Shutter Vibration

[fotografz]

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 broach an interesting subject here.

"Flaw Finding" has become a cottage industry in photography. People gaining a reputation by way of "Wholesale Manipulation of Minutia" ... resulting in undermining confidence, and shifting attention away from any tool's ability to be a part of one's personal creative repertoire ... or not.

Personally, I would not argue against in-depth revelations regarding technical matters as long as they at least have the appearance of being balanced reporting that takes into account the broad variety of actual applications the tool will see in the real world. I have that impression of how the Lens Rentals fellow goes about it. Not so much some others.

I also think that many of us go in with magnified expectations (no pun intended), and then reality rears its ugly head and the whining starts. Jeeze, it is exhausting to just read all that could be wrong, let alone test for it yourself in the way you may make photographs ...

Actually not "the way you may make photographs" because all you start looking for are the flaws, whether meaningful to your work or not ... which I think is what you are alluding to.

Frankly, the "Flaw Finding" cacophony has become deafening. The arguments rage with disagreement and brow beating until one can lose sight of one's own photographic experiences, objectives and intent, and assume those of others.

Are we losing our own instincts and subjective creative judgements to a "collective" one?

I most certainly am not immune to this growing trend. I usually evaluate images as a whole ... given worthy content, what is my over-all impression of the image? What presence does it have? How does it present as a print? That the eyeball of a person in the background is retina slicing sharp at 200% on screen is waaaaay secondary to that ... but in the new world order it can be deemed unacceptable because it should have been sharp at any size even if it will NEVER be printed large enough to matter.

I start questioning my own years of experience in printing from a broad variety of digital cameras of various sensor sizes and meg count. Some chart says there isn't that much difference between 24 meg and 36 meg, and all that experience to the contrary should go out the window?

Someone puts some super tele with 1.4X and a questionable adapter on a specific support system and declares shutter vibration the culprit for fuzzy details, and I think back to personally NEVER being able to successfully do that with any camera, let alone one the size of P&S with 36 meg. Not that some can't pull it off, but there are so many variables it boggles the mind to figure it all out.

Anyway ... right, wrong, or indifferent ... thanks for the thought provoking post! :thumbup:

- Marc

 

[k-hawinkler]

This is getting way too philosophical for me.
I was minding my own business trying out my lenses when bam I ran smack into the shutter shake problem with a tele lens in portrait mode.
So what to do? Ignoring the problem doesn't help to improve the situation.
In the spirit of knowing your tools, their capabilities and limitations, I looked a bit into the issue.
Conclusion for my two lenses in question, avoid portrait mode for the time being, and use landscape mode with some stabilizing add ons.
Move on to the next set of lenses and find out which work well with the A7R and which don't.
Have fun with photography.
That's about it.

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

I think it's important, especially when new, to test the bleep out of our equipment so that we learn how they react to certain situations and where the problems are. We can then evaluate how best to use them and whether they fit our needs. This is especially important with what is to all intents and purposes a new type of camera.

I came up with a long list of issues and problems with my Sony by throwing it hard at the type of shooting I know best. Wedding photography. Albeit my sisters wedding and I was just messing around. It was there I learnt of the shutter lag, solution, learning to time better, react better and I bought a rubber button to put on the shutter release so that I can find it 'blind' more easily. Nevermind a bunch of settings which also slightly reduce the lag. I took it out on a landscape shoot, dawn in the rain. There I learnt that I preferred the focus zoom thingy on the big button in the middle of the wheel so I can find it easier and I programmed the right hand press of the wheel to also do focus zoom cause I kept hitting it by mistake while trying to find the big button. I've turned the wheel off altogether because I found it too sensitive, kept changing image when trying to navigate around an image during review. I've learnt that peaking is something that needs to be learnt and f1.4 on low contrast lenses does not give accurate peaking. I've learnt that you need good, very good adaptors if you don't want built in tilt or swing. I know without a shadow of a doubt that the camera would not work for me if I was still shooting events due to its quirks but it's an incredible and fun pleasure to use for my 'retirement' from event photography.

Is the shutter issue real. I'm sure it is. Does it matter? That's a subjective matter. My longest focal length that I use is 85mm. Just scored a great Pentax M/85 f2 on ebay yesterday for $180. I don't think then that it will ever be an issue for my personal needs. Just as the shutter lag isn't an issue for a landscape photographer , etc, etc. We need to know what a camera is good for to know whether it suits us. What Marc points out is important. I see it as instead of these things being looked at objectively, in the forums (though rarely this one) it becomes a fanboy vs basher affair. People looking to be negative or positive without allowing for personal needs and preferences. It's just a tool. It either works for us or it doesn't. We either find workarounds to our issues or we move on to another tool.

 

[Ron Pfister]

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

Sure. It's made of aluminum and features rubber strips that are let into the mounting surface. Here a link to the product:

Universal Quick Release QR Plate for NEX3 NEX5 NEX6 NEX7 RX100 Arca Compatible | eBay

 

[Ron Pfister]

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..

Philippe, I definitely see your point of view, and I agree with it in general. In contrast to this, the alternate point of view is that shutter (or any other kind of) vibration blur very quickly negates the advantage of 36 over 24MP, no OLPF vs. OLPF, or a very expensive piece of glass compared to something much less sophisticated. Should we not try to maximize the capabilities of our gear, or at least learn how to do so? Once we know how, we can then choose on a case-by-case basis whether we want to (or will be able to) go all the way or not.

Like Ben, I firmly believe it is definitely worth my while to thoroughly test new gear to identify its strengths and weaknesses, and how some of the weaknesses can possibly be worked around. How far anyone wants to go down that road (if at all) is of course a highly individual decision. I personally enjoy both aspects of photography (i.e. the creative, intuitive as well as the technical) immensely, and for me, they go hand-in-hand. That's why I don't mind doing this kind of testing, even if it takes a while to find the right solution or to come to the conclusion that certain camera/lens combinations may not be 'worth the trouble', so to speak.

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

Can't say I enjoy testing at all, it's a necessary evil. Once it's out the way then hopefully I can set about allowing the camera to become an extension of my mind. That's the idea at any rate. I get really frustrated going through the testing time, especially when it takes often years to get a problem worked out. It took a couple of years to get all the AF niggles sorted out on my 5D's before it was working properly and I could just allow it to to what I'm telling it to do. Far more frustrating though as a pro, tools have to work or you don't eat. Now with this camera I have the luxury to take my time.

 

[fotografz]

This is getting way too philosophical for me.
I was minding my own business trying out my lenses when bam I ran smack into the shutter shake problem with a tele lens in portrait mode.
So what to do? Ignoring the problem doesn't help to improve the situation.
In the spirit of knowing your tools, their capabilities and limitations, I looked a bit into the issue.
Conclusion for my two lenses in question, avoid portrait mode for the time being, and use landscape mode with some stabilizing add ons.
Move on to the next set of lenses and find out which work well with the A7R and which don't.
Have fun with photography.
That's about it.

Too philosophical? Probably.

Conversely, I'm reading posts under the title "Shutter Vibration" that say this or that didn't work with no further information so we can all learn what works.

You ran into shutter vibration shooting in portrait orientation. Got it. In fact, far more "real world" relevant than shooting eye busting test charts IMHO.

However ...

What two lenses? What adapter? Tripod, monopod and what head? Or handheld? What shutter speed? Any pics to show?

- Marc

 

[Ron Pfister]

What two lenses? What adapter? Tripod, monopod and what head? Or handheld? What shutter speed? Any pics to show?

Karl-Heinz has documented all his tests in detail in the thread below, and has linked to it several times from this thread here. Well done, IMO.

http://www.getdpi.com/forum/sony/49470-a7r-why-im-keeping.html

 

[thomas]

Here's my short report on shutter shock...
The significance of my findings may be limited since I only have a 50mm lens for the time being (Zeiss ZM 2.0/50 adapted through a Novoflex NEX/LEM).

However ... this is what I found:

The camera plate temporarily mounted on my A7R is a Novoflex QPL-1 (without rubber). Head is an Arca D4. Tripods tested are a large Berlebach Report with single extension and center column (not extended), a mid sized Berlebach Report with 2 extensions and a flat mounting head and finally a small FLM Carbon with 3 extensions and center column (not extended). Everything carefully tightened and locked down.
I cannot detect any signs of shutter vibration when using one of these kits at any shutter speed in near distance or at infinity in landscape or portrait orientation (again: with a small, light 50mm lens)

For testing purposes I've also mounted a very old Linhof ballhead on the mid sized wood tripod and damped all connections with rubber (cork respectively). I did not tighten the screws very strong. With this kit I do see shutter vibration in the range of 1/125'' to 1/30'' (didn't test longer shutter sppeds).

Shooting handheld 1/500'' is super... at 1/250'' motion blur starts to show up. 1/250'' off a monopod (Monostat RS16-Pro-Art) is sharp. 1/125'' is critical.

Reminds me very much of how my MFDBs act on my Contax.

 

[jonoslack]

Hi Marc

I start questioning my own years of experience in printing from a broad variety of digital cameras of various sensor sizes and meg count. Some chart says there isn't that much difference between 24 meg and 36 meg, and all that experience to the contrary should go out the window?

- Marc

Hmm - the chart didn't say anything (it must have been your interpretation). It was there to point out that when talking of pixel count (area) vs Print Size (linear) one shouldn't get confused into thinking they're the same thing. Just That. . . . then it went off into a long discussion about printing (shrug).

Too philosophical? Probably.

Conversely, I'm reading posts under the title "Shutter Vibration" that say this or that didn't work with no further information so we can all learn what works.

You ran into shutter vibration shooting in portrait orientation. Got it. In fact, far more "real world" relevant than shooting eye busting test charts IMHO.

However ...

What two lenses? What adapter? Tripod, monopod and what head? Or handheld? What shutter speed? Any pics to show?

- Marc

Hi Marc
K-H has posted loads of examples and pictures of cameras and setups in this thread - exhaustive I'd say. Work done for you!

 

[cunim]

Philber and Marc voice subjective opinions and raise an ancient and enjoyable topic. However, a thread devoted to a technical subject (shutter vibration) is probably not the best place to go down that path. Better we stick to the conditions that lead to shutter vibration being present, so that we can learn how to minimize it. I have found the information here to be very useful.

Thomas' post provides another indication that lightweight normal lenses are not sensitive to the A7r shutter, unless you allow resonance to be excited.

Thomas, do you think the handheld motion blur is a property of the shutter or of your hand? I can't hand hold my Alpa / Rodie 40mm (leaf shutter) at anything below about 1/100, without getting motion blur. I am amazed at how well some of the people here manage that skill.

John's post about macro could be useful, if he were to provide his imaging parameters.

 

[thomas]

Thomas, do you think the handheld motion blur is a property of the shutter or of your hand?

hard to tell. The blur at 1/125'' (Monopod) 1/250'' respectively (handheld) looks whirring. This is why I would say there is some "shock" (shutter shock).
I also think the movement of a human body could be freezed at 1/125'' since it's a rather smooth movement. Body movement may introduce some smooth softness... but not the kind of whirring blur I do see (unless you suffer from some kind of muscle cramps). I could be totally wrong, of course!

 

[jfirneno]

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.

Cunim:

These shots were done in sunlight through a window. The exposure time varied. My comment about A7 files being sharper is a little hyper. What I noticed in a comparison between A7 and A7R shots in similar circumstances (good outdoor light) was that the A7R were sharp up to 200% zoom and the A7 were sharp up to 400% zoom. Neither would be considered unsharp. Just that the A7 was really sharp. Maybe that's efc giving extra sharpness. If you want to look at the raw files of the shots I put up here send me a message with an e-mail and I'll give you a link to a drop box folder.

Regards,
John

 

[philber]

K-H, I am sorry if you took my post as critical of you and your role in this thread. That was the opposite of my intent, and, when I thanked all who had contributed, you were clearly in my mind among those.

 

[jlm]

at what % does zooming stop making sense?

i would assume 100% is the limit, beyond which you are looking at interpolated data?

 

[jfirneno]

at what % does zooming stop making sense?

i would assume 100% is the limit, beyond which you are looking at interpolated data?

That's a good question. It does seem we've been going a bit overboard.

Regards,
John

 

[cunim]

at what % does zooming stop making sense?

i would assume 100% is the limit, beyond which you are looking at interpolated data?

That's a very good point. Far as I know any non-fractional zoom (100%, 200%, etc) should not create interpolation artifacts but that is speculation on my part because I don't know how simple zooms are implemented in C1 or LR. What I do know is that just blowing up the size makes the effect much easier to see.

Too bad we have to look for this in real images. That is just tedious. An engineer could measure PSFs and thus circle of confusion data with and without shutter shock. The amount of COC spread would be a simple numerical thing. I wonder if anyone here has a contact on the engineering end of Sony or Zeiss - and could request COCs just the way we get MTFs. In particular I would like to know what adapters do. There is lots of speculation out there but little in the way of actual data.

At any rate, I am a fairly happy camper at this point and will stop futzing about with tests. The 55 is a very nice lens. Horay! I cannot make it show vibration at 1/30 or 1/60 so it is even quite forgiving. That lens covers 75% of my needs. The 100 apo 'cron asph I just love for the other 25%, and the contributors here have taught me how to avoid the worst shock blur with that lens. Thanks GetDPI.

To summarize, the A7r works for me for casual shooting. First time a small format camera has done that.

I remain with MF and LF for the studio work that is my primary hobby. No valuation of the Sony implied. I just like the slow and contemplative type of imaging, and the results it produces.

Peter

 

[k-hawinkler]

K-H, I am sorry if you took my post as critical of you and your role in this thread. That was the opposite of my intent, and, when I thanked all who had contributed, you were clearly in my mind among those.

Oh no, I hadn't noticed any criticisms of you about me.
In fact I thrive on honest but constructive criticism.
I welcome it. Thanks.
Don't worry, I really appreciate your contributions and feedback.
Because of the many contributions in this thread I think that those folks who paid attention to them should now have a better appreciation of the issue at hand. I would like to thank all the contributors. Thank you indeed!

 

[fotografz]

Hi Marc


Hmm - the chart didn't say anything (it must have been your interpretation). It was there to point out that when talking of pixel count (area) vs Print Size (linear) one shouldn't get confused into thinking they're the same thing. Just That. . . . then it went off into a long discussion about printing (shrug).


Hi Marc
K-H has posted loads of examples and pictures of cameras and setups in this thread - exhaustive I'd say. Work done for you!

Prints: Understood. Thanks.

I knew about the previous K-H posts ... but it was specifically the one he just did and found an issue ... so I still do not know what and how he was shooting in that instance ... which would have been helpful.

- Marc

 

[k-hawinkler]

Prints: Understood. Thanks.

I knew about the previous K-H posts ... but it was specifically the one he just did and found an issue ... so I still do not know what and how he was shooting in that instance ... which would have been helpful.

- Marc

Marc,

Thanks, I try to be pretty complete in my documentation and leave the Exif in the images. I would be happy to answer questions you might have.