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

[ColorBlindBat]

It would be interesting if someone with both an R5 and R6 could perform MTF50 testing similar to how Jim Kasson tested the Sony A7RIII versus A7RIV. Or if no one has both, maybe split the task between two people.

Sony a7RIII and a7RIV shutter shock

blog.kasson.com

Would also be nice to test the R5 and R6 with both a very lite lens versus a large / heavy lens to see if the lens mass improves shutter shock or not.

 

[jeanluc]

Well, subtle as the posted examples have been, Canon apparently is aware of the issue and considering options. I received an email from them last night implying that they are working on a fix. Here's a quote: "Thank you for your patience. We just wanted to touch base with you to let you know that our engineers are still researching your issue. They are working on a solution and we will follow-up once we receive an update from them. "

So, "Cheers" to our OP, Rzrsharp. See? 2020 really is a year in which anything is possible.

How did you contact them?

 

[YuengLinger]

How did you contact them?

One of the best parts of belonging to Canon Professional Services is generally being able to get straight through to a knowledgeable tech by phone. Especially with newer models of gear, they follow up by email.

 

[dwarven]

The R5 has a more durable shutter mechanism than the R6. Maybe it's more clunky/heavier and leads to more shock as a result? I've been using first curtain on the R6 and haven't had any shutter shock at all, although it's also 50% less megapixels. Usually at 1/300 and higher I'll switch to mechanical shutter and I haven't noticed any shock there either.

 

[Rzrsharp]

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!

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).

Merry Christmas to all friends here!
I checked all the photos kept by Lightroom, from 2002-2020 I had 141,704 photos left on my NAS.
I would like to say the shutter shock of R5 is definitely falling in the range of my most used shutter speed.

Anyway, I'm using EFCS most now and it's okay to me.

 

[Rzrsharp]

The R5 has a more durable shutter mechanism than the R6. Maybe it's more clunky/heavier and leads to more shock as a result? I've been using first curtain on the R6 and haven't had any shutter shock at all, although it's also 50% less megapixels. Usually at 1/300 and higher I'll switch to mechanical shutter and I haven't noticed any shock there either.

By checking the teardown of R5 and R6, the shutter assembly of two are identical. Don't know what makes the durability different.

 

[YuengLinger]

By checking the teardown of R5 and R6, the shutter assembly of two are identical. Don't know what makes the durability different.

I started another unrelated thread about canceling my 100-500mm lens order. Another member suggested, after I reconsidered and reordered, that I should change the title of the thread. I did!

Any chance you have changed your mind about the R5 being useless? Or even mechanical shutter on the R5?

 

[dcm]

Just shared a quick analysis of shutter shock on the M6 Mark II. There may be interesting parallels with the R series, but I don' yet have one to compare.

 

[Methodical]

Man, get away from indoor test charts, vitamin bottles and food cans and shoot in the real world. That crap would drive me crazy. Get out and have some fun with the camera. I'm glad I don't get bogged down by this kind of stuff and let it sideline me from getting out and shooting. I still get some out focus images with the R5, but I expect that, which any reasonable person should and if you don't then...

 

[Joules]

I still get some out focus images with the R5, but I expect that, which any reasonable person should and if you don't then...

Ironic that a user with a name such as Methodical would imply that putting a suspicion observed during shooting to a rigorous test with proper charts is unreasonable.

 

[Sporgon]

Ironic that a user with a name such as Methodical would imply that putting a suspicion observed during shooting to a rigorous test with proper charts is unreasonable.

Yea, I thought DCM’s tests were quite methodical
Also @Methodical clearly hasn’t seen @dcm hogging the black and white thread

 

[dcm]

Yea, I thought DCM’s tests were quite methodical
Also @Methodical clearly hasn’t seen @dcm hogging the black and white thread

That would be @dpc. Wrong TLA.

 

[dcm]

Man, get away from indoor test charts, vitamin bottles and food cans and shoot in the real world. That crap would drive me crazy. Get out and have some fun with the camera. I'm glad I don't get bogged down by this kind of stuff and let it sideline me from getting out and shooting. I still get some out focus images with the R5, but I expect that, which any reasonable person should and if you don't then...

Agreed. Can I do both? I was out shooting bald eagles and hawks during a walk yesterday.

Test charts are something to do after the sun sets early these days or during the snow storm today. And infrequently at that. It had been more that two years since I last shot test charts. Had to upgrade FoCal to run on current MacOS. And it may be time to AFMA some lenses on my 1DX2 again, so it was good practice.

I viewed it more as a service to the forum community. As an engineer, I find it helps me know how things work to take better photos. The shutter shock discussion piqued my curiosity and thought I would share the results with those that have provided so much help on the forum. It isn’t just about sharing photos.

 

[stevelee]

3 and 6 look softer to my eyes. The rest look good.

3 looks fine to me. I do agree about 6.

 

[stevelee]

That’s why orange cats are usually male."

I don't recall ever seeing a cat that was usually male, no matter what the color.

 

[Sporgon]

That would be @dpc. Wrong TLA.

Apologies I’ve had too much Christmas Cheer and must have got the beards mixed up

 

[Methodical]

Ironic that a user with a name such as Methodical would imply that putting a suspicion observed during shooting to a rigorous test with proper charts is unreasonable.

@Joule...That's because I get out and I do it in the real world on the very subjects that I actually photograph in varying conditions (i.e hot, cold, windy, rain, snow, sleet etc.) and not tripod mounted in cozy indoor conditions and definitely not on some flat piece of paper attached to the wall. My subjects move around, jump, hide, point, fly, dart, dash etc. and do not sit on a wall. Like I said that crap would drive me crazy...Methodically.

I guess COVID has folks stuck inside with too much free time on their hand.

 

[Joules]

My subjects move around, jump, hide, point, fly, dart, dash etc. and do not sit on a wall. Like I said that crap would drive me crazy...

Yes, real world subjects are complicated and involve a lot of unpredictable behavior and properties. Making it hard to impossible to get good data and make meaningful statements. Controlling all variables involved in an experiment makes the results easier to analyze and replicate. Test charts and tripods are effective, straightforward measures to eliminate a lot of variables.

It is fine for you to do your testing differently. Whatever makes you feel the best about your shooting.

But in order to convince others, scientific methods are much more suitable and for you to call those crap or the people dabbling in them ridiculous is simply ironic given your user name.

I am not accusing you of the following at all, I just want to make clear where my thoughts are coming from.

Science isn't sacred, it is necessary to critique and question it. And it does not uncover indisputable truths, it is just a best effort to come close to them.

But with experiments that are well designed, well documented and replicated by independent people, ignoring their results or disputing them without data and analysis from similarly well formed sources should not be convincing.

Science and the engineering that builts on it are responsible for many good things in our lives. Yet there are many different kinds of groups in society that are for varying reasons either ignoring the scientific consent or even believe and/or push their own pseudoscience.

And there is a real danger associated with many of those. As said, not including you in any of that, just illustrating why I see it as important to respect proper experiments, or at least not ridicule the people commiting their time and energy to them.

 

[Kit.]

Ironic that a user with a name such as Methodical would imply that putting a suspicion observed during shooting to a rigorous test with proper charts is unreasonable.

There is a difference between being methodical and being pedantic.

 

[Joules]

There is a difference between being methodical and being pedantic.

I'm not confident interpreting what you're saying here.

Could you please elaborate?