svg+xml;base64,PHN2ZyB2aWV3Qm94PScwIDAgNzI4IDQxMycgeG1sbnM9J2h0dHA6Ly93d3cudzMub3JnLzIwMDAvc3ZnJz48L3N2Zz4= - Canon Patent Application: Shutter that minimizes shutter shock

    Canon Patent Application: Shutter that minimizes shutter shock

    By Updated:20 Comments1 Min Read Canon Patents

    As discovered by CanonNews, this is an interesting patent application. Shutter shock is a condition that mirrorless cameras are prone to have if they have a mechanical shutter, especially if they also have IBIS.

    Canon in this patent application talks about a floating shutter mechanism that would reduce or even eliminate shutter shock.

    A prior patent application may have worked;

    [In patent application] an image pickup device that holds a shutter in a floating state so as to be movable only in the traveling direction of the shutter blade by using a spring, and absorbs vibration due to the traveling of the shutter blade.

    However, Canon found that approach to be inaccurate and this in this case describes a mechanism that uses electromagnets to move the shutter instead which reduces the amount of vibration caused by the assembly. (Thanks for the clarification – I'll blame it on 60 hours' worth of jetlag still).

    Granted using an electronic shutter or global shutter can also completely remove shutter shock, but this may be an excellent interim solution.

    Go to discussion...

    Share.

    Related Posts

    20 comments

    3. Cool idea.

      Couple of observations:
      - Enlarging the image on the patent appear to show 14 lens contacts (RF mount)
      - There are two different bodies used in the images, one looking a lot like an R5, and another looking quite small, with a disproportionately large mount for its size. That second, smaller body doesn't show the contacts to show what kind of mount it is. Canon has in the past dropped unintentional hints with patent illustrations, and other times, they appear just to be using existing art to illustrate a new idea that winds up appearing in a different form.

      I wonder if this would be the weak point for shutter life, using a flexible material. Or, alternately, perhaps the lack of shock could extend the life of shutters.
    7. Or just do what Nikon have done and get rid of the mechanical shutter. We can overcome the shortfalls now of electronic shutters.
      Has Nikon been able to remove banding when using eShutter in indoor sports arenas?
      The R5's eShutter is great for outdoor usage (albeit with reduced bit depth) but not really usable under indoor lighting.
    8. Major Apologies! I made a mistake reading the patent. the floating spring mechanism was the prior art. the current art is using electromagnets for controlling the shutter.

      Suffering from jetlag is my excuse at the moment :)
    10. Or just do what Nikon have done and get rid of the mechanical shutter. We can overcome the shortfalls now of electronic shutters.
      You can only do that with monstrously fast processors and stacked sensors. Stacked sensors are markably more expensive than traditional and BSI sensors.
    12. Has Nikon been able to remove banding when using eShutter in indoor sports arenas?
      The R5's eShutter is great for outdoor usage (albeit with reduced bit depth) but not really usable under indoor lighting.
      There have been videos testing the shutter in these situations. While you couldn’t set a manual shutter readout speed the automatic readout showed no banding in concert flashing situations or indoor lighting.
    13. You can only do that with monstrously fast processors and stacked sensors. Stacked sensors are markably more expensive than traditional and BSI sensors.
      So why not put the better sensor? For an R1 we already looking £7k so ditch the mechanical shutter. Get a proper sensor cover.
    14. So why not put the better sensor? For an R1 we already looking £7k so ditch the mechanical shutter. Get a proper sensor cover.
      This patent may be for the next R5/R6 or a upgraded RP. The R1 and R3 will be enjoying exclusive stacked sensors for the next 2-3 generations and in the mean time we will need improvements to the R5 mark 2, 3, and 4.
    17. I wish they'd be pouring that money into a global shutter....and really advance things.
      Canon has tons and I mean tons of patents and patent applications with respects to global shutters.

      But .. they are expensive. A shutter that minimizes shutter shock and a regular sensor may be a cheaper option for say, a 75MP landscape camera.
    18. Canon has tons and I mean tons of patents and patent applications with respects to global shutters.

      But .. they are expensive. A shutter that minimizes shutter shock and a regular sensor may be a cheaper option for say, a 75MP landscape camera.
      Think GS will make its debut appearance in the R1 ?

      cayenne
    19. Shutter shock seems to be a phenomenon that arrived with more robust vertical plane shutters. One of the biggest culprits was the original Nikon FM from 1979, an incredibly popular camera concept, but the early adoption of the Copal vertical plane metal shutter caused the whole camera to jump when the shutter fired. In retrospect I realise it caused me many sharpness issues. The situation was improved with the FM2. I think this was why at the time the professional 35mm cameras continued to use the horizontal curtain shutters despite the fact that it gave a slower flash sync speed, but shutter shock more almost non existent, and I realise now, decades too late, why I generally got sharper images with my Nikon F3 than I did with the original FM.
      So the phenomenon isn’t just to do with mirrorless, but i haven’t heard of specifically IBIS making it worse.

    Leave a comment

    Please log in to your forum account to comment