• site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge

the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

You are here: Home / D850 / Nikon D850 shutter shock with Otus 85/1.4

Nikon D850 shutter shock with Otus 85/1.4

November 15, 2017 JimK 8 Comments

This is the 20th post in a series of Nikon D850 tests. The series starts here.

There have been a few — very few — complaints about the D850 shutter shock. The camera has lots of ways to deal with that problem if it’s objectionable, but I wanted to see how bad it could be if you didn’t employ any of those. I did mount the camera securely for the test:

  • Gitzo Systematic Series 5 three-section legs
  • Cognisys rail
  • Arca Swiss C1 Cube

I also didn’t use a super long lens, only 85 mm. But I did pick a very sharp one, the Otus 85 mm f/1.4, and I used it at its sharpest aperture, f/2.8. I also used a moderately sharp inkjet printed target backlit with a pair of Westcott LED panels bounced off a white diffuser. ISO was 64, shutter speed 1/200 second. That’s roughly the worst shutter speed for shutter shock on the Sony a7R with this lens and roughly the same mounting arrangement.

I could have used a camera stand instead of a tripod for even more stability, but I thought that most folks would not use the D850 that way.

I focused the lens on the for each of the two runs, one using the live view and the D850’s mechanical shutter, which requires winding the shutter just before each exposure, and one using the electronic shutter, which introduces no vibration at all. I used maximum magnification, peaking, and a Hoodman loupe.

Here’s how the target appeared to the camera:

I focused once and made 32 exposures 3 seconds apart using a Nikon intervalometer, all in live view, first with the mechanical shutter, and then with EFCS.

I’ll just report the blue channel results since they are the best; I must have misfocused a bit.

The vertical axis is the MTF50 in cycles per picture height. I’ve plotted the worst, average (aka mean), and best results, and also the mean plus and minus the standard deviation (aka sigma). The points labeled V are for a vertical edge, and the ones labeled H are for a horizontal one. The difference between the V and H MTF50s is not important, and probably is mostly related to target alignment and how far off-axis the regions of interest were.

I don’t consider the differences significant. I think that EFCS is optional with moderate telephotos and shorter lenses  and a good solid mounting arrangement. But why would you not use it?

I will report on other shutter modes shortly.

 

 

 

 

D850

← D850 focus shift shooting workarounds Nikon D850 mirror shock with Otus 85/1.4 →

Comments

  1. Anton says

    November 15, 2017 at 5:45 pm

    Thank you !

    Reply
  2. Lynn Allan says

    November 15, 2017 at 8:21 pm

    Also thanks.

    Jim >> I could have used a camera stand instead of a tripod for even more stability, but I thought that most folks would not use the D850 that way.

    I’m curious what the difference is between a “camera stand” and a “camera tripod”?

    Is the camera stand without the head with a 1/4″ thread to secure the camera? Like a light stand or microphone stand?

    Reply
    • JimK says

      November 16, 2017 at 6:38 am

      Here’s a nice beefy camera stand:

      https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1127927-REG/foba_f_asaba_r_studio_stand_2_5m_rotating.html

      Reply
  3. David Berryrieser says

    November 15, 2017 at 9:59 pm

    Good to see. I suppose Nikon learned a valuable lesson for the whole industry with the D800. The focus shift on the red channel is odd. Thermal expansion in the lens perhaps? Or on the rail? Tripod? Hmm, no, 2mm shift would be too much for thermals on the support. Just thinking out loud.

    Reply
  4. AndrewZ says

    November 16, 2017 at 1:41 am

    Nice, the camera really does tick every box, but why would red be more prone to shutter shock that makes no sense. Also it not clear whether the electronic first curtain was used. Any chance you could do worst case with mirror slap?

    Reply
  5. CarVac says

    November 16, 2017 at 6:09 am

    Shouldn’t you have used a horizontal edge?

    I’d expect the mostly vertical edge to be less affected by movement of the shutter.

    Reply
    • JimK says

      November 16, 2017 at 6:36 am

      Good point. I’ve noticed that tripod-mounted shake is often worse for vertical edges even with a vertical forcing function. If I’d had an L-bracket for the D850, I’d have turned the camera 90 degrees and used the vertical edge.

      Reply
  6. Horshack says

    November 16, 2017 at 7:13 am

    Great test Jim. Here’s a quick check I did which included a mirror-slap sample:

    https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-6TGsKMb/0/5b249384/O/i-6TGsKMb.jpg

    Here is a legend of the 5 images in the above composite image, from top to bottom:

    1) In VF shooting mode. Purpose: Measure full vibration of camera, ie both mirror and shutter
    2) In VF shooting mode, MUP achieved via exposure delay. Purpose: Measure shutter vibration
    3) In VF shooting mode, EFCS via MUP+exposure delay. Purpose: Measure only 2nd curtain shutter vibration
    4) In LV shooting mode, silent mode 1 (electronic)+timer. Purpose: Absolute best-case scenario vibration
    5) In LV shooting mode, regular mode+timer. Purpose: Measure shutter cycling vibration

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

May 2025
S M T W T F S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
« Apr    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
    • How to shoot slanted edge images for me
  • Lens screening testing
    • Equipment and Software
    • Examples
      • Bad and OK 200-600 at 600
      • Excellent 180-400 zoom
      • Fair 14-30mm zoom
      • Good 100-200 mm MF zoom
      • Good 100-400 zoom
      • Good 100mm lens on P1 P45+
      • Good 120mm MF lens
      • Good 18mm FF lens
      • Good 24-105 mm FF lens
      • Good 24-70 FF zoom
      • Good 35 mm FF lens
      • Good 35-70 MF lens
      • Good 60 mm lens on IQ3-100
      • Good 63 mm MF lens
      • Good 65 mm FF lens
      • Good 85 mm FF lens
      • Good and bad 25mm FF lenses
      • Good zoom at 24 mm
      • Marginal 18mm lens
      • Marginal 35mm FF lens
      • Mildly problematic 55 mm FF lens
      • OK 16-35mm zoom
      • OK 60mm lens on P1 P45+
      • OK Sony 600mm f/4
      • Pretty good 16-35 FF zoom
      • Pretty good 90mm FF lens
      • Problematic 400 mm FF lens
      • Tilted 20 mm f/1.8 FF lens
      • Tilted 30 mm MF lens
      • Tilted 50 mm FF lens
      • Two 15mm FF lenses
    • Found a problem – now what?
    • Goals for this test
    • Minimum target distances
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Printable Siemens Star targets
    • Target size on sensor
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Test instructions — postproduction
    • Test instructions — reading the images
    • Test instructions – capture
    • Theory of the test
    • What’s wrong with conventional lens screening?
  • Previsualization heresy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Recommended photographic web sites
  • Using in-camera histograms for ETTR
    • Acknowledgments
    • Why ETTR?
    • Normal in-camera histograms
    • Image processing for in-camera histograms
    • Making the in-camera histogram closely represent the raw histogram
    • Shortcuts to UniWB
    • Preparing for monitor-based UniWB
    • A one-step UniWB procedure
    • The math behind the one-step method
    • Iteration using Newton’s Method

Category List

Recent Comments

  • JimK on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • DC Wedding Photographer on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • Wedding Photographer in DC on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • JimK on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • Renjie Zhu on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • Ivo de Man on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • Ivo de Man on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF

Archives

Copyright © 2025 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.