• 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 / The visibility of a7R shutter shock

The visibility of a7R shutter shock

April 23, 2015 JimK 2 Comments

Ever since the Sony alpha 7R (let’s call it the a7R) came out in late 2013, a furor has raged about its shutter shock, or, more precisely, on whether it had any. One group of people — and that includes moi — were analyzing its effects and developing ways to ameliorate it. Another group vehemently defended the position that a7R shutter shock was as real as the Easter Bunny, and posted lots of sharp-looking pictures made with the camera.

The battle continues, albeit at reduced intensity. I expect it will pick up again when and if a new version of the camera is introduced with electronic first curtain shutter (EFCS). Lots of people will trade up. Then there will be lots of the old cameras on eBay, and lots of posts on dpr asking whether the old camera is a good deal, and what about that shutter shock?

I have always maintained that the root of the disagreement was that many of the shutter-shocked images made with the a7R have only modest sharpness impairments, and that they are plenty sharp for their intended purpose, and, without a picture of the same subject with the same lens at the same time with no shutter shock (something impossible to set up until the D810 shipped), there was no way to tell how much, or even whether, the a7R image was degraded.

It occurs to me that, with the images from yesterday’s post, we now have a way to, through the magic of simulation, do that very comparison.

Consider these MTF50 curves for the a7R on a tripod with a Sony 70-200mm f/4 OSS FE lens, with OSS on and off:

a7Rheavytripod

We can see that shutter shock reduces the MTF50 from about 1600 cycles/picture height (cy/ph) to about 1200 cy/ph as the shutter speed changes from 1/1000 second to 1/60 second.

Let’s look at the 3x blowups from yesterday’s post that are closest to those MTF50s:

1 pixel blur -- MTF50 = 1516
1 pixel blur — MTF50 = 1516
2.8 pixels blur -- MTF = 1151
2.8 pixels blur — MTF = 1151

Yes, there’s some difference. No, it’s not striking. You’d have to look hard to see it in a print of this detailed image. You’d probably never see it in a print of a wildlife or sports subject.

Therefore, when people claim that the a7R has no shutter shock, they may be saying that it doesn’t affect their pictures in any way that they can see. And they could be right.

I believe that there is another group of people who are a7R shutter-shock deniers, who are affected by what I call the dancing bear view. Proverbially, if you see a dancing bear, you’re just blown away that a bear can dance, and you don’t ask how well it can dance. If you’ve never had a 36 MP camera before, you may be amazed at all those pixels, and not question whether they are perfectly sharp.

By the way, the MTF50 numbers in the graph and the ones in the simulated photographs weren’t measured in exactly the same way. It’s not an important point, but I mention it in the spirit of full disclosure. I’ll have more on that nerdy little point in a future post.

The Last Word

← Simulating motion blur: MTF50 and pictures Simulating Sony a7II camera motion blur →

Comments

  1. dwight looi says

    June 27, 2015 at 12:15 pm

    Let me just put it simply. Yes, the A7R has shutter shock. No, it will not prevent me from choosing it over the A7.

    Shutter Shock, tends to prominent only around sync speed (1/160) sec where the shutter is fully open before it closes, and the exposure is not long enough that the effects are negligible or short enough the shutter slit passing over the pixels do not give the vibrations enough time to muddle much of anything. More importantly, shutter shock amounts to no more than about half a pixel of smudging. In other words, in the worst case scenario the A7R will be reduced to the level of the A7 in terms of effective resolution (~24MP). At every other instance where shutter shock is immaterial it is superior. Hence, by all means get an A7R over an A7 if you don’t mind the contrast only focusing. You images won’t do any worse it can only do better. And if you REALLY, REALLY, care about the resolution of a particular shot, avoid shooting at 1/125~1/200. It’s not that hard to do. And if you forget? It’ll do no worse than if you got an A7.

    Yes, the A7 and the A7R are flawed cameras — aren’t they all? But at the current “used” prices of $650 for an A7 and $1000 for an A7R, they represent a very good value.

    Reply
    • Jim says

      June 28, 2015 at 7:27 am

      With the 70-200/4 OSS lens, the a7R can have inferior resolution than the a7II at some shutter speeds:

      http://blog.kasson.com/?p=9734

      It takes between 1.5 and 2 pixels of motion blur at a 45 degree angle to turn a 36 MP camera resolution into that of a 24 MP camera.

      http://blog.kasson.com/?p=4425

      You assert that there is no more than half a pixel of shutter shock in the a7R. That statement is at variance with my testing. Can you tell me why you think the a7R shutter shock motion is always less than half a pixel.

      Also, the shutter speeds to watch out for are not always in the 1/125 to 1/200 region. Here are the results on testing that shows significant degradation at speeds between 1/4 and 1/60:

      http://blog.kasson.com/?p=5279

      Jim

      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.