retrofocus wrote:
I shot handheld between 1/50 - 1/200s but didn't observe this issue.
I don't shoot handheld as I prefer to work with tripod, so haven't checked myself but many of the websites who has written about this say that when handholding it doesn't affect that much. Also for shooting 100mm or longer handhold means that your shutter speed is over the affected shutter speed range. With shorter lenses it's very hard to say for is subpixel sized blur caused by camera movement or shutter.
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
I don't shoot handheld as I prefer to work with tripod, so haven't checked myself but many of the websites who has written about this say that when handholding it doesn't affect that much. Also for shooting 100mm or longer handhold means that your shutter speed is over the affected shutter speed range. With shorter lenses it's very hard to say for is subpixel sized blur caused by camera movement or shutter.
Samuli
I also did a lot of tripod shooting with the A7R in combination with 24 and 90mm TSE lenses, also using 14 and 50 mm EF prime lenses. I did not observe any blur. I didn't try the longer tele photo range yet.
retrofocus wrote:
This is a lens which I don't have (and which I am not interested in either). Any idea why it happens specifically with this lens (I suspect with the Metabones adapter)?
It occurs with other Canon IS lenses but seems most pronounced with the 35mm, probably because of how light the lens is and also how close the IS unit sits near the body. My working theory is that when the shock wave from the shutter's vibration reaches the IS unit, it responds to the vibration as if it were human motion that needs to be counteracted, but since the exposure is in progress at that point the IS element is still in transition when the image is captured. An interesting side-note is that Sony wont allow OSS on many of their APS-C e-mount lenses to be enabled when mounted on the A7 series bodies - I can only presume it's because they suffer from the same issue. I don't see the problem when I mount the same Canon lenses + Metabones adapter on an A7, or an an APS-C NEX body.
snapsy wrote:
It occurs with other Canon IS lenses but seems most pronounced with the 35mm, probably because of how light the lens is and also how close the IS unit sits near the body. My working theory is that when the shock wave from the shutter's vibration reaches the IS unit, it responds to the vibration as if it were human motion that needs to be counteracted, but since the exposure is in progress at that point the IS element is still in transition when the image is captured. An interesting side-note is that Sony wont allow OSS on many of their APS-C e-mount lenses to be enabled when mounted on the A7 series bodies - I can only presume it's because they suffer from the same issue. I don't see the problem when I mount the same Canon lenses + Metabones adapter on an A7, or an an APS-C NEX body....Show more →
Good point - interesting. Something to keep in mind. I have only two IS-based lenses which are the 70-200/4 IS and the 100-400 IS. So far I only used them for a few sporadic test shots on my A7R, and I only saw that the IS at least was working. I will look more closely now if I see some issue here. I will keep you posted.
why don't you just admit that A7R have design problems since day one., Sony designed it like that it's the nature of the beast. The complaints are all over the place. That's the reason why I asked here if A7S have the same.
So it looks like for me A7 is the choice to avoid these problems pixel count is enough for my work. And no I don't need 36MP.
This is a follow-up to the shutter shock issues I reported on the A7r when using certain Canon lenses with IS enabled. I reported my original findings with the 35mm f/2 IS here, and then reported how the problem goes away when adding 1lb hot-shoe mount flash to the top of the camera here. Since the flash solution is unwieldy I decided to see if the Sony vertical grip would add enough mass/weight to solve the problem. My conclusion - the grip helps noticeably but there is still blur vs with IS disabled. Here are comparison images I took today, using the grip with both batteries inserted (about 11.8 oz total):
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
It's so sad that majority of people are "ooooh lots of megapixels, nice, I want that" but actually have no need for 36Mpix camera, neither technique to get everything out from their cameras.
Samuli
Come on, be honest, tell us what you really think about us!
I wonder if the issue happens with the Sony 70-200 FE that is actually made for the camera. Can't really blame Sony if other manufacturer's image stabilization is not compatible. But, if their own lens has the same issue then that is their problem.
gdsf2 wrote:
I wonder if the issue happens with the Sony 70-200 FE that is actually made for the camera. Can't really blame Sony if other manufacturer's image stabilization is not compatible. But, if their own lens has the same issue then that is their problem.
Jerry
Photozone did in fact report blur issues with the lens mounted on the A7r when OSS is enabled (review here)
snapsy wrote:
This is a follow-up to the shutter shock issues I reported on the A7r when using certain Canon lenses with IS enabled. I reported my original findings with the 35mm f/2 IS here, and then reported how the problem goes away when adding 1lb hot-shoe mount flash to the top of the camera here. Since the flash solution is unwieldy I decided to see if the Sony vertical grip would add enough mass/weight to solve the problem. My conclusion - the grip helps noticeably but there is still blur vs with IS disabled. Here are comparison images I took today, using the grip with both batteries inserted (about 11.8 oz total):
Very interesting. I do have a A7r, and while i haven't really tested for this issue myself, i like to eliminate it as much as i can, and i was seriously considering getting the grip for my body. Your testing the Canon lens, and i don't really blame the camera here since its a non-native IS system, and they will not work ideal together (or shouldn't be expected to be)
Would be SUPER interested to see some similar tests, with straight legacy glass on spacer adapters, or the native zooms for FE? Do you have any of these lenses?
I have finally gotten around to run some more in depth tests for the A7r vibration issues when using long lenses over 100mm in focal lengths for exposures longer than about 1/160 or 1/125 second. I still have to do some more testing on this.
I wanted to really give the camera system more of a torture test than most. So, I tripod mounted my Leica R 280mm f4 Apo Teltyt lens with the RRS L97L lens plate with my Leica 2X Apo Extender, Novoflex Leica R to NEX adapter, and my A7r.with the RRS L Bracket. This is a relatively heavy and expensive system that I have been testing. The tripod that I am using is a RRS TVC-24L: Versa CF tripod with a RRS TA-2-LC: Series 2 Leveling Base with Clamp. My tripod head is a Markins M20 with a Kirk 2 1/2" Arca Swiss type QR clamp.
With that tripod set-up, I am using a 3 point support system which is basically the RRS Long Lens Support Pkg, dual Quick-Release (minus the sliding QR on the rail).
I have substituted an older version of the back to back ProMediaGear present back to back clamp (these lack the bubble level and have a shorter locking screw) for the RRS sliding single clamp for the rail in their system:
The 2 ProMediaGear clamps (with the 11" Variable Friction Adjustable arm) attach on the horizontal portion of the RRS A7r Bracket and the underside of the RRS 10" rail portion of the RRS Long Lens Support Pkg. This set-up helps to lock the A7r camera body in place and upon initial tests does appear to lessen at least some of the camera vibration when the camera is in the portrait orientation (the orientation with a greater issue with vibration). I may still may be seeing some vibration at 560mm, but I think that there is less than had there been no support of the system.
I will try to run more tests and to post some photos sometime in the future.
