Not trying to shut down the discussion, but I also question the method used in the banknote example. It is not correct that the zf 135 is optimally Sharp at f/5.6 as stated. It is sharper at f/4 in the center.
why Sony was not able to implement one {electronic first curtain} on the A7R. Interestingly, every Canon DSLR starting from the 40D has an electronic first curtain when using Live View, whereas no Nikon DSLR does.
JaKo wrote:
Wasn't able(!) or decided against it?
Snapsy, in the avalanche of speculations, guesses and pointing out faults as this post indicates, forum posters and first hand products users are usually the first to spot issues like recent left side AF issue with D800, sensor spots on D600, 'some' quirks with M240, etc. That's all good, but global bold statements should be supported by at least decent examples and tests. Lloyd Chambers has few articles in his (paid) DAP section related to shutter and tripod vibrations. I would expect no less from any one stating "What's wrong with...”, "Why such and such brand screwed it up" and alike.
If one 'discovers' a major flow in a specific product, please share it AND support your findings by at least tests similar to this. ...Show more →
If I read your post correctly, I can agree that Lloyd can at times be emphatically obsessed by a supposed defect in a piece of equipment... That said, the logic in the theory isn't easy to dismiss. Luckily we have an answer (mostly) to the M240 live view shutter vibration question thanks to testing by Jim Kasson here, here, here and here. Maybe, if we ask nicely, he'll be inclined to repeat the test with the a7R, assuming he'll get one...
Short answer is there is M240 live view shutter vibration, but it's most apparent with very long lenses.
rscheffler wrote:
If I read your post correctly, I can agree that Lloyd can at times be emphatically obsessed by a supposed defect in a piece of equipment... That said, the logic in the theory isn't easy to dismiss. Luckily we have an answer (mostly) to the M240 live view shutter vibration question thanks to testing by Jim Kasson here, here, here and here. Maybe, if we ask nicely, he'll be inclined to repeat the test with the a7R, assuming he'll get one...
Short answer is there is M240 live view shutter vibration, but it's most apparent with very long lenses.
Again, in the past we used to use Bean Bags to try to reduce any induced shutter vibration especially with long or very long lenses. If this is fact a fact, we could implement such usage to absorb and to lessen vibration using Bean Bags.
If it is truly an issue, I believe it won't be as prevalent as Olympus due to vibration interacting with their IBIS. And for my style of shooting (landscapes with generally < 35mm) my hope would be it's a non issue.
If Canon produced this camera, I think we'd still be talking about sticker shock (vs. shutter shock.) It appears that Sony couldn't evolve the 36mp sensor used in the D800/E to include EFCS. I guess we'll find out more as these cameras get in peoples hands and we get more data points.
So far I have been find that I am able to hand hold the a7r about about one stop slower than I can with my 5d3. And the results are sharp at the pixel level. I think a lot of this has to do with sloppy technique, light weight tripods, etc. But as others have said as more of these camera appear a clear picture should emerge.
melcat wrote:
I am not convinced that Tariq's suggested method of varying ISO woud be an improvement, because we have no way of knowing whether Sony is doing undocumented noise reduction on raw files. I doubt they are, but it has apparently been done by some maker. Varying the light would be better. The idea of diffraction at f/5.6 is unfamiliar to me - maybe someone with more knowledge of optics could calculate what the diffraction effect should be.
Yes, as I indicated, varying the light output would be the ideal method. Second best imo would be using a very low ISO where changes in the ISO are known to have extremely minor and almost certainly non visible effects on the image (200 and 400).
F8 Vs F4 taken with a good lens is almost certainly (always in my experience) going to show a visible difference at 100%. F4 vs 5.6, possibly. Diffraction certainly begins before 5.6, and I have seen a visible difference between F4 vs 5.6 with really great glass, though the difference is often fairly subtle. The obvious point is to eliminate as many variables as possible. F-stop used is a major one.
JaKo wrote:
(...)
If one 'discovers' a major flow in a specific product, please share it AND support your findings by at least tests similar to this.
While agreeing snapsy shouldn't have written "Sony...not able to" I don't agree everyone finding a possible fault should have to contact Markins (for example) and produce a manufacturer sponsored report about how good Markins (for example) and how bad (Arca-Swiss (for example) gear is.
Maybe you simply mean anyone not having access to lasers and labs shouldn't report about their findings?
Jonas B wrote:
While agreeing snapsy shouldn't have written "Sony...not able to" I don't agree everyone finding a possible fault should have to contact Markins (for example) and produce a manufacturer sponsored report about how good Markins (for example) and how bad (Arca-Swiss (for example) gear is.
Maybe you simply mean anyone not having access to lasers and labs shouldn't report about their findings?
I'm not understanding why my comment about Sony not being able to put an electronic first shutter curtain on the A7R is even debatable. It has obvious benefits with a few well-understood limitations and is a feature Sony implements on almost all their cameras, including their other pro-level bodies and the A7R's concurrently-introduced sister product. Why would Sony choose to leave it off the A7R for any reason other than not being able to implement it effectively in time for the A7R's launch?
snapsy wrote:
Yep, only the A7 has the electronic first curtain. It's curious why Sony was not able to implement one on the A7R. Interestingly, every Canon DSLR starting from the 40D has an electronic first curtain when using Live View, whereas no Nikon DSLR does.
Not an expert here, but it seems related to processor speed,canon have no sensor above 22M. Nikon's process seems a little lag compare to canon and sony, plus D800's 36M. Leica sure is slow too.
Sony might use first curtain (time or physical) to zero out 36M sensor before capture, especially for AF-C. Their processor have no problem with 24M to do at the same time capture image.
I speculate next version will have this feature with faster processor.
It is my guess, food for thought.
snapsy wrote:
I'm not understanding why my comment (...) Why would Sony choose to leave it off the A7R for any reason other than not being able to implement it effectively in time for the A7R's launch?
I have no idea but I think you are entitled to ask the question without posting charts from a lab with lasers.
“I have just tested
A7R with Canon 85/1.8 and a Carl Zeiss 35-70/3.4 at 50mm.
Using Arca Swiss style tripod, 10 second timer delay.
1/10 all the way through to 1/250 shutter speeds (including 1/50, 1/80, 1/125 and 1/160)
I don't see ANY shock, poor image quality AT ALL.
(and I know what it looks like because I have a crappy E-P5)
Sorry to say that it's your flimsy telephoto lens causing the proble,”
I would not be surprised if many or most (almost all??) cameras might suffer a little for the effects of the shutter upon sharpness when measured with a laser when used with long lenses.
I still remember we would try to check for vibrations with long lenses with a nickel placed on its edge and to watch for the affect when the camera shutter was released. When this was done with my Leica 560mm Telyt lens (which was totally re-balanced) and tripod mounted and cameras including my Leica R8 with the mirror locked up the nickel would fall off of the end of the lens dues to shutter vibration/shock. We would normally learn which shutter speeds to try to avoid using.
zhangyue wrote:
Not an expert here, but it seems related to processor speed,canon have no sensor above 22M. Nikon's process seems a little lag compare to canon and sony, plus D800's 36M. Leica sure is slow too.
Sony might use first curtain (time or physical) to zero out 36M sensor before capture, especially for AF-C. Their processor have no problem with 24M to do at the same time capture image.
I speculate next version will have this feature with faster processor.
It is my guess, food for thought.
I considered that but when you work out how fast an EFSC is on existing implementations there isn't much difference for the 36MP's extra pixels. Unlike sensor read out when taking a photograph, a pixel reset only requires clocking the reset into the pixels, which is much faster. Sony's 16MP Exmor can do an EFSC up to 1/2000 without the ghosting/exposure imbalance seen here (EFSC enabled on left, disabled on right) at 1/4000. A 36MP FF sensor has 2.25x the area and pixels, so if clocking speed were constant it should be able to do a EFSC at 1/1000, and probably even faster when you consider Sony's 24MP FF implementations of an EFSC.
Snapsy, I not convinced that Sony’s decision to skip implementation of electronic shutter in A7R was simply their technical inability. I am sure sooner or later we will find out motivations and technical explanation for their decision (without guessing on our side)
Herb1911 wrote: The shutter of the Sony A7r...is also a source of vibration.
Jonas B, vibrations in any camera system can be caused by any component of such system like the camera’s shutter, parts of strap, lens adapter, lens filter, attached hood, camera plate, tripod head, tripod, tripod’s elements like spikes, fasteners, and on and on. Vibrations generated by any of these elements can be absorbed, dissipated, stored and released back into the system; all affecting final images.
Pointing precisely to a specific element as single source of vibrations causing image blur would require tests performed in isolation and well controlled environment, I would guess.
Cheers
JaKo wrote:
Jonas B, vibrations in any camera system can be caused by any component of such system like the camera’s shutter, parts of strap, lens adapter, lens filter, attached hood, camera plate, tripod head, tripod, tripod’s elements like spikes, fasteners, and on and on. Vibrations generated by any of these elements can be absorbed, dissipated, stored and released back into the system; all affecting final images.
Pointing precisely to a specific element as single source of vibrations causing image blur would require tests performed in isolation and well controlled environment, I would guess.
Cheers
Except none of those other elements you listed can generate vibrations without external perturbation, so while a given implementation of those elements may be improved to dampen vibration they can never technically be the "source" of it. So experiments to isolate the source of the vibration will always lead you back to something inside the camera. This may seem like a pedantic distinction but when you consider the complexity of modeling resonance and worse, the time and expense that photographers would have to endure putting together disparate, prosumer-grade elements to avoid its complex interactions, the most reliable solution is always to prevent the source of the vibration in the first case. Which is why camera makers go through so much trouble to dampen movable elements within their cameras and also why they offer additional options to avoid it (mirror lockup, timer/remote release, electronic shutter curtains, aperture rings).
Just as the OP may infer the camera shakes so much at shutter release it spoils images, I may point out I can see no evidence of this being the case, after seeing thousands of images taken with it.
Is there a problem with that?
If I see good evidence to the contrary I'll revise my opinion.
snapsy wrote:
Except none of those other elements you listed can generate vibrations without external perturbation, ...
They will also respond to internal perturbations. Just sayin'.
I figure that the A7R without electronic first-curtain will be equivalent to using mirror lock up (MLU) on a DSLR that doesn't have electronic first-curtain. I'm OK with that.
JaKo wrote:
(...)
If one 'discovers' a major flow in a specific product, please share it AND support your findings by at least tests similar to this.
I replied:
While agreeing snapsy shouldn't have written "Sony...not able to" I don't agree everyone finding a possible fault should have to contact Markins (for example) and produce a manufacturer sponsored report about how good Markins (for example) and how bad (Arca-Swiss (for example) gear is.
Maybe you simply mean anyone not having access to lasers and labs shouldn't report about their findings?
To that JaKo replied:
Jonas B, vibrations in any camera system can be caused by any component of such system like the camera’s shutter, parts of strap, lens adapter, lens filter, attached hood, camera plate, tripod head, tripod, tripod’s elements like spikes, fasteners, and on and on. Vibrations generated by any of these elements can be absorbed, dissipated, stored and released back into the system; all affecting final images.
Pointing precisely to a specific element as single source of vibrations causing image blur would require tests performed in isolation and well controlled environment, I would guess.
Cheers
And Hello to you JaKo,
That's a long reply JaKo but far from an answer to my question.
I agree about what you say, please don't misunderstand. But, you seriously can't ask people to keep quiet as long as they can't present articles like the one you pointed us to (sponsored or not). With a bit thicker skin you should be able to cope with claims like snapsy's.
uhoh7 wrote:
Just as the OP may infer the camera shakes so much at shutter release it spoils images, I may point out I can see no evidence of this being the case, after seeing thousands of images taken with it.
You mean, people aren't posting their spoiled images? Shocking.
