Analysis: Canon EOS M6 Mark II shutter shock performance
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
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.
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
Hoping for a M5 mark II
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.
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.
Last edited:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'm several thousand images into my M6 Mark II ownership - this has never been an issue in any way.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
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.
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.
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.
Similar threads
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
