The nasty thing about this Shutter Shock business for an "available
light" guy like me is that it happens at precisely those shutter speeds
where, with a moderate wide to normal lens, I might boost the ISO or
open the lens to get to those speeds in an attempt to improve image
quality by reducing camera shake. So it takes away some of the
advantages it has over the current digital Leicas--on paper. And
applying the Anti-Shock delay takes away some of the camera's quickness
in catching a fleeting human expression. "Would you like your shots
sharp or on-time, sir?"
Just for fun, I did a quick-and-dirty yesterday. Here are a couple of
hand-held shots with the E-M5 and Panny 20/1.7 at 100%, at 1/125 and
1/250 sec. They are typical of other results I've gotten with this
camera. At higher or lower speeds, the difference between Anti-shock on
vs. off is less to nil.
<http://gallery.leica-users.org/d/340606-1/EM5-125th-ShutterShock.jpg>
<http://gallery.leica-users.org/d/340609-1/EM5-250th-ShutterShock.jpg>
The issue is definitely there. It's also subtle enough that one could
easily mistake it for misfocus, unsteady shooter, or loss of contrast at
higher ISOs. My guess is that like all camera shake issues, focal
length will magnify it, so I'll probably see more of it with the 45/1.8
or the 14-54 zoom at maximum.
Moose, I saw your explanations on using Focus Magic and Neat Image, and
applying the former locally. Thanks! I have both those programs, but I
use Picture Window Pro, not Photoshop, so I can't apply them locally (as
plug-ins) through masks. I can, however, make an intermediate file with
either, and then use cloning between images, or a "combine images"
routine with masks in PWP to get much the same result. Too much work
for casual snaps of friends, but sometimes worth it For Art's Sake. PWP
has an edge-sharpening routine that is not USM that I often use in
preference to USM--both for overall sharpening, and for selective
sharpening to eyes, etc. I tried FM on a full-sized version of the
picture you worked on, and got similar results. So it's nice to know
that it can fix some of the effects of shutter shock.
--Peter
On 12/31/2012 7:41 PM, usher99 [at] aol.com wrote:
>
> No Shake Moose writes:
> >
>
> ... Unfortunately, Oly seems to be > unable to shake a tendency
> toward body induced shake, and this happens to be right in the
> troublesome speed range. > Here's a good summary of the issue.
>
http://cameraergonomics.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/micro-43-shutter-shock-revisited-omd-em.html
>
> >
>
>
> Seems the OM-D may have the quietest shutter and likely smallest issue
> with this shutter induced shake at intermediate speeds
> than all the other Oly bodies and most if not all of the Panny ones.
> See below:
>
> http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/pz14-42/index.htm
>
>
>
> Now THAT IS interesting. Here I was knocking Oly for another
vibrating camera, when it is much less so than the > Pannys and its
older siblings.
>
>
> This general prevalence of the problem from the beginning of µ4/3
makes Oly's AntiShock on the E-M5 make more
> sense. It appears they may have been working on the problem for some
time, reducing it in mechanical design,
> then adding the delay settings. I'm guessing Panny has no AntiShock
settings.
>
> So the 60D wins on one count, with electronic 'first-curtain', and a
great deal
> more mass. :-)
>
>
> Thought the PZ14-42 might make a tiny nice kit in lieu of another cam,
> but just don't know. Perhaps the performance would be acceptable with
> the antishock setting optimized.
>
>
>
> It's unfortunate he didn't test the E-M5 AntiShock. Sort of a moot
point, as it is much better than the others, > but it would be nice to
know how well it works in a lab test.
>
>
> Undecided, Mike
>
>
> If you get an E-M5, give it a real lens. ;-)
>
> Multi Lensed Moose
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
