I, for one, would sure like to see legitimate examples of this.....K-H
This the main reason I sent my a7R back as it even affected my 15/2.8 shots.
Victor
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
I, for one, would sure like to see legitimate examples of this.....K-H
This the main reason I sent my a7R back as it even affected my 15/2.8 shots.
I actually said that in a post since when I tried runs at it . 1 came up bad in the middle run. Need to break these in a little.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...
That happened with my Leica MM (or I got used to it). I think some of the testers just need to get a better quick release and clamps. As for as I am concerned, this is a tempest in a tea pot. I thought I was the only one but Sergio confirmed it.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...
Could be because this is an amateur camera?I find it interesting that three different "pros" found similar problems with shutter vibration on the a7R with long lenses.
I don't think such distinctions are really possible, nowadays. Most of magnum shoots on consumer or prosumer cameras. Many amateurs shoot on 'pro kit'. Besides, the Canon 1D III had massive AF issues, according to many, the D3 or D3s have fewer pixels than most M4/3 cameras...Could be because this is an amateur camera?
Haven't you heard? Apparantly, the new M also does the same thing in that tester's hands. Rock Kentwell is a lovable guy, I tell ya.So, for a 280 mm lens on A7R what is the worst exposure time to observe shutter vibration?
I would be happy if somebody could give me a range of exposure time offenders.
Thanks.
Turtle, I will quote this.I don't think such distinctions are really possible, nowadays. Most of magnum shoots on consumer or prosumer cameras. Many amateurs shoot on 'pro kit'. Besides, the Canon 1D III had massive AF issues, according to many, the D3 or D3s have fewer pixels than most M4/3 cameras...
Its either a camera that take someone's photography forwards or not. It does the job or it doesn't. Sounds like for habitual long lens users the A7R is a serious problem, but for those who don't use long lenses, the issue is inconsequential. Guess we will have to see how the Sony 70-200 EF fares, because that could go either way.
As for a firmware fix, while Sony may normally be slow to deal with FW fixes, this camera is so new and the hullabaloo so loud they may consider it wise to nip it in the bud, if possible through FW (or at least improve it).
The last line is of paramount importance.The image posted in the test don't have the resolution to even be "photo quality." I am sure I could take an iPhone into the studio and come out with a really nice image that will look really good on a monitor. A photograph is a collection of variable and when you throw in whether the picture is pretty, it gets even messier.
Repeat the test with 24" prints and I bet things change.
On a related note, I keep seeing people bemoan the fact that sample photos from places like DPreview are not very interesting and they should have "better" pictures to show "what the camera can do." The camera does not change interest nor make good pictures. You can take powerful images with any camera. Unfortunately, the item that gives that result is not for sale.
I can give you only a partial answer. I had a lot of trouble at 1/100-1/160. The shots from this sequence were done in early December. I didn't know at that time why these shots were coming out blurred. They were shot on a medium heavy Manfroto with an Arcatech ballhead.So, for a 280 mm lens on A7R what is the worst exposure time to observe shutter vibration?
I would be happy if somebody could give me a range of exposure time offenders.
Thanks.