DanC.Licks Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
Kit Laughlin wrote:
Unless the distortion of shapes we need to see preserved in a way we see them is significant, in my experience rolling shutter is more an internet problem. In the hummer images we are discussing, the wings are still wing shaped, not curved.
Rolling shutter is definitely more than an internet problem ;-)
I notice it much less on the Mark II, but I still notice it now and again in the unnatural shapes of moving things, like wings, and not just straight lines like here on this E-M1 shot.
|
|
|
|
https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2533/32919904292_35ec677a09_c.jpg |
|
|
|
|
But the 1/60 read speed of the sensor is a big step in the right direction over the 1/15 in the E-M1 I. It could cause some pretty weird looking birds!
|
|
|
|
https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8708/29249956884_1347856d58_c.jpg |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5818/29250514993_807d8ef47a_c.jpg |
|
|
|
|
Here is another interesting example, though I am not sure whether this has to do with rolling shutter. I just know it was taken with the Mark I at 1/25 in pretty bad light and in silent mode. Never seen water drops like that in a photograph, but it could be a natural phenomenon.
|
|
|
|
https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7402/27996749082_db501ee250_c.jpg |
|
|
|
|
The key is, as you say, the question of whether the distortion is "significant". Fortunately, with birds etc, there are not usually any straight lines to deal with and the differences can often only be seen in comparing one frame with another. It is certainly no longer the PITA that it was with the E-M1 on anything but still subjects and with no camera movement. So far, I can live with it, but I still see room for improvement.
|