Menu
What's new
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

k-hawinkler

k-hawinkler

Well-known member
algrove said:
K-H

That is a monster of a lens. Do you recall the shutter speed used with this image? Assume it was on tripod with the setup you showed a million posts ago. Thanks.
Click to expand...
Lou,

Thanks. I left the Exif data in the image.

Brightness Value: -3.194
Color Space: sRGB
Contrast: Normal
Custom Rendered: Normal process
Date Time Digitized: Dec 23, 2013, 5:15:32 PM
Date Time Original: Dec 23, 2013, 5:15:32 PM
Digital Zoom Ratio: 1
Exif Version: 2.3
Exposure Bias Value: 0
Exposure Mode: Auto exposure
Exposure Program: Aperture priority
Exposure Time: 1/3
File Source: DSC
Flash: Off, did not fire
Focal Plane Resolution Unit: centimeters
Focal Plane X Resolution: 2,049.067
Focal Plane Y Resolution: 2,049.067
Photographic Sensitivity (ISO): 100
Lens Model: ----
Light Source: unknown
Max Aperture Value: 0
Metering Mode: Pattern
Pixel X Dimension: 1,200
Pixel Y Dimension: 801
RecommendedExposureIndex: 100
Saturation: Normal
Scene Capture Type: Standard
Scene Type: A directly photographed image
SensitivityType: Recommended exposure index (REI)
Sharpness: Normal
Shutter Speed Value: 1.585
White Balance: Auto white balance
Lens Model: ----

You assumed correctly. Despite 1/3 s exposure time the image looks sharp to me. Here is a 100% crop.

 
Guy Mancuso

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Ron Pfister said:
Guy, Philippe,

I believe the common theme with people who have had problems is the use of tripod collars (either the Novoflex ASTAT-NEX mounted to an adapter or lens-specific collars), thus leaving the camera relatively free to vibrate its own low mass because the only attachment point to the system is the lens mount surface which is perpendicular to the optical axis. I am thinking the key is to couple the camera body to the system via its tripod mount (i.e. parallel to the optical axis).
Click to expand...
Love to see someone that is having known issue try the camera to head with the rubber plate than wedge like a foam support under the lens between it and a rail. Basically float the whole rig on a cushion. Be interesting to what the results are. I know crazy idea but it may just work. On my 135 I tried first with my rubber plate and got nothing at all. Now I have hard plate on and not really seen it but I can't test right now it again. I can't get my right arm up to my head. I hurt my shoulder yesterday putting Xmas stuff in the attic. So I can't even reach my face with it.
 
k-hawinkler

k-hawinkler

Well-known member
Ron Pfister said:
Guy, Philippe,

I believe the common theme with people who have had problems is the use of tripod collars (either the Novoflex ASTAT-NEX mounted to an adapter or lens-specific collars), thus leaving the camera relatively free to vibrate its own low mass because the only attachment point to the system is the lens mount surface which is perpendicular to the optical axis. I am thinking the key is to couple the camera body to the system via its tripod mount (i.e. parallel to the optical axis).
Click to expand...

Ron,

Many thanks. You may have a point.
However, I don't think there is anything wrong with the Novoflex ASTAT-NEX.
It's very convenient to have to switch back and forth between landscape and portrait mode.

But I agree with you what's needed is to couple the camera directly to the mass of the lens and support structure.
The Novoflex ASTAT-NEX certainly does not facilitate that coupling.
I'll work something out for my test configuration. :D
 
Ron Pfister

Ron Pfister

Member
Guy Mancuso said:
Love to see someone that is having known issue try the camera to head with the rubber plate than wedge like a foam support under the lens between it and a rail. Basically float the whole rig on a cushion. Be interesting to what the results are. I know crazy idea but it may just work.
Click to expand...
Dare I say it: Lloyd Chambers has done something very similar with the APO 135 when he was using it on the M240, and has reported success.

diglloyd blog - Supporting the Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4 APO-Distagon on the Sony A7R

On my 135 I tried first with my rubber plate and got nothing at all. Now I have hard plate on and not really seen it but I can't test right now it again. I can't get my right arm up to my head. I hurt my shoulder yesterday putting Xmas stuff in the attic. So I can't even reach my face with it.
Click to expand...
Oh dear - sounds painful! Hope you get better quickly...
 
F

fotografz

Well-known member
k-hawinkler said:
Thanks. That doesn't surprise me at all.

I also have very positive experience with the FE 35/2.8 on the A7R. Over Christmas I handed the camera in fully automatic mode to family members to take pictures. It certainly knows how to focus on human faces. Same as the OM-D E-M1. Great cameras, both of them.

One difference is I can shoot handheld wide open tree lights at ISO 100 and 1 s exposure times with the E-M1 + 12-40/2.8 lens and its IBIS and get acceptably sharp images. The A7R and FE 35/2.8 chose ISO 6400 to get similar shots. Of course the ISO 6400 raw files clean up very nicely in post. Comparing the two results I concluded the A7R images showed more detail.

Of course, if doing these kinds of shots for real I would use a tripod. Anyway, these examples demonstrated to me the usefulness of IBIS in a future Sony FF camera.
Click to expand...
Again, I think this may not happen anytime soon if both the upcoming FE zooms that are OSS are any indication. But, hey, ya never know. I think that for the time being, in-camera IS will be reserved for the Alpha SLT cameras ... which may also get a bit smaller and higher resolution.

I am chomping at the bit to get the FE24-70/4 OSS because it is my most used focal length for weddings and events by a huge margin ... and with the 55/1.8 meets 90% of those needs as well as travel. The 24-70 specs with 10 elements in 12 groups including an ED lens and five Asph elements sounds promising ... so we can only hope :thumbup:

An AF FE135/2 OSS or even f/2.8 OSS would complete the set for me. Dream on. :rolleyes:

- Marc
 
jonoslack

jonoslack

Active member
fotografz said:
I am chomping at the bit to get the FE24-70/4 OSS because it is my most used focal length for weddings and events by a huge margin ... and with the 55/1.8 meets 90% of those needs as well as travel. The 24-70 specs with 10 elements in 12 groups including an ED lens and five Asph elements sounds promising ... so we can only hope :thumbup:

An AF FE135/2 OSS or even f/2.8 OSS would complete the set for me. Dream on. :rolleyes:

- Marc
Click to expand...
me too Marc. if the f4 zoom. is good I'm in, if not I'm out, that's what it boils down to for me.
 
F

ferrellmc

New member
Ron Pfister said:
Guy, Philippe,

I believe the common theme with people who have had problems is the use of tripod collars (either the Novoflex ASTAT-NEX mounted to an adapter or lens-specific collars), thus leaving the camera relatively free to vibrate its own low mass because the only attachment point to the system is the lens mount surface which is perpendicular to the optical axis. I am thinking the key is to couple the camera body to the system via its tripod mount (i.e. parallel to the optical axis).
Click to expand...
I tested the nikon 70-200mm with it's collar. It's either the collar or the $80 adapter I'm using. I also made sure to tighten all connections securely. As shutter speeds are slowed from 1/160sec to 1/20sec shutter vibration increases.

The novoflex you mention looks to be about 1/2" wide or less, the nikon's 70-200 is about 3/4" both are pretty narrow.
 
A

algrove

Well-known member
k-hawinkler said:
Ron,

Many thanks. You may have a point.
However, I don't think there is anything wrong with the Novoflex ASTAT-NEX.
It's very convenient to have to switch back and forth between landscape and portrait mode.

But I agree with you what's needed is to couple the camera directly to the mass of the lens and support structure.
The Novoflex ASTAT-NEX certainly does not facilitate that coupling.
I'll work something out for my test configuration. :D
Click to expand...
K-H
Do you use the R lens rotating feature? Seems that might be the easiest way to switch between landscape and portrait.
 
Ron Pfister

Ron Pfister

Member
ferrellmc said:
I tested the nikon 70-200mm with it's collar. It's either the collar or the $80 adapter I'm using. I also made sure to tighten all connections securely. As shutter speeds are slowed from 1/160sec to 1/20sec shutter vibration increases.

The novoflex you mention looks to be about 1/2" wide or less, the nikon's 70-200 is about 3/4" both are pretty narrow.
Click to expand...
Yes, the Novoflex is a bit less than 1/2" wide, and too skinny for my liking. I would really like to see a Nikon F to E-mount adapter with an integrated collar that's almost as wide as the adapter itself. A very short foot akin to those of the collars integrated into the longer Leica-R teles would be ideal, IMO. If anyone cares to make one, I'll buy... ;)
 
P

philber

Member
I did another test, still with Contax 180mm. I mounted it on my very large Gitzo tripod, which is fitted with Manfrotto 054 ball-head with Q5 quick-release. That is a much larger, heavier, more stable, more rigid setup than the two I used so far. The Q5 quick release has a much larger, rubber-covered, contact surface with the camera than the ones previously used. I duplicated my reference shot, and the result is ideed slightly sharper than with the flimsier setups. Because the tripods are on stable ground, and there is no wind, this cannot be due to the resistance of the system to external disturbance. So it must be that, the tighter the coupling of the camera to a large, stable mass, the greater the damping of the internal, shutter-induced vibration. The exact opposite of what the lens-collar-only setup achieves.
As far as I am concerned, this last test satisfies me that I know what is happening, so I consider it closed to my satisfaction.
Many thanks to all involved, who have put in time, effort, courtesy and talent towards this end!
 
F

ferrellmc

New member
Ron Pfister said:
OK, here some quick test results, and then off to bed...

Lens: Leica APO-Elmarit-R 1:2.8/180
Aperture: f/2.8
Adapter: modified Voigtländer F Adapter (baffle removed, shimmed)
Sensor orientation: landscape
Shutter triggering method: 10s self-timer
Tripod: RRS TVC-33
Tripod head: Arca d4
Attachment device:
- Leica STA-1 tripod collar with RRS QR-Plate
- Novoflex ASTAT-NEX tripod collar
- flimsy and tiny no-name QR-plate directly on camera
Target: self-made, consisting of line grids (0.5 x 40mm lines) at varying orientations
Object distance: approx. 3.5m
Procedure: 3 exposures at 1/50s and ISO 100 with each attachment device, best result selected (sample variation was found to be absolutely minimal), 100% crop presented

Ron, could you describe your QR-plate - cork, rubber, aluminum, and size? Or maybe a pic of it? Thanks!
Click to expand...
 
J

jfirneno

Member
So I'm also evaluating the A7R. I've convinced myself that the A7R has slightly better low light autofocus compared to the A7. Now I'm trying to decide whether this is worth the extra 12 megapixels per file and the loss of efc. When all this talk about shutter shock started it worried me a bit. I compared some files and decided that for 35mm and 55mm focal lengths the files were fine for the A7R (although the A7 files may be sharper?). I don't do a lot of telephoto but I do like macro with a 200mm (Minolta 200 macro G). Since it has a collar and tripod foot I attached it to my tripod and hung the A7R off of it by the Sony LAEA3 adapter. I think they look sharp (pun intended). The last photo is a 200% crop from the photo right before it. Now I'm guessing that macro is just as finicky as long telephoto because the slightest vibration can set the whole setup vibrating. I see this whenever I make a manual focus change. I have to wait for the assembly to stop moving before setting off the shutter. I used the 10 second shutter delay. Interested in feedback on whether macro is equivalent to landscape with respect to sensitivity to shake.

Regards,
John









 
Last edited:
cunim

cunim

Well-known member
John, interesting series. What were your exposure conditions? If these were made under continuous light and with shutter in the 1/15 - 1/60 range I would expect to see shock - given the big heavy lens cantilevered out there and the high mag.

I agree the 55 is not susceptible - a major plus for that lens. Glad to hear the 35 is also OK. It would be great if the mounting configuration you describe is immune as well. However, you report the A7 files are sharper - suggesting something evil is going on with the 7r images. They should be obviously sharper to a skilled observer.

Back to looking for shock effects. If the system is well damped you might not notice any blur in a single exposure. Need to make some exposures at 1/60 and others at 1/2 sec holding everything constant (except illumination of course).

Then compare crops at 200%. Best is to do it with you blind as to condition. Even blind you should be able to pick out the shock range at close to 100% accuracy. In fact, post a pair of unlabeled images so we can compare them. This is a subtle effect - unless you excite resonance in which case it is very obvious.
 
P

philber

Member
I must say I am a bit lost here. Cunim suggests "looking for shock effects". Is that what we should do? Not "seeing trouble", but actually "looking for it"? Here we have sharp shots, even viewed at 200%, which, combined with 36Mp and a high magnification factor, amounts to huge detail. Shouldn't we leave well enough alone? Aren't pictures more "proof of the pudding" than anything else?
Because, if we loook closely enough (pun intended), we will find shake in every picture made with every camera, because there are parts that move, and all cameras thus shake. It is all a matter of proportion IMHO, whether the shake remains there but unseen, or whether it becomes obtrusive..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top