Lumix 70-300 on SL3 (shutter shock issues).

[pf4eva]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 12/15/2024 at 10:38 PM, helged said:

My feeling as well.

Speculations; I havn't had time, energy or sufficient interest to systematically test this, but it is doable & I have run some quick tests...:

Each physical system - a bridge, a ship, an airplane, a lake, a glass of water, you name it... - is characterised by specific natural oscillation modes (or eigenmodes). In the case of a bridge - to take a classical example (see eg the collapse of the Tacoma bridge, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacoma_Narrows_Bridge_(1940)😞 If an external force like wind, or in this case the wake turbulence generated by the wind, acts on the the bridge, with a frequency closely matching the natural oscillation frequency of the bridge, energy will be transferred from the wind/wind turbulence to the bridge, leading to larger and larger oscillations. If continued, the bridge may collapse.

Transferred to a camera+lens-system, this system's natural oscillation frequency will depend on the weight and size of the system, its centre of gravity, how the system is fixed, etc. In this case the mirror or shutter acts as the 'external' force acting on the body+lens system. It is when the mirror/shutter vibration is close to the natural oscillation mode of the camera+body system that the latter will most strongly vibrate, leading to blurred images. Clearly, IBIS or optical stabilisation mechanisms will also come into play. 

I have run some quick experiments in order to identify particularly critical combinations of camera + lens + shutter speed + degree of camera-lens fixation points (hand-held various ways; body on tripod; body on one tripod, lens on another tripod; tripod plus soft/hard hand-held stabilisation, etc.). With Leica S006/S3 and eg S180mm (or R280mm), shutter speeds between 1/30-1/250 s are most prone to show vibration (with the mirror in the fixed-up position, so 'only' the shutter curtains are moving). Somewhat similar results with the SL-line of bodies using the mechanical shutter.

As strongly advocated by eg @FlashGordonPhotography - and also communicated to Leica representatives by Gordon (and others) - only EFCS can eliminate the vibration issue and still avoid annoing rolling-shutter effects: https://photographylife.com/mechanical-electronic-shutter-efcs#what-is-electronic-front-curtain-shutter. Yes, let's hope that an EFCS-option becomes available for SL2x, SL3(x); the sooner the better...

I really don't get what's the problem with implementing EFCS, done many times via FW updates on other cameras...

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[BernardC]

3 minutes ago, pf4eva said:

I really don't get what's the problem with implementing EFCS, done many times via FW updates on other cameras...

I suspect that it wouldn't provide a material improvement over what we already have. EFCS is used to address an issue with some Sony camera shutters that have very specific vibration characteristics. We can speculate all we want about how it can cure other ills on other platforms, but that's just speculation. It's more likely that Leica tried it and decided it wasn't worth adding to the firmware.

[SrMi]

5 minutes ago, BernardC said:

I suspect that it wouldn't provide a material improvement over what we already have. EFCS is used to address an issue with some Sony camera shutters that have very specific vibration characteristics. We can speculate all we want about how it can cure other ills on other platforms, but that's just speculation. It's more likely that Leica tried it and decided it wasn't worth adding to the firmware.

The shutter shock with SL cameras is real (longer lenses). Using electronic shutter is often the only solution, even though it has its own issues.

[BernardC]

Just now, SrMi said:

The shutter shock with SL cameras is real (longer lenses). Using electronic shutter is often the only solution, even though it has its own issues.

No doubt that it's real, that's partly why Leica offers ES. My point is that it may or may not be the type of vibration that is materially diminished by EFCS.

Just because it works with Sony's shutters (which always feel like spring-tensioned mousetraps to me) doesn't mean it would work with Leica's shutters. Undoubtedly Leica has tried EFCS and decided not to implement it.

[SrMi]

20 minutes ago, BernardC said:

No doubt that it's real, that's partly why Leica offers ES. My point is that it may or may not be the type of vibration that is materially diminished by EFCS.

Just because it works with Sony's shutters (which always feel like spring-tensioned mousetraps to me) doesn't mean it would work with Leica's shutters. Undoubtedly Leica has tried EFCS and decided not to implement it.

Shutter shock can be eliminated with EFCS because the shutter shock is caused by the first curtain closing. There is no other relevant source of vibration.

It is an issue with every manufacturer and mirrorless cameras with focal plane shutters.

Edited December 23, 2024 by SrMi

[BernardC]

1 hour ago, SrMi said:

Shutter shock can be eliminated with EFCS because the shutter shock is caused by the first curtain closing. There is no other relevant source of vibration.

Did you mean "opening?"

The question isn't whether or not the first curtain moves, it's whether EFCS would lead to a material improvement of image quality with the shutters on various Leica cameras.

Only Leica knows the answer. All we know is that they've come to the conclusion that it isn't worth implementing.

[SrMi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

42 minutes ago, BernardC said:

Did you mean "opening?"

I meant closing. The sensor is initially open and the first curtain must close to initiate exposure (mechanical shutter).

44 minutes ago, BernardC said:

The question isn't whether or not the first curtain moves, it's whether EFCS would lead to a material improvement of image quality with the shutters on various Leica cameras.

The first curtain must move to start an exposure. Every existing mirrorless camera exhibits a shutter shock caused by the first curtain. Since shutter shock is by definition caused by the first curtain closing, eliminating it with an electronic one should eliminate the shutter shock.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Actually, it’s both. The curtain must close and open at the start of the exposure. 

EFCS eliminates shutter shock in every brand that implements it. That’s every brand on the market except Leica.

It also has the advantages of a lower shutter lag and decreased blackout time. The downside is some changes to broken at high shutter speeds. But it’s easy enough to have a camera switch back to the full mechanical at 1/1500th sec.

Testing for shutter shock is really easy. And Leica would be aware their SL cameras have it. It’s just if they want to do something about it.

Gordon

[BernardC]

16 hours ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

It also has the advantages of a lower shutter lag and decreased blackout time. The downside is some changes to broken at high shutter speeds. But it’s easy enough to have a camera switch back to the full mechanical at 1/1500th sec.

The more I read-up about this, the less convinced I am. Most of the discussion of this feature centres on how little it does (it's only effective at some middle shutter speeds where ES is even more effective), and how it will ruin images by creating very distracting out-of-focus patterns (also at middle shutter speeds, the only range where it is effective).

I get the whole "grass is greener" meme that accompanies every "missing" feature on a Leica. Sometimes it's actually very funny, like when people found-out that Leica used BLS for years, without constantly mentioning it like other brands. All that huffing and puffing just to get yet another three letter acronym on the specs sheet...

Going back to the original point: Leica tested EFC and decided not to implement it. Either that or they have implemented it without mention. They have their reasons. Maybe they just want to spare us from having long-running "EFC broke my photos" threads like every other photo forum.

[hdmesa]

3 hours ago, BernardC said:

...

Going back to the original point: Leica tested EFC and decided not to implement it. Either that or they have implemented it without mention. They have their reasons. Maybe they just want to spare us from having long-running "EFC broke my photos" threads like every other photo forum.

Why are you doubling down on this in the face of the repeated facts presented? Do you have insider information from Leica?

EFCS will solve the shutter shock issues on the SL cameras. Period. How do we know this? Because electronic shutter solves it. But electronic shutter is not a good solution because of the rolling shutter that makes it unusable for fast moving subjects. EFCS has no rolling shutter. EFCS’s only downside is bokeh issues at high shutter speeds at f/2 or wider, but that is solved by simple and automatic switching to mechanical shutter when times over 1/500 sec. are needed.

So if you want to dream up a reason for why Leica is not using EFCS, the only logical conclusion is because they are lazy bastards 🤪

[SrMi]

3 hours ago, BernardC said:

The more I read-up about this, the less convinced I am. Most of the discussion of this feature centres on how little it does (it's only effective at some middle shutter speeds where ES is even more effective), and how it will ruin images by creating very distracting out-of-focus patterns (also at middle shutter speeds, the only range where it is effective).

I do not know your sources, but you seem misinformed. 

EFCS is effective where shutter shock is visible (middle shutter speeds) and where it needs to be. ES is not more effective than EFCS in reducing shutter shock, as both have the same electronic first curtain. ES is best for lowering camera vibrations but has several issues (artificial light, rolling shutter). Bokeh issues can occur when shooting wide open (wider than f/2) and at very high shutter speeds. Ideally, the camera switches automatically from EFCS to mechanical shutter at 1/2000 sec or similar.

Edited December 24, 2024 by SrMi

[SrMi]

3 hours ago, BernardC said:

Going back to the original point: Leica tested EFC and decided not to implement it.

Do you have a source for that? I have never heard anything from Leica regarding EFCS.

 

[BernardC]

Evidently the issues with EFCS are not so easilly resolved, given the hundreds of pages of complaints that are returned by any web search. 

It doesn't seem like any manufacturer has figured it out. Canon and Sony dominate the complaints, as they do the sales charts, but you can also read about it in Fuji and Nikon forums. 

All I am saying is that maybe this particular acronym isn't a cure for everything. Also, I strongly suspect that Leica is not unaware of EFCS. I respect anyone's desire to call them lazy, or even incompetent, but that kind of thinking often says more about the writer than it does about the subject. 

[SrMi]

17 minutes ago, BernardC said:

Evidently the issues with EFCS are not so easilly resolved, given the hundreds of pages of complaints that are returned by any web search. 

It doesn't seem like any manufacturer has figured it out. Canon and Sony dominate the complaints, as they do the sales charts, but you can also read about it in Fuji and Nikon forums. 

All I am saying is that maybe this particular acronym isn't a cure for everything. Also, I strongly suspect that Leica is not unaware of EFCS. I respect anyone's desire to call them lazy, or even incompetent, but that kind of thinking often says more about the writer than it does about the subject. 

Knowledgeable photographers shooting Nikon, Sony, Olympus, and Fuji use EFCS in their cameras. The forums are full of beginner's posts asking why their images are blurry, and the solution is always to use EFCS instead of the mechanical shutter.

You do not seem to have any experience with using EFCS and did not know much about it until recently. Maybe you should trust the forum members who have used it for a long time with non-Leica cameras.

[hdmesa]

34 minutes ago, BernardC said:

Evidently the issues with EFCS are not so easilly resolved, given the hundreds of pages of complaints that are returned by any web search. 

It doesn't seem like any manufacturer has figured it out. Canon and Sony dominate the complaints, as they do the sales charts, but you can also read about it in Fuji and Nikon forums. 

All I am saying is that maybe this particular acronym isn't a cure for everything. Also, I strongly suspect that Leica is not unaware of EFCS. I respect anyone's desire to call them lazy, or even incompetent, but that kind of thinking often says more about the writer than it does about the subject. 

We understand what you’re saying. We’re saying based on years of experience that your conclusions and assumptions are wrong. 

[FlashGordonPhotography]

2 hours ago, BernardC said:

Evidently the issues with EFCS are not so easilly resolved, given the hundreds of pages of complaints that are returned by any web search. 

It doesn't seem like any manufacturer has figured it out. Canon and Sony dominate the complaints, as they do the sales charts, but you can also read about it in Fuji and Nikon forums. 

All I am saying is that maybe this particular acronym isn't a cure for everything. Also, I strongly suspect that Leica is not unaware of EFCS. I respect anyone's desire to call them lazy, or even incompetent, but that kind of thinking often says more about the writer than it does about the subject. 

You can test this for yourself quite easily, to see if it’s an issue for you.

Grab a longer lens. Take two shots at 1/4-1/2 FL (eg: 11/100 to 1/200 with a 400mm lens). First shot normal mechanical. 2nd with electronic shutter. Same subject. One after the other. Identical exposures. Leave you IBIS on so that’s not what you’re seeing. Load into you favourite processor and have a look at 100%.

The difference you’ll see is the shutter shock. You can use electronic shutter for static subjects but that won’t work for things that move due to the SL cameras slower readout speeds. So now take two shots panning the same way. You’ll see the effects of slow readout. EFCS solves both of these for stills photographers that shoot moving targets.

The question I have is why you don’t want something that will improve IQ? Leica make all these incredible lenses and much of the time you’re not getting the best out of them. This simple change guarantees improved IQ with ANY lens over around 120mm.

So now you can try it for yourself and see the results and if they matter to you. Personally I tested 9 lenses longer than 120mm and all of them exhibit shutter shock. I would like to get the best out of those lenses when shooting moving targets.

Gordon

[BernardC]

15 hours ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

You can test this for yourself quite easily, to see if it’s an issue for you.

I know what camera shake is, but thankfully I've been informed that any further inquiry won't be necessary. It turns out that all photographers who have issues with EFCS, or who even provide advice on how to avoid such issues, are incompetent beginners. Anyone foolhardy enough to do a web search that returns these posts and articles shall also be called an incompetent beginner. No further discussion of EFCS shall be tolerated, unless it is to repeat that EFCS is the only true way. The only facts allowed are those that agree with the above.

I can see the pile of dogma that I've stepped into! 😃

 

 

[FlashGordonPhotography]

9 hours ago, BernardC said:

I know what camera shake is, but thankfully I've been informed that any further inquiry won't be necessary. It turns out that all photographers who have issues with EFCS, or who even provide advice on how to avoid such issues, are incompetent beginners. Anyone foolhardy enough to do a web search that returns these posts and articles shall also be called an incompetent beginner. No further discussion of EFCS shall be tolerated, unless it is to repeat that EFCS is the only true way. The only facts allowed are those that agree with the above.

I can see the pile of dogma that I've stepped into! 😃

 

 

Camera shake is different to shutter shock. I assume that you mistyped?

I’m not calling you stupid. I know Leica Ambassadors that were unaware of the shutter shock issue with SL cameras. I showed them the same way I described it to you. It may not apply to your use case. It doesn’t to everybody. But it does to mine and there are three ways to eliminate it. Electronic shutter does but adds other issues for me. Avoiding the affected shutter speeds isn’t always possible in the field as the increases in ISO affect image quality. Not to mention the SL cameras have IBIS making shooting in this range entirely possible except for the shutter shock. EFCS is the only solution that will work for me and Leica doesn’t offer it.

I knew that going in. I have other systems I use when I know it’s going to be an issue. If Leica don’t fix it I’ll move forward. That doesn’t mean it’s not a real issue and one that can likely be fixed by a firmware upgrade. Half a dozen people have argued in its favour and yet you still don’t get that, while it won’t matter to you, that it will for us.

And frankly, your tone actually describes you more than us EFCS *evangelists*. You seem to argue it’s not an issue for others because it’s not an issue for you. You think we don’t use workarounds when we can or that we weren’t already aware of all the things you showed? Your provided workarounds, don’t. EFCS will. And if it were implemented it wouldn’t affect you in the slightest but it would benefit others. You made your argument and it was easily refuted. You use the word facts. The facts are that shutter shock issue real and present and solvable with EFCS, but not the electronic shutter when shooting moving subjects. The facts are that for some of us it’ll make a big difference to how we use our Leica cameras. But whatever you do, don’t look up.

Gordon

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[BernardC]

Why take things so personal? If you have to summarize my contribution, it's that if you look-up EFCS in brand forums, plus generalist forums in whatever language you can read, you'll find just as many complaints as you do endorsements. Point this out and EFCS evangelists will pounce on you and call you names. They, as you did above, will even make-up stuff you didn't write ("You seem to argue it’s not an issue for others because it’s not an issue for you"), presumably because they can't argue the stuff you did write.

Executive summary: EFCS only works in a limited range of shutter speeds. It doesn't work at high speeds that are much faster than the sensor's scan speed (for reasons which should be obvious), and it has no effect at longer speeds where shutter shock isn't prevalent. It often misbehaves at wider apertures (not just 1.4, there are plenty of real-life example with lenses that don't go to 1.4). In that case you'll get a very distracting and unaesthetic texture outside of the image plane. Many experienced wedding photographers consider this phenomenon alone to be reason enough to avoid it; it makes irreplaceable images unsalable. Obviously, these photographers with decades of experience, established businesses with web site that you can visit, etc., will get called all sorts of names, because they offend the EFCS faithful. As do I for reading what they have to say; something you can do by using the search bar on your browser. Don't do it, you'll get no ends of abuse from the aforementioned crew.

So what are we left with: a feature which barely works as advertised (and when it does is rarely preferable to regular ES), with tons of caveats and limitations, that is incessantly promoted by a cult-like group that oversells its advantages, and curses anyone who mentions (or even looks-up) its limitations, along with their children, spouses, etc...

If you've been at this a while, you've seen many of these phenomenons come and go. There's always one feature that is keeping boosters from photographic greatness (even though they also claim to be constantly using this same feature on other cameras, go figure!). It's the same song and dance, so it's easy to spot. I may not be as old as some commenters, but I started early so I've seen this wave hit the shore before. I was also fortunate enough to be mentored by well-seasoned photographers who taught me about investigating hype, instead of blindly following advertising. That's not to say that many new features/products aren't genuinely useful, but the things that are useful don't need to be sold like a fad diet. It's a very easy sniff test, which rarely fails.

In other words, if you wish to slander me because I do research, go ahead. We've all seen this type of thing before, and not just in photography.

 

[SrMi]

46 minutes ago, BernardC said:

Why take things so personal? If you have to summarize my contribution, it's that if you look-up EFCS in brand forums, plus generalist forums in whatever language you can read, you'll find just as many complaints as you do endorsements.

I regularly visit about four different forums and cannot recall any complaints that would advise against using EFCS.

Since you have no experience with EFCS except from perusing Google search results, I assume you have misunderstood what has been written. I cannot tell why you got it wrong until you tell me what you refer to (links to posts or articles). Yes, I did Google searches and could not find any relevant results that can be used to advise against EFCS usage.

Every competent photographer (e.g., Thom Hogan for Nikon, Rico Pfirstinger for Fuji, Jim Kasson for Fuji/Nikon/Sony) recommends using EFCS. If you know someone who does not, please share.

Also, note that the shutter lag with EFCS is considerably shorter than that of the mechanical shutter.

57 minutes ago, BernardC said:

Executive summary: EFCS only works in a limited range of shutter speeds. It doesn't work at high speeds that are much faster than the sensor's scan speed (for reasons which should be obvious),

That is wrong. EFCS resets the sensor instead of closing and opening the mechanical shutter. The readout (scan) phase is the same as with the mechanical shutter. EFCS works with any shutter speed.

1 hour ago, BernardC said:

It often misbehaves at wider apertures (not just 1.4, there are plenty of real-life example with lenses that don't go to 1.4).

The bokeh issue is only at very high shutter speeds. That is why cameras automatically switch from EFCS to mechanical shutter at a certain shutter speed before the bokeh issue occurs. Problem solved, right?

1 hour ago, BernardC said:

So what are we left with: a feature which barely works as advertised (and when it does is rarely preferable to regular ES), with tons of caveats and limitations, that is incessantly promoted by a cult-like group that oversells its advantages, and curses anyone who mentions (or even looks-up) its limitations, along with their children, spouses, etc...

In my experience, almost every camera owner with EFCS uses EFCS (with automatic switchover at higher shutter speeds). Sony is now shipping some cameras with only EFCS and no mechanical shutters.