Knowing how thoroughly Japanese design groups tend to test, I was puzzled as to why shake was such a factor. Now I wonder if Sony just tested light lenses with center of mass close to the focal plane. The native lenses are like that so it would be reasonable to test that way. That set of conditions may minimize shake.

Anyway, this is good news for me. I will snap away with the 55 with less paranoia about shutter speeds.

Could it be the Novoflex adapter and not focal length dependent?