• 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 / The Last Word / Shutter slap testing with ISO 12233, part 9

Shutter slap testing with ISO 12233, part 9

January 12, 2014 JimK Leave a Comment

I made another series of images like the one in the previous post, but with a different head: I swapped the RRS BH-55 for an Arca Swiss C1 Cube. Everything else was the same: Leica 135mm f/3.4 APO-Telyt on the A7R with a Novoflex adapter, generic RRS plate on the bottom of the camera, and the Cube mounted to RRS TVC-44 legs on concrete pavers and aimed it at the ISO 12233 target. I positioned the target approximately about 500 light seconds from the light source.

Heliopan variable ND filter on the lens, initially set to minimum absorption. Camera ISO to 100. Focused, wide open and stopped down to f/5.6. I set the camera to “A” exposure mode, and adjusted the exposure compensation dial until the shutter speed read 1/2000. I made the first exposure, adjusted the filter so the shutter speed slowed by a third of a stop, made another exposure, and kept on until I got to 1/13 second.

I expected the high-shutter speeds to yield virtually identical images. I was wrong.

In Lightroom, I set the white balance of all the images to daylight, added one stop of exposure boost, and exported all the images as layers to Photoshop. There I labeled the layers with the appropriate shutter speeds, cropped to the target, and took a look, concentrating on the cross in the upper right hand corner that’s become so familiar to my regular readers.

Here’s what I found, res’d up 2x using nearest neighbor:

At 1/2000, things at pretty sharp:

135 f5p6 Arca Cube 2nd 2000th

But at 1/1600, the resolution in the vertical lines is better:

135 f5p6 Arca Cube 2nd 1600th

Even better at 1/1250:

135 f5p6 Arca Cube 2nd 1200th

And a little worse at 1/1000:

135 f5p6 Arca Cube 2nd 1000th

Things stay about the same until 1/500, where we lose contrast in both the vertical and horizontal lines:

135 f5p6 Arca Cube 2nd 500th

1/400 is a little better, and 1/320 is a little worse:

135 f5p6 Arca Cube 2nd 320th

Then we gradually lose a little bit with each 1/3 stop step until we reach the worst performance at 1/80:

135 f5p6 Arca Cube 2nd 80th

Then things gradually get better until the performance at 1/13 is about the same as at 1/160:

135 f5p6 Arca Cube 2nd 13th

So what’s going on here?

First off, the amount of blur in the images exposed at faster shutter speeds than 1/400 second is pretty small, so we don’t want to make too much of the fast that faster isn’t always sharper. But still, it’s an interesting question.

I think we’re seeing the camera/adapter/lens/head/tripod resonating at a pretty high frequency. With the much heavier Zeiss 100mm Makro-Planar on a lighter tripod, we saw resonances of 70 Hz or so. With a lighter lens on a stiffer set of legs, we could be talking about resonances of over 100 Hz, maybe well over. A top synch speed of 1/160 second implies a shutter travel time of about 6 milliseconds. If that’s true, then at 1/1000 of a second the slit is 1/6 of the height of the image, and any part of the image is exposed to the light from the lens for 1 millisecond.

If an important resonant frequency of the system is at 100 Hz, in 1 milliseconds we’ll see 36 degrees of the oscillation. You don’t start to gain any real advantage in stopping a sinusoidal vibration until the shutter speed gets faster than that which allows the vibration to go through 180 degrees, but 36 degrees is fast enough to get the excursions that get by the shutter to about ¼ of their peak-to-peak value. That’s why it’s surprising that 1/2000 produces worse results than 1/1250. In a single-slap model, that would indicate resonant frequencies of over 500 Hz. I suppose that’s possible, but it’s still a shock to me.

But remember that second curtain. At 1/2000 second, the second curtain is released 500 microseconds after the first. At 1/1600 second, the second curtain is released 625 microseconds after the first. At 1/1250 second, the second curtain delay is 800 microseconds. So the difference between the 1/2000 second and the 1/1250 second second curtain delay is 300 microseconds. What if the reason the 1/1250 result is better than the 1/2000 second one is that the second curtain provides a shock in phase with the resonance from the first curtain firing, and in the 1/1250 case, the second curtain shock is out of phase? That would mean that the period of the resonance is 600 microseconds, or that its frequency is 1600 Hz. That’s pretty high, especially considering the fact that the area occupied by the target in these images was in the center of the picture, which the shutter curtains get to 3 milliseconds after they start.

All very inconclusive, but there’s some evidence that there could be resonances of over 1 KHz that affect the image to a small, but visible, degree. We didn’t see this with the big RRS ball head, but the Cube is more complicated, and has more small parts.

By the way, I did a series before this with the same equipment that produced even larger variation in sharpness at shutter speeds over 1/500 second. My initial reaction was that I had made some mistake. I went back and reran the test, and got the results you see here.

As always, contact me if you want to see the Photoshop stacks with layers for all the images.

The Last Word

← RRS L-bracket for the Sony a7R Shutter slap testing with ISO 12233, part 10 →

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

  • bob lozano on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • 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

Archives

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

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.