kroyston wrote:
Kind of defeats the purpose if you're looking for small and light...
At 238mm in length and 1950g the Leica R 105mm-280mm f4.2 Vario Elmar lens is not exactly that small and light to begin with. It is an outstanding performing zoom and performance is almost as good as the Leica R 280mm f4 Apo Telyt lens.
briantho wrote:
Yeah. Simplified, it's just a programmatic "set all pixels on sensor to black" command, and skip the physical first curtain close, instead of physically closing the first curtain to do the exact same thing. EFCS isn't a hardware implementation.
It's like Snapsy said, sensors work like CRT in reverse, data is pulled row by row. Technically, it's net set pixel to black. Pixels sensors are like buckets of water, but instead of water, it's photons. Like water, the photons must be drained from the buckets. So, it's actually more like empty out the row.
I suspect that the problem is likely being able to drain all the pixels in time for the 2nd mechanical shutter to start sweeping across the sensor. It's likely the drain process may be in progress while the 2nd mechanical shutter has already begun to sweep. They need to be in sync at up to the max shutter speed (1/8000). Then there is the issue of needing to be in sync for a reasonably marketable flash sync. They need to be able to sync everything perfectly, and they probably had trouble with this.
This is my understanding of EFC and guess as to why Sony couldn't do it for the 36mp sensor.
I wonder if they could have pulled it off if a shutter speed of 1/4000s was the maximum with the A7r? If so, IMO that would be an entirely worthwhile tradeoff.
secondclaw wrote:
Wouldn't a simple solution be for Sony to enable EFCS for any exposure at 1/2000 and slower, and automatically switch to mechanical curtain at faster speed? Especially since at 1/2000 and faster SS shouldn't be noticeable anyway ...
Yep, it's something I've always though they should have even go back to the 5N. Ideally it would be 3 options:
EFCS always OFF
EFCS always ON
EFCS on for either a configurable range of SS (ideal) or a Sony-determined ideal range
'I wonder if they could have pulled it off if a shutter speed of 1/4000s was the maximum with the A7r? If so, IMO that would be an entirely worthwhile tradeoff.'
Tell it to anyone using a f0.95 - f1.4 lens outside the dark indoors. The Nikonistas will wake up soon, the DF maxes out at your preferred setting of 1/4000s. I hear Nikon made a few fast lenses in their day. Ron Scheffler was the first to draw attention to the RX1 limitation of max s/s of 1/2000s with an f2 lens....f1.4 @ 1/4000 = f1.0 @ 1/8000s.
Sony can't get anything right, carsten, as is well-known. I mean, just look at how few posts and threads there are on this very forum. And Canon. And DPR. And GetDPI. No interest at all. Sony must be absolutely distraught at this turn of events.
The only Sony needs to pull off is all the one percenters wanting to mount everything from tiny symmetrical RF lenses to users of 280mm Leica R behemoths and associated DSLR style hardware on 5 series tripods.
Please someone/anyone, make the camera all these diverse people want!
Has any camera ever attracted such shrill and irrepressible demand to satisfy every possible user group gathered together in pursuit of a body for their lenses?
No need to answer, it's purely a rhetorical statement. Plenty of neophyte product designers who already know all the answers though!
philip_pj wrote:
'I wonder if they could have pulled it off if a shutter speed of 1/4000s was the maximum with the A7r? If so, IMO that would be an entirely worthwhile tradeoff.'
Tell it to anyone using a f0.95 - f1.4 lens outside the dark indoors. The Nikonistas will wake up soon, the DF maxes out at your preferred setting of 1/4000s. I hear Nikon made a few fast lenses in their day. Ron Scheffler was the first to draw attention to the RX1 limitation of max s/s of 1/2000s with an f2 lens....f1.4 @ 1/4000 = f1.0 @ 1/8000s.
Sony can't get anything right, carsten, as is well-known. I mean, just look at how few posts and threads there are on this very forum. And Canon. And DPR. And GetDPI. No interest at all. Sony must be absolutely distraught at this turn of events.
The only Sony needs to pull off is all the one percenters wanting to mount everything from tiny symmetrical RF lenses to users of 280mm Leica R behemoths and associated DSLR style hardware on 5 series tripods.
Please someone/anyone, make the camera all these diverse people want!
Has any camera ever attracted such shrill and irrepressible demand to satisfy every possible user group gathered together in pursuit of a body for their lenses?
No need to answer, it's purely a rhetorical statement. Plenty of neophyte product designers who already know all the answers though! ...Show more →
I don't get the shrills of exasperation either, but from a distance, I would say Sony rushed this camera to market. The fit and finish when it comes to packaging, marketing, and software is all there for a final product, but it appears the edge cases were not fully tested. So far the vibration issue doesn't affect me, but Sony has announced a 70-200 lens, so eventually Sony must deal with this issue.
In the absence of fully developed lens lineup, they must have had a full range of legacy or beta FE lenses they've tested on these cameras. Why didn't they find these issues long before has me scratching my head. It could be that when Sony went out and did their engineering test, they locked everything down so that they could focus on image quality. Locking everything down would have eliminated non-IQ issues such as vibration. It will be interesting to see how Sony addresses this in their 70-200 OSS. I have a feeling that lens introduction will be more than a little delayed in light of the vibration issue.
Perhaps they had originally planned on an extensive beta test plan that would have put these cameras in the hands of photographers under NDA. Perhaps the CEO believed it wasn't necessary and wanted to get it out to market faster. The beta testing would have likely found these issues as real customers have found them so fast.
philip_pj wrote:
Sony can't get anything right, carsten, as is well-known.
Don't misquote me please. Sony got plenty of things right, but they also got some noticeable things wrong, including the auto-ISO implementation, which is missing the low shutter speed setting, making it fairly frustrating to work with on occasion.
Philip, honestly, you flabbergast me. What does Sony pay you? You can't even seem to see the faults which the rest of the civilised world agrees on, without jumping in with some caustic comment about unrealistic expectations and/or the rest of the manufacturers being even worse.
Give it a rest, will you? And don't misquote me please.
Well, when you have to eat crow, you may as well eat it warm.
I just did my own careful tripod tests with a 200mm f2.8 and Sony's own adapter, not to provide a full report unless people are interested, but sadly the shutter speed range reported by David Kilpatrick and Joseph Holmes et al applies even to Sony's own gear, in this case the LA-EA3 adapter on a AS style foot/QR.
That is very disappointing. The effect seems to almost mimic the experience of handholding at the same speeds but the range 1/50 to 1/160 was unacceptable. And of course this is a commonly necessary s/s range. It will be interesting to see what comes by way of Sony's response in due course. I doubt the heavy weight on the camera is any kind of acceptable fix.
It would be good of Sony to release a statement I think.
kroyston wrote:
Kind of defeats the purpose if you're looking for small and light...
Thanks. Not really, I use those heavy lenses only on a tripod anyway.
So I think it's worth looking for a work around until Sony successfully addresses the problem.
Nobody that I know of has reported problems with the A7. I have not tested but all my shots with the A7 and FE 28-70, FE 55, and Nikon 135mm f2.8 show no signs of shutter shock at any speed. Many are in that speed range and all so far have been hand held.
bcaslis wrote:
Nobody that I know of has reported problems with the A7. I have not tested but all my shots with the A7 and FE 28-70, FE 55, and Nikon 135mm f2.8 show no signs of shutter shock at any speed. Many are in that speed range and all so far have been hand held.
It would be interesting to see A7 tests with the EFCS enabled and disabled.
Click on the image to go to 100%. put your cursor over 1/400th second shutter speed. Now move your cursor to 1/100th of a second. It’s striking. Another way to look at it is like this was a test of copies of the same lens. The difference would matter to most everyone.
Click on the image to go to 100%. put your cursor over 1/400th second shutter speed. Now move your cursor to 1/100th of a second. It’s striking. Another way to look at it is like this was a test of copies of the same lens. The difference would matter to most everyone.
FM forum rules
...Links to subscription-oriented sites are NOT allowed. This includes forums, reviews, or blatant self-promoting sites. Allowed exceptions are: Photography sites selling photography and sharing of your personal work.
