Facebook Twitter Instagram
    Canon Rumors – Your best source for Canon rumors, leaks and gossip
    • Home
    • Forums
    • Media
    • Contact
    Canon Rumors – Your best source for Canon rumors, leaks and gossip
    Home»Canon Reviews»Analysis: Canon EOS M6 Mark II shutter shock performance
    svg+xml;base64,PHN2ZyB2aWV3Qm94PScwIDAgNzI4IDQxMicgeG1sbnM9J2h0dHA6Ly93d3cudzMub3JnLzIwMDAvc3ZnJz48L3N2Zz4= - Analysis: Canon EOS M6 Mark II shutter shock performance

    Analysis: Canon EOS M6 Mark II shutter shock performance

    By Canon RumorsMay 6, 2020Updated:May 6, 202065 Comments2 Mins Read Canon Reviews
    Share
    Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Pinterest Email

    Canon News has completed a full analysis of the Canon EOS M6 Mark II and the effect shutter shock has on images. Unfortunately, it looks like this is one area in which the Canon EOS M6 Mark II is a bit weak.

    The Canon EOS M6 Mark II lacks an Electronic First Curtain Shutter, which is a strange omission and does have a negative impact on image sharpness.

    From Canon News:

    The M6 Mark II is a hopped-up little camera that is fun to use and is an amazing performer – but the deliberate lack of EFCS on this camera reduces it’s ability in some cases to deliver the highest IQ possible.  Now to be fair, the M6 Mark II (as well as the 90D) are the two most exacting and demanding cameras on the market today, as both have 32.5MP APS-C sensors when the rest of the industry mostly has 24MP.  However, this makes it more puzzling as it is more prone to show the effects of shutter shock than any other camera as well. Read the full analysis

    While we all love graphs and numbers when analyzing cameras and lenses, this issue probably won't be noticed by a vast majority of shooters.

    Go to discussion...

    EOS M6 Mark II
    Share. Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr Email
    Previous ArticleThe Canon EOS R5 has passed Bluetooth certification
    Next Article Adorama wants your used Canon EOS 5D Mark IV and Canon EOS R

    Related Posts

    The Canon EOS M50 Mark II has been partially discontinued in Japan

    October 28, 2022

    Review: Canon RF 15-30mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM

    September 13, 2022

    Canon’s next RF mount camera is in the field

    August 4, 2022

    Review: Canon RF-S 18-45mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM

    July 20, 2022

    Review: Canon RF-S 18-150mm F3.5-6.3 IS STM

    July 20, 2022

    Is a Canon EOS R100 coming next year? A budget EOS R APS-C camera [CR1]

    June 7, 2022

    65 comments

    1. canonnews
      May 6, 2020 at 11:06 am
      While we all love graphs and numbers when analyzing cameras and lenses, this topic probably won’t be noticed by a vast majority of shooters.

      Gasp! ;)

      It was certainly a surprise that certain lenses were very prone to this behavior AND that Canon would gimp the camera this way and release it.
      • Reply
      • 0
    2. Mark3794
      May 6, 2020 at 12:26 pm
      I actually was going to buy this camera but i didn't: for me the fact that you can't mount both a flash and a EVF at the same time was a big letdown, reading about the shutter shock was the final nail in the coffin.
      Hoping for a M5 mark II
      • Reply
      • 0
    3. Sibir Lupus
      May 6, 2020 at 2:20 pm
      Seeing as all shutter functionality is controlled electronically, is it possible for Canon to add an EFCS to the M6 Mark II via a firmware update? And if it is possible, how much pressure will it take from enthusiasts to get Canon to fix it?
      • Reply
      • 0
    4. EverydayPhotographer
      May 6, 2020 at 3:06 pm
      The M6 Mk II is broken. Crippled. Gimped. Useless. Wow. These analytics just amaze me. As we reach peak critical analysis, we get closer and closer to treating a portable, field instrument like precision lab equipment. And then scream when they don’t meet that impossible criteria. All the while, we gripe about the lack of our favorite feature or killer specification. Are micro-vibrations that your hand will likely dampen really the new hill we want to die on?

      By these standards, every SLR ever made, every great medium format camera, and (god forbid) every 4x5 or larger camera, is incapable of generating a decent image. And yet the Ansel Adamses and Darius Kinseys and Dorothea Langes of the world did just that and more. (And I don’t recall seeing any whining ninny reviews of their equipment either - coincidence?)

      Photography is the only art form that I know of where the equipment gets all of the credit for the result. If I had a dollar for every time someone said “that’s a nice photo - you must have a good camera“ I could afford a good camera. Gnat’s ass analytics like this - and the wholesale condemnation that comes with it - only serve to propel that myth forward. And they feel vaguely like excuses.

      We’re witnessing a golden age. Photographic equipment has never been closer to technical perfection than it is right now. And yet we’ve also made major advancements in finding ways to knock them down. I think we can agree that cameras like the SpeedGraphic 4x5 and Hasselblad 500c are iconic. And results with them bear that out. But if we held them to the same modern standards, they’d be deemed unusable.

      I’ve taken some pretty good photos in my four decades with a camera - and some pretty bad ones. The common thread in those failures wasn’t faulty equipment or missing features - it was the idiot staring into the viewfinder.
      • Reply
      • 0
    5. Danglin52
      May 6, 2020 at 3:37 pm
      The M6 Mk II is broken. Crippled. Gimped. Useless. Wow. These analytics just amaze me. As we reach peak critical analysis, we get closer and closer to treating a portable, field instrument like precision lab equipment. And then scream when they don’t meet that impossible criteria. All the while, we gripe about the lack of our favorite feature or killer specification. Are micro-vibrations that your hand will likely dampen really the new hill we want to die on?

      By these standards, every SLR ever made, every great medium format camera, and (god forbid) every 4x5 or larger camera, is incapable of generating a decent image. And yet the Ansel Adamses and Darius Kinseys and Dorothea Langes of the world did just that and more. (And I don’t recall seeing any whining ninny reviews of their equipment either - coincidence?)

      Photography is the only art form that I know of where the equipment gets all of the credit for the result. If I had a dollar for every time someone said “that’s a nice photo - you must have a good camera“ I could afford a good camera. Gnat’s ass analytics like this - and the wholesale condemnation that comes with it - only serve to propel that myth forward. And they feel vaguely like excuses.

      We’re witnessing a golden age. Photographic equipment has never been closer to technical perfection than it is right now. And yet we’ve also made major advancements in finding ways to knock them down. I think we can agree that cameras like the SpeedGraphic 4x5 and Hasselblad 500c are iconic. And results with them bear that out. But if we held them to the same modern standards, they’d be deemed unusable.

      I’ve taken some pretty good photos in my four decades with a camera - and some pretty bad ones. The common thread in those failures wasn’t faulty equipment or missing features - it was the idiot staring into the viewfinder.

      Totally agree with you. My favorite is the whole dynamic range/ high ISO performance debates that are never ending. Compare the dynamic range / ISO capabilities today compared that what's available in the "good old days" of film. Gettin to ISO 1600/3200 has had a tremendous impact on wildlife photography. We have people wanting to change systems because of 1 -1.5 stop of difference between two vendors when there is far more to photography than just the bodies. More is always better, but we have tools that are capable of delivering far more than the majority of photographers skillset.
      • Reply
      • 0
    6. canonnews
      May 6, 2020 at 4:00 pm
      The M6 Mk II is broken. Crippled. Gimped. Useless. Wow. These analytics just amaze me. As we reach peak critical analysis, we get closer and closer to treating a portable, field instrument like precision lab equipment. And then scream when they don’t meet that impossible criteria. All the while, we gripe about the lack of our favorite feature or killer specification. Are micro-vibrations that your hand will likely dampen really the new hill we want to die on?

      Shutter shock hasn't been a canon thing because they have all had EFCS since the EOS 40D.
      This is one of, or the ONLY camera that doesn't have EFCS that Canon has made since.

      While you may not have had to live with shutter shock, people in other brands most certainly have.
      Unlike DR which requires R&D/ Fabrication and a lot of development challenges - this is simply firmware for Canon. Canon HAS EFCS on the 90D, the same sensor that is in the M6 Mark II. It's mind-boggling that they would remove a feature that assists with resolving the most from the sensor in a camera equipped with the highest resolving APS-C sensor on the market today.
      • Reply
      • 0
    7. Pape
      May 6, 2020 at 4:14 pm
      I bet those famous photograpers used 20kg tripod :)
      I use 2 kg shaky benbo trekker when shooting rocks and things on my desc . shutter shake wouldnt be good at all.
      • Reply
      • 0
    8. TMHKR
      May 6, 2020 at 4:56 pm
      After reading this topic, and some similar ones on the internet, I tried to test my own camera (a T5i) to see if there's any difference between normal viewfinder shooting, viewfinder + mirror lockup, and finally live view. Tripod, 10 seconds timer, stabilizer off, manual settings. Couldn't find a single difference between the three photos.

      The thing is, you could manually enable/disable EFCS on old Canon models - on newer ones, it's always enabled and you can't turn it off. However, the bigger culprit is that Rebels use a single motor for both mirror and shutter, so the mirror always flips before taking a photo no matter what.
      • Reply
      • 0
    9. Sporgon
      May 6, 2020 at 5:06 pm
      Looks to me as if the lightest lens was the worst. The 55-200 and 32/1.4 weight about the same as each other and 120 grams or so more than the 15-45, so maybe the extra weight giving more mass to the camera helped.
      • Reply
      • 0
    10. josephandrews222
      May 6, 2020 at 9:40 pm
      I'm surprised at the relative paucity of posts on this (at least to me) important topic.

      I presume this 'bug' be fixed with firmware...?

      Or is there a reason that Canon has saddled the M6II with this 'feature'?

      Feature...or bug?
      • Reply
      • 0
    11. LSXPhotog
      May 6, 2020 at 9:49 pm
      I'm several thousand images into my M6 Mark II ownership - this has never been an issue in any way.
      • Reply
      • 0
    12. Otara
      May 6, 2020 at 10:06 pm
      To me it seems like the answer is obvious - if you're shooting very low shutter speeds on a 200mm, use full electronic shutter. Its so slow that any movement will result in blur, so readout speed becomes a non-issue anyway.

      I rather suspect this is why they did it, given its designed to do things like high burst mode with full ecs.

      And if you want maximum resolution, use a prime where it seems to be a non-issue anyhow.
      • Reply
      • 0
    13. David_E
      May 6, 2020 at 11:16 pm
      lacks an Electronic First Curtain Shutter, which is a strange omission and does have a negative impact on image sharpness.
      That should read "...and could conceivably have a negative impact on image sharpness, just as it could have had in the millions upon millions of photos made in the film era, but will almost certainly not have such an impact."
      • Reply
      • 0
    14. David_E
      May 6, 2020 at 11:18 pm
      Feature...or bug?
      Try "tempest in a teacup," a non-issue.
      • Reply
      • 0
    15. canonnews
      May 7, 2020 at 2:56 am
      That should read "...and could conceivably have a negative impact on image sharpness, just as it could have had in the millions upon millions of photos made in the film era, but will almost certainly not have such an impact."
      film era NEVER had to deal with the relative image magnification that we commonly do with digital sensors in this day and age. film is a poor example, and even in film days, people used mirror lockup to reduce the level of vibrations that occurred when the camera mechanics started to shoot.

      and really - again, this is a feature that exists in every single Canon camera since the 40D, and even exists in the 90D. The omission of the feature may cause problems depending on the shutter speed that you are using and the lens. it can have a dramatic impact on the 15-45 and the 55-200 and I suspect the 18-150 even though I haven't tested it yet. These are some of the most commonly used lenses for the camera.

      I'd rather highlight the problem, and hope that Canon can fix it. They should be able to.
      • Reply
      • 0
    16. Sporgon
      May 7, 2020 at 6:18 am
      film era NEVER had to deal with the relative image magnification that we commonly do with digital sensors in this day and age.

      This is certainly true, and to day when you do shoot a figital workflow you can see that you need just as fast a shutter speed on fine grain (high resolution) film as you do on a modern high res digital sensor, when scanning to the same kinds of output size, although there is no comparison in sharpness and clarity. The old "rule" of shutter speed no less than focal length for sharp hand held images really applied only to the standard of a 10x 8 print viewed at 2' away, just like the perceived depth of field.
      • Reply
      • 0
    17. basketballfreak6
      May 7, 2020 at 8:35 am
      M6II user since launch. Still love the pocket rocket today (and I am someone that used 5D4 full time before thisand a modified 77D for astro) but can confirm that's one of the first thing I noticed when I first got my M6II and I did struggle a bit getting sharp shots initially at shutter speeds I expected myself to have no issues with. I've gotten used to it though.
      • Reply
      • 0
    18. SecureGSM
      May 7, 2020 at 10:43 am
      Shutter shock hasn't been a canon thing because they have all had EFCS since the EOS 40D.
      This is one of, or the ONLY camera that doesn't have EFCS that Canon has made since.

      While you may not have had to live with shutter shock, people in other brands most certainly have.
      Unlike DR which requires R&D/ Fabrication and a lot of development challenges - this is simply firmware for Canon. Canon HAS EFCS on the 90D, the same sensor that is in the M6 Mark II. It's mind-boggling that they would remove a feature that assists with resolving the most from the sensor in a camera equipped with the highest resolving APS-C sensor on the market today.

      I am keen to understand how is this shutter shock issue did not affect prime lenses that were tested and affected zoom lenses with IS capabilities exclusively.
      understand that IS functionality has been disabled in the lens. but are we confident that even when disabled it has not affected focusing in some ways? a bug?
      or is there an issue with focusing implementation specific to mechanical shutter?
      I am not buying that shutter shock can selectively affect some lenses and not others if the overall size and weight of these lenses is in the same ball park..especially on tripod. not to that degree that was demonstrated with charts.

      the focusing precision with mechanical shutter is affected on lenses with IS function. correct.

      I suggest repeating tests with the same camera mounted on extremely solid tripod and solid flooring. I would suggest that results won't be any different regardless. even if bolted permanently to a brick wall.
      • Reply
      • 0
    19. AlanF
      May 7, 2020 at 12:25 pm
      I am keen to understand how is this shutter shock issue did not affect prime lenses that were tested and affected zoom lenses with IS capabilities exclusively.
      understand that IS functionality has been disabled in the lens. but are we confident that even when disabled it has not affected focusing in some ways? a bug?
      or is there an issue with focusing implementation specific to mechanical shutter?
      I am not buying that shutter shock can selectively affect some lenses and not others if the overall size and weight of these lenses is in the same ball park..especially on tripod. not to that degree that was demonstrated with charts.

      the focusing precision with mechanical shutter is affected on lenses with IS function. correct.

      I suggest repeating tests with the same camera mounted on extremely solid tripod and solid flooring. I would suggest that results won't be any different regardless. even if bolted permanently to a brick wall.
      The interplay between shuttershock and IS quite complicated and can be affected by resonance. For example, the Nikon 300mm F/4 PF IS (VR) failed miserably for a range of speeds with some bodies but the addition of a grip cured it.
      • Reply
      • 0
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • Next »

    Leave a comment

    Please log in to your forum account to comment

    • Facebook 105K
    • Twitter 65.7K

    Subscribe to our newsletter

    Get the latest news to your inbox

    Resources

    Third-party lenses for the Canon RF mount

    January 19, 2021

    Canon RF lens roadmap

    November 9, 2020
    Latest Announcements

    Canon announces EOS Webcam Utility Pro subscription service

    November 9, 2022

    Preorder: Canon EOS R6 Mark II, Canon RF 135mm f/1.8L IS USM & Canon Speedlite EL-5

    November 1, 2022

    Canon officially announces the Canon EOS R6 Mark II, Canon RF 135mm f/1.8L IS USM and Canon Speedlite EL-5

    November 1, 2022

    Venus Optics officially announces the Laowa Argus RF 25mm f/0.95 for APS-C

    October 25, 2022
    Latest Reviews

    Review: Canon RF 15-30mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM

    September 13, 2022

    Review: Canon RF-S 18-45mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM

    July 20, 2022

    Review: Canon RF-S 18-150mm F3.5-6.3 IS STM

    July 20, 2022

    OpticalLimits reviews the Canon EOS RF 16mm F2.8 STM

    February 21, 2022
    Canon EOS R1 Rumor Round-up

    Canon EOS R5 Mark II to arrive before EOS R1? [CR2]

    February 20, 2023331

    There have been some rumblings about a follow-up to the brilliant Canon EOS R5, and…

    The Canon EOS R1 may not come until 2024

    November 10, 2022

    We haven’t forgotten about the Canon EOS R1, and you probably haven’t either [CR2]

    September 22, 2022
    Canon EOS R5 S Rumor Round-up

    EOS R camera between EOS R7 and EOS R10 coming [CR3]

    November 28, 202292

    It feels like the old days again, as numerous camera rumors continue to flow in.…

    Canon is gearing up to finally release a high megapixel camera with 100+ megapixels [CR3]

    May 26, 2022

    A high megapixel camera is coming [CR2]

    February 21, 2022
    Canon EOS R50/R100 Rumor Round-up

    Canon celebrates 20th consecutive year of No. 1 share of global interchangeable-lens digital camera market

    March 28, 202328

    TOKYO, March 28, 2023—Canon Inc. announced today that the company’s interchangeable-lens digital cameras (digital SLR…

    Stock Notice: Canon EOS R50 Body & Kits at B&H Photo

    March 16, 2023

    After almost 30 years, Canon is ending the “Kiss” branding in Japan

    February 9, 2023
    Facebook Twitter RSS Discord
    © 2023 Canon Rumors hosting is fully managed by Host Duplex | Design & community services from Audentio

    Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.