R3 rolling shutter, is it much of an improvement over R5?

[dpockett]

2 video reviews of R3 stating it is improved, but still evident - actually, only mentioned it is evident but I see it at the starting points I set in the following links (background poles on an angle in dpreview clip, from clip mentioned warped ball):

I have thrown out so many unusable frames taken on the R5 electronic shutter. Shots like the following (ball stretched vertically, and the poles/signage in background on an angle). It has made me permanently use the mechanical shutter on the R5 as I cannot submit images like these below (taken on R5).

2 reasons I can't decided yet if I will grab an R3; I was hoping for more mpix as I crop in quite a lot sometimes, and having 45 makes an extreme crop still very usable. The other reason is the rolling shutter, and from those 2 videos it doesn't look to be fixed enough to use it without worrying it will ruin otherwise usable images like the attached:

 

[john1970]

You ask a very good question. My understanding is that Canon claims a 3x improvement in rolling shutter in a R3 vs. a R5 or 1Dx Mk3. I noticed some distortion as well, but it was significantly less than R5.

 

[HenryL]

2 video reviews of R3 stating it is improved, but still evident - actually, only mentioned it is evident but I see it at the starting points I set in the following links (background poles on an angle in dpreview clip, from clip mentioned warped ball):

I have thrown out so many unusable frames taken on the R5 electronic shutter. Shots like the following (ball stretched vertically, and the poles/signage in background on an angle). It has made me permanently use the mechanical shutter on the R5 as I cannot submit images like these below (taken on R5).

2 reasons I can't decided yet if I will grab an R3; I was hoping for more mpix as I crop in quite a lot sometimes, and having 45 makes an extreme crop still very usable. The other reason is the rolling shutter, and from those 2 videos it doesn't look to be fixed enough to use it without worrying it will ruin otherwise usable images like the attached:


View attachment 200221
View attachment 200219
View attachment 200218

Sincere question, as rolling shutter isn't something I have more than cursory knowledge of. Are these images truly examples of rolling shutter? Mostly in the last two it seems to me they are not rolling shutter because I would suspect the panning was right to left following the player direction, but the "lean" is left to right. Also the rugby example, the ball does look elongated, but there is no apparent "lean" which in Jared's soccer ball example is slight but still apparent. Thanks, I appreciate any opportunity to learn and understand.

 

[skrubol]

Sincere question, as rolling shutter isn't something I have more than cursory knowledge of. Are these images truly examples of rolling shutter? Mostly in the last two it seems to me they are not rolling shutter because I would suspect the panning was right to left following the player direction, but the "lean" is left to right. Also the rugby example, the ball does look elongated, but there is no apparent "lean" which in Jared's soccer ball example is slight but still apparent. Thanks, I appreciate any opportunity to learn and understand.

If an object is moving vertically (or horizontally when the camera is held in portrait mode,) the object will appear squished or stretched rather than skewed.

 

[docsmith]

While not sports, so far, I like Gordon's test the best. Much better, according to Gordon, as good as the A1, but still not perfect.

Set to 6:45 where he talks about rolling shutter.

 

[HenryL]

If an object is moving vertically (or horizontally when the camera is held in portrait mode,) the object will appear squished or stretched rather than skewed.

Thanks, skrubol, I think I can visualize it that way regarding the ball. Any insight to the two other examples where the posts are leaning to the right, which if I have it right would indicate panning from left to right. The action, however, is right to left so I am assuming that is the actual direction of the panning motion.

 

[dpockett]

You ask a very good question. My understanding is that Canon claims a 4x improvement in rolling shutter in a R3 vs. a R5 or 1Dx Mk3. I noticed some distortion as well, but it was significantly less than R5.

I'd like to see the stats, people claim 1/60 for R5 and 1/240 for A1. From what I have seen so fat E3 is around 1/180. This all is over my head, but judging on numbers it sits closer to A1, but still not the same level. Very happy to be proven wrong!

 

[dpockett]

Sincere question, as rolling shutter isn't something I have more than cursory knowledge of. Are these images truly examples of rolling shutter? Mostly in the last two it seems to me they are not rolling shutter because I would suspect the panning was right to left following the player direction, but the "lean" is left to right. Also the rugby example, the ball does look elongated, but there is no apparent "lean" which in Jared's soccer ball example is slight but still apparent. Thanks, I appreciate any opportunity to learn and understand.

Yes the last two are rolling shutter. If you have a mirrorless camera you can test it out yourself, objects lean that way when panning that way, it must have something to do with how it is read? Although what you say makes logical sense, they actually lean forwards rather than backwards to the way you are panning.

And yes the ball definitely stretches vertically, one of the players' hands is also slightly elongated. This has happened a lot when the action is close, that image was barely cropped in if at all.

 

[jd7]

Sincere question, as rolling shutter isn't something I have more than cursory knowledge of. Are these images truly examples of rolling shutter? Mostly in the last two it seems to me they are not rolling shutter because I would suspect the panning was right to left following the player direction, but the "lean" is left to right. Also the rugby example, the ball does look elongated, but there is no apparent "lean" which in Jared's soccer ball example is slight but still apparent. Thanks, I appreciate any opportunity to learn and understand.

Of far more importance than rolling shutter ... that's not rugby, that's Aussie rules (Australian Rules football)!

 

[AlanF]

Of far more importance than rolling shutter ... that's not rugby, that's Aussie rules (Australian Rules football)!

I thought it was Aussie basketball with extreme rolling shutter.

 

[HenryL]

Yes the last two are rolling shutter. If you have a mirrorless camera you can test it out yourself, objects lean that way when panning that way, it must have something to do with how it is read? Although what you say makes logical sense, they actually lean forwards rather than backwards to the way you are panning.

And yes the ball definitely stretches vertically, one of the players' hands is also slightly elongated. This has happened a lot when the action is close, that image was barely cropped in if at all.

I think I got it now. The tilt sort of points to where the camera is panning to, not from. Which makes sense if accounting for the image being inverted as projected on the sensor. Of course that requires an assumption the the readout is from top to bottom.
Thanks folks. I’ll quit while I’m ahead, I got the main point re:direction. The rest I’ll just accept without 100% understanding hehehe

 

[dpockett]

While not sports, so far, I like Gordon's test the best. Much better, according to Gordon, as good as the A1, but still not perfect.

Set to 6:45 where he talks about rolling shutter.

Yeah I saw that one too, the second example of the tower isn't great though is it. I have friends using the A1 say they never notice anything in their work, I was hoping R3 would show nothing.

Is this an acceptable workable image to you? I couldn't ever file a picture like that:

 

[SNJ Ops]

From the test on Gordon’s video its much improved but still noticeable to the point where the images in his test would be unusable to me personally.
With stacked sensors the readout speed is very key.

 

[docsmith]

Yeah I saw that one too, the second example of the tower isn't great though is it. I have friends using the A1 say they never notice anything in their work, I was hoping R3 would show nothing.

Is this an acceptable workable image to you? I couldn't ever file a picture like that:

I am a hobbyist but understand there are those trying for or having to adhere to the highest standards. I also take any test trying to find a problem with a grain of salt. A quick panning motion, very long straight vertical line that over the entire frame is a torture test that may or may not affect your actual photography.

I am currently shooting the R5. I usually use some variation of a mechanical shutter, but here are two images shot the the electronic shutter only
537A5256 by kayaker72, on Flickr

537A8249 by kayaker72, on Flickr

So, even with the R5, electronic shutter is working for me. The R3 is even better. Until there is a global shutter, faster readouts only mean there are fewer instances where rolling shutter will be an issue. You'll have to judge when a camera has crossed the line for you.

 

[john1970]

The R3 is definitely an improvement over the R5, but for me the other three key improvements are blackout free EVF and an a 50% increase in fps (i.e. 20 fps to 30 fps, and lastly full 14 bit RAW files at 30 fps without having to worry about battery charge.

 

[AlanF]

The R3 is definitely an improvement over the R5, but for me the other three key improvements are blackout free EVF and an a 50% increase in fps (i.e. 20 fps to 30 fps, and lastly full 14 bit RAW files at 30 fps without having to worry about battery charge.

The R5 does not have blackout in EVF at high speed and fast refresh.

 

[dpockett]

I am a hobbyist but understand there are those trying for or having to adhere to the highest standards. I also take any test trying to find a problem with a grain of salt. A quick panning motion, very long straight vertical line that over the entire frame is a torture test that may or may not affect your actual photography.

I am currently shooting the R5. I usually use some variation of a mechanical shutter, but here are two images shot the the electronic shutter only
537A5256 by kayaker72, on Flickr

537A8249 by kayaker72, on Flickr

So, even with the R5, electronic shutter is working for me. The R3 is even better. Until there is a global shutter, faster readouts only mean there are fewer instances where rolling shutter will be an issue. You'll have to judge when a camera has crossed the line for you.

Yes I have had usable images in electronic mode also, but I can't trust it enough to capture the decisive moment without something looking unnatural (background or subject matter). When shooting sports you can't always predict when you might need to pan and follow an athlete - hence why I shoot all sports with the mechanical shutter.

If I were shooting just for myself it would be a different story.