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

YuengLinger

EOS R6
CR Pro
Dec 20, 2012
3,452
1,886
USA
Luckily many of us rarely shoot at such low shutter speeds so 80% useless is not a problem. Seriously. Just set it to mechanical...
By "many of us" do you mean a certain class of photographers? Bif, sports, other action? Do you mean photographers participating in this forum?

Are there surveys we can look to verifying your claim that 100th - 200th sec are "such low shutter speeds" as to be irrelevant outliers? "Seriously"?

Perhaps "many of us" clamored for IBIS because we often shoot at these shutter speeds.

There is a general softening of images, subtle as it is. If a firmware fix could offer switching to avoid the pitfalls of EFCS and Mechanical, why not prod Canon? Is there a fix or improvement you believe deserves higher priority? Would spending some resources on offering the auto-switching option somehow harm a concern of your own?

Just curious, because you are interested enough to chime in, yet seem to want to blow off anybody who does seek a fix. If fixing this issue does not harm you, why are you pouring cold tea on the topic?
 

YuengLinger

EOS R6
CR Pro
Dec 20, 2012
3,452
1,886
USA
Ok, here's a fun exercise. If you have Lightroom, simply filter by shutter speed. Let us know what percentage of your keepers for this year, or your total catalog, as you like, were taken with shutter speeds from 1/60th-1/200th sec.

I just did mine. Of 3902 keepers this year (I cull ruthlessly), 997 shots were in the range. That's 26%. Interestingly, pretty close to Aussie Shooter's claim that only 20% of something involves these shutter speeds. Not sure if he means shots-taken, or photographers not-cool-enough to avoid these shutter speeds.

In any event, I would not want to change my technique by raising ISO--even with the beautiful new sensors--especially after buying a camera with IBIS! :p

And in many of the shots I'm looking at, the shutter speed seemed just right. Either the subject was completely stationary and didn't need a higher shutter speed, or I wanted a slight hint of motion in part of the image.

Admittedly, for 384 of those shots, 1/200th was my most common in the range, reflecting the 1/200th flash sync speed of the EOS R--though I don't know how many did use flash. Didn't check. If it had been a normal year with more studio work, 1/200th would have been higher. Now that I have the R6, I will be using flash/strobe at 1/250th. If anybody ever wants to be photographed ever again (instead of taking ducky-kiss selfies). :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

koenkooi

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
1,598
1,456
I can't find a mention of the 12/13/14 bit rate for raw still photos in the R5 Advanced User Guide. You would think that Canon would include this crucial data somewhere in it (if I missed it please let me know), and not force us to scour the internet to find it ourselves.

I think it was in the older, pre-september AUG, I can't find it in the most recent one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: usern4cr

Joules

doom
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2017
1,595
1,914
Hamburg, Germany
Ok, here's a fun exercise. If you have Lightroom, simply filter by shutter speed. Let us know what percentage of your keepers for this year, or your total catalog, as you like, were taken with shutter speeds from 1/60th-1/200th sec.
That's 236 shots out of 492 keepers (It's been a slow year, lol. And I haven't processed everything yet) for me. So, 48 % are within the 1/60 to 1/200 range (bounds inclusive).

Looking at all JPEGs I have on my PC, it's 7844 out of 15074, so even more at 52 %.

Edit: This is a worthwhile experiment by the way. To me this is one of those things where my intuition was way off and actually doing the "measurement" was required to make any sort of accurate comment on the matter. The flipside of this data is that for about half of what I shoot, I would be just fine using EFCS.
 
Last edited:

Aussie shooter

www.facebook.com/BrettGuyPhotography/
Dec 6, 2016
1,024
1,425
By "many of us" do you mean a certain class of photographers? Bif, sports, other action? Do you mean photographers participating in this forum?

Are there surveys we can look to verifying your claim that 100th - 200th sec are "such low shutter speeds" as to be irrelevant outliers? "Seriously"?

Perhaps "many of us" clamored for IBIS because we often shoot at these shutter speeds.

There is a general softening of images, subtle as it is. If a firmware fix could offer switching to avoid the pitfalls of EFCS and Mechanical, why not prod Canon? Is there a fix or improvement you believe deserves higher priority? Would spending some resources on offering the auto-switching option somehow harm a concern of your own?

Just curious, because you are interested enough to chime in, yet seem to want to blow off anybody who does seek a fix. If fixing this issue does not harm you, why are you pouring cold tea on the topic?
Wildlife. And yes. For a wildlife shooter 1/200sec is relatively slow. As for blowing others off who seek a fix, if you read the rest of my posts i am not blowing anybody off. You will get a firmware fix that gives you the option of electronic shutter at those shutter speeds. Just be patient. As i said elsewhere, everybody desperately wanted IBIS. This is a direct result of that. It is called the law of unintended consequences.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YuengLinger

dcm

It's not the gear. But it helps.
CR Pro
Apr 18, 2013
919
428
Colorado, USA
I noticed some image softness that I couldn't explain on my M6 Mark II when it first came out. I did some experiments with different tripods and settings until I narrowed the difference to mechanical versus electronic shutter. No EFCS on the M6 Mark II. I'm using more electronic shutter than mechanical these days. Took a while to get used to the silence - often ended up with multiple images. No electronic shutter on my M5 . My M3 has EFCS only.

Here's a great article from Canon News about shutter shock on the M6 Mark II that confirmed my suspicions. Note the differences between lenses that I hadn't realized. I've been too busy to go back and characterize the rest of my EF-M lenses. You might consider using their methodology rather than a visual inspection.

I'm not surprised that R5 might suffer from a similar issue.
 

Aussie shooter

www.facebook.com/BrettGuyPhotography/
Dec 6, 2016
1,024
1,425
This is just speculation on your part though, is it? I have seen nothing that leads me to believe IBIS is the culprit.
Yes. But it is straight up logical. Without a solid mount then you invariably introduce some amount of movement, however small. Even when IBIS is not in use. Shutter shock is likely to be very small bit it will exist. And the fact that below a certain shutter speed it does not seem to happen would back up that it is the shutter affecting the sensor at speeds fast enough to have an impact but slow enough for the impact to be registered by the sensor. However I am happy to concede that it could be something else. I just dont see what else it could be
 

Joules

doom
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2017
1,595
1,914
Hamburg, Germany
Yes. But it is straight up logical. Without a solid mount then you invariably introduce some amount of movement, however small. Even when IBIS is not in use. Shutter shock is likely to be very small bit it will exist. And the fact that below a certain shutter speed it does not seem to happen would back up that it is the shutter affecting the sensor at speeds fast enough to have an impact but slow enough for the impact to be registered by the sensor. However I am happy to concede that it could be something else. I just dont see what else it could be
What do you mean by speeds that have enough impact? As far as I'm aware (for DSLR at least), the shutter moves at a constant speed, regardless of exposure setting. Different exposure times are achieved by spacing the timing between the two shutter curtains differently.

My point is just that you stated it as fact that IBIS is involved, and I'm not disagreeing that the way Canon 'locks' the sensor in place could have something to do with it. I just haven't seen a convincing argument for this yet. So it would be nice if you could elaborate on why you are convinced, or make it clear that it is only speculation.
 

Aussie shooter

www.facebook.com/BrettGuyPhotography/
Dec 6, 2016
1,024
1,425
What do you mean by speeds that have enough impact? As far as I'm aware (for DSLR at least), the shutter moves at a constant speed, regardless of exposure setting. Different exposure times are achieved by spacing the timing between the two shutter curtains differently.

My point is just that you stated it as fact that IBIS is involved, and I'm not disagreeing that the way Canon 'locks' the sensor in place could have something to do with it. I just haven't seen a convincing argument for this yet. So it would be nice if you could elaborate on why you are convinced, or make it clear that it is only speculation.
Yes. it is absolutely speculation. I am not trying to deny that. But as I said it seems logical. As for the shutter speed having an impact the time between first and second curtains could make all the difference. A bigger gap may reduce the combined force. Again, just speculation based on the suggestion that electronic first curtain does not seem to have as much of if any impact compared to fully mechanical.
 

docsmith

EOS R
CR Pro
Sep 17, 2010
1,043
483
Everyone gets to decide what is an issue in their mind. In my mind, this is negligible and not really worth worrying about. Same with the bokeh "issue" between ECFS and mechanical shutter.

But, as dcm brought up above, this was observed on the M6II and was found to vary with different lenses. To Aussie shooters point, sure, it might have something to do with IBIS, but, for those of you that think this is an issue, you might also want to try different lenses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YuengLinger

Sporgon

5% of gear used 95% of the time
CR Pro
Yes. it is absolutely speculation. I am not trying to deny that. But as I said it seems logical.
Actually from an engineering point of view I’m not sure your logic is logical ! The fact that the sensor is not fixed in the body but held ‘floating’ via electromagnetism could mean that it is likely to be influenced less by shocks within the body.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YuengLinger

YuengLinger

EOS R6
CR Pro
Dec 20, 2012
3,452
1,886
USA
Yes. it is absolutely speculation. I am not trying to deny that. But as I said it seems logical. As for the shutter speed having an impact the time between first and second curtains could make all the difference. A bigger gap may reduce the combined force. Again, just speculation based on the suggestion that electronic first curtain does not seem to have as much of if any impact compared to fully mechanical.
I'm no engineer, clearly. But I also wondered if the IBIS cradle/system made the camera more prone to shutter shock. If so, perhaps some minor adjustment could reduce it, but that would mean sending in an otherwise perfectly fine body. (OR, what if electric current is involved in keeping it "parked" when camera is on but IBIS is off...Could firmware address that?)

The firmware option discussed throughout this thread, and "floated" by Chris.Chapterten seems a good compromise.

And while I do think different lenses, and maybe even handholding vs tripod might influence the amount of the effect, I'm way past having the patience to do that kind of testing!

BUT--don't reject "out of hand" the difference between tripod and handholding. Consider that for sensor cleaning, Canon recommends putting the body on a "desk or other flat surface," which I guess allows the cleaning cycle's vibration to be more effective. (Or does it just allow the debris to shake off and fall where intended?) Now how this translates to a "parked" IBIS system, I'm not able to connect the dots.

Brainstorming headache. Gotta get out for fresh air, sunshine, and exercise. Otherwise the kids will mutiny.
 

Joules

doom
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2017
1,595
1,914
Hamburg, Germany
I'm no engineer, clearly. But I also wondered if the IBIS cradle/system made the camera more prone to shutter shock. If so, perhaps some minor adjustment could reduce it, but that would mean sending in an otherwise perfectly fine body. (OR, what if electric current is involved in keeping it "parked" when camera is on but IBIS is off...Could firmware address that?)
I think the testing done by canonnews is very convincing, comparing various EF-M lenses with mechanical and fully electronic shutter on the M6 II. To me, it makes it clear that at least for the EF-M lenses, IS 'OFF' is not mechanically locked. It is simply a setting in which the forces acting on the floating lens elements attempt to keep them fixed relative to the lens body, rather than the world. Which is not that surprising, as I believe the common wisdom is that EF lenses behave exactly the same way.

But lens IS is different from IBIS, so it could have been that Canon actually has some form of lock in the IBIS unit.

I haven't thought of a good experiment to show that movement in the sensor rather than the system as a whole is the source of blur. But it does indeed sound reasonable (which is not enough to treat it as fact).

Measuring contrast rather than looking at images as done by canonnews seems much more robust methodology, as it would also allow detecting the shutter speed at which the blur is most extreme. If the motors are just applying enough torque to the body for it to move enough to degrade the quality, I would expect the most affected shutter speed to change on a lens per lens basis. After all, as the mass of the system changes, so should the time it takes for the shutter to

So far, it sounds like everybody who did report in the 'issue' has the same experience with around 1/100 th of second though, right?

If the sensor moves despite the IBIS being off, could you attached something to the flash shoe or tripod mount so that it is in the frame, but static relative to the body? If so that subject should be sharp regardless of shutter speed and motion of the camera (as long as it is attached rigidly enough). If it doesn't, it either was affected by moving the camera (not stable enough) or the sensor inside the camera was moving, blurring the static subject in the process.
 

dcm

It's not the gear. But it helps.
CR Pro
Apr 18, 2013
919
428
Colorado, USA
For anybody that wants to try this on their own, there is some MTF software you can use without special hardware.
  • MTF mapper (free, Windows or Unix, source) is my choice since I'm a MacOS/Linux person with 47 years of programming experience (industry/CS faculty). There is also a Windows executable download.
  • Quick MTF ($, Windows executables only)
Check this article for a comparison of both with Imatest. Since we are primarily looking for large differences on an apples to apples comparison (same body/lens combo across a range of shutter speeds), I don't think the choice matters too much. Your test setup will probably matter more.

Another option might be FoCal. Will the Quality of Focus values reflect shutter shock? I need to look into that a bit more.
 
Last edited:

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
8,052
9,634
For anybody that wants to try this on their own, there is some MTF software you can use without special hardware.
  • MTF mapper (free, Windows or Unix, source) is my choice since I'm a MacOS/Linux person with 47 years of programming experience (industry/CS faculty). There is also a Windows executable download.
  • Quick MTF ($, Windows executables only)
Check this article for a comparison of both with Imatest. Since we are primarily looking for large differences on an apples to apples comparison (same body/lens combo across a range of shutter speeds), I don't think the choice matters too much. Your test setup will probably matter more.

Another option might be FoCal. Will the Qualify of Focus values reflect shutter shock? I need to look into that a bit more.
You can use Focal. The R5 isn't supported but you can apply focal by downloading images to your computer. I use RAW files and convert them to unsharpened jpegs with DxO PL. The astigmatism output compares vertical and horizontal sharp edges and so will tell if there is directional shock.
 

Bdbtoys

R5
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2020
350
259
Actually from an engineering point of view I’m not sure your logic is logical ! The fact that the sensor is not fixed in the body but held ‘floating’ via electromagnetism could mean that it is likely to be influenced less by shocks within the body.

I disagree... from point of relativity. Without IBIS, the minimal shock you would get from the shutter would not have a significant effect on the overall mass of the Lens/Body/Sensor (yes the lens is floating fixed, but don't believe shutter would effect that). With a floating sensor, outside forces near the sensor could effect it independently of the body/lens. Coupled that those with R's don't seem to have a problem supports IBIS being a factor.

I agree w/ YuengLinger initial assessment on this one. But like him I lack the proof... so I am willing to bend on it.

Edit (see strike-thru)
 
Last edited:

Sporgon

5% of gear used 95% of the time
CR Pro
I disagree... from point of relativity. Without IBIS, the minimal shock you would get from the shutter would not have a significant effect on the overall mass of the Lens/Body/Sensor (yes the lens is floating, but don't believe shutter would effect that). With a floating sensor, outside forces near the sensor could effect it independently of the body/lens. Coupled that those with R's don't seem to have a problem supports IBIS being a factor.

I agree w/ YuengLinger initial assessment on this one.
You may well be right in terms of a "floating" sensor being lighter, but the movement of the shutter clearly does have an effect on cameras with fixed sensors, (or film for that matter) so therefore causing minuscule movement to the overall mass of the body and lens. My 5DS definitely does the same thing and just as has been demonstrated, the effects are really minor and not worth worrying about, but it does exist. I'm not sure about the 1/60 and 1/100th difference because I haven't specifically tested for it. The R has a lower resolution and greater pixel pitch than the R5, just as the 5DS is even smaller pitch. I never really saw a noticeable difference between EFC compared with MLU and traditional shutter on the 21 mp 5DII, so as resolution and output size gets larger these things become more pronounced.
 

Bdbtoys

R5
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2020
350
259
You may well be right in terms of a "floating" sensor being lighter, but the movement of the shutter clearly does have an effect on cameras with fixed sensors, (or film for that matter) so therefore causing minuscule movement to the overall mass of the body and lens. My 5DS definitely does the same thing and just as has been demonstrated, the effects are really minor and not worth worrying about, but it does exist. I'm not sure about the 1/60 and 1/100th difference because I haven't specifically tested for it. The R has a lower resolution and greater pixel pitch than the R5, just as the 5DS is even smaller pitch. I never really saw a noticeable difference between EFC compared with MLU and traditional shutter on the 21 mp 5DII, so as resolution and output size gets larger these things become more pronounced.

I had a slight edit... but overall I think you got the jist of what I was saying. You make a good point how dot pitch can also affect perceived blur. Curious what this does on an R6 as the main difference is the pitch.
 
<-- start Taboola -->