The GetDPI Photography Forum

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!

Shutter Vibration

ZoranC

New member
Instead, they need to vilify the messenger, and question his motives. This does strike me as moronic.
Maybe I missed it so could you please point out where exactly did McCollough do something moronic or vilified / questioned motives of Lloyd?
 

horshack

New member
Not sure if others have tested this but the A7r's shutter vibration also causes blur issues when used hand-held on certain Canon lenses when image stabilization is enabled. In my testing it occurs on the Canon 28mm f/2.8 IS and 35mm f/2 IS lenses but not on heavier lenses like the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II or Tamron 24-70VC. The affected shutter speeds are 1/40 through 1/200. The blur goes away if the A7r is mounted on a tripod or if I place a heavy hotshoe-based flash on top.

Here's a test with the Canon 35mm f/2 IS @ 1/80 comparing IS-enabled vs IS-disabled:


And here's a test with the same lens with IS-enabled with and without a Yongnuo YN-560III flash w/batteries attached (adds 1.0 lbs to camera):
 

vjbelle

Well-known member
Apologize for being off topic ...............

Hello Victor

Please breakdown your setup that weights in at 3.1 lbs, with head and tripod included.

My IQ280 and Cambo WRC 400 and HR 40 weigh in at 2.1 kg w/o tripod and head.

Thanks

Phil
I thought I was clear..... The Gitzo traveler and Acra head together weigh 3.1 lbs. I didn't say that included the weight of an STC and 150mm Digitar and Phase IQ180.

Victor
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Marc,
Your point is well taken. I guess for me as others have suggested is shot both cameras hand held, same lens and see with my own eyes if I can see the difference.
I don't question others success they have had hand holding the A7R, yet would they have achieved similar results with the A7?

The A7R reminds of when Nikon came out with the D800 and they published a technical document describing specifically what lens worked, and stressed proper shooting technique, tripod, MLU, etc. This is what prompted me on my original comment. Why would this same advice not apply to the A7R?
You are right, that Nikon stringent technique advice WOULD apply, same as with the D800/D800E.

IMO, you'd also be right that you very well could get similar results from a 24 meg A7 in some less carefully controlled A7R situations.

The point you are missing is that when you choose to apply stringent technique with the A7R, you cannot match it with the A7. (Plus, one other unknown I'd like to see compared is the higher ISO of the A7 verses that of the A7R. That is the wild card in all this.)

If the A7 is all you need or will ever use, or there is some other criteria like faster AF, the choice is clear.

Otherwise, an A7R user can have his cake and eat it too ... shoot more freely and be at least as good as an A7, shoot more carefully and produce what the A7 cannot.

- Marc
 

GrahamB

New member
Not sure if others have tested this but the A7r's shutter vibration also causes blur issues when used hand-held on certain Canon lenses when image stabilization is enabled.
Do Canon's IS lenses work with any other maker's cameras?

Graham
 

Ron Pfister

Member
Do Canon's IS lenses work with any other maker's cameras?

Graham
Yes, with Sony NEX and A7/A7R when used with a Metabones MkIII Smart Adapter. This adapter sports aperture control, EXIF and AF (with certain lenses), too.

Edit: Metabone's Speed Booster for EF lenses offers the same features, but is only usable on APC-C cameras (i.e. NEX).
 

jonoslack

Active member
Marc,
Your point is well taken. I guess for me as others have suggested is shot both cameras hand held, same lens and see with my own eyes if I can see the difference.
I don't question others success they have had hand holding the A7R, yet would they have achieved similar results with the A7?

The A7R reminds of when Nikon came out with the D800 and they published a technical document describing specifically what lens worked, and stressed proper shooting technique, tripod, MLU, etc. This is what prompted me on my original comment. Why would this same advice not apply to the A7R?
The point you are missing is that when you choose to apply stringent technique with the A7R, you cannot match it with the A7. (Plus, one other unknown I'd like to see compared is the higher ISO of the A7 verses that of the A7R. That is the wild card in all this.)

If the A7 is all you need or will ever use, or there is some other criteria like faster AF, the choice is clear.

Otherwise, an A7R user can have his cake and eat it too ... shoot more freely and be at least as good as an A7, shoot more carefully and produce what the A7 cannot.

- Marc
Hi Marc
I think the point that you're missing is that, if, like Steven and I, you shoot primarily handheld, then there are circumstances when the A7 would appear to produce Better results than the A7r. It's not a cake and eat it situation with the A7r at all, you need to choose your cake with care, because they both have their up and down sides.

Personally I'm pretty certain I'll jump back into the water, but like Steven I'm finding it tough to pick my poison.

I've played with both cameras, and I immediately realised that the shutter on the A7r was relevant to the way I shoot (because I could feel the camera shake!) playing with Matt's A7 briefly was quite different. Of course, there is an argument for Guy's approach (getting both).

All the best
 

GrahamB

New member
Yes, with Sony NEX and A7/A7R when used with a Metabones MkIII Smart Adapter. This adapter sports aperture control, EXIF and AF (with certain lenses), too.

Edit: Metabone's Speed Booster for EF lenses offers the same features, but is only usable on APC-C cameras (i.e. NEX).
Hey Ron,

I was aware Canon lenses can be mounted, I was curios if the IS worked with other than Canon cameras?

Graham
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
Hi Marc
I think the point that you're missing is that, if, like Steven and I, you shoot primarily handheld, then there are circumstances when the A7 would appear to produce Better results than the A7r. It's not a cake and eat it situation with the A7r at all, you need to choose your cake with care, because they both have their up and down sides.

Personally I'm pretty certain I'll jump back into the water, but like Steven I'm finding it tough to pick my poison.

I've played with both cameras, and I immediately realised that the shutter on the A7r was relevant to the way I shoot (because I could feel the camera shake!) playing with Matt's A7 briefly was quite different. Of course, there is an argument for Guy's approach (getting both).

All the best
Jono I think in your case the A7 is the better choice if you still plan to use an adapter for M lenses on occasion. I find that it plays with them better than the A7r (and yes I own both.) That being said the native lenses all produce great results IMO as well. I'm hoping the 24-70 and 70-200 keep up with this sentiment once released.
 

kuau

Workshop Member
You are right, that Nikon stringent technique advice WOULD apply, same as with the D800/D800E.

IMO, you'd also be right that you very well could get similar results from a 24 meg A7 in some less carefully controlled A7R situations.

The point you are missing is that when you choose to apply stringent technique with the A7R, you cannot match it with the A7. (Plus, one other unknown I'd like to see compared is the higher ISO of the A7 verses that of the A7R. That is the wild card in all this.)

If the A7 is all you need or will ever use, or there is some other criteria like faster AF, the choice is clear.

Otherwise, an A7R user can have his cake and eat it too ... shoot more freely and be at least as good as an A7, shoot more carefully and produce what the A7 cannot.

- Marc
Marc,
I get it, A7R with excellent technique equals excellent IQ which then the A7 can't mach. This is completely understood even forgetting about shutter vibration issue / non issue.

Though for my needs, handheld, maximum print size 20x30 I feel the A7 fits my needs.

I have a large investment in A mount glass, and will wait and see what Sony announces in 2014, I'm hoping for a 36mp A99

If I didn't have a big investment in A glass, I would have gone for the A7R.
Yeah I know I could get the Sony laea3 or 4 adaptor, but to me, then all of the sudden the A7 series looses it appeal, using a tripod becomes almost a must.

Steven
 

jonoslack

Active member
Jono I think in your case the A7 is the better choice if you still plan to use an adapter for M lenses on occasion. I find that it plays with them better than the A7r (and yes I own both.) That being said the native lenses all produce great results IMO as well. I'm hoping the 24-70 and 70-200 keep up with this sentiment once released.
HI There
. . . but in the end I don't plan to use an adapter for M lenses - because as far as I can see, the A7 provides no advantages in terms of IQ, and the A7r provides no advantages in terms of operation (and some disadvantages in terms of IQ). Of course, I already have an M which I'm not planning on selling - if I didn't, then I think your assessment is just right.

I am planning on using mostly native lenses, but also probably some R lenses and some Contax Zeiss lenses via an adapter - Really the camera's only excuse for me is to provide the longer focal lengths, which the M and lenses is not ideal for. . . . . but I don't use a tripod . . . ever - I do have good hand holding technique though, and I expect to see no camera shake in my M photos and I understand very clearly what I can get away with in terms of focal length and shutter speed.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Marc,
I get it, A7R with excellent technique equals excellent IQ which then the A7 can't mach. This is completely understood even forgetting about shutter vibration issue / non issue.

Though for my needs, handheld, maximum print size 20x30 I feel the A7 fits my needs.

I have a large investment in A mount glass, and will wait and see what Sony announces in 2014, I'm hoping for a 36mp A99

If I didn't have a big investment in A glass, I would have gone for the A7R.
Yeah I know I could get the Sony laea3 or 4 adaptor, but to me, then all of the sudden the A7 series looses it appeal, using a tripod becomes almost a must.

Steven
Got it.

I have applied the opposite logic. I also have a large investment in A glass and an A99, so 24 meg is already covered with a fast AF camera and dual card slots, etc. The A7 would have been a bit redundant except for the size factor.

So, what the A7R beings to the party is 36 meg and higher ISO capability than the A99 ... and I've since discovered that hand-holding with the LA-EA4 adapter yields fine images for my typical applications ... and unlike the A99 I can use some of my M lenses like the M50/0.95 on the A7R which is easier to manually focus in lower light than the M240 I tried a few weeks ago.

However, I don't normally print many 35mm images beyond 16 X 20 on a 17 X 20 paper, so my criteria is different.

If Sony updates the A99 with a 36 meg sensor, at least you and I now know what to look for. :)

I'll stand pat for now and see what they do next.

- Marc
 

wuffstuff

New member
Yes, if printing to 30" and no larger, I'd stick with the A7 and not bother with the R
Here's the thing. If you don't get the A7r you'll never know what you missed. As a chap who had the A7 and changed it for the A7r I have some experience.

The difference in resolution is amazing and using the 55/1.8 FE, as an example, the images are so sharp. Even with Leica lenses, which are being dissed by almost everyone, I find the quality as good as the M240.

Of course, there will be the nay sayers; there always is. Those are usually the people who didn't get the A7r (but secretly covet it).
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Here's the thing. If you don't get the A7r you'll never know what you missed. As a chap who had the A7 and changed it for the A7r I have some experience.

The difference in resolution is amazing and using the 55/1.8 FE, as an example, the images are so sharp. Even with Leica lenses, which are being dissed by almost everyone, I find the quality as good as the M240.

Of course, there will be the nay sayers; there always is. Those are usually the people who didn't get the A7r (but secretly covet it).
You know and I am dead serious it's not a bad idea to have both even as a hobbyist if you get the A7r for the extra 1700 for the A7 is not such a bad idea. First a lot if folks are buying expensive glass to begin with maybe think in terms of the A7 as your fast cam with AF for those times a A7 may make more sense like a A7 and the small 35 FE makes a perfect travel walkabout unit and you A7r for manual focus lenses and when you want the highest quality. I have both but can't go by me per say since I work for clients and many needs but it's not such a bad idea and you have a backup or shoot two cams at once doing street work or weddings, parties and such.
 

wuffstuff

New member
As a former professional press and wedding photographer it's my view that knowing the equipment and having confidence in it is as important as the image quality. Now that I'm an amateur I don't care so much about quality, but I do like detail. The A7r detail is extraordinary.

I'm not yet confident with the camera and it definitely has it's faults. But, I had many, many years with blads (and I bet you all did) and they had so many faults that in the end I got used to them and accepted them as normal.

For me this new camera feels like an actual game changer. Small, light and very high resolution. The grip helps for me. Even the daft apps are a bit helpful. I've not experienced a camera like this before and I've had them all.

We'll see in time whether we are all just beta testers for the next iteration, as were were with the M8, M9 and now we are with the M (240).
 

mjm6

Member
Not sure if others have tested this but the A7r's shutter vibration also causes blur issues when used hand-held on certain Canon lenses when image stabilization is enabled.
I think you have confirmed that Canon's IS shouldn't be used with this camera... I'm unsure why anyone would assume that it would actually work correctly anyway (without testing it). Just because the lens is powered, doesn't mean the IS is doing the right thing, and it appears that it is actually exacerbating the movement (probably because the camera is light enough that the sped of the acceleration and deceleration is faster than Canon can compensate for).

.....

It appears to me that most people are fretting about this as if the camera is supposed to accommodate poor technique. What happened to shooting with a properly braced camera/lens? Just because we don't have mirror slap anymore, doesn't mean that we are absolved from applying good shooting technique.

Brace the camera properly, and this won't be an issue. Don't just dampen it with weight (although that may actually resolve it mostly, and well enough for most people).

Good shooting practice dictates that you do not cantilever the camera off the back of an inadequate support. Anyone who has shot super telephotos (and also large format and ultra large format shooters) can tell you that, because the images are easily improved with proper support technique.

Would it be nice if the shutter were fully electronic, YES. But it is not, and therefore, we have to deal with moving parts and bracing to get the most out of the system.

The fact that the camera is so light actually makes the effect more apparent, and the need for proper bracing techniques to avoid the problems more necessary.

It sure would have been nice to have them put in-camera ISS in, like the a900 has.


---Michael
 
Top