I don’t agree u see it rarely. U see it all the time if it’s 1/8000. The cut bokeh is physics so I don’t understand why galer don’t see it…. That is my point. Galer said something that to me is factually wrong.
j4nu wrote: chez wrotej4nu wroteSndr wroteFboss wrotegunmetal wroteApart from sports (and neither of these variants are targeting sports), what applications would involve fast apertures and high shutter speeds? Do wedding photographers find themselves shooting over 1/2000? Then again if you're a wedding photographer you probably wouldn't be shooting with just one card slot.Portraits, or general use of a fast (like f/1.4 ) lens in good light to get a nice out of focus rendering.It's especially an issue with portraits with fast 35mm and shorter lenses: they need a larger aperture to create separation between the subject and the background.
Longer lenses have shallow enough DOF to begin with.I think for posed portraits, electronic (silent) shutter should be ok. It's the travel / family "portraits" that might be an issue, IMHO.Why do you think travel portrait or even family portraits being an issue with ES?Because I can't be sure my subjects won't move suddenly...
What type of subject are we talking about here. I shot 20 years of travel photography without seeing these sudden subject movements…at least not ones that would cause an issue with ES on the A7R3.
Maybe post an example of a ruined portrait caused by movement shot using ES.
molson wrote: jeffbuzz wroteIs it a problem? You decide.You need to describe the shooting setup and identify the type of light source and its operating frequency for these examples to be meaningful.
It's a simple out of focus highlight example. LED bulb ~ 1 meter away with focus at infinity. Took me all of 5 minutes.
wind30 wrote:
If u can’t find it, it’s in the Russian gallery.
I don’t agree u see it rarely. U see it all the time if it’s 1/8000. The cut bokeh is physics so I don’t understand why galer don’t see it…. That is my point. Galer said something that to me is factually wrong.
You didn’t see the video, did you ? He clearly mentioned that he saw the effect of some city skyline at 1/8000 sec. He used a Nikon MF lens for that particular shot.
gunmetal wrote: jeffbuzz wroteIs it a problem? You decide.Seems like below 1/1000 will be impossible to tell (in real photos), and even 1/2000 would be very tough to tell. Any higher than that might stand out. Apart from sports (and neither of these variants are targeting sports), what applications would involve fast apertures and high shutter speeds? Do wedding photographers find themselves shooting over 1/2000? Then again if you're a wedding photographer you probably wouldn't be shooting with just one card slot.
Both cameras still seem like fantastic travel and landscape cameras to me. But I'm open to the fact that I could be missing something.
HSS (High Speed Sync) with large aperture lenses. Rather common use case and a feature that Sony specifically touts.
chiron wrote: jeffbuzz wroteIs it a problem? You decide.Yes, I know you can get this effect. Please show me a real photograph taken by you where it is a problem.
AGeoJO wrote: wind30 wroteIf u can’t find it, it’s in the Russian gallery.
I don’t agree u see it rarely. U see it all the time if it’s 1/8000. The cut bokeh is physics so I don’t understand why galer don’t see it…. That is my point. Galer said something that to me is factually wrong.
I did not watch the video again, I watched it years ago.
Context, I meant why galer don’t see it all the time… with the right conditions. It is not something that happens once in a while by luck. If u shoot 1/8000 with efcs, it will be there. No questions.
Because galer is so popular, I thought that video is pretty misleading. I mean who can objectively say semi circle bokeh is better?
chez wrote: j4nu wrotechez wrotej4nu wroteSndr wroteFboss wrotePortraits, or general use of a fast (like f/1.4 ) lens in good light to get a nice out of focus rendering.It's especially an issue with portraits with fast 35mm and shorter lenses: they need a larger aperture to create separation between the subject and the background.
Longer lenses have shallow enough DOF to begin with.I think for posed portraits, electronic (silent) shutter should be ok. It's the travel / family "portraits" that might be an issue, IMHO.Why do you think travel portrait or even family portraits being an issue with ES?Because I can't be sure my subjects won't move suddenly...What type of subject are we talking about here. I shot 20 years of travel photography without seeing these sudden subject movements…at least not ones that would cause an issue with ES on the A7R3.
Maybe post an example of a ruined portrait caused by movement shot using ES.
My kids mostly, I was using A7III then and from time to time (not too often really) I've run into distorted limbs, head, etc. I think A7RV / A7Cr has 2x slower readout so the issue might be more frequent...
wind30 wrote: AGeoJO wrotewind30 wroteIf u can’t find it, it’s in the Russian gallery.
I don’t agree u see it rarely. U see it all the time if it’s 1/8000. The cut bokeh is physics so I don’t understand why galer don’t see it…. That is my point. Galer said something that to me is factually wrong.
https://www.keehian.com/russia2018/images/russia_066.jpgYou didn’t see the video, did you ? He clearly mentioned that he saw the effect of some city skyline at 1/8000 sec. He used a Nikon MF lens for that particular shot.I did not watch the video again, I watched it years ago.
Context, I meant why galer don’t see it all the time… with the right conditions. It is not something that happens once in a while by luck. If u shoot 1/8000 with efcs, it will be there. No questions.
He didn’t say that he didn’t see it nor that it wasn’t there, like you claimed here:
wind30 wrote:
The cut bokeh is physics so I don’t understand why galer don’t see it…. That is my point. Galer said something that to me is factually wrong.
Again, he clearly said that at 1/8000 secs the effect was there.
AGeoJO wrote: wind30 wroteAGeoJO wrotewind30 wroteIf u can’t find it, it’s in the Russian gallery.
I don’t agree u see it rarely. U see it all the time if it’s 1/8000. The cut bokeh is physics so I don’t understand why galer don’t see it…. That is my point. Galer said something that to me is factually wrong.
https://www.keehian.com/russia2018/images/russia_066.jpgYou didn’t see the video, did you ? He clearly mentioned that he saw the effect of some city skyline at 1/8000 sec. He used a Nikon MF lens for that particular shot.I did not watch the video again, I watched it years ago.
Context, I meant why galer don’t see it all the time… with the right conditions. It is not something that happens once in a while by luck. If u shoot 1/8000 with efcs, it will be there. No questions.He didn’t say that he didn’t see it nor that it wasn’t there, like you claimed here:
wind30 wroteThe cut bokeh is physics so I don’t understand why galer don’t see it…. That is my point. Galer said something that to me is factually wrong.Again, he clearly said that at 1/8000 secs the effect was there.
….. then why did Chiron say no cut bokeh balls in the first post We can argue until the cows go home but the message of the video obviously was it is a rare thing that is not a problem… I totally disagree with that message and I feel it misleads other people. Everyone use cases are different. If u don’t shoot wide aperture high speed shutter, u will never see it. But the point was that we all know u have to shoot high shutter speed and under those conditions, it is always a problem and not rare at all.
At 15:08 he shows an image shot at 1/10,000 saying it has no uneven exposure, but from what I know there is no way it could be an EFCS image since all mechanical shutters max out at 1/8000. Then he goes on to suggest it's a non-Sony lens issue only. Hmmm....
jeffbuzz wrote: gunmetal wrotejeffbuzz wroteIs it a problem? You decide.Seems like below 1/1000 will be impossible to tell (in real photos), and even 1/2000 would be very tough to tell. Any higher than that might stand out. Apart from sports (and neither of these variants are targeting sports), what applications would involve fast apertures and high shutter speeds? Do wedding photographers find themselves shooting over 1/2000? Then again if you're a wedding photographer you probably wouldn't be shooting with just one card slot.
Both cameras still seem like fantastic travel and landscape cameras to me. But I'm open to the fact that I could be missing something.HSS (High Speed Sync) with large aperture lenses. Rather common use case and a feature that Sony specifically touts.
Small point about the deleterious effect on bokeh of EFCS. It depends on the distance from the second/rear/only shutter curtain to the sensor. The examples of it we usually see are taken with cameras with complete focal-plane shutters. It may well be that these newfangled single-curtain EFCS-only shutters have the curtain closer to the sensor, mitigating the problem. Just saying, don't lknow.
jaygould wrote: jeffbuzz wrotegunmetal wrotejeffbuzz wroteIs it a problem? You decide.Seems like below 1/1000 will be impossible to tell (in real photos), and even 1/2000 would be very tough to tell. Any higher than that might stand out. Apart from sports (and neither of these variants are targeting sports), what applications would involve fast apertures and high shutter speeds? Do wedding photographers find themselves shooting over 1/2000? Then again if you're a wedding photographer you probably wouldn't be shooting with just one card slot.
Both cameras still seem like fantastic travel and landscape cameras to me. But I'm open to the fact that I could be missing something.HSS (High Speed Sync) with large aperture lenses. Rather common use case and a feature that Sony specifically touts.EFCS doesn't work with HSS flash?
AZSteve wrote:
Small point about the deleterious effect on bokeh of EFCS. It depends on the distance from the second/rear/only shutter curtain to the sensor. The examples of it we usually see are taken with cameras with complete focal-plane shutters. It may well be that these newfangled single-curtain EFCS-only shutters have the curtain closer to the sensor, mitigating the problem. Just saying, don't lknow.
Well, it's still there on A1, which also has a single curtain...
j4nu wrote: chez wrotej4nu wrotechez wrotej4nu wroteSndr wroteIt's especially an issue with portraits with fast 35mm and shorter lenses: they need a larger aperture to create separation between the subject and the background.
Longer lenses have shallow enough DOF to begin with.I think for posed portraits, electronic (silent) shutter should be ok. It's the travel / family "portraits" that might be an issue, IMHO.Why do you think travel portrait or even family portraits being an issue with ES?Because I can't be sure my subjects won't move suddenly...What type of subject are we talking about here. I shot 20 years of travel photography without seeing these sudden subject movements…at least not ones that would cause an issue with ES on the A7R3.
Maybe post an example of a ruined portrait caused by movement shot using ES.My kids mostly, I was using A7III then and from time to time (not too often really) I've run into distorted limbs, head, etc. I think A7RV / A7Cr has 2x slower readout so the issue might be more frequent...
Yep, electronic shutter on the A7III is only useful with very still subjects. Photos of kids moving around will show lots of distortion. ES can easily ruin photos with the A7III.
Interesting descussion but honestly I’m not liking what I am reading on this.bottom line I’ve been at this 50 years and end of day I want full control of everything. These new systems are not doing that. That really bugs me
GMPhotography wrote:
Interesting descussion but honestly I’m not liking what I am reading on this.bottom line I’ve been at this 50 years and end of day I want full control of everything. These new systems are not doing that. That really bugs me
This was the very reason I HAD to try a Leica M, so I have bought an M240 (being the cheapest option, before knowing if I will like it or not). You know, that "full control" thing. And, OMG, I barely resisted 6 month with that camera, ending up in frustration. So glad I got rid of it...But I do like the "rangefinder" style cameras, that's why I am so disappointed about the A7c "upgrades" we got from these two new rangefinder style cameras Sony has just launched...
chiron wrote: jeffbuzz wroteIs it a problem? You decide.Yes, I know you can get this effect. Please show me a real photograph taken by you where it is a problem.
catacore wrote: GMPhotography wroteInteresting descussion but honestly I’m not liking what I am reading on this.bottom line I’ve been at this 50 years and end of day I want full control of everything. These new systems are not doing that. That really bugs meThis was the very reason I HAD to try a Leica M, so I have bought an M240 (being the cheapest option, before knowing if I will like it or not). You know, that "full control" thing. And, OMG, I barely resisted 6 month with that camera, ending up in frustration. So glad I got rid of it...But I do like the "rangefinder" style cameras, that's why I am so disappointed about the A7c "upgrades" we got from these two new rangefinder style cameras Sony has just launched...
I totally get this and I was and still am a huge fan of Leica but my issue was it just did not support me very easily when doing paid gigs. It fell short on the limitations.