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

Kit.

EOS 5D Mark IV
Apr 25, 2011
2,125
1,461
About the same difference as between being a professional and being a scholar.
 

Joules

doom
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2017
1,637
1,983
Hamburg, Germany
About the same difference as between being a professional and being a scholar.
I know what the words mean, I just don't want to assume what you mean to imply based on so few words.

Here's what's on my mind: There are customers who bought an R5 and had a suspicion about its performance. They have independently invested time into confirming that suspicion with adequate test methods and shared their results on this forum, and in at least one instance also with Canon.

What is or isn't an issue is up to the individual user. The same is true for what degree of testing they require to feel satisfied with their gear. But at Canon, it is the engineering that matters and getting constructive feedback with good data is necessary in order for the engineers to address customer feedback.

In my opinion, ridiculing such endeavors does nothing positive and at worst (not in this context, but for other subjects) can discourage constructive discussions.

Was one of these points something you specifically wanted to critique as being out of touch or am I missing your point completely?
 

Kit.

EOS 5D Mark IV
Apr 25, 2011
2,125
1,461
I know what the words mean, I just don't want to assume what you mean to imply based on so few words.

Here's what's on my mind: There are customers who bought an R5 and had a suspicion about its performance. They have independently invested time into confirming that suspicion with adequate test methods and shared their results on this forum, and in at least one instance also with Canon.

What is or isn't an issue is up to the individual user. The same is true for what degree of testing they require to feel satisfied with their gear. But at Canon, it is the engineering that matters and getting constructive feedback with good data is necessary in order for the engineers to address customer feedback.

In my opinion, ridiculing such endeavors does nothing positive and at worst (not in this context, but for other subjects) can discourage constructive discussions.

Was one of these points something you specifically wanted to critique as being out of touch or am I missing your point completely?
You are missing my point completely.

I see no real world use scenario where the only reason why one would not prefer mechanical shutter over EFCS in R5 would be shutter shock.
Nor the OP has proposed one.

The practical usefulness of the mechanical shutter is not limited by its shutter shock, it is limited by the EFCS being a generally better mode except for some rare scenarios where the shutter shock of R5 doesn't matter anyway.
 

Joules

doom
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2017
1,637
1,983
Hamburg, Germany
You are missing my point completely.

I see no real world use scenario where the only reason why one would not prefer mechanical shutter over EFCS in R5 would be shutter shock.
Nor the OP has proposed one.

The practical usefulness of the mechanical shutter is not limited by its shutter shock, it is limited by the EFCS being a generally better mode except for some rare scenarios where the shutter shock of R5 doesn't matter anyway.
Okay, that makes sense. Guess you missed my point as well then, since I am not disagreeing with anything you say there.

Although I would add that to the user's who paid for an R5, it should not matter if you or me see the shutter shock effect as significant. It is their money, and their use case that determines how much it bothers them.

And Canon definitely can implement a feature to automatically switch between the modes based on shutter speed to offer the benefits of both, allowing the user to focus on more important matters. So it is not like it is unreasonable to discuss the matter.

The words used in that discussion are somewhat out of place, as I said previously I disagree with the title of this thread foe instance.

But none of that is what I commented on with the post you originally quoted, so that got me confused.
 

Kit.

EOS 5D Mark IV
Apr 25, 2011
2,125
1,461
But none of that is what I commented on with the post you originally quoted, so that got me confused.
Methodical is one who uses a method. Pedantic is one who pays attention to mostly irrelevant details.

If you shoot outdoor portraits in varying daylight, would you really worry that some flat chart samples could show you that some of your images might be slightly less than 45 megapixel sharp?
 

Joules

doom
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2017
1,637
1,983
Hamburg, Germany
If you shoot outdoor portraits in varying daylight, would you really worry that some flat chart samples could show you that some of your images might be slightly less than 45 megapixel sharp?
I don't. Do you? Does that make it wrong to care about it? Who is being hurt by posts that demonstrate how Canon can improve their product even further?

As I said, I never said the title of this thread is justified or that the phenomenon presented derserves being called an 'issue'. All I disagree with is people expressing the notion that quantifying a disappointing aspect of a product is ridiculous. Or that scientific methods are crap. And yes, that last point is reading too much into a simple remark, and I am aware of that and not accusing the one who said it of meaning it that way. But this is the internet, so you never know :LOL:

The comment you originally quoted and I stand by is that it is ironic to ridicule a perfectly fine method such as using charts, tripods and multiple shots to account for statistical variance while giving yourself the name Methodical. That is neither an insult to the person, nor is it saying that you can't act methodically under the circumstances you named. It was just pointing out something I found funny while also slightly nagging about the mentality of denouncing scientific procedures, which is all too present (still) in the modern day.
 

JPAZ

If only I knew what I was doing.....
CR Pro
Sep 8, 2012
1,073
209
Nothing to worry about if you use EFCS for those situations


Sorry I am a bit late to the thread. With a DSLR, I'd use mirror lockup when any vibration would affect an image. Even though electronic versus mechanical shutter is not the same, it kind of is. I'll change to Electronic when I am really worried about camera (or shutter) shake and somehow carry on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YuengLinger and dcm

Kit.

EOS 5D Mark IV
Apr 25, 2011
2,125
1,461
Sorry I am a bit late to the thread. With a DSLR, I'd use mirror lockup when any vibration would affect an image. Even though electronic versus mechanical shutter is not the same, it kind of is. I'll change to Electronic when I am really worried about camera (or shutter) shake and somehow carry on.
In case of mirrorless, it's even better. Mirror lockup increases the shutter lag, and a lot. EFCS decreases it.

The only case where you reasonably want to use full manual shutter on mirrorless is when the EFCS produces visible artifacts (caused by two shutter "blades" being not in exactly the same plane).
 
  • Like
Reactions: YuengLinger

R1-7D

EOS RP
Jun 25, 2012
761
110
Canada
I'm still trying to determine when it's best to use mechanical shutter vs when to use electronic first curtain shutter. I primarily shoot wild life, and so far, with the R5, I've predominately used the full electronic shutter. However, sometimes there are benefits to using the other two shutter modes, and I'd like some further clarification as to when I should use one mode over the other.

Let's saying I'm shooting birds in flight using a 600mm f/4 lens. Would I be better off remaining on EFCS, or should I switch to full mechanical shutter?

I've heard about issues with fast shutter speeds and EFCS, but I always thought that problem was in combination with using fast primes at their widest apertures, such as f/1.2. In other words, from my understanding, shooting a f/1.2 lens at 1/2500s or 1/3200s would cause problems with bokeh, etc.

However, would shooting an f/4 lens at 1/2500s or 1/3200s (or faster) cause any issues for sharpness and/or bokeh?

I ask, because one other big benefit of using EFSC over full mechanical with both the R5 and R6 is the reduced shutter lag. If you're tracking fast action, the reduced shutter lag could be beneficial.
 

koenkooi

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
1,678
1,552
I would only worry about mangled bokeh when shooting at faster than f/1.8. But I've shot both the RF85 f/1.2 and RF50 f/1.2 on my RP, which only has EFCS and didn't find anything objectionable about the resulting pictures. Shooting it side by side with an R the biggest difference was that I could lift the shadows more in the R pictures.

At f/4 I wouldn't worry about a thing, but for peace of mind you could try doing a test by having the 3 modes on C1, C2 and C3 so it's easy to switch between them.

I mostly do macro with flash, so EFCS is objectively the best mode since ES doesn't work with flash enabled.
 
  • Like
Reactions: R1-7D

Aussie shooter

www.facebook.com/BrettGuyPhotography/
Dec 6, 2016
1,040
1,458
I'm still trying to determine when it's best to use mechanical shutter vs when to use electronic first curtain shutter. I primarily shoot wild life, and so far, with the R5, I've predominately used the full electronic shutter. However, sometimes there are benefits to using the other two shutter modes, and I'd like some further clarification as to when I should use one mode over the other.

Let's saying I'm shooting birds in flight using a 600mm f/4 lens. Would I be better off remaining on EFCS, or should I switch to full mechanical shutter?

I've heard about issues with fast shutter speeds and EFCS, but I always thought that problem was in combination with using fast primes at their widest apertures, such as f/1.2. In other words, from my understanding, shooting a f/1.2 lens at 1/2500s or 1/3200s would cause problems with bokeh, etc.

However, would shooting an f/4 lens at 1/2500s or 1/3200s (or faster) cause any issues for sharpness and/or bokeh?

I ask, because one other big benefit of using EFSC over full mechanical with both the R5 and R6 is the reduced shutter lag. If you're tracking fast action, the reduced shutter lag could be beneficial.
So far on the R6 I have found fully electronic to be the only option for birds in flight. Simply too much lag with the mechanical. TBH I am yet to try the Electronic first curtain. I really should do that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: R1-7D

Fischer

EOS RP
Mar 17, 2020
299
215
I've noticed similar effects with my 5DS even with MLU, so it's not just mirrorless. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with your R5, just welcome to the world of very high resolution potential FF sensors ;)
At least the 5DS/R has a special motorized mechanical shutter to reduce mirror slap. And it works. You just have to shot a little slower fps.
 

Fischer

EOS RP
Mar 17, 2020
299
215
You mean motorised mechanical mirror ? Yes it does, and works well. I'm not aware of any differences in the 5DS shutter compared with say 5DIII.
It's a substantial upgrade - also compared to the 5DIV. Think Canon made some promotional materials explaining how it works.