Why DSLR mirrors must eventually go
RichA
But with 15+ megapixel DSLRs, it is a problem.
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=33903
whinee
It is cheaper to manufacture electronic viewing systems than traditional
mechanical/optical hybrids.
Cost and not technical issues will dictate future camera design.
The coming generations of photographers will move up to SLRs from EVF P&S
cameras and will have no idea what they are missing by not looking directly
through the lens and seeing the exact same light that the image capture
device will see.
Bob Larter
As usual, you're an idiot, Rich. Mirror bounce is no more or less of an
issue than it's ever been.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
John McWilliams
> RichA wrote:
>> With film, and its low resolution (most of it) this was allowable.
>> But with 15+ megapixel DSLRs, it is a problem.
>>
>> http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=33903
>
> As usual, you're an idiot, Rich. Mirror bounce is no more or less of an
> issue than it's ever been.
I'd even maintain it's less an issue, as better materials for the mirror
and dampening pads have become available.
No one has given any current data on meaningful effects of mirror slap
over the last three or so years.
--
john mcwilliams
Hans Kruse
"RichA" <rande...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e0776096-45e4-45bf...@v15g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> With film, and its low resolution (most of it) this was allowable.
> But with 15+ megapixel DSLRs, it is a problem.
>
> http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=33903
This issue has been known for a long time. MLU is available for that reason.
The issue with light tripods and longer vibrations than what might be
expected is also known. You can find a comprehensive study here
http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/infos/TheSharpestImage/TheSharpestImage-info.html.
On modern DSLR's where you have live view you can also easily study the
phenomena yourself by turning on live view on a tripod and zoom in e.g. 10x
and see the vibrations. You will also see for nature photography how even a
light breeze of the wind will make movements. Live view is a great tool to
use to make sure that you get the sharpest image on a tripod. I use it all
the time instead of MLU.
--
Med venlig hilsen/Kind regards,
Hans Kruse www.hanskrusephotography.com, www.hanskruse.com
bugbear
Don't forget gain-up viewing in poor light.
BugBear
Chris Malcolm
I notice mirror slap blurring on a fairly heavy tripod with column
extended at 500mm on a 14MP 1.5 crop sensor at shutter speeds of less
then about 1/250th sec. It's a slight vertical smear which higher
shutter speeds remove (Benbo tripod, Sony A350, Sony 500mm f8 reflex
lens). I've yet to discover whether such common sense options as fully
collapsing the column to increase tripod stiffness, not using a quick
release plate, adding some more mass or support to the lens, etc.,
will lower the speed at which it obtrudes.
Considering that the camera hasn't got MLU (or a shutter delay which
raises mirror a few secs before shot) this is an annoying discovery!
--
Chris Malcolm
Hans Kruse
"bugbear" <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote in message
news:7Y2dnbhyO4YAGHDU...@posted.plusnet...
>>
>
> Don't forget gain-up viewing in poor light.
>
bugbear
> You can find a comprehensive study here
> http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/infos/TheSharpestImage/TheSharpestImage-info.html.
Actually, I found a link to a paid for study, not a study.
BugBear
Chris Malcolm
> "bugbear" <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote in message
> news:7Y2dnbhyO4YAGHDU...@posted.plusnet...
>>>
>>
>> Don't forget gain-up viewing in poor light.
> In poor light go home ;-)
I see you have a brightly lit home :-)
--
Chris Malcolm
Alfred Molon
...
> This issue has been known for a long time. MLU is available for that reason.
According to the article:
"it was confirmed that the vibration generated by releasing the shutter
remains even when a picture is taken after a certain period of time from
the mirror lockup to prevent a mirror shock"
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
Alfred Molon
@v15g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, RichA says ...
> With film, and its low resolution (most of it) this was allowable.
> But with 15+ megapixel DSLRs, it is a problem.
>
> http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=33903
Mirrorless cameras are the future. It's not just the mirror vibration.
Getting rid of that mirror allows you to place the lens much closer to
the sensor which is beneficial for the image quality.
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0, E620 and E3 forum at
Bruce
>
>The EVF is the future, whether you want it or not.
>It is cheaper to manufacture electronic viewing systems than traditional
>mechanical/optical hybrids.
If it's cheaper, it must be better, eh?
Complete nonsense!
Wilba
>
> Mirrorless cameras are the future. It's not just the mirror vibration.
> Getting rid of that mirror allows you to place the lens much closer to
> the sensor which is beneficial for the image quality.
Leaving aside the ergonomics of manual focus, would it be practical to focus
by moving the sensor, thus doing away with focus within the lens?
Hans Kruse
"Chris Malcolm" <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:755nf6F...@mid.individual.net...
>
> I see you have a brightly lit home :-)
>
Hans Kruse
"bugbear" <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote in message
Hans Kruse
"Alfred Molon" <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.2457c9bd9...@news.supernews.com...
> In article <49ed7e81$0$90275$1472...@news.sunsite.dk>, Hans Kruse says
> ...
>
>> This issue has been known for a long time. MLU is available for that
>> reason.
>
> According to the article:
>
> "it was confirmed that the vibration generated by releasing the shutter
> remains even when a picture is taken after a certain period of time from
> the mirror lockup to prevent a mirror shock"
The shutter release vibrations has nothing to do with getting rid of the
mirror, does it?
That was the whole point of OP as I understood it. On my dslr's (Canon 5D
and 1Ds mk3) I never saw any lack of resolution from slutter release
vibrations as far as I could tell. According to Michael Reichmann from
Luminous Landscape http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/mf-easy.shtml,
shutter relase vibrations is an issue on certain MF cameras. The higher the
resolution goes the larger these issues are.
Mr. Strat
<e0776096-45e4-45bf...@v15g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
> With film, and its low resolution (most of it) this was allowable.
> But with 15+ megapixel DSLRs, it is a problem.
Glad to see you're still an imbecile.
When I got my Pentax Spotmatic back in 1969, an instant-return mirror
was a big deal.
The movement in today's DSLRs is almost imperceptible. Going to a
little TV viewer isn't going to change the crappy pictures that most
amateurs produce anyway.
bugbear
> "bugbear" <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote in message
> news:Ov6dneDHX8duOXDU...@posted.plusnet...
>> Hans Kruse wrote:
>>> You can find a comprehensive study here
>>> http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/infos/TheSharpestImage/TheSharpestImage-info.html.
>> Actually, I found a link to a paid for study, not a study.
>>
> Correct, it is not for free, but really worth the nomial cost.
Nominal? 30 bucks?
Many I just have a too low discretionary income.
Here's some free information on the subject (more on focus than mirror slap)
http://www.findatlantis.com/wiki/index.php/Keeping_it_Sharp
BugBear
Don Stauffer
Not for me. Not until the EVF has as many pixels as the main sensor!
I do a lot of macro work. I don't use AF. In macro work I need to
focus on a particular part of the object or a selected plane of the object.
The AF computers do not yet know enough about macro photography to use
in that situation.
I find even when not doing macro, I find I prefer manual focus. I can
focus where I want to, not where there are edges or features the AF can use.
Hans Kruse
"bugbear" <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote in message
>
> Nominal? 30 bucks?
>
> Many I just have a too low discretionary income.
>
> Here's some free information on the subject (more on focus than mirror
> slap)
>
> http://www.findatlantis.com/wiki/index.php/Keeping_it_Sharp
>
quite a lot and it is very throrough. If you like to look at free stuff
only, there is a lot of it, but some of the valuable stuff you only get
access to paying for it.
bugbear
> "bugbear" <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote in message
> news:T-mdnQJ9npuaVnDU...@posted.plusnet...
>> Nominal? 30 bucks?
>>
>> Many I just have a too low discretionary income.
>>
>> Here's some free information on the subject (more on focus than mirror
>> slap)
>>
>> http://www.findatlantis.com/wiki/index.php/Keeping_it_Sharp
>>
> Well, for 30$ you get access to DAP reviews this guy has done and it is
> quite a lot and it is very throrough. If you like to look at free stuff
> only, there is a lot of it, but some of the valuable stuff you only get
> access to paying for it.
>
Agreed. I buy books quite often - it was the use of "nominal"
w.r.t. 30 bucks that surprised me.
BugBear
nospam
<use...@CUTTHISimago.com.au> wrote:
> Leaving aside the ergonomics of manual focus, would it be practical to focus
> by moving the sensor, thus doing away with focus within the lens?
contax did that.
Hans Kruse
"bugbear" <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote in message
>
> Agreed. I buy books quite often - it was the use of "nominal"
> w.r.t. 30 bucks that surprised me.
>
30 bucks is ok for a year subscription to the DAP articles plus access to
all existing material. He is doing stuff that I haven't seen anywhere else.
ray
Except that with an EVF, you're seeing exactly what the sensor DOES see,
not "the same light that the image capture device will see".
Matt Clara
news:49ed7e81$0$90275$1472...@news.sunsite.dk...
>
<SNIP>
>Live view is a great tool to use to make sure that you get the sharpest
>image on a tripod. I use it all the time instead of MLU.
>
Instead of MLU? Live View does not in and of itself reduce mirror shock,
does it? Or did you tear the mirror out of your DSLR so you won't have to
deal with it?
Hans Kruse
"Matt Clara" <no...@myexpense.com> wrote in message
news:aAlHl.31975$Ji5....@newsfe21.iad...
>
> Instead of MLU? Live View does not in and of itself reduce mirror shock,
> does it? Or did you tear the mirror out of your DSLR so you won't have to
> deal with it?
is locked up for live view to work. Therefore MLU is included in live view.
Of course, if you have a camera that will mave the mirror down to focus and
up again when you take the picture you will get the mirror flap. But if you
do not have focussing associated with the shutter release on your camera or
focussing in live view does not involve the normal AF system, then you have
MLU included in live view.
On my 1Ds mk3 there is no AF function in live view and therefore there is no
possibility for the mirror to go down. I think, if I'm not mistaken that
e.g. the 5D mk2 has an AF mode for live view where the mirror goes down and
then uses the normal AF system to focus and move the mirror up again. This
way will not work as MLU, of course.
David J. Littleboy
"Matt Clara" <no...@myexpense.com> wrote:
> "Hans Kruse" <hans....@mail.tele.dk> wrote:
> <SNIP>
>
>>Live view is a great tool to use to make sure that you get the sharpest
>>image on a tripod. I use it all the time instead of MLU.
>>
>
> Instead of MLU? Live View does not in and of itself reduce mirror shock,
> does it? Or did you tear the mirror out of your DSLR so you won't have to
> deal with it?
You must be a Nikon user. When you take a shot in live view mode on a Canon
camera, the mirror stays up and there is no mirror slap. Oops. Nikon gets
something seriously wrong.
--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
nospam
<no...@myexpense.com> wrote:
> Instead of MLU? Live View does not in and of itself reduce mirror shock,
> does it? Or did you tear the mirror out of your DSLR so you won't have to
> deal with it?
canon does a rolling first curtain for the shutter and they don't need
to drop the mirror back down. nikon drops the mirror down and then
does a normal shutter cycle.
Hans Kruse
"David J. Littleboy" <dav...@gol.com> wrote in message
news:M4qdnUg3aaGrd3DU...@giganews.com...
>
>
> You must be a Nikon user. When you take a shot in live view mode on a
> Canon camera, the mirror stays up and there is no mirror slap. Oops. Nikon
> gets something seriously wrong.
>
camera is a Canon...
Neil Harrington
"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:210420090714364064%nos...@nospam.invalid...
Which Contax?
Some other camera makers did, e.g. the Revere 33 stereo camera focused by
moving the pressure plate. But that had fixed lenses, of course. I think
there would be a problem trying to do that with interchangeable lenses.
nospam
Harrington <n...@home.today> wrote:
> >> Leaving aside the ergonomics of manual focus, would it be practical to
> >> focus
> >> by moving the sensor, thus doing away with focus within the lens?
> >
> > contax did that.
>
> Which Contax?
contax ax
<http://photo.net/equipment/contax/ax>
The autofocus system is the center of attention because of its unique
approach to focusing in 35 mm photography. Adjusting the distance
between the lens and the film plane by moving the film plane is old hat
to large format users, but the AX is the first application of this
method to the 35mm format. The principle is simple, in order to focus
on a subject, one can either use the lens to focus or one can move the
film plan. In the AX the body does most of the focusing work, not the
lenses.
> Some other camera makers did, e.g. the Revere 33 stereo camera focused by
> moving the pressure plate. But that had fixed lenses, of course. I think
> there would be a problem trying to do that with interchangeable lenses.
just a few...
Alan Browne
> "Matt Clara" <no...@myexpense.com> wrote:
>> Instead of MLU? Live View does not in and of itself reduce mirror shock,
>> does it? Or did you tear the mirror out of your DSLR so you won't have to
>> deal with it?
>
> You must be a Nikon user. When you take a shot in live view mode on a Canon
> camera, the mirror stays up and there is no mirror slap. Oops. Nikon gets
> something seriously wrong.
No, they'll just announce it as the greatest innovation in photography 3
years after everyone else has it. The Nikon gearhead-fanboys will be
deliriously happy.
The real Nikon photographers on the other hand really don't care very
much, they just go out and make what needs to happen, happen. Happily
Matt Clara is in this later group.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
Neil Harrington
"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> In article <VJednRaRctJOjHPU...@giganews.com>, Neil
> Harrington <n...@home.today> wrote:
>
>> >> Leaving aside the ergonomics of manual focus, would it be practical to
>> >> focus
>> >> by moving the sensor, thus doing away with focus within the lens?
>> >
>> > contax did that.
>>
>> Which Contax?
>
> contax ax
>
> <http://photo.net/equipment/contax/ax>
That's very interesting. A new one on me.
Colin.D
No you are certainly NOT seeing what the sensor sees. A 10 or 12 MP
sensor displayed on an EVF of about one megapixel or less is a joke, not
to mention the increased power drain of the EVF shortening battery
endurance.
Colin D.
Wilba
>> Wilba wrote:
>>>
>>> Leaving aside the ergonomics of manual focus, would it be practical
>>> to focus by moving the sensor, thus doing away with focus within the
>>> lens?
>
> by moving the pressure plate. But that had fixed lenses, of course. I
> think there would be a problem trying to do that with interchangeable
> lenses.
What kinda problem?
Bruce
If enough people want DSLRs with reflex mirrors,
that will be the future.
ray
The drain of the EVF display is modest and certainly less than a back
panel LCD. 1mp of resolution is perfectly adequate for most photographic
tasks. Please note: I did not say for ALL.
Matt Clara
Is it possible to use Nikon's live vue in conjunction with MLU, or does
Nikon's live vue equal no possibility of MLU at all? If not, that would be
a serious flaw indeed.
David J. Littleboy
"Matt Clara" <no...@myexpense.com> wrote:
> "David J. Littleboy" <dav...@gol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Instead of MLU? Live View does not in and of itself reduce mirror
>>> shock, does it? Or did you tear the mirror out of your DSLR so you
>>> won't have to deal with it?
>>
>> You must be a Nikon user. When you take a shot in live view mode on a
>> Canon camera, the mirror stays up and there is no mirror slap. Oops.
>> Nikon gets something seriously wrong.
>
> Is it possible to use Nikon's live vue in conjunction with MLU, or does
> Nikon's live vue equal no possibility of MLU at all? If not, that would
> be a serious flaw indeed.
I don't know: that's something I read from a Nikon user here.
Apparently the Nikons flop the mirror down to do an AF. Maybe if AF were
turned off they'd do the right thing.
jdear
> "Matt Clara" <n...@myexpense.com> wrote:
What about exposure? If the mirror doesn't come down, the exposure
will
have to be either set manually or the last EV taken used ( which may
now
be incorrect because the scene changed ). True?
"mcdonaldREMOVE TO...@scs.uiuc.edu
>
> What about exposure? If the mirror doesn't come down, the exposure
> will
> have to be either set manually or the last EV taken used ( which may
> now
> be incorrect because the scene changed ). True?
No ... the camera was looking at the sensor output.
It can calculate exposure from that.
Doug McDonald
Alfred Molon
...
>
> "Alfred Molon" <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.2457c9bd9...@news.supernews.com...
> > In article <49ed7e81$0$90275$1472...@news.sunsite.dk>, Hans Kruse says
> > ...
> >
> >> This issue has been known for a long time. MLU is available for that
> >> reason.
> >
> > According to the article:
> >
> > "it was confirmed that the vibration generated by releasing the shutter
> > remains even when a picture is taken after a certain period of time from
> > the mirror lockup to prevent a mirror shock"
>
> The shutter release vibrations has nothing to do with getting rid of the
> mirror, does it?
They obviously mean the mirror induced vibrations.
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
Alan Browne
> In article <49edbe48$0$90268$1472...@news.sunsite.dk>, Hans Kruse says
> ...
>> "Alfred Molon" <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.2457c9bd9...@news.supernews.com...
>>> In article <49ed7e81$0$90275$1472...@news.sunsite.dk>, Hans Kruse says
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> This issue has been known for a long time. MLU is available for that
>>>> reason.
>>> According to the article:
>>>
>>> "it was confirmed that the vibration generated by releasing the shutter
>>> remains even when a picture is taken after a certain period of time from
>>> the mirror lockup to prevent a mirror shock"
>> The shutter release vibrations has nothing to do with getting rid of the
>> mirror, does it?
>
> They obviously mean the mirror induced vibrations.
The shutter induces vibrations as well, esp. in focal plane SLR's. In
lens shuttered systems, it is greatly reduced as long as the mirror is
locked up first.
nospam
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
> > They obviously mean the mirror induced vibrations.
>
> The shutter induces vibrations as well, esp. in focal plane SLR's.
insignificant.
Eugene
> "Matt Clara" <n...@myexpense.com> wrote:
> > <SNIP>
>
> >>Live view is a great tool to use to make sure that you get the sharpest
> >>image on a tripod. I use it all the time instead of MLU.
>
> > Instead of MLU? Live View does not in and of itself reduce mirror shock,
> > does it? Or did you tear the mirror out of your DSLR so you won't have to
> > deal with it?
>
> You must be a Nikon user. When you take a shot in live view mode on a Canon
> camera, the mirror stays up and there is no mirror slap. Oops. Nikon gets
> something seriously wrong.
>
> --
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
Canon has two modes in Live View. 1. Quick AF can make
the mirror go down for normal AF and back up. 2. Live AF
uses solely the CCD for Contrast Detection. I heard
it takes up to 3 seconds to take a shot in the latter?
Why can't it use the contrast detection in all point&shoot
camera where it takes less than a second to shoot??
E
Derge
> Canon has two modes in Live View. 1. Quick AF can make
> the mirror go down for normal AF and back up. 2. Live AF
> uses solely the CCD for Contrast Detection. I heard
> it takes up to 3 seconds to take a shot in the latter?
> Why can't it use the contrast detection in all point&shoot
> camera where it takes less than a second to shoot??
>
> E
Probably because it's parsing a narrower DOF. A point-and-shoot camera
(almost, but not quite) doesn't need to focus at all.
And yes, it's... pretty doggone slow. :P
Matt Clara
news:80926480-8d81-44a8...@g1g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Why ask him, he doesn't know.
Chris Malcolm
> On Apr 21, 9:29?pm, "David J. Littleboy" <davi...@gol.com> wrote:
>> "Matt Clara" <n...@myexpense.com> wrote:
>> > "David J. Littleboy" <davi...@gol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>> shock, does it? ?Or did you tear the mirror out of your DSLR so you
>> >>> won't have to deal with it?
>>
>> >> You must be a Nikon user. When you take a shot in live view mode on a
>> >> Canon camera, the mirror stays up and there is no mirror slap. Oops.
>> >> Nikon gets something seriously wrong.
>>
>> > Is it possible to use Nikon's live vue in conjunction with MLU, or does
>> > be a serious flaw indeed.
>>
>> I don't know: that's something I read from a Nikon user here.
>>
>> Apparently the Nikons flop the mirror down to do an AF. Maybe if AF were
>> turned off they'd do the right thing.
>>
>> --
>> David J. Littleboy
>> Tokyo, Japan
> What about exposure? If the mirror doesn't come down, the exposure
> will
> have to be either set manually or the last EV taken used ( which may
> now
> be incorrect because the scene changed ). True?
Not necessarily, because since the camera is currently reading the
live view sensor, it could use that to calculate exposure, and if it
was in matrix or wide view whatever exposure mode, it could calculate
exposure more accurately than with the array of exposure sensors it
uses in mirror down mode, because it now in effect has millions of
exposure sensors to select from.
Whether the makers of any particular DLSR with live view bothered to
write the code to take advantage of that possibility is another
question. Sony certainly did, so on those models the live view matrix
mode exposure is the most accurate.
--
Chris Malcolm
Alan Browne
Compared to mirror slap yes, but not insignificant. The first curtain
has to accelerate so there is a reaction and then come to a halt very
abruptly, an impulse. On 3 of my cameras I can feel the shutter firing
even with MLU. On my Hasselblad it is much lower even if my hand is on
the lens (where the shutter is) as the forces are mutually canceling.
nospam
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
> >>> They obviously mean the mirror induced vibrations.
> >> The shutter induces vibrations as well, esp. in focal plane SLR's.
> >
> > insignificant.
>
> Compared to mirror slap yes, but not insignificant.
it's insignificant.
> The first curtain
> has to accelerate so there is a reaction and then come to a halt very
> abruptly, an impulse. On 3 of my cameras I can feel the shutter firing
> even with MLU. On my Hasselblad it is much lower even if my hand is on
> the lens (where the shutter is) as the forces are mutually canceling.
and does it actually affect the image or you just think it might?
Dudley Hanks
"Alan Browne" <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:HNKdnWDQ7NPyKW3U...@giganews.com...
By activating the mirror lockup on my XSi and setting the shutter speed to a
long exposure, I can feel the shutter activate. The initial curtain is less
(though still tangible) than the last curtain, when the mirror returns to
its normal position as well as the shutter closing.
Take Care,
Dudley
Alan Browne
> In article <HNKdnWDQ7NPyKW3U...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
> <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>>>> They obviously mean the mirror induced vibrations.
>>>> The shutter induces vibrations as well, esp. in focal plane SLR's.
>>> insignificant.
>> Compared to mirror slap yes, but not insignificant.
>
> it's insignificant.
If you don't make the measurements of each, then how could you possibly
know?
>> The first curtain
>> has to accelerate so there is a reaction and then come to a halt very
>> abruptly, an impulse. On 3 of my cameras I can feel the shutter firing
>> even with MLU. On my Hasselblad it is much lower even if my hand is on
>> the lens (where the shutter is) as the forces are mutually canceling.
>
> and does it actually affect the image or you just think it might?
That would have to be tested so I await your test plan, execution and
detailed results.
Alan Browne
> "Alan Browne" <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:HNKdnWDQ7NPyKW3U...@giganews.com...
>> nospam wrote:
>>> In article <bvOdnVtm1-hfO3LU...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
>>> <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> They obviously mean the mirror induced vibrations.
>>>> The shutter induces vibrations as well, esp. in focal plane SLR's.
>>> insignificant.
>> Compared to mirror slap yes, but not insignificant. The first curtain has
>> to accelerate so there is a reaction and then come to a halt very
>> abruptly, an impulse. On 3 of my cameras I can feel the shutter firing
>> even with MLU. On my Hasselblad it is much lower even if my hand is on
>> the lens (where the shutter is) as the forces are mutually canceling.
>
> long exposure, I can feel the shutter activate. The initial curtain is less
> (though still tangible) than the last curtain, when the mirror returns to
> its normal position as well as the shutter closing.
Sounds similar to my cameras. Of course the 2nd curtain should have no
effect on the image in any case.
More importantly, when using MLU one is almost always on a steady head
and tripod, and if it is as robust as mine and with CF legs, then that
vibration is probably very well controlled.
Dudley Hanks
"Alan Browne" <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>> "Alan Browne" <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
>> news:HNKdnWDQ7NPyKW3U...@giganews.com...
>>> nospam wrote:
>>>> In article <bvOdnVtm1-hfO3LU...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
>>>> <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> They obviously mean the mirror induced vibrations.
>>>>> The shutter induces vibrations as well, esp. in focal plane SLR's.
>>>> insignificant.
>>> Compared to mirror slap yes, but not insignificant. The first curtain
>>> has to accelerate so there is a reaction and then come to a halt very
>>> abruptly, an impulse. On 3 of my cameras I can feel the shutter firing
>>> even with MLU. On my Hasselblad it is much lower even if my hand is on
>>> the lens (where the shutter is) as the forces are mutually canceling.
>>
>> By activating the mirror lockup on my XSi and setting the shutter speed
>> to a long exposure, I can feel the shutter activate. The initial curtain
>> is less (though still tangible) than the last curtain, when the mirror
>> returns to its normal position as well as the shutter closing.
>
> Sounds similar to my cameras. Of course the 2nd curtain should have no
> effect on the image in any case.
>
> More importantly, when using MLU one is almost always on a steady head and
> tripod, and if it is as robust as mine and with CF legs, then that
> vibration is probably very well controlled.
>
Definitely.
What is interesting is comparing the mirror slap / curtain vibration from a
newer generation to some older cams.
I've got an old Pentax P3 (around 1984 or '85), and it's incredible how much
vibration can be felt with that camera. By the time we get to my Canon A2,
the slap is almost non-existent (comparatively speaking).
Apparently, not much has developed since then, though, as my XSi is nearly
the same.
Take Care,
Dudley
nospam
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
> >> The first curtain
> >> has to accelerate so there is a reaction and then come to a halt very
> >> abruptly, an impulse. On 3 of my cameras I can feel the shutter firing
> >> even with MLU. On my Hasselblad it is much lower even if my hand is on
> >> the lens (where the shutter is) as the forces are mutually canceling.
> >
> > and does it actually affect the image or you just think it might?
>
> That would have to be tested so I await your test plan, execution and
> detailed results.
where are your numbers that show it's an issue? you made the claim,
let's see the data.
Alan Browne
You're challenging it, you _prove_ me wrong.
Colin.D
> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>> "Alan Browne" <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
>> news:HNKdnWDQ7NPyKW3U...@giganews.com...
>>> nospam wrote:
>>>> In article <bvOdnVtm1-hfO3LU...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
>>>> <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> They obviously mean the mirror induced vibrations.
>>>>> The shutter induces vibrations as well, esp. in focal plane SLR's.
>>>> insignificant.
>>> Compared to mirror slap yes, but not insignificant. The first
>>> curtain has to accelerate so there is a reaction and then come to a
>>> halt very abruptly, an impulse. On 3 of my cameras I can feel the
>>> shutter firing even with MLU. On my Hasselblad it is much lower even
>>> if my hand is on the lens (where the shutter is) as the forces are
>>> mutually canceling.
>>
>> By activating the mirror lockup on my XSi and setting the shutter
>> speed to a long exposure, I can feel the shutter activate. The
>> initial curtain is less (though still tangible) than the last curtain,
>> when the mirror returns to its normal position as well as the shutter
>> closing.
>
> Sounds similar to my cameras. Of course the 2nd curtain should have no
> effect on the image in any case.
>
I rather think it's the other way round, Alan. The first curtain
acceleration all happens before the shutter opens, since the curtain
travel speed has to be constant across the gate for constant exposure,
so there is a small amount of travel before the gate is uncovered, and
the acceleration takes place there.
OTOH, second curtain acceleration starts while the gate is at least
partly open, the area uncovered depending on where the first curtain is
when the second starts moving, and the uncovered area will record the
shake from the second curtain starting.
Everything in life is a compromise, and dslrs are no exception. The
root question is, do they work? and the answer is yes.
Colin D.
Alan Browne
Very good points and shame on me for not thinking it through. I tend to
think in terms of sync speed and lower these days (studio). Even
available light it's rare that I see 1/500 or faster. Ah, summer is
coming ... first warm weekend (26 ish Sat/Sun).
Still, when the 1st curtain stops there has to be an impulse, and a
lesser one when the 2nd curtain starts (irregardless of the position of
the 1st curtain).
Hans Kruse
>
> Canon has two modes in Live View. 1. Quick AF can make
> the mirror go down for normal AF and back up. 2. Live AF
> uses solely the CCD for Contrast Detection. I heard
> it takes up to 3 seconds to take a shot in the latter?
> Why can't it use the contrast detection in all point&shoot
> camera where it takes less than a second to shoot??
>
the mirror will never go down when you trig the shutter.
--
Med venlig hilsen/Kind regards,
Hans Kruse www.hanskrusephotography.com, www.hanskruse.com
Neil Harrington
"Wilba" <use...@CUTTHISimago.com.au> wrote in message
news:01fe3973$0$20652$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
> Neil Harrington wrote:
>>> Wilba wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Leaving aside the ergonomics of manual focus, would it be practical
>>>> to focus by moving the sensor, thus doing away with focus within the
>>>> lens?
>>
>> Some other camera makers did, e.g. the Revere 33 stereo camera focused
>> by moving the pressure plate. But that had fixed lenses, of course. I
>> think there would be a problem trying to do that with interchangeable
>> lenses.
>
> What kinda problem?
With a conventional long lens for example, the forward lens movement to come
to near focus is relatively large. I doubt you could design a moving sensor
that would be able to move back far enough to accomplish the same change in
focus.
Chris Malcolm
> Definitely.
As it happens my most stable tripod, the one I'm using in my current
experiments with mirror slap image smearing, is the same one on which I
first detected the phenomenon with a film DSLR. Back then I was
noticing the problem with exposures of about 1/15th sec, a lens of
300mm, prints of A5 size, and a Minolta camera. The same degree of
telephoto field of view with my current 1.5 crop sensor camera would
be achieved with a 200mm lens. With today's software image
magnifications, 14MP, and the pixel peeping levels at which I
routinely scrutinise my images I'm probably in effect looking at
images of A2 size.
I've looked at lots of images taken at speeds of around 1/15th sec and
around 200mm focal length and I haven't noticed any mirror slap. I've
noticed a lesser but still annoying degree of mirror slap on the same
tripod with a lens of 500mm and an exposure of 1/200th sec.
So there's no doubt that mirror slap in my current DSLR is a lot
less. On the other hand there's no doubt that I routinely look at my
photographs today at much higher magnifications and mt largest prints
are now much bigger. I have as a result developed much higher
standards of sharpness and resolution. I had already noticed another
effect of those much higher standards: I've had to tighten up a lot
the old rules of thumb I learned in film DSLR days about acceptable
hand held shutter speeds/focal lengths and aperture/depth of field.
As it happens not only am I still using the same old tripod, but I
still have those old Minolta lenses and could use them on my current
Sony DSLR. But I can't be bothered spending the money and time to
measure the actual change in the effects of mirror slap between the
two cameras. It's clear enough that my modern DSLR standards of
sharpness have been raised enough to cancel whatever improvement in
mirror slap modern DSLR technology has achieved.
--
Chris Malcolm
Deep Reset
"Chris Malcolm" <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:75in04F...@mid.individual.net...
> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Dudley Hanks <dha...@blind-apertures.ca>
> wrote:
>
>> "Alan Browne" <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
>> news:qIidnXW2Vq2LIW3U...@giganews.com...
>>> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>>>> "Alan Browne" <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
>>>> news:HNKdnWDQ7NPyKW3U...@giganews.com...
>>>>> nospam wrote:
>>>>>> In article <bvOdnVtm1-hfO3LU...@giganews.com>, Alan
>>>>>> Browne
>>>>>> <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>
<snip>
> As it happens my most stable tripod, the one I'm using in my current
> experiments with mirror slap image smearing, is the same one on which I
> first detected the phenomenon with a film DSLR.
Now there's an interesting concept.
Eric Stevens
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>Alfred Molon wrote:
>> In article <49edbe48$0$90268$1472...@news.sunsite.dk>, Hans Kruse says
>> ...
>>> "Alfred Molon" <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:MPG.2457c9bd9...@news.supernews.com...
>>>> In article <49ed7e81$0$90275$1472...@news.sunsite.dk>, Hans Kruse says
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>> This issue has been known for a long time. MLU is available for that
>>>>> reason.
>>>> According to the article:
>>>>
>>>> "it was confirmed that the vibration generated by releasing the shutter
>>>> remains even when a picture is taken after a certain period of time from
>>>> the mirror lockup to prevent a mirror shock"
>>> The shutter release vibrations has nothing to do with getting rid of the
>>> mirror, does it?
>>
>> They obviously mean the mirror induced vibrations.
>
>The shutter induces vibrations as well, esp. in focal plane SLR's. In
>lens shuttered systems, it is greatly reduced as long as the mirror is
>locked up first.
Its nearly 60 years since I encountered the SLR made by the Swiss
company ALPA. Now see what they make. Not a reflex mirror in site.
http://www.alpa.ch/index.php
Eric Stevens
Bruce
>
>Its nearly 60 years since I encountered the SLR made by the Swiss
>company ALPA. Now see what they make. Not a reflex mirror in site.
>http://www.alpa.ch/index.php
It's not the same company. The new ALPA company bought (or licensed)
the defunct ALPA brand from its owners, and used it to give some
marketing impetus to a new and completely unrelated range of medium
format cameras.
It worked for Cosina, who licensed the defunct Voigtl�nder brand, so why
not for ALPA?
Paul Furman
> "Matt Clara" <no...@myexpense.com> wrote:
>> "David J. Littleboy" <dav...@gol.com> wrote:
>>>> Instead of MLU? Live View does not in and of itself reduce mirror
>>>> shock, does it? Or did you tear the mirror out of your DSLR so you
>>> You must be a Nikon user. When you take a shot in live view mode on a
>>> Canon camera, the mirror stays up and there is no mirror slap. Oops.
>>> Nikon gets something seriously wrong.
>> Is it possible to use Nikon's live vue in conjunction with MLU, or does
>
> I don't know: that's something I read from a Nikon user here.
>
> Apparently the Nikons flop the mirror down to do an AF. Maybe if AF were
> turned off they'd do the right thing.
There are two modes, tripod mode avoids dropping the mirror to focus:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/3511427108/in/photostream/
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
Dudley Hanks
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:U_HMl.9990$im1....@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
This is one of those cases where I don't think the Canon's always live up to
their billing.
True, the mirror stays up when you take a shot in Live View, as long as you
aren't using a flash. As soon as the flash is turned on, the mirror does a
bit of a flip flop in order to determine exposure, creating a fair bit of
shake.
For those of us who like to use fill flash, this can cause a lot of
problems.
Take Care,
Dudley
They're SO Behind The Times
>"Aggreived" <nu...@void.com> writes:
>> In low light the EVF gets a bit grainy - but *nowhere* near as much as some
>> people would have you believe, and it's as easy to take a shot in very low
>> light (say a room illuminated by one 60 watt table lamp) as it ever was with
>> the optical finders.
>>
>> The OP is correct - EVF's are the way ahead (imo) not just because they
>> offer some significant advantages over the antiquated mirror system, but
>> because they are actually 'better'.
>
>I agree that EVFs are (probably) what everybody will move to in the long-term.
>
>However, when trying the G1/GH1 in stores, its EVF seemed _awful_ --
>very low spatial resolution (lots of jaggies), laggy, and seemingly low
>dynamic range as well. Despite the appeal of the camera body (small,
>light, slim), looking through the VF completely killed any desire to buy
>one (the small 4x3 sensor is also a turn off, but I never even made it
>to the point of looking at the specs in the store).
Yes, you erroneously see "lag" when that's really known as live
shutter-speed preview. Increase the shutter-speed and this supposed "lag"
matches it. It's one of the more marvelous things about using EVFs. But
just like DSLR owners who whined for years about the uselessness of
live-view options but now everyone wants it, they'll whine about this
wrongly interpreted "lag" until they realize what it's for and why it's so
useful. They're not too bright. Always 3-5 years behind the curve of what
everyone else has found so useful to increase their photography skills &
artistry.
>
>There probably are situations where even such a low-quality finder
>display has advantages (e.g. the ability to process the image to boost
>light levels or whatever), but EVFs are going to have to get a _lot_
>better (at acceptable cost of course) before the higher-end cameras
>adopt them...
>
>-Miles
And yet, I still see no preponderance of in-focus images coming from DSLRs
with all their inherent focusing problems. You can't focus any more
accurately using an OVF than you can with an EVF. All you do is whine about
imaginary problems that don't exist. A viewfinder is used mainly for
composition, any EVF on any camera is more than good enough for that. To
top it off, that EVF image is a 100% frame of the final image, not some
95%, 97%, 105% or what have you on most DSLRs' OVFs. Exposure metering
right from a live-view feed is even more accurate than any camera that
depends on an independent light-path that can't adequately compensate for
the angle of the light-cone coming from various focal-lengths of lenses
used. One fool in these newsgroups was recently priding themselves on how
well they could focus for macro-photography with an OVF, yet they couldn't
even get the main subject in focus. Even when using burst mode to try to
get at least one of the frames in focus.
It's not the equipment, it's the photographer. You seem to be really
destitute in that regard.
Wolfgang Weisselberg
He's SO Behind The Times <hs...@hsbtt.org> wrote:
> Yes, you erroneously see "lag" when that's really known as live
> shutter-speed preview.
A good feature if you aim at something fast: just aim and
shoot and it'll be already out of the frame. Even ignoring
the glacial AF. It really helps avoiding shots you'll want
to print.
> Increase the shutter-speed and this supposed "lag"
> matches it.
Or so 'they' claim. Of course there's the lag for reading the
sensor and understanding what it reads and then writing to
the display. Real viewfinders work at lightspeed.
> It's one of the more marvelous things about using EVFs.
Right next to grainy, snowy noise, especially in low light
situations, and such low resolution you hardly know if you are
even halfway focussed. (Of course, with P&S most everything is
in focus, even if you don't want it to, so it'll do.)
> But just like DSLR owners who whined for years about the uselessness
> of live-view options but now everyone wants it, they'll whine about
> this wrongly interpreted "lag" until they realize what it's for and
> why it's so useful.
They called a genius an idiot (in fact they did not, but lets
claim that), they call me an idiot, so I must be a genius.
Logic 101 by the P&S troll --- not what you learned in school.
> They're not too bright. Always 3-5 years behind the curve of what
> everyone else has found so useful to increase their photography skills &
> artistry.
At least that's true for P&S trolls.
> And yet, I still see no preponderance of in-focus images coming from DSLRs
> with all their inherent focusing problems.
That's because you only see what you want to see, troll. Every
good shot you see made by a P&S, even if it was a DLSR that did
the deed.
> You can't focus any more
> accurately using an OVF than you can with an EVF.
Proving this troll never saw a manual focus camera.
> All you do is whine about imaginary problems that don't exist.
... in the trolls perfect P&S world.
> A viewfinder is used mainly for composition,
and a car mainly for swimming.
> any EVF on any camera is more than good enough for that.
It's all it's halfway good for, except if it's too bright, too
dark, too colourfull, too fast, too whatever.
> To top it off, that EVF image is a 100% frame of the final image, not
> some 95%, 97%, 105% or what have you on most DSLRs' OVFs.
See it (trolls are an 'it') wildly inventing numbers. Of
course without understanding what they would mean.
> Exposure metering right from a live-view feed is even more accurate
> than any camera that depends on an independent light-path that can't
> adequately compensate for the angle of the light-cone coming from
> various focal-lengths of lenses used.
All DSLRs compensate more than merely adequately --- as it
well knows, or it would claim DSLRs didn't. Cameras with
very short lenses --- usually those P&S with their small
sensors --- fight much more against it, paying vignetting and
other dues on their steeper angles they cannot compensate for
except by artificially brightening the borders, increasing
noise and decreasing resolution.
> One fool in these newsgroups was recently priding themselves on how
> well they could focus for macro-photography with an OVF, yet they couldn't
> even get the main subject in focus.
The troll "thought" (to the extend the two brainceslls can do so)
the main subject was something else. If it had been claimed it
was a P&S shot, the troll would have applauded.
> It's not the equipment, it's the photographer. You seem to be really
> destitute in that regard.
Says one troll who never held a camera in their dirty talons
nor ever did show any pictures at all. Of course that makes
it the highest authority: Those that really can't do or teach,
decide what's good. Eunuch harem guards at least *can* look,
describe and compare ...
-Wolfgang
Doug McDonald
>> Yes, you erroneously see "lag" when that's really known as live
>> shutter-speed preview. Increase the shutter-speed and this supposed "lag"
>> matches it. It's one of the more marvelous things about using EVFs.
Let's be senisble here.
I believe that sensors can do quite acceptable pure electronic
shuttering; perhaps there is some adjacent-frame cross-coupling,
but it is small and if the shutter speed is fast enough,
it really does not matter.
Now as the the above quote: THINK! I'm a dSLR user so have
no axe to grind. say you are using a shutter speed of say 1/30 second,
possible with a fairly wide angle lens and IS. There is a picture
on the EVR, already made. The camera can be set up so that
THAT ACTUAL PICTURE is saved if you press the button fast enough.
In fact, the camera can set up a "human reaction lag" so that it
displays images at ANY shutter speed so that if you press
the button at the right time, you get the picture you actually saw:
WYSIWUG.
Now this presupposes it is in focus. IS the contrast-detection system
going to be good enough?
Who knows? Maybe, maybe no.
But consider this: if you allow the idea that you pick one and only one
focus spot, a camera could be made that uses a RANGEFINDER
to do the focus: this would use a ditherd phase system and you be ultra
accurate and very fast, even at following action. Of course it would be open loop
as far as matching the rangefinder and the particular lens, so the lens
would have to have a very accurate distance-to-actuation system.
But this could be done; the camera could have claibrations software
in it to do it using the rangefinder and contrast detect, since time would be no object
for a calibration run.
Now don't say "parallax" here: with a computer in the camera and lines sensors
in the rangefinder, the computer could aim the rangefinder at the correct spot.
I'm just thinking here, of course, but it WILL work and could be the cat's meow.
Doug McDonald