Why R5 Mechanical shutter shock so serious? Amost makes it useless.

[Joules]

* I can *not* get EFCS to show any deterioration in large bokeh balls at any exposure speed (all the way up to 1/8000"). I expected to see just the tops of the bokeh ball, but I can't find any change. I don't know if this effect happens at normal focal distances as I didn't test it.

What lens and aperture were you using? As far as I'm aware, you would only expect to see a difference with very wide aperatures. As you mention 500 mm, I suppose you aren't using anything near f/1.2 or 1.4

To check out what effect you would be looking for when combining a wide aperture, fast shutter speed and EFCS, check out this thread: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/rp-is-a-bokeh-killer.38216/

 

[usern4cr]

What lens and aperture were you using? As far as I'm aware, you would only expect to see a difference with very wide aperatures. As you mention 500 mm, I suppose you aren't using anything near f/1.2 or 1.4

I'm using wide open, which is 7.1 for the 500mm. I didn't want to use my 500mm f1.2, as I only seem to have access to that when I'm dreaming!

But your reply (thanks!) makes me think that I might want to do the same test at f1.2, since I do (recently) have the 85mm f1.2L.

 

[Kit.]

Thanks.
It's a "seriously" flawed product which camera can not achieve well what it claimed meanwhile users cannot take sharp images at 1/100 shutter speed (range expands to 1/60-1/200 at least) with mechanical shutter though manufacturer may have a lot of words to cast to we users.
This is not the overheating or freezing issues which happen occasionally or cases less.
Canon should recall the camera unless someone can show me he can hand-carry take sharp image @ 1/100 with mechanical shutter, IBIS ON or OFF.

OK, let's play this game.

Below are 8 samples of 100% crops, taken at 3 meters with R5 with EF 100-400 II @ 100mm f/4.5, 1/100s, ISO 400.
All taken handheld, with IS on, as a second image in the H drive mode series.
4 of them are EFCS.
4 of them are mechanical.
All 8 are random-shuffled together and then renamed.

Can you tell which ones are mechanical and which ones are EFCS?
(hint: I cannot, unless I cheat)

Just in case, I'm sending the answers to @YuengLinger (under a spoiler, of course).



Good luck.

 

[usern4cr]

OK, let's play this game.

Below are 8 samples of 100% crops, taken at 3 meters with R5 with EF 100-400 II @ 100mm f/4.5, 1/100s, ISO 400.
All taken handheld, with IS on, as a second image in the H drive mode series.
4 of them are EFCS.
4 of them are mechanical.
All 8 are random-shuffled together and then renamed.

Can you tell which ones are mechanical and which ones are EFCS?
(hint: I cannot, unless I cheat)

Just in case, I'm sending the answers to @YuengLinger (under a spoiler, of course).

View attachment 194575View attachment 194576View attachment 194577View attachment 194578View attachment 194579View attachment 194580View attachment 194581View attachment 194582

Good luck.

OK - Here's my guess:
1: EFCS
2: EFCS
3: MECH (?)
4: EFCS
5: EFCS (?)
6: MECH
7: MECH
8: MECH

 

[Aussie shooter]

3 and 6 look softer to my eyes. The rest look good.

 

[privatebydesign]

Ooh I love this kind of challenge.

1/ EFCS
2/ EFCS
3/ Mech
4/ EFCS
5/ EFCS
6/ Mech
7/ Mech
8/ Mech

 

[YuengLinger]

Without looking first at spoilers I would guess 1,3,4,5 to be EFCS...

One of them looks softer than all the others, what I would call an outlier.

 

[Sporgon]

@Kit, how do you expect us to see the difference at ISO 400 man ?? You needed to be under ISO 64 to see this major issue !

The "Click to Expand" looks the same on all of them to me.

I'll go for EFC on 2, 3, 4 & 5.

 

[Bdbtoys]

my guess... EFC 1,2,4,5 & Mech 3,6,7,8

 

[docsmith]

hahaha....I've picked 4 about 3 different times and each time I change a couple of my selections.

For what it is worth, here are two examples, EF 24-70 II, 50 mm, 1/60th, ISO 3200. A difference, sure. The ones I did this morning were more pronounced. But I was using a Sigma 50A at f/1.4 (liveview on 5DIV). Thought DOF could come into play so I reshot tonight at f/5.6.

 

[YuengLinger]

I'm happy to see others confirming with their own tests.

Rzrsharp, are you going to try on a tripod too?

 

[Rzrsharp]

OK, let's play this game.

Below are 8 samples of 100% crops, taken at 3 meters with R5 with EF 100-400 II @ 100mm f/4.5, 1/100s, ISO 400.
All taken handheld, with IS on, as a second image in the H drive mode series.
4 of them are EFCS.
4 of them are mechanical.
All 8 are random-shuffled together and then renamed.

Can you tell which ones are mechanical and which ones are EFCS?
(hint: I cannot, unless I cheat)


Good luck.

This is not the best way to deal with data. Data always get value in comparison, not alone.
Below is the height of the students in a college class, can you tell me the gender of each?


When photos taken by hand held, it always results some blurry photos whatever the shutter it is, mechanical, EFCS, or full Electrical.
In this case, mechanical shutter always results blurry photo in moderate. EFCS gets clearer photo, but not 100%. There have no guarantee.

Below is the comparison between two group Row A and Row B. Each row is 5 photos in sequence (no picky).
One of the two rows the photos are mechanical shutter, another one is EFCS. All shot at F2.8@1/100s, IBIS On. Screen capture from DPP4 quick view at 100%.
No any further processing (sharpening or NR).

I do think you guys can easily tell the diffenrece when you zoom it to 100%.

Answer:
ROW A:
ROW B:

 

[Rzrsharp]

I'm happy to see others confirming with their own tests.

Rzrsharp, are you going to try on a tripod too?

Will try on Sat or Sun on tripod.
Sure it will improve on tripod.
Thanks.

 

[Kit.]

This is not the best way to deal with data. Data always get value in comparison, not alone.
Below is the height of the student in a college class, can you tell me the gender of each?

What do your gender stereotypes have to do with this topic?

When photos took by hand held, it always results some blurry photos whatever the shutter it is, mechanical, EFCS, or full Electrical.
In this case, mechanical shutter always results blurry photo in moderate. EFCS gets clearer photo, but not 100%. There have no guarantee.

So, no practical difference on a tripod, no practical difference handheld... then what are you complaining about?

 

[Rzrsharp]

What do your gender stereotypes have to do with this topic?


So, no practical difference on a tripod, no practical difference handheld... then what are you complaining about?

1)Gender story tell you average men are taller than women. But when you mix up the data, there have no meaning, you cannot tell the gender alone. Mix up the photos are same.
2)However you hold the camera, mechanical shutter of R5 will generate shutter shock at 1/100 (expands to 1/50-1/200 at least). And average, EFCS get higher ratio of sharp, even not 100%.

 

[Kit.]

1)Gender story tell you average men are taller than women. But when you mix up the data, there have no meaning, you cannot tell the gender alone. Mix up the photos are same.

It's the other way around, actually. "Gender story" has no meaning when you work with particular humans. Human height distribution is not even bimodal anyway.

2)However you hold the camera, mechanical shutter of R5 will generate shutter shock at 1/100 (expands to 1/50-1/200 at least). And average, EFCS get higher ratio of sharp, even not 100%.

So what, if you cannot rely on it?

Clear? for free.

Costed me some time of reading this, brought absolutely no new knowledge (other than that you are not moving forward in your thought process), and in particular, my questions are still unanswered.

 

[Rzrsharp]

It's the other way around, actually. "Gender story" has no meaning when you work with particular humans. Human height distribution is not even bimodal anyway.


So what, if you cannot rely on it?


Costed me some time of reading this, brought absolutely no new knowledge (other than that you are not moving forward in your thought process), and in particular, my questions are still unanswered.

Just don't want to argue with someone coming with confusion to bring down or cover the issue like purposely.
I have the issue and definitely not alone.
Anyway, none of your photo is razer sharp.

 

[Kit.]

Just don't want to argue with someone coming with confusion to bring down or cover the issue like purposely.
I have the issue and definitely not alone.

Maybe you should try double-blind testing. It's quite possible that knowing that you are using a "bad" mode makes your camera handling more nervous.

Anyway, none of your photo is razer sharp.

The same could be said about yours. Bring them to the same contrast level for proper comparison of perceived sharpness and pixel-peep them at 500% - and you'll see what I'm talking about.

 

[Sporgon]

Just don't want to argue with someone coming with confusion to bring down or cover the issue like purposely.
I have the issue and definitely not alone.
Anyway, none of your photo is razer sharp.

You need to keep this in context - issues with image degrading movement from both within and outside of the camera are as old as photography itself, and this one that you have raised is very minor. I could lend you a Pentax 67 and then you could find out what the effects from shutter shock really are !!

 

[Kit.]

Spoiler: So, the answers are...

1. EFCS
2. Mechanical
3. Mechanical
4. EFCS
5. EFCS
6. EFCS
7. Mechanical
8. Mechanical