R7 Rolling Shutter counter Intuitive

[unfocused]

I just returned from a trip to Texas where we had an unexpected opportunity to shoot hummingbirds on the property where we were staying. We used both the R7 and the R5.

Lots of rather hilarious pictures from the R7 of wing parts elongated and even, in some cases, just floating in mid-air unattached to the bird. (A fair number of good shots with both cameras though.) This got me wondering about something.

Intuitively, it would seem that the smaller sensor size of the R7 would mean less space for the shutter to travel and therefore less, rather than more, rolling shutter. But that obviously isn't the case. At the same time, the smaller sensor would logically mean less mechanical shutter noise. Yet, that isn't the case either.

I'm guessing that the crazy loud mechanical shutter of the R7 has to do with build quality (less money spent on dampening, etc.) but I don't know. But the rolling shutter is kind of a mystery to me. Anyone care to offer an explanation that a non-technical person can understand?

 

[neuroanatomist]

Intuitively, it would seem that the smaller sensor size of the R7 would mean less space for the shutter to travel and therefore less, rather than more, rolling shutter. But that obviously isn't the case.

The R5 has a sensor readout speed of ~16 ms, for the R7 it’s ~29 ms. Rolling shutter effect results from the subject moving during the sensor readout, so the longer the readout time the more pronounced the effect. Despite the smaller sensor, the R7 should have worse rolling shutter effect – and that’s exactly what you saw.

 

[unfocused]

The R5 has a sensor readout speed of ~16 ms, for the R7 it’s ~29 ms. Rolling shutter effect results from the subject moving during the sensor readout, so the longer the readout time the more pronounced the effect. Despite the smaller sensor, the R7 should have worse rolling shutter effect – and that’s exactly what you saw.

Thanks. That's what I suspected.

In my opinion, this is one of the many small things that make up the difference between a $1,500 body and a $3,400 body. It's very easy to look at the price differences between various Canons and shout about this or that body being overpriced, but people have a tendency to discount the costs of all the little things that go into that pricing scheme.

 

[koenkooi]

Thanks. That's what I suspected.

In my opinion, this is one of the many small things that make up the difference between a $1,500 body and a $3,400 body. It's very easy to look at the price differences between various Canons and shout about this or that body being overpriced, but people have a tendency to discount the costs of all the little things that go into that pricing scheme.

The rolling shutter was one of the main reasons I didn’t pick the R7 as a 2nd body to the R5. I didn’t think the performance was worth the price, especially when being spoilt by the R5 for performance and the M6II for size.

As for rolling shutter: the physical size isn’t a factor, the number of rows to read and the time per row are.
For the same generation of technology this would make size a factor, e.g a 90MP FF sensor and 32MP APS-C sensor would have the same time per line, but the smaller sensor has fewer lines and would be faster. But the R7 sensor as almost 2.5 times slower per line, compared to the R5 sensor.

The R8 is also slower per line, but slightly faster overall due to having only 24MP.

 

[AlanF]

The R5 has a sensor readout speed of ~16 ms, for the R7 it’s ~29 ms. Rolling shutter effect results from the subject moving during the sensor readout, so the longer the readout time the more pronounced the effect. Despite the smaller sensor, the R7 should have worse rolling shutter effect – and that’s exactly what you saw.

And in practice it's even worse when you crop the R5 to have the same physical size of image as for the R7: the 29ms of the R7 is effectively 1.6x higher, ie 46ms compared with the 16 ms of the R5, that is 2.9x slower.

Edit: @koenkooi posted something similar as my post was being written.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The R8 is also slower per line, but slightly faster overall due to having only 24MP.

The sensor in the R8 and R6II has a 14.5 ms readout speed, slightly faster than the R5. Personally, I still use EFCS so I get the full bit depth in my RAW images (the R3 is the only Canon body so far that outputs 14-bit RAW with full electronic shutter).

 

[AlanF]

The rolling shutter was one of the main reasons I didn’t pick the R7 as a 2nd body to the R5. I didn’t think the performance was worth the price, especially when being spoilt by the R5 for performance and the M6II for size.

As for rolling shutter: the physical size isn’t a factor, the number of rows to read and the time per row are.
For the same generation of technology this would make size a factor, e.g a 90MP FF sensor and 32MP APS-C sensor would have the same time per line, but the smaller sensor has fewer lines and would be faster. But the R7 sensor as almost 2.5 times slower per line, compared to the R5 sensor.

The R8 is also slower per line, but slightly faster overall due to having only 24MP.

I use mechanical shutter or EFCS with the R7 when motion might spoil the shot. For me, the R7 having 2x the resolution of the R6 or R8 far outweighs the rolling shutter problem but YMMV.

 

[AlanF]

I just returned from a trip to Texas where we had an unexpected opportunity to shoot hummingbirds on the property where we were staying. We used both the R7 and the R5.

Lots of rather hilarious pictures from the R7 of wing parts elongated and even, in some cases, just floating in mid-air unattached to the bird. (A fair number of good shots with both cameras though.) This got me wondering about something.

Intuitively, it would seem that the smaller sensor size of the R7 would mean less space for the shutter to travel and therefore less, rather than more, rolling shutter. But that obviously isn't the case. At the same time, the smaller sensor would logically mean less mechanical shutter noise. Yet, that isn't the case either.

I'm guessing that the crazy loud mechanical shutter of the R7 has to do with build quality (less money spent on dampening, etc.) but I don't know. But the rolling shutter is kind of a mystery to me. Anyone care to offer an explanation that a non-technical person can understand?

Here are some shots with rolling shutter on the R7:

R7 Discussion

After 1 day, I am beginning to have favourable impressions for bird and nature photography. My problem with new bodies is that I have to wait for DxO PL to be compatible as I really dislike DPP4 and Lightroom in comparison. So, I took both RAW and jpegs and was delighted by the straight out of...

www.canonrumors.com

 

[koenkooi]

I use mechanical shutter or EFCS with the R7 when motion might spoil the shot. For me, the R7 having 2x the resolution of the R6 or R8 far outweighs the rolling shutter problem but YMMV.

That was my thinking as well, but after renting it for a week I didn’t want to spend €1800 on it. That conclusion surprised me as well
The R7+100-500 did manage to get me decent shots of bearded reedlings at low shutter speeds, so ‘reach’ and IQ won’t be complained about by me

 

[AlanF]

That was my thinking as well, but after renting it for a week I didn’t want to spend €1800 on it. That conclusion surprised me as well
The R7+100-500 did manage to get me decent shots of bearded reedlings at low shutter speeds, so ‘reach’ and IQ won’t be complained about by me

For static shots of butterflies, dragonflies and insects at close to mfd, the R7 + RF 100-400mm gives me better results than the R5 + RF 100-500mm, and at longer distances the el cheapo is nearly as good at static shots and I recently got decent Puffins in Flight with it as well as Stonechats.

BIRD IN FLIGHT ONLY -- share your BIF photos here

Nice shots, cooldood. Thanks Click

www.canonrumors.com

 

[stillviking]

Just use R7 on EFCS and not eletronic shutter and it's solved! No more rolling shutter!

 

[unfocused]

...For me, the R7 having 2x the resolution of the R6 or R8 far outweighs the rolling shutter problem but YMMV.

That's my take on it. To be clear, I was well aware of the rolling shutter issue and fully expected it to be a problem, but the hummingbirds were an unexpected bonus that gave my wife and I a chance to really see the difference between the R5 and R7. We got way more good shots than we will ever use, so the spoiled ones don't bother me and they are kind of amusing. As I said, one of my favorites is a shot where part of the wing is floating in mid-air, completely detached from the bird.

Generally, we use the R7 for small songbirds that are perched or flitting around in trees. Our R5s are best for birds in flight, although I also use the R3 when conditions are right.

As far as just using the mechanical shutter on the R7, I confess that I simply can't stand the noise it generates. I doubt it would bother hummingbirds, which aren't that shy, but I don't like switching back and forth when you never know what you might come across.

I posted this mainly because I was curious as to the technical explanation of why this is such an issue with the R7. There are times when I wish Canon would have made the R7 a true successor to the 7D II, but then again, I might not have been willing to spend $2,500 or more each on two R7s to supplement the R5s. As some of you may know, I have to double every Canon expenditure because I got my wife hooked on bird photography several years ago.

 

[AlanF]

That's my take on it. To be clear, I was well aware of the rolling shutter issue and fully expected it to be a problem, but the hummingbirds were an unexpected bonus that gave my wife and I a chance to really see the difference between the R5 and R7. We got way more good shots than we will ever use, so the spoiled ones don't bother me and they are kind of amusing. As I said, one of my favorites is a shot where part of the wing is floating in mid-air, completely detached from the bird.

Generally, we use the R7 for small songbirds that are perched or flitting around in trees. Our R5s are best for birds in flight, although I also use the R3 when conditions are right.

As far as just using the mechanical shutter on the R7, I confess that I simply can't stand the noise it generates. I doubt it would bother hummingbirds, which aren't that shy, but I don't like switching back and forth when you never know what you might come across.

I posted this mainly because I was curious as to the technical explanation of why this is such an issue with the R7. There are times when I wish Canon would have made the R7 a true successor to the 7D II, but then again, I might not have been willing to spend $2,500 or more each on two R7s to supplement the R5s. As some of you may know, I have to double every Canon expenditure because I got my wife hooked on bird photography several years ago.

Same here with wife. Most importantly, she can manage to carry the R7 + RF 100-400 but not the heavier white zoom now. I love the lightness of them too.

 

[unfocused]

Same here with wife. Most importantly, she can manage to carry the R7 + RF 100-400 but not the heavier white zoom now. I love the lightness of them too.

Keep her away from the gym. Those heavy lenses get expensive.

 

[Kit.]

The sensor in the R8 and R6II has a 14.5 ms readout speed, slightly faster than the R5. Personally, I still use EFCS so I get the full bit depth in my RAW images (the R3 is the only Canon body so far that outputs 14-bit RAW with full electronic shutter).

In my experience, the R5 in EFCS mode is much worse at tracking erratically moving birds (like hunting swallows) than in full ES mode. Maybe that's less relevant with hummingbirds.