I must say after a week of testing the A7R with my Nikon optics and the Zeiss 35 f2.8 I haven't found one image that I would've said was unacceptable because of shutter vibration. I have the camera mounted on a steel Gitzo tripod with a 504 video head. When I was testing the 70-200 VR 2 with meta-bones adapter most of the shutter speeds were under a 30th and up to three seconds for the full range of f-stops, here again I saw no vibration but did see some diffraction at f22. I just finished a series with a 50mm 1.8G that showed no vibration again, overall the quality of this lens on me A7r is much better than the $200 it cost's. There are so many other factors that come into producing image movement that makes this statement of shutter vibration very difficult to verify. I've used my A7R for two or three professional jobs since I've purchased it along with my D 800e so maybe my requirements as a professional are less stringent than "scientific photo equipment testing experts". I will keep looking to see if I can reproduce there findings.
dennishh wrote:
I must say after a week of testing the A7R with my Nikon optics and the Zeiss 35 f2.8 I haven't found one image that I would've said was unacceptable because of shutter vibration. I have the camera mounted on a steel Gitzo tripod with a 504 video head. When I was testing the 70-200 VR 2 with meta-bones adapter most of the shutter speeds were under a 30th and up to three seconds for the full range of f-stops, here again I saw no vibration but did see some diffraction at f22. I just finished a series with a 50mm 1.8G that showed no vibration again, overall the quality of this lens on me A7r is much better than the $200 it cost's. There are so many other factors that come into producing image movement that makes this statement of shutter vibration very difficult to verify. I've used my A7R for two or three professional jobs since I've purchased it along with my D 800e so maybe my requirements as a professional are less stringent than "scientific photo equipment testing experts". I will keep looking to see if I can reproduce there findings....Show more →
I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that around 1/60 to 1/125 was the problem area.
I have successfully shot a stack in that s/s range handheld though Douglas. Tripod technique may be the issue as many other factors paradoxically come into play. Rich got his 280/4 to blur some xmas treee lights I remember the range of uncertainty as below 1/60, the 1/8-1/15 seemed affected by diffraction also. Back on page 6 in this thread.
Users must also remember that when they Ctrl+Alt+Zero they are looking at 7360 pixels on the long edge, not the now usual and expected 6000 pixels of 24Mp cameras. It's a sterner inspection test by 22.6%.
For tripod users I want to add that low mass is as much a problem as high mass. Try putting serious downforce on the base of the tripod head with your hand while triggering the cable release or even a finger tripping the shutter with your hand on the body. Think of the sports pros using monopods with very good results.
Long lenses magnify the problem but they do not create them, and some simple technique trial and error does wonders in this area. It would be remarkable if an unsupported light camera mounted atop a pod delivered top results at all shutter speeds with 36Mp on board.
The whole deal is just too light, too low in mass to resist all manner of influences. Dennis's pod setup is likely very heavy, and it's inside. I use a 1300 gram Gitzo and a 360 gram Markins Q3 outside on dirt and grass so I am used to applying downforce for all cameras I have used on pods. Everything counts and it points downhill if you do not pay attention to all factors.
Thanks Douglas, I wasn't aware of 125th. I thought Loyd was saying he was at a 1/4 so I will test tomorrow. I've always gone by the film day teaching of "heavy camera = light tripod , light camera = heavy tripod". If anyone has tried astro photography using a telescope I imagine this discussion of vibrations is quite amusing.
I have a trip to New York coming up and was trying to decide between bringing the E-M1 and the A7R.
Between Lloyd's reports of the FE 55mm showing shutter shock at speeds below 1/160sec, and people complaining about light sources smearing and ghosting in night shots I was starting to think the A7R might not be the best choice for a city full of lights on the darkest days of the year.
So I decided to test it around my hometown and took the A7R and 55mm out in low light and at night and shot a lot at between 1/80th and 1/160 sec. I quickly became suspicious of 1/100 and 1/125 just looking at the back of the camera, but 1/160 for low light and 1/80th for night time seem to work just fine.
I'm posting links to some images -- no particular artistic merit -- LR 5.3 default settings except maybe for a little WB tweaking.
These images are all taken in low light at 1/160th with the FE 55. Look for yourself -- they look pretty satisfactory to me.
Even more pleasing are these results at night at 1/80th of sec. Surely if the shutter shock and the blobs of light don't get me, taking handheld pictures with a 36 megapixel camera at 1/80th of sec will result in motion blur? Well it didn't.
dennishh wrote:
I must say after a week of testing the A7R with my Nikon optics and the Zeiss 35 f2.8 I haven't found one image that I would've said was unacceptable because of shutter vibration. I have the camera mounted on a steel Gitzo tripod with a 504 video head. When I was testing the 70-200 VR 2 with meta-bones adapter most of the shutter speeds were under a 30th and up to three seconds for the full range of f-stops, here again I saw no vibration but did see some diffraction at f22. I just finished a series with a 50mm 1.8G that showed no vibration again, overall the quality of this lens on me A7r is much better than the $200 it cost's. ...Show more →
dennishh, you don't have to worry, if you see "some diffraction at f/22" but not on f/8, f/11 or f/16 you most likely won't see any vibration...ever...also you would be ok with 5Mpix camera as well. At least back in 2002 when I had 3.3Mpix 1.6crop Canon D30 the f/11 diffraction was visible, and f/16 it was very clearly visible.
If shooting from rigid base (camera bolted to concrete or sturdy tripod with good head, doesn't matter) in landscape orientation the amount of shutter "shock" induced blur is only causing micro contrast loss with 55mm lens, and at 35mm there is ~50% of what can be seen with 55mm.
dennishh wrote:
There are so many other factors that come into producing image movement that makes this statement of shutter vibration very difficult to verify.
Well it depends what you are doing. If you are tripod mounted using remote shutter or 10s delay either indoors or outdoors without wind there really isn't anything else than shutter induced movement (unless you get movement due to ground shaking). If there is movement just camera sitting on top of tripod then it might be time to get new tripod...
dennishh wrote:
I've used my A7R for two or three professional jobs since I've purchased it along with my D 800e so maybe my requirements as a professional are less stringent than "scientific photo equipment testing experts". I will keep looking to see if I can reproduce there findings.
There are many kind of professionals. For example photographer shooting for newspaper one's requirements as professional regarding small detail sharpness are low or non-existing. I know professional photographers who have never touched tripod and/or always shoot in "green mode" with kit lens on cheapest crop body. For me that somebody is professional doesn't mean they are good at it, or are good in all areas of their industry - it just means they are doing it to earn money without any indication to anything else.
This is creative art. All a technically perfect shot gives you is the capability to blow it up to a bigger size. But that will not convert a boring picture into a great picture.
If i am a scientist, shutter vibration is an important issue to me. If i am a photographer, professional or not, these things are academic at best.
Sometimes, these things become an end in themselves. Which they are not.
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
dennishh, you don't have to worry, if you see "some diffraction at f/22" but not on f/8, f/11 or f/16 you most likely won't see any vibration...ever...also you would be ok with 5Mpix camera as well. At least back in 2002 when I had 3.3Mpix 1.6crop Canon D30 the f/11 diffraction was visible, and f/16 it was very clearly visible.
If shooting from rigid base (camera bolted to concrete or sturdy tripod with good head, doesn't matter) in landscape orientation the amount of shutter "shock" induced blur is only causing micro contrast loss with 55mm lens, and at 35mm there is ~50% of what can be seen with 55mm.
Well it depends what you are doing. If you are tripod mounted using remote shutter or 10s delay either indoors or outdoors without wind there really isn't anything else than shutter induced movement (unless you get movement due to ground shaking). If there is movement just camera sitting on top of tripod then it might be time to get new tripod...
There are many kind of professionals. For example photographer shooting for newspaper one's requirements as professional regarding small detail sharpness are low or non-existing. I know professional photographers who have never touched tripod and/or always shoot in "green mode" with kit lens on cheapest crop body. For me that somebody is professional doesn't mean they are good at it, or are good in all areas of their industry - it just means they are doing it to earn money without any indication to anything else.
Thanks ebrandon for taking the time to do these test's and post them. I would love to see one of the 125th images you were talking about. Encouraging results! Enjoy your trip to NY.
dennishh wrote:
Thanks ebrandon for taking the time to do these test's and post them. I would love to see one of the 125th images you were talking about. Encouraging results! Enjoy your trip to NY.
I'm glad you found them interesting.
I didn't post any of my blurry 1/125 pictures because there's no way to know if the blur was caused by shutter shock or sloppy handheld technique -- so the images don't prove or illustrate anything.
On the other hand the many sharp 1/80 and 1/160 images I got do prove to my satisfaction that it is possible (easy actually) to get nice sharp images handheld from the FE 55 at those shutter speeds.
ebrandon wrote:
I have a trip to New York coming up and was trying to decide between bringing the E-M1 and the A7R.
Between Lloyd's reports of the FE 55mm showing shutter shock at speeds below 1/160sec, and people complaining about light sources smearing and ghosting in night shots I was starting to think the A7R might not be the best choice for a city full of lights on the darkest days of the year.
So I decided to test it around my hometown and took the A7R and 55mm out in low light and at night and shot a lot at between 1/80th and 1/160 sec. I quickly became suspicious of 1/100 and 1/125 just looking at the back of the camera, but 1/160 for low light and 1/80th for night time seem to work just fine.
I'm posting links to some images -- no particular artistic merit -- LR 5.3 default settings except maybe for a little WB tweaking.
These images are all taken in low light at 1/160th with the FE 55. Look for yourself -- they look pretty satisfactory to me.
Even more pleasing are these results at night at 1/80th of sec. Surely if the shutter shock and the blobs of light don't get me, taking handheld pictures with a 36 megapixel camera at 1/80th of sec will result in motion blur? Well it didn't.
That's interesting that Lloyd is finding shutter vibration at slower speeds than 1/160. When I got the 55, I immediately did a series of tests, handheld and on a tripod. I couldn't find any evidence of shutter shock. I also found I could get sharp images handheld at 1/100. The tripod setup I have is pretty sturdy, but there are even sturdier tripods than the one I have. I don't recall the model number for the Gitzo. My ballhead is an Arca Swiss Cube, the most rock solid ballhead you can buy. After hearing that Lloyd believes he saw this, I may redo the test again.
sflxn wrote:
That's interesting that Lloyd is finding shutter vibration at slower speeds than 1/160. When I got the 55, I immediately did a series of tests, handheld and on a tripod. I couldn't find any evidence of shutter shock. I also found I could get sharp images handheld at 1/100. The tripod setup I have is pretty sturdy, but there are even sturdier tripods than the one I have. I don't recall the model number for the Gitzo. My ballhead is an Arca Swiss Cube, the most rock solid ballhead you can buy. After hearing that Lloyd believes he saw this, I may redo the test again. ...Show more →
This is, again, pure speculation on my part - but is it possible that the resonant frequencies activated by the shutter differ sufficiently from one copy of the camera/lens/filter/battery/neckstrap/wriststrap/tripod mount etc. that one person's camera is blurry at 1/80th, while another's is blurry at 1/100 or 1/125?
That would explain some of the inexplicably different reports we're seeing from reviewers and here on the forums.
ebrandon wrote:
This is, again, pure speculation on my part - but is it possible that the resonant frequencies activated by the shutter differ sufficiently from one copy of the camera/lens/filter/battery/neckstrap/wriststrap/tripod mount etc. that one person's camera is blurry at 1/80th, while another's is blurry at 1/100 or 1/125?
That would explain some of the inexplicably different reports we're seeing from reviewers and here on the forums.
The volume on this issue is starting to get loud. I am going to do a full blown test at different apertures. on two different tripods and ballheads. I had assumed that it was only in lenses above 100mm, but now, I'm going to go ahead and try my Nikkor 85mm too. I might as well, I've already passed the 100 shot limit BH puts on their cameras to allow for returns.
I found the shutter vibration in Lloyds Chambers analysis rather subtle. It's largely pixel peeping stuff but it is their and important if you want to get the best out of your 36MP camera and new high res FE lens.
If the camera was 20 - 24MP with the same shutter technology you may not notice it.
People are realising how difficult it is to get a final assessment of the issue, and it drifts further away from the end product - so it is quite simple:
Is your style of photography and method of working affected by the issue to the point it overcomes the obvious benefits of the camera?
I have already posted my results, and I am extremely happy with them.
I just finished an hour of testing with the FE 55 and 85/1.4. Apertures 1.4 - 4.0, Shutter 1/50 - 1/250. I don't have a subscription with digilloyd anymore so I can't see his setup, but I'm going to guess it's similar to mine. Instead of changing stops on a continuous light source or use ND filters, I just enabled Auto-ISO. The room was well lit enough, that I don't think it ever went above ISO 200 so I feel confident that noise didn't play a factor. I manual focused to keep the variable constant. My test isn't as precise as Lloyd when it comes to exposure, but it is satisfactory enough for me for what I consider a quick test.
With the 85G 1.4, I saw no shutter vibration except a microscopic amount when shot wide-open. More than acceptable in my book.
With the 55 FE, I did see some shutter vibration, but it was so small, I'd consider it a rounding error. In fact, I found microscopic differences in manual focus contributed 10x more difference in the sharpness of my subject than I could see from the shutter vibration. When handholding, the differences was another factor higher. Basically, I find this issue to be a non-issue. Lloyd saying this degrades the image quality down to a 24mp is pure sensationalism.
When I find some time, I'll try this with my travel tripod and travel ballhead. For now, I am satisfied. I'm sure this sensationalism will draw in more suckers to contribute towards a new bike or Porsche for Lloyd.
Yes, he may be a pixel peeping fanatic whose pursuit of technical perfection is pretty orthogonal to photography in general.
BUT... He has high technical competence. H puts in the legwork to obtain and test some very exotic items (Coastal Optics 60mm anyone?). He tests stuff he's not personally interested in but he thinks his audience might be. And he explains things clearly always backing up his assertions with images.
I'm happy to pay for my subscription to his site. What it's saved me in just one Zeiss lens I didn't buy because of the distortion or field curvature he pointed out pays for the subscription for decades.
ebrandon wrote:
I'll just jump in for a sec and defend Lloyd.
I've performed my own vibration tests. I've read the vibration tests of others. If Lloyd doesn't explain that any vibration is very small, and in practical use isn't anything to worry about, he's spreading FUD.
I'd be much more interested if Lloyd was comparing large prints, A2 and larger, between the a7r, and Canon and Nikon full frames. If he's not blown away by the crispness, dynamic range, and color of the a7r prints, he's doing something wrong.
