You just gave me the expected answer and confirmed my expectation about you. Sports photographer cannot use mirror lock up. otherwise they cannot see. Sports photographer cares about 'Kodak moment". Not maximum sharpness. If they can get both, that is great. If there are slight blur and get the "Kodak moment" they will get paid. Posting cats in internet does not even need DSLR. Any point and shoot will do. All it need is about 1 MP resolution. So these two cases are wrong case for the Mirror lock up usage. This also shows how much you known about photography and digital photography. That also confirms my estimation about you. " Good enough is good enough" and not trying hard to get the best out of your equipment.
This whole discussion started out as my concern about light weight body not the camera design or material or any manufacturer.
"The consideration here is whether or not the blur from the moment of the mirror slap is greater than that from your hands. The mirror slap problem can be countered easily: hold the button and let the shutter close 2 or 3 times and review all frames for focus/blur. Often it is the 2nd or 3rd frame that is the best because the vibration from the slap is gone." ( From Dilbert)
This is another misleading statement. People buy DSLR is due to the small shutter delay to capture the "Kodak Moment". Now you are telling people to ignore the first picture. The baby may have changed from laughing to crying. Also for a good photographer, the camera and the hand becomes an integral unit. So any movement will be the sum of both. You just cannot sperate them.
We spent good money to buy good camera and lens, we want to get the most of it. So we want to try our best to get the sharpest picture.
"But if you cannot hold it still enough to take the photo without blur, then whether or not there is a slight increase in movement (and thus blur) from the mirror impact is irrelevant. The weight of the camera plus lens and the ability to hold both still is a 1st order problem, the mirror slap a 2nd order problem." (from Dilbert)
This is another misleading statement and an insult to the intelligence of the photographers and camera manufacturers. Camera manufacturer put the mirror lockup function in the camera for a good reason. Camera manufacturer understand that mirror movement will cause camera vibration and hence cause blur of the picture. So to get the most sharpness, It is necessary to get rid of it. This function will be used with the camera either mounted on a copy stand or a sturdy tripod. Both are rock steady. So are you still telling me that vibration caused by the mirror movement are not important??? Have you ever used this function on your 5D II with your long lens and tripod? If you have never done that, I feel sorry for you. You 5D II is just another status symbol to show people that you do not have "Money or Budget Problem".
Dilbert, You have spent enough time to try to discredit me and I have spent euough time to educate you. Enough is enough.
MLU is not going to help you when you're trying to catch the "moment" with a baby - well it might if you've already primed the mirror? But I have a hard time convincing myself that any camera manufacturer would build a camera where the mirror movement would cause blur for the ordinary user. They'd simply not sell because too many pictures would be blurry. I'd like to believe that the engineering of that box includes taking into account the entire weight of the mirror and what the resulting impact does to the rest of the camera. If usability testing of a plastic body 60D resulted in what you're speculating, then you'd assume they'd can the camera. And if all the stories of multiple bodies used for testing are true, then it stands to reason that they more than likely have compared the results of magnesium vs non-magnesium.
You're not trying to educate me, you're trying to discredit Canon. You're trying to argue that their engineers have made a poor choice in the overall camera design of the 60D because of a non-magnesium alloy body and you're doing that based on speculation of how something that you've never held or used will perform (same too for everyone else that criticizes this change.) I believe that people should give Canon the benefit of the doubt if this new design is true - unless you're one of the engineers from the 60D project. I'd hazard a guess that both of us are pea shooters pissing on each other in comparison to what the engineers at Canon know, despite whatever schooling we may have had in our earlier life.
If I took your suggestion to throw out the first picture, then I will miss the "Kodak moment". regardless of the camera body. This is a dumb suggestion. Why are you make that at the first place? Do you agree that there are mirror bounce?? Also explain to me why Canon put the mirror lockup function on ALL their high end camera, even the Magnesium body ones??? Obviously, you have never use this function. What a waste of your 5DII.
I have never say that plastic body is bad. I have never discredited Canon. I have never say that they are bad design or bad material. You are putting word in my mouth again. The fact that ALL SLR and DSLR camera manufacturer (Canon, Nikon, Sony, Minolta, Pentax, Sigma, Leica etc, just to name a few ) put mirror lock up function on ALL their high end SLR and DSLR camera to help the user get the most of their camera when extremely sharpness is required. Also this is a good prove that Canon, (and anyone else but you) realize the mirror movement will cause unsharpness to a certain degree. May be you do not care about extreme sharpness. May be Good enough is good enough for you. May be you can tell ALL camera manufacturer to take away this function to save a few dollar on each camera and give you a big fat check in return.
So please keep your never say die and never admit mistake attitude and find some one else to argue. At the same time just tell everyone else that your 5D II will take good picture with a very long tele lens on a tripod without using mirror lock up. Good luck and have fun.
Do sports photographers use MLU when using big white lenses mounted on tripods or monopods? No. Do they capture the moment with sharp pictures? Yes. Why do they have their equipment mounted? Because otherwise the weight and size of their equipment would make it very difficult for them to "get the shot."
Do people need MLU to get sharp pictures of their cat to post on the Internet? No.
MLU is there for specific situations and circumstances (although it is annoying when you've turned it on for a tripod shot and then go to do handheld and it is still on, why can't the camera work out that it's no longer mounted in a tripod and turn it off automatically? ...:-/)
Your argument is that if they are making the body lighter then the mirror slap will have a bigger impact on picture sharpness. I disagree and contend that the folks who actually design these cameras take this into account when designing it. For example, maybe the mirror part itself will weigh less in the 60D than the 50D so that there is less force from the impact. Another example, is the Internet screaming about blurry pictures due to the sensor movement from mirror slap and lighter body of the 550D? No. Or even people complaining about using the 50/1.8mk2 with the 550D because it is too light and producing blurry pictures? No.
There is a very large spectrum of circumstances, equipment and settings required in order to get a sharp picture. Using MLU is only one small part of that. The set of photos that are subject to blur from the mirror slap is a subset of that.
I understand your concern, but until you've actually tried it out and tested it, there's simply no way for you (or anyone else for that matter) to say that this change will have a detrimental effect on picture quality. But the Internet is full of people like yourself that jump up and down if anything changes because they think that this particular change is bad and how it was before is better. Heck, I'm sure if Canon removes the "Print" button that forums will be full of people whining about how it is now harder to print pictures from their cameras.
Whether I've got a 5D2 or not is irrelevant. I could have a 1Ds3 or a 550D or 1000D. I'm sorry that I mentioned what equipment I have or have used - I'll never do that again.
Now you are the one that is trying to discredit the camera manufacturer. Camera manufacturers have been trying to minimize mirror bounce for more than 75 years. They are much better now. Do you think they will reserve their best solution for the cheaper camera body. The answer is NO. Usually, the opposite is true. Usually, the best answer is more expensive. So they put the best answer in the most expensive camera to let the customer to get the most benefit for the extra money that they have paid. Even they can put the best solution in the lightweight camera. just remember the physics: mv=m'v' . So the lighter camera will still have more bounce.I am sure that the camera manufacturer will do their best to minimize mirror bounce within the constrain of the body size and price. Just give them some credit.
Just because someone mention the draw back of light weight equipment and you put words in someone's mouth and do the personal attack in the forum. This shows a lot about your personality.
We do have the right to disagree with someone else even the someone else is right. Just do not put words in someone mouth and do personal attack.
By the way , have fun with your 15 miles hike in the mountain with your 5D II, extreme long lens and graphite tripod and never use mirror lock up. Have fun.
When the mirror slaps up, that momentum is transferred to the entire system that is connected to the surface to which the mirror plate is then in contact with. That means the lens, camera body and hands/arms or the tripod. Depending on how firm the connection is between the camera and what is holding it, the camera may be able to move a small amount or not. It is not only the sensor that moves as a response to the mirror slap, it is the entire camera. Although newer sensors that are loosely coupled (to allow for anti-dust?) may move differently than those that are before the anti-dust developments. The more I think about it, I'm actually curious as to how much energy is transferred through the sound waves moving inside the light box inside the camera.
Your contention from the that start has been that because the camera body is lighter that it will move more due to mirror slap and thus make blurry pictures in situations where it otherwise would not due to the slap having a more massive camera to move and thus able to move it less.
In terms of picture sharpness, I disagree that this is a problem that is a deal breaker because in most situations people will have a number of other sources of movement that will affect the picture sharpness. The first is however much the camera is moving either in the hand or in the tripod (could be windy outside - for example.) The next is the resulting movement of the end of the lens from the camera movement due to it sagging and pulling on the camera. After that comes the force applied by a finger when a person pushes the shutter release on the camera. Finally there is the mirror slap. I'm actually surprised you haven't mentioned the rolling shutter as another source of momentum that will not be dampened as much by the lighter body.
If your camera is mounted in a still location (inside a studio, for example) and you're using a cable release or otherwise do not need to touch the camera to take a photo then and only then (according to you) you're in position to take a sharp picture.
The usual recommendation is 1/zoom for shutter speed although some are now advocating 1/2*zoom for sharp pictures. Personally, I haven't tried to measure the speed at which mirror slap does become a problem for a particular body+lens combination, but until I see a report that shows at which shutter speed the effects of mirror slap kick in, I can only conclude that this is only a problem when you need to shoot slower than it is wise to hold the camera with your hand and thus not a problem for many typical uses.
As for "good enough is good enough" being acceptable for me and others, I would disagree - or at least I have not yet met the person that does not want pixel perfect sharpness from a picture they take when they're using their new camera at full zoom.