Shutter shock on the M6 Mark II

dcm

It's not the gear.
CR Pro
Apr 18, 2013
863
247
Colorado, USA
TL;DR

A couple of highlights:
  • I'm pleased with the overall performance of the M6 mark II. I now have a much better idea what to expect from my gear.
  • Shutter shock primarily affects the tele end of the zooms, sometimes drammatically. Electronic shutter preferred when possible.
  • A stable tripod helps. Series 3 Gitzo performed much better than Series 1 Gitzo in most comparisons.
  • EF-M 32 and EF-M 11-22 are great lenses, comparable to my EF L series lenses. They were already my favorite EF-M lenses.
All normal caveats apply. YMMV in different conditions.

Will be interesting to do something similar when I start my R collection. Might I expect similar results?

Details

This is primarily a shutter shock comparison. I wasn't trying to achieve optimal performance for each lens, just compare the difference between electronic and mechanical shutter settings, all other things being equal. In some cases I compared with different tripods or image stabilization using the same basic setup.
  • Lot's of M experience (M, M3, M5, M6 mark II) and a full set of EF-M lenses. Meets my needs for everyday carry. Use a 1DX mark II and EF L series when I want to get more serious. Sometimes use EF lenses like the EF 85L and EF 135L in special situations since there is no equivalent, otherwise I stick to the M lenses for size and weight.
  • Shoot mostly handheld. When I need a tripod I typically use a Gitzo 1542T Traveler tripod with the M series, but also have a Gitzo 3532LS Systematic for the serious stuff.
  • Long time FoCal user, starting with 1.8 several years ago. Used FoCal 3 with the 150mm and 210mm targets from Reikan. Used large target for wide angle, small target on the teles due to limited space indoors for testing.
  • Used a 12EV lighting setup for the targets to achieve mostly ISO 100 across the shutter range.
  • Controlled the camera wirelessly from my phone.
Hope you find this enlightening.

FoCal data

The EF-M 32 is a great lens for the M that rival EF L series lenses (see below).
Slide1.png


The EF-M 11-22 zoom is another great lens. It does show shutter shock at the tele end.
Slide2.png


The EF-M 22 is disappointing with wide apertures. It gets much better at f/4. This may be copy variation as Alan F points out.
Slide3.png


The EF 85 1.4 L IS has the most consistent performance of any lens I tested.
Slide4.png


The EF 135 f/2L has outstanding performance, even on an M6. The EF 200 f/2.8L might be worth a look.
Slide5.png


The EF-M 28 Macro IS needs f/4 and a solid tripod.
Slide6.png


Possibly the best of the mid-range EF-M zooms, unless you need the additional reach. Some shutter shock at the tele end.
Slide7.png


The EF-M 15-45 is poor at the tele end and suffers from shutter shock.
Slide8.png


The EF-M 18-150 is poor at the tele end and suffers some serious shutter shock.
Slide9.png


The EF-M 55-200 is poor at the tele end and can suffer significant shutter shock. Thought the performance isn't that much worse than the 18-150 at 150. The Systematic tripod reduced the shutter shock.
Slide10.png


I sometimes use a 70-300L or 100-400L on the M, but didn't have enough room to test them appropriately. Some preliminary data showed much better tele performance and significant shutter shock as might be expected, both with and without IS.
 
Last edited:

Linteria

EF-M Believer
Oct 23, 2020
7
4
Interesting data. BTW, for the 22mm chart you said "The EF-M is disappointing..." I assume you meant to say "The EF-M 22mm is disappointing..."
 
  • Like
Reactions: dcm

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
7,617
7,957
The EF-M 22 is disappointing with wide apertures. It gets much better at f/4.
View attachment 194785
A lot of work went into those plots. Thanks for showing. I once checked out several of my EF-M lenses at 22mm. Here is a bar chart for the 11-22 15-45 wide open, and the 22mm prime at f/2 AND F/4, going from the extreme left across to the extreme right of the field. Measured by FoCal like yours, they all have excellent Quality of Focus (QoF). Your copy of the 22mm f/2 looks like a real bummer as mine is sharp wide open with only a small improvement on going to f/4. I think that there is a lot of copy variation on these lenses as my results diffe a lot from TDPs but are close to the opticallimits. I sent back one copy of the 11-22mm as it was very soft at the right side but the second copy (N) has a very flat field.
QoF22mmAll_2_00x.jpg
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
7,617
7,957
I know it's off topic but to show how these lenses can vary, here are the Quality of Focus profiles across the field for the returned 11-22mm ("O") and the new ("N"). At 11 mm, both are brilliant. At 22mm, the N was really good but got a bit softer on the extreme right, as above, but the O got bad away from the centre. A QoF of 11-1200 as on the extreme right is really soft and looks quite out of focus. As I like saying, the only lens quality measure that counts is the one for your copy of the lens.
QoF11-22OvsN11mm.jpg
QoF11-22OvsN22mm.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: dcm

dcm

It's not the gear.
CR Pro
Apr 18, 2013
863
247
Colorado, USA
Here's an additional chart for the 70-300L that I use regularly with the M. I increased the lighting to EV15 or daylight. Shows some significant shutter shock when extended to 300 mm, pretty consistent with the M zooms. Pleased to see the increased ISO didn't degrade the images too much at the faster shutter speeds. Curious that IS gives apretty consistent improvement with fast shutter speeds on a tripod, but not lower shutter speeds.
Slide11.png


These are single data points so I wouldn't necessarily draw any strong conclusions. Averaging several samples at each point on the graph would be better. I was just looking for an indication.