# Why R5 Mechanical shutter shock so serious? Amost makes it useless.



## Rzrsharp (Dec 13, 2020)

Read the 1/100s mechanical shutter shock issue before and after purchase of R5. I did not take it seriously, as a DSLR user, i thought any shock is peanut compared with mirror flip.

But, suprisely, I'm not so impressive the image from R5. I felt my R5 is not always as sharp as my 5D (I,II,III,IV, i did not miss any one), most case, it's worse.

I started to suspect the shutter shock and decided do a test myown.

Camera settings, IBIS: On, Anti-flickr: OFF, Image format: RAW, AF Mode: Single, AF Method: Spot (centre)
Lens: EF 24-70/2.8L II + Ring
Aperture: f/2.8
Focal Length: 70mm
Shooting distance: 1.5m
Camera holding: hand hold
Explanation: mechanical shutter and Elec. 1st Curtain, take 3 photos at each of 1/60s, 1/100s, 1/200s, 1/400s, 1/500s shutter speed

1st, 1/100s, this is the major complaint.
Unlucky, my one is very serious, clearly blur with MS.


----------



## Rzrsharp (Dec 13, 2020)

1/60s, a little bit better, but can no get same sharpness as EFCS


----------



## Rzrsharp (Dec 13, 2020)

1/200s
Same as 1/60s, better than 1/100s, butter not as good as EFCS


----------



## Rzrsharp (Dec 13, 2020)

1/400s
Very close now. If you have to pick the razer sharp image, EFCS is still the winner


----------



## Rzrsharp (Dec 13, 2020)

1/500s
Finally, catch up. They are the same under 1/500s


----------



## Rzrsharp (Dec 13, 2020)

Does my EOS R5 play badly too much or it's just an issue of all?
I shoot each photo with my best through EVF, I just cannot take a crispy, razer sharp image from mechanical shutter.
The mechanical shutter is useless to me now.


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 13, 2020)

Rzrsharp said:


> Does my EOS R5 play badly too much or it's just an issue of all?
> I shoot each photo with my best through EVF, I just cannot take a crispy, razer sharp image from mechanical shutter.
> The mechanical shutter is useless to me now.


I've noticed similar effects with my 5DS even with MLU, so it's not just mirrorless. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with your R5, just welcome to the world of very high resolution potential FF sensors


----------



## Chris.Chapterten (Dec 13, 2020)

Just use EFCS most of the time and mechanical shutter only for very high shutter speeds with the aperture wide open. No need to stress about it too much. Pretty much all mirrorless cameras do the same with mechanical shutter and certain shutter speeds.


----------



## koenkooi (Dec 13, 2020)

Sporgon said:


> I've noticed similar effects with my 5DS even with MLU, so it's not just mirrorless.[..]



Does sharpness increase when going from 1/100s to 1/60s as well on your 5DS when using non-IS lenses?


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 13, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> Does sharpness increase when going from 1/100s to 1/60s as well on your 5DS when using non-IS lenses?


I honestly don't know as I haven't tested for it. I first came across the difference in sharpness between EFC and mechanical shutter when checking lenses for AFMA. I'd be surprised if it did get sharper at the lower shutter speed when there's no IS involved, but as I said, I haven't any evidence that I know of. 

From a technical point of view the difference in sharpness is of interest but in practice I'm not concerned about it, unlike the softness that f/16 produces with distant subjects on the 50mp sensor !


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 13, 2020)

It can be frustrating! One of the compromises with the R5 is needing to remember to use electronic first curtain shutter in this range of shutter speeds. As has been suggested here and elsewhere on the web, we need as many owners as possible to write to Canon, to demonstrate the issue as you have done here, and to ask for a firmware fix that addresses this. One idea floating around is an option to let there camera automatically switch to electronic first curtain in the danger zone of shutter speeds, and to go back to Mechanical at higher shutter speeds.

Please contact Canon and share your examples! I believe it is asking too much of photographers to be constantly thinking about their shutter speed in addition to all the other factors we are working with, especially in high end bodies that should be freeing us up to concentrate on the moment, not the settings!


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 13, 2020)

Rzrsharp said:


> Does my EOS R5 play badly too much or it's just an issue of all?
> I shoot each photo with my best through EVF, I just cannot take a crispy, razer sharp image from mechanical shutter.
> The mechanical shutter is useless to me now.


Going by the results you have shown I’d say it isn’t “an issue” at all. 

The mechanical shutter wasn’t “useless to you“ until somebody else pointed out the phenomena and you tested your own camera?


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 13, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> Going by the results you have shown I’d say it isn’t “an issue” at all.
> 
> The mechanical shutter wasn’t “useless to you“ until somebody else pointed out the phenomena and you tested your own camera?


You might have misread his post. He read about the issue before buying the camera, disregarding it as a serious problem. After using it he realized that the phenomenon is real and significantly softens images shot at 1/60 of a second through 1/200 of a second.

This is a problem, and for now it requires being aware of shutter speeds when using both mechanical and electronic first curtain. If we are using a wide aperture in changing light situations, we are likely to run into image quality problems at high shutter speeds and lower shutter speeds, unless we are always aware of what shutter speed we are using and change the shutter mode. This isn't very practical.


----------



## Czardoom (Dec 13, 2020)

Since I'm not a pixel peeper and understand that higher MP cameras will have less sharpness the more you zoom in, I'll be glad to take this camera off your hands and remove all your stress and worries.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 13, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> You might have misread his post. He read about the issue before buying the camera, disregarding it as a serious problem. After using it he realized that the phenomenon is real and *significantly softens images* shot at 1/60 of a second through 1/200 of a second.
> 
> This is a problem, and for now it requires being aware of shutter speeds when using both mechanical and electronic first curtain. If we are using a wide aperture in changing light situations, we are likely to run into image quality problems at high shutter speeds and lower shutter speeds, unless we are always aware of what shutter speed we are using and change the shutter mode. This isn't very practical.


Seriously?


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 13, 2020)

So the honest consensus is that two of these are critically sharp and two are "unusable"? If so you guys need to get out more.


----------



## magarity (Dec 13, 2020)

I don't have an R series so maybe this is a dumb question but how big are the red focus squares on them? In the mirrored cameras those are really small. So are you really blowing it up to billboard size to get the red squares so large in your examples or is that size configurable and you're showing the whole frame?


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 13, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> Seriously?


Yep.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 13, 2020)

magarity said:


> I don't have an R series so maybe this is a dumb question but how big are the red focus squares on them? In the mirrored cameras those are really small. So are you really blowing it up to billboard size to get the red squares so large in your examples or is that size configurable and you're showing the whole frame?


It noticeably affects the sharpness of the whole image when at normal viewing size. You have to take into account, with these images, that CR compresses what we upload and makes critical comparisons difficult. That is one reason you are seeing those of us who have been stung by this shutter-shock posting such tight crops.

Of course experienced photographers expect shutter-shock with dSLR's at shutter speeds BELOW 100th of a second--generally in special situations on a tripod. But those of us coming to higher resolution mirrorless _with an IBIS mechanism_ are naturally surprised to see shutter shock from 1/60th of a second through 1/200th of a second. We buy a 45MP camera with cutting edge lenses for sharpness, not what looks like a kit lens on a 20D.

If you have the camera, and you simply test for yourself, you can see the problem. And that is a GOOD thing, because when you wonder wtf happened with some images you expected to be tack sharp, you can stop lashing yourself with a cat-o'-nine tails because you think your technique was off. You know what you are dealing with.

This problem might be associated with the IBIS cradle (even with IBIS off), or it might be the 45MP. Whatever, it is an unexpected PITA! 

If you just leave EFCS on all the time, and you are using wide apertures in Av mode, before you know it, you are in very fast shutter speed territory where backgrounds start looking nervous and dark. If you stay in mechanical, well, you get soft images from 1/60th to 1/200th even with IBIS/IS activated.

Is that optimal? Can Canon put in an option to have the shutter mode automatically switch based on shutter speeds? I believe other brands have already done so.

If it isn't a problem for you, great! But you won't be harmed by Canon addressing the issue.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 13, 2020)

Rzrsharp said:


> Does my EOS R5 play badly too much or it's just an issue of all?
> I shoot each photo with my best through EVF, I just cannot take a crispy, razer sharp image from mechanical shutter.
> *The mechanical shutter is useless to me now.*



This is not true. Please read my above post.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 13, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> Yep.


So from the four examples I posted two are critically sharp and two are unusable soft?


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 13, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> So from the four examples I posted two are critically sharp and two are unusable soft?


He did not post the best, most useful shots, granted. But he is sharing issues other R5 owners are experiencing, myself included. That said, his shots were compressed when uploaded, and if you cropped them, weren't they degraded again?

Is the OP exaggerating by saying "unusable"? I would say disappointing, not what we expect from the R5 and Rf glass. It is hard to define "unusable" for all photographers in every situation. And I'd like to see his RAWs on my own screen. But the softness affects images, and justifiably raises questions about the performance of the R5. Fortunately, a growing number of users have narrowed down the problem.

I think if the threshold for any issue with the R5 is whether images are "usable," then what standards would any camera company be held to?

In any event, it is a problem, and like other issues that can be mitigated with firmware fixes, I hope this one is too.

Have you tested this yourself with an R5? If you are hoping for fine details, would you choose mechanical shutter at the problematic speeds? And would you choose EFCS for 1/2500th and higher when shooting at f/1.2-f/2.8 where backgrounds matter? It would be nice if Canon could AT LEAST add a menu option to switch shutter modes at threshold shutter speeds.

In the meantime, we try to remember to switch shutter modes depending on shutter speeds we are expecting to use. But it is a PITA when in Av mode in varying light situations.

Did you already read through this thread? Strange case of blur images. Canon RF 24-70 f2.8 | Canon Rumors

PBD, it's good you are challenging us on this, because certainly Canon needs clear evidence to address any issue, and plenty of it. So, controlled tests with large file sizes when communicating with Canon support.


----------



## zim (Dec 13, 2020)

Do you get the same results if you change the mass of the camera body ie add a fully loaded battery grip?


----------



## Go Wild (Dec 13, 2020)

Rzrsharp said:


> Read the 1/100s mechanical shutter shock issue before and after purchase of R5. I did not take it seriously, as a DSLR user, i thought any shock is peanut compared with mirror flip.
> 
> But, suprisely, I'm not so impressive the image from R5. I felt my R5 is not always as sharp as my 5D (I,II,III,IV, i did not miss any one), most case, it's worse.
> 
> ...




I´m not sure I am going to be unfair on my comment but....You do know the rule to double the focal distance in shutterspeed right?

I own a R5 form the first ones and I don´t have any issue with the camera. But from what I am seeing here you have a so called "user mistake". If you are making photos at 70mm you should use a speed of, at least 1/160 to prevent the blur in the image and thats exactly what I am seeing here! The variation of sharp is directly dependent of your stability. It´s a common mistake to rely on IBIS or IS to prevent the shake of lower shutters but at big focal distances you should be aware that Ibis or IS makes no miracles. I think the Ibis or IS is much more useful to video than to stills, but they do work in a vary of situations!

Another thing, I realize you are working with an EF lens and be aware that with EF lenses, Ibis is not so efective. Another thing i did notice form the R5, the camera seems not to like some lenses...I find that my EF 16-35 F4 IS is not so great lens like if I use it with the 1dx mkII. And this leads me to my final point...45 MP! If you shoot with this much MP you must be aware that you will notice much more the failures than other cameras with less MP. Using a camera with High MP you must be careful to always increase a bit the shutter to prevent blurry images. Even if you think a certain shutter will be enough, always give a little bit.

If you are shooting at 1/100 or less with a 70mm focal distance , well....you have a high chance to get blurry images and thats not a camera fault.

Never noticed any issue in my camera, on the contraire, I just LOVE this camera! BTW try to use a RF glass and you will see a difference of attitude!


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 13, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> He did not post the best, most useful shots, granted. But he is sharing issues other R5 owners are experiencing, myself included. That said, his shots were compressed when uploaded, and if you cropped them, weren't they degraded again?
> 
> Is the OP exaggerating by saying "unusable"? I would say disappointing, not what we expect from the R5 and Rf glass. It is hard to define "unusable" for all photographers in every situation. And I'd like to see his RAWs on my own screen. But the softness affects images, and justifiably raises questions about the performance of the R5. Fortunately, a growing number of users have narrowed down the problem.
> 
> ...


Judging from the posted shots I wouldn’t say “disappointing” I’d say nonexistent to any noticeable degree in actual images. I bet nobody could tell which of the four were which.

Might there be a slight degradation at massive enlargement sizes or huge crops for some people in some modes at one shutter speed? Possibly, but if this is an example of the difference I’d say we are not looking at an “issue”.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 13, 2020)

Go Wild said:


> I´m not sure I am going to be unfair on my comment but....You do know the rule to double the focal distance in shutterspeed right?



With all due respect this is a shutter-shock problem, and not related to focal distance or other variables you mention. It is not affected by IBIS being on or off.

You should try, as I did with an Rf 24-70mm to take shots from 1/60th-1/200th in both mechanical and EFCS shutter-modes. Let us know if you see the softening of images in one versus the other.

Thanks!


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 13, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> Judging from the posted shots I wouldn’t say “disappointing” I’d say nonexistent to any noticeable degree in actual images. I bet nobody could tell which of the four were which.
> 
> Might there be a slight degradation at massive enlargement sizes or huge crops for some people in some modes at one shutter speed? Possibly, but if this is an example of the difference I’d say we are not looking at an “issue”.


PBD, I think you should try it with your own R5 if you aren't seeing it in images posted here on CR. It is disappointing to see photos we expect to be tack-sharp softened, but it is very good to know why it is happening.

This is a pretty good general discussion:

What is Shutter Shock and How to Mitigate It (photographylife.com)


----------



## Go Wild (Dec 13, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> With all due respect this is a shutter-shock problem, and not related to focal distance or other variables you mention. It is not affected by IBIS being on or off.
> 
> You should try, as I did with an Rf 24-70mm to take shots from 1/60th-1/200th in both mechanical and EFCS shutter-modes. Let us know if you see the softening of images in one versus the other.
> 
> Thanks!



Well I will but if I shoot at 70mm with a 1/100 shutter speed I DO expect to see a bit blurry. It may not happen but there is a High possibility! 
Another thing i forgot to mention, The AF of the R5 is nervous! Be aware to choose or to select the best AF for the situations. 

I did had a shutter-shock problem on my Canon 7DmkII but on the R5 never saw it. But I will try


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 13, 2020)

Go Wild said:


> Well I will but if I shoot at 70mm with a 1/100 shutter speed I DO expect to see a bit blurry. It may not happen but there is a High possibility!
> Another thing i forgot to mention, The AF of the R5 is nervous! Be aware to choose or to select the best AF for the situations.
> 
> I did had a shutter-shock problem on my Canon 7DmkII but on the R5 never saw it. But I will try


I'd suggest using a tripod, turning off IBIS, and, if you like, using manual focus. The shutter shock is independent of the variables you, understandably, want to rule out.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 13, 2020)

So I went to the other thread and downloaded the full sized attachments that I do not believe are forum resampled, I believe only in line images are resampled. 

Anyway, are we really saying at 100% crops from a 45mp camera this difference is an "issue"? To me the biggest differences are the contrast, WB, and exposure. The lighting was very different in the two shots as one had a person blocking a part of the window and that reduced glare and improved contrast a lot. The biggest 'issue' I see in comparing the two images is the subsequent difference in contrast, the WB change, the specular highlights and overall image brightness.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 13, 2020)

Ok, fair enough. I'm going to use a real test-pattern target with controlled lighting. Canon won't likely be persuaded by vitamin bottles and train schedules.



And then I'm going to post them in a new thread, not buried in this one. later in this thread Anybody can comment and/or add new ones.

Any suggestions for optimal posting here?


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 13, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> Any suggestions for optimal posting here?



Full sized jpegs work fine if you keep them as attachments not inline, and keep the size down to around 1.5MB. 100% crops work well and are not resized if you post keep them below 1,200px.


----------



## Rzrsharp (Dec 13, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> So I went to the other thread and downloaded the full sized attachments that I do not believe are forum resampled, I believe only in line images are resampled.
> 
> Anyway, are we really saying at 100% crops from a 45mp camera this difference is an "issue"? To me the biggest differences are the contrast, WB, and exposure. The lighting was very different in the two shots as one had a person blocking a part of the window and that reduced glare and improved contrast a lot. The biggest 'issue' I see in comparing the two images is the subsequent difference in contrast, the WB change, the specular highlights and overall image brightness.
> 
> ...


Do you have R5?
If yes, would you mind sharing us your own photo?
If no, would you mind just reading?


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 13, 2020)

So here is the thread at DPReview where they used a test target, equal lighting etc.






Canon EOS R5 - shutter shock, IS, long exposure: Canon EOS R Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review


Expert news, reviews and videos of the latest digital cameras, lenses, accessories, and phones. Get answers to your questions in our photography forums.




www.dpreview.com





I took the 'worst' example, 1/100 sec mechanical shutter, and did an accurate comparison with the ES version.

Can anybody seriously tell me 100% crops from a 45mp camera the differences illustrated amount to an issue?


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 13, 2020)

Rzrsharp said:


> Do you have R5?
> If yes, would you mind sharing us your own photo?
> If no, would you mind just reading?


1/ No. I have used a couple but don't have any relevant 1/100 sec exposure comparison images.
2/ As above.
3/ No, that's not how forums work. Besides owning one wouldn't make a blind bit of difference to the dissection of the images being used to support this notion of an "issue".

What is it you find so objectionable about my statements? I am using the data put forward to 'prove' there is an issue.


----------



## Rzrsharp (Dec 13, 2020)

Go Wild said:


> I´m not sure I am going to be unfair on my comment but....You do know the rule to double the focal distance in shutterspeed right?
> 
> I own a R5 form the first ones and I don´t have any issue with the camera. But from what I am seeing here you have a so called "user mistake". If you are making photos at 70mm you should use a speed of, at least 1/160 to prevent the blur in the image and thats exactly what I am seeing here! The variation of sharp is directly dependent of your stability. It´s a common mistake to rely on IBIS or IS to prevent the shake of lower shutters but at big focal distances you should be aware that Ibis or IS makes no miracles. I think the Ibis or IS is much more useful to video than to stills, but they do work in a vary of situations!
> 
> ...





You can not explain why 1/60s is better than 1/100s following your SLR shutter speed rules which sounds like trying to skip the shutter shock issue to me.


----------



## Rzrsharp (Dec 13, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> 1/ No. I have used a couple but don't have any relevant 1/100 sec exposure comparison images.
> 2/ As above.
> 3/ No, that's not how forums work. Besides owning one wouldn't make a blind bit of difference to the dissection of the images being used to support this notion of an "issue".
> 
> What is it you find so objectionable about my statements? I am using the data put forward to 'prove' there is an issue.


The data you use is the data, my one isn't?
You will know the pain if you have the camera.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 14, 2020)

Rzrsharp said:


> The data you use is the data, my one isn't?
> You will know the pain if you have the camera.


I have used your data, and others that were created with more consistency. I am not saying there isn’t a difference, what I am saying is I haven’t seen anything, despite asking, that definitively illustrates differences that could seriously be considered “an issue”.


----------



## Czardoom (Dec 14, 2020)

I think the main question is, is this an "issue" or is it the normal results that are to be expected? For those expecting the mechanical shutter and the electronic shutter to produce the same result, your expectations are not realistic. Because there is shutter shock...the question is how much and is it really a problem unless you pixel peep? 

And yes, there may be firmware fixes possible. My Olympus camera, for example, has a "shutter shock" setting that - when set to ON, the camera automatically switches to electronic first curtain for all shots under 1/320th of a second.


----------



## VegasCameraGuy (Dec 14, 2020)

I guess I'm confused by this thread. While I don't normally shoot at wide-open apertures and usually use f8, can someone explain why I don't see this problem. I've attached two files, one the full-frame I shot at ISO 100, f8, and 1/60th with my R5 24-70mm f2.8L. The second is an enlargement of the model's eye taken from the original RAW image. This is mechanical shutter and you can see the individual eyelashes and hair. If I'm having shutter shock shouldn't the images not be sharp? This particular image was shot with a flash but I have other examples without a flash that are also sharp. Note: I had to resample the JPG down to 50% so the file wasn't too big.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 14, 2020)

On second thought...I am NOT going to start a new thread. Why further embarrass myself?

I've gone through the test twice this evening. As controlled as I can make it: good test target, tripod, no IBIS, Manual mode, manual focus (using the little green triangle assistants AND magnified verification of their precision), and the two-second delay. R5 + 24-70mm at an arbitrarily chosen focal length of 60mm. I took seven shots each for MECH and EFCS (1/3 stop increments from 1/60th to 1/250th), but just picked three shutter speeds to attach, as they all show the same thing.

The target you are looking at is a 4x6 glossy print. (Which AlanF kindly pointed to for another series of tests--IBIS--which also came up negative!)

My lights were two incandescent 100W bulbs in a copy-lighting arrangement.

Attached images are just a little shy of 100% crops. I'm exporting from LR CC, so it was kind of hit-or-miss to get the right file size for CR attachments.

First, under these controlled conditions, I am seeing a consistent difference, with EFCS being _ever so slightly_ sharper with this body + lens combination. It is possible that other lenses might show more blurring, but I can't imagine any showing less than this!

Second, and most importantly, the difference that I see, zoomed in 100% on my 4k screen in LR CC, is so slight as to be arguably negligible--unless for some reason printing very large 100% crops. The actual difference I'm seeing is nearly down at the pixel level, where some of the edges of the letters are just barely "rougher/sharper" in EFCS than in MECH. With my new reading glasses on and my nose almost against the monitor!

This is why an engineer with CPS kept saying he wasn't seeing anything.

I think I'm getting to the point where I am making peace with my R5. Where I'm tired of looking for problems, tired of testing, and ready to just have fun and profit (eventually) with a great camera, one I am extremely lucky to be able to use!

But, please, anybody else having some well controlled test shots that show more than this, share them!


----------



## Go Wild (Dec 14, 2020)

Rzrsharp said:


> View attachment 194513
> 
> You can not explain why 1/60s is better than 1/100s following your SLR shutter speed rules which sounds like trying to skip the shutter shock issue to me.


Actually that´s very easy to explain!  user variable! Sometimes you get blurry images in 1/60 and better with 1/100, or better at 1/60 and worse at 1/100....  It just depends how many coffees you have drink! 

Ok...seriously. I am not saying that there is no issue, but honestly, I don´t see a big of a problem here...But that´s just me. I guess I am a lucky guy because I didn´t notice anything bad in my R5 but as soon I have some time I will test this. Like said before, I had in the past a camera with severe shutter-shock, it was the Canon 7D mkII. Canon never recognized the problem so i solved the problem...by selling the camera.  If you are experiencing those issues you should adress Canon and see what they tell about it.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 14, 2020)

Excellent work YuengLinger, and I am happy you are making peace with your R5. All I was ever trying to do was put the differences into perspective, never deny there were some, and I am very pleased you were open minded enough to not just blow me off.

And I know it is not ideal but the truth is judicious optimal sharpening will reduce the differences even more.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 14, 2020)

Thanks, PBD, once again for helpful suggestions.

I took the attached shot this morning walking with the family. People are flying again! I'm so glad I never worried about evil contrails!

I'd rather be taking pictures of the sky than anymore test charts for a while, thank you. Cheers, all, and happy, sane, healthy holidays. Go ahead, yearn for a more normal New Year. Don't we deserve it?


----------



## Rzrsharp (Dec 14, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> On second thought...I am NOT going to start a new thread. Why further embarrass myself?
> 
> I've gone through the test twice this evening. As controlled as I can make it: good test target, tripod, no IBIS, Manual mode, manual focus (using the little green triangle assistants AND magnified verification of their precision), and the two-second delay. R5 + 24-70mm at an arbitrarily chosen focal length of 60mm. I took seven shots each for MECH and EFCS (1/3 stop increments from 1/60th to 1/250th), but just picked three shutter speeds to attach, as they all show the same thing.
> 
> ...


Did you test on tripod?


----------



## Rzrsharp (Dec 14, 2020)

Go Wild said:


> Actually that´s very easy to explain!  user variable! Sometimes you get blurry images in 1/60 and better with 1/100, or better at 1/60 and worse at 1/100....  It just depends how many coffees you have drink!
> 
> Ok...seriously. I am not saying that there is no issue, but honestly, I don´t see a big of a problem here...But that´s just me. I guess I am a lucky guy because I didn´t notice anything bad in my R5 but as soon I have some time I will test this. Like said before, I had in the past a camera with severe shutter-shock, it was the Canon 7D mkII. Canon never recognized the problem so i solved the problem...by selling the camera.  If you are experiencing those issues you should adress Canon and see what they tell about it.


This is not an explanation, it's an assumption. Sorry for my hot words.
I'm not a newbie. From personal purchase of Olympus film, Sony, to Canon 20D, 5DI,5DII,5DIII,5DIV,R5, all new sets, no used or rentals, I have some confidence in my experience on holding a camera firmly.
The shutter shock is not only happened 3 photos I posted here, it's a "phenomenon" from mass.
I have not reported to Canon, maybe later.
I do think they get to know this issue already. Who knows whether some of them already replied in this post?


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 14, 2020)

Rzrsharp said:


> Did you test on tripod?


Yes,as stated. But I believe you are seeing something. It just helps me to run a controlled series to nail down variables. I will still use EFCS for portraits, mechanical for high shutter speeds.


----------



## Rzrsharp (Dec 14, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> Yes,as stated. But I believe you are seeing something. It just helps me to run a controlled series to nail down variables. I will still use EFCS for portraits, mechanical for high shutter speeds.


I tested by hand hold. 
Since I take most with my hands and less on tripod.
I'd also noticed, it's (shutter shock) a little bit better with my Sigma 85/1.4Art which is a heavier lens than EF24-70/2.8.


----------



## Rzrsharp (Dec 14, 2020)

I tested with IBIS: OFF. Other condition having no change.
All the 3-photo are in continuous sequence, not selected.

3 photos with mechanical shutter are all blurred.
2 out of 3 photos with EFCS are sharp.

Can I say this shutter shock is not IBIS related. It is caused by the shutter not the "floating" sensor.







EOS R5 shutter assembly, photo belong to www.lensrentals.com.


----------



## Rzrsharp (Dec 14, 2020)

R5 shutter curtains are driven by two motors.
Most previous Canon camera shutter are driven by one motor.
Is this the root cause?


----------



## Joules (Dec 14, 2020)

Rzrsharp said:


> R5 shutter curtains are driven by two motors.
> Most previous Canon camera shutter are driven by one motor.
> Is this the root cause?


I don't think so, at least not directly. Maybe the shutter is driven with more torque now. Or the lesser mass means the same torque accelerates the whole system differently.

But if you go looking for it, I bet you could find the same kind of blur when shooting in LiveView with the 5Ds. This shutter shock is less of a factor in a DSLR since you would often just use the OVF, where the shutter is already closed. In LiveView, it is open, so before a picture can be taken, it first has to close, which seems to introduce a shake in the system. Which is why the effect can be eliminated by using the first curtain electronic shutter.

I think the question about this being an issue or not is not worth answering - a user has to decide that for themselves based in their individual use case. I both see it as exaggerated to call the body useless though. I can't imagine this is producing less detailed results than a 5D IV with its lower resolution and lack of IBIS.

Nonetheless, I also think Canon should just implement a setting for it. After all, if they would not consider shutter shock induced blur an issue at all - why is there an EFCS setting in the first place? And why is it apparently their preferred choice on the RP?


----------



## Chris.Chapterten (Dec 14, 2020)

Joules said:


> I don't think so, at least not directly. Maybe the shutter is driven with more torque now. Or the lesser mass means the same torque accelerates the whole system differently.
> 
> But if you go looking for it, I bet you could find the same kind of blur when shooting in LiveView with the 5Ds. This shutter shock is less of a factor in a DSLR since you would often just use the OVF, where the shutter is already closed. In LiveView, it is open, so before a picture can be taken, it first has to close, which seems to introduce a shake in the system. Which is why the effect can be eliminated by using the first curtain electronic shutter.
> 
> ...


Totally agree. For my use case the shutter shock blur isn’t going to make a photo unusable. But after spending so much money buying into the RF system and RF L lenses it just feels like an obligation to make the very most of the equipment. It just feels better spending time working on an image that is devoid of technical flaws no matter how minor.

And yes, Canon should implement auto switching between EFCS and mechanical like other manufacturers do.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 14, 2020)

Rzrsharp said:


> I tested with IBIS: OFF. Other condition having no change.
> All the 3-photo are in continuous sequence, not selected.
> 
> 3 photos with mechanical shutter are all blurred.
> ...



I think the point that privatebydesign was making earlier is that we have to have convincing evidence of the problem if we, consumers, are going to prod them to make firmware changes. I'm glad he challenged me, because while this problem is real, as Joules suggests, and as Chris.Chapterten has been saying for many weeks, it can be elusive to demonstrate. I did my best last night!

Discussing the issue on various forums helps define and confirm, but I'd really ask you and all owners who see this as an inconvenient problem with a very expensive camera to *contact Canon and share images taken under controlled conditions.* I just don't think using a random subject or target _handheld_ is convincing enough for them.

If it is connected to the shutter mechanism or the IBIS cradle allowing a little more vibration than we'd see in a camera without IBIS at these speeds, then maybe Chris.Chapterten is right, and the very best fix is a menu option to have shutter modes switch as appropriate. Same fix would work if this is a charateristic of mirrorless cameras as manufactured today.

I'm not the only one here who hears your frustration! But proving this to each other won't solve the problem. Please use clear and controlled tests, then contact Canon by phone and email.

And in the meantime, if you are going to keep the camera, enjoy it! Otherwise, relieve yourself of the burden and buy again when the issue has been addressed.

Happy Holidays!


----------



## Rzrsharp (Dec 14, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> I think the point that privatebydesign was making earlier is that we have to have convincing evidence of the problem if we, consumers, are going to prod them to make firmware changes. I'm glad he challenged me, because while this problem is real, as Joules suggests, and as Chris.Chapterten has been saying for many weeks, it can be elusive to demonstrate. I did my best last night!
> 
> Discussing the issue on various forums helps define and confirm, but I'd really ask you and all owners who see this as an inconvenient problem with a very expensive camera to *contact Canon and share images taken under controlled conditions.* I just don't think using a random subject or target _handheld_ is convincing enough for them.
> 
> ...


Thanks. 
It's a "seriously" flawed product which camera can not achieve well what it claimed meanwhile users cannot take sharp images at 1/100 shutter speed (range expands to 1/60-1/200 at least) with mechanical shutter though manufacturer may have a lot of words to cast to we users.
This is not the overheating or freezing issues which happen occasionally or cases less.
Canon should recall the camera unless someone can show me he can hand-carry take sharp image @ 1/100 with mechanical shutter, IBIS ON or OFF.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 14, 2020)

Rzrsharp said:


> Thanks.
> It's a "seriously" flawed product which camera can not achieve well what it claimed meanwhile users cannot take sharp images at 1/100 shutter speed (range expands to 1/60-1/200 at least) with mechanical shutter though manufacturer may have a lot of words to cast to we users.
> This is not the overheating or freezing issues which happen occasionally or cases less.
> Canon should recall the camera unless someone can show me he can hand-carry take sharp image @ 1/100 with mechanical shutter, IBIS ON or OFF.


Did you look carefully at my test shots?

Please contact Canon. I have, and I would like to know what they are saying to others.

Would the firmware fix satisfy you? If not, why? I am getting great results with EFCS at these problematic speeds.


----------



## Joules (Dec 14, 2020)

Rzrsharp said:


> Canon should recall the camera unless someone can show me he can hand-carry take sharp image @ 1/100 with mechanical shutter, IBIS ON or OFF.


Would you also like them to recall all DSLR because you have to use mirror lock up to ensure sharp images under certain circumstances?

How does having to switch to EFCS warrant a recall? And how would you expect it to be adressed?


----------



## Rzrsharp (Dec 14, 2020)

Joules said:


> Would you also like them to recall all DSLR because you have to use mirror lock up to ensure sharp images under certain circumstances?
> 
> How does having to switch to EFCS warrant a recall? And how would you expect it to be adressed?


No.
I can get razer sharp photo from my DSLR from 1/60-1/200.
At least I can get it.
Now the case is, you can not.


----------



## Rzrsharp (Dec 14, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> Did you look carefully at my test shots?
> 
> Please contact Canon. I have, and I would like to know what they are saying to others.
> 
> Would the firmware fix satisfy you? If not, why? I am getting great results with EFCS at these problematic speeds.


Will try.
I'm not a professional photographer, just a hobbyist. Never have any experience like this.


----------



## docsmith (Dec 14, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> I think I'm getting to the point where I am making peace with my R5. Where I'm tired of looking for problems, tired of testing, and ready to just have fun and profit (eventually) with a great camera, one I am extremely lucky to be able to use!


Exactly. 

I have heard people talk about wobbles in electronic shutter mode, bokeh "issues" with ECFS, and now "shutter shock" with mechanical. During lockdown, I am mostly doing backyard birding. I have used all three modes. All have taken excellent pictures. Pictures that I can visibly see the improved resolution over my 5DIV. The AF has proven to be second to only the 1DXIII that I tested. I haven't run into a buffer issue. The FPS have allowed for capturing action that previously I did not.

The R5 is a great camera. It will not be faultless, but it will take amazing pictures.


----------



## Rzrsharp (Dec 14, 2020)

docsmith said:


> Exactly.
> 
> I have heard people talk about wobbles in electronic shutter mode, bokeh "issues" with ECFS, and now "shutter shock" with mechanical. During lockdown, I am mostly doing backyard birding. I have used all three modes. All have taken excellent pictures. Pictures that I can visibly see the improved resolution over my 5DIV. The AF has proven to be second to only the 1DXIII that I tested. I haven't run into a buffer issue. The FPS have allowed for capturing action that previously I did not.
> 
> The R5 is a great camera. It will not be faultless, but it will take amazing pictures.


Agree with you.
Assuming your backyard birding is fast enough, e.g. shutter speed is faster than 1/500, you will have no shutter shock issue with mechanical shutter.

For general portraits, macro, travel, street, it maybe a problem.

The physical "shock/vibration" is most annoying issue to photography and one of the main reason we shift from DSLR to mirroless. Everyone says the mirror box is stone age old and vibration of the mirror causes blurry image should be thrown into history. 

Now the promise is partly gone. It *vibrates *more than DSLR! Feeling really not so good.


----------



## docsmith (Dec 14, 2020)

Rzrsharp said:


> Agree with you.
> Assuming your backyard birding is fast enough, e.g. shutter speed is faster than 1/500, you will have no shutter shock issue with mechanical shutter.
> 
> For general portraits, macro, travel, street, it maybe a problem.
> ...


If your R5 is vibrating more than a DSLR, you likely have a defective unit and I recommend you return it. As for slower shutter speeds, I have shot less, but I have put the R5 through the paces and overall, I am very impressed. But, what works for my needs may not work for yours. 

If you want a modern DSLR, I did test the 1DXIII before buying the R5 and it was absolutely excellent. 

While I have not noticed anything in real world shots, I just shot at a test target both with my 5DIV and R5 in ECFS and mechanical. Out of about 5 shots, I would say that ECFS on the R5 was more consistently the sharpest, but some images were indistinguishable compared to the R5 with mechanical shutter. But, and this is more to my point as I was always happy with the IQ out of the 5DIV, both modes in the R5 had much more detail than the 5DIV. Same lens, same settings, and same set up. So, it is not surprising that I am very happy with the R5 in mechanical shutter. It out resolved a system I was already happy with in terms of resolution. But, at least the R5 I have, by no means would I call this defective and in no way do I feel the need to return my R5. 

But, if you do, I recommend that you return yours. If you spend this much money on something, you should be happy with it.


----------



## Joules (Dec 14, 2020)

Rzrsharp said:


> No.
> I can get razer sharp photo from my DSLR from 1/60-1/200.
> At least I can get it.
> Now the case is, you can not.


Maybe I missed the point you were making with the set of initial pictures you shared. I interpreted them as showing that you can take critically sharp images when using EFCS at slow shutter speeds, while that's not likely when using the mechanical shutter. But it means you can take sharp images. 

I do agree that having to manually switch between these shutter modes is an inconvenience. But that may be addressed with firmware. So my confusion is about what you hope a recall to accomplish.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 14, 2020)

I think it would great if DPP showed which Shutter Mode was used, as well as IBIS. If I'm overlooking these, please tell me where to find them!


----------



## koenkooi (Dec 14, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> I think it would great if DPP showed which Shutter Mode was used, as well as IBIS. If I'm overlooking these, please tell me where to find them!



I can't find it in DPP, but exiftool can give you shutter sync:


```
iMac:2020-12 koen$ exiftool  20201212\ 0919\ Canon\ EOS\ R5\ -\ RF85mm\ F2\ MACRO\ IS\ STM\ -\ IMG_2944.CR3 | grep -i sync
Shutter Curtain Sync            : 1st-curtain sync
```

The stabilization value it reads didn't change when I tested it, it likely is set in a new field that exiftool doesn't know about yet.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 14, 2020)

I never noticed a sharpness issue but someone who prints extremely large might. I seldom print very large photos so I would not be able to detect the difference.

The default for the camera is electronic shutter, switch to mechanical at high speeds. You can, of course, set it up in the custom C1, C2, etc settings and specify the shutter speed range for each. I have C1 with Mechanical Shutter, minimum shutter speed of 1/500. C2 is Electronic with 1/500 max. I can limit the high speed shutter in that mode. Shutter speed limitations are saved in each of the C* modes.

My default is Electronic 1st curtain and I have not yet found a need to limit shutter speed but I might.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 14, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> On second thought...I am NOT going to start a new thread. Why further embarrass myself?
> 
> I've gone through the test twice this evening. As controlled as I can make it: good test target, tripod, no IBIS, Manual mode, manual focus (using the little green triangle assistants AND magnified verification of their precision), and the two-second delay. R5 + 24-70mm at an arbitrarily chosen focal length of 60mm. I took seven shots each for MECH and EFCS (1/3 stop increments from 1/60th to 1/250th), but just picked three shutter speeds to attach, as they all show the same thing.
> 
> ...


I've spent the afternoon staring at 100s of those damn charts analysing the IS of different lenses on the R5 and the RF extender. I can't bear to see another one...


----------



## Bdbtoys (Dec 14, 2020)

I wouldn't mind a new "Mechanical hybrid' mode/option that is manual except for a certain speed range (bonus if they let us define the range).


----------



## usern4cr (Dec 15, 2020)

Czardoom said:


> I think the main question is, is this an "issue" or is it the normal results that are to be expected? For those expecting the mechanical shutter and the electronic shutter to produce the same result, your expectations are not realistic. Because there is shutter shock...the question is how much and is it really a problem unless you pixel peep?
> 
> And yes, there may be firmware fixes possible. My Olympus camera, for example, has a "shutter shock" setting that - when set to ON, the camera automatically switches to electronic first curtain for all shots under 1/320th of a second.


Ah yes, Olympus has a smart fix in the menu - It doesn't surprise me at all. Maybe Canon will surprise us all and drop this feature into a future camera or firmware update.

Since we're now talking about switching the shutter mode between mechanical and EFCS based on shutter speed, I also tried fully electronic - but that won't work for the way I've been shooting. I like to have a button press-and-hold take 3 shots at -2/-1/0 EV and I choose which I like best in post. This works in mechanical and EFCS fine, but in electronic only mode it just shoots continuously for as long as you hold the shutter down. You'd think it shouldn't change how the camera works, but it does. What would really be nice is if Canon would allow a single button press to trigger 3 shots (ignoring whether you hold down the button or not).


----------



## Czardoom (Dec 15, 2020)

Rzrsharp said:


> Agree with you.
> Assuming your backyard birding is fast enough, e.g. shutter speed is faster than 1/500, you will have no shutter shock issue with mechanical shutter.
> 
> For general portraits, macro, travel, street, it maybe a problem.
> ...



Here's the logical thing to do, rather than waste time on an internet forum.

Return or exchange the camera if possible. If you are beyond the return period, send it in for repair.

Considering the vast majority of R5 users don't see this as an issue, it is quite possible that your unit is defective. If your replaced or repaired camera does exactly the same thing, then you'll have to decide whether or not it is worth keeping the camera.

That's my 2 cents.


----------



## Rzrsharp (Dec 15, 2020)

Czardoom said:


> Considering the vast majority of R5 users don't see this as an issue


What it is if not an issue?

Checkout the hybrid shutter mode suggestion above, it's a prompt issue.

It's like your car cannot maneuver at speed between 50-200kmh, unless tow a rock behind to do so.

itchy.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 15, 2020)

Rzrsharp said:


> What it is if not an issue?
> 
> Checkout the hybrid shutter mode suggestion above, it's a prompt issue.
> 
> ...


No it isn’t. The results that have been posted do not amount to “an issue“, the impact on output image quality is minimal and the workaround for those who need it is already provided.


----------



## Rzrsharp (Dec 15, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> No it isn’t. The results that have been posted do not amount to “an issue“, the impact on output image quality is minimal and the workaround for those who need it is already provided.


I represent myself only.
You?


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 15, 2020)

Rzrsharp said:


> I represent myself only.
> You?


Common sense.
Realistic expectations.

I reposted four of your examples, two which you said were unusable and two which you said were perfect. Nobody has been able to tell which is which.


----------



## Rzrsharp (Dec 15, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> Common sense.
> Realistic expectations.


You even don't have R5, please leave the sense to we owner. 
Thanks.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 15, 2020)

Rzrsharp said:


> You even don't have R5, please leave the sense to we owner.
> Thanks.


As I already said, no, that isn’t how forums work. And, I am using all the data I can find to ‘prove there is an issue‘ and putting much needed perspective on it.

As has been said, your individual camera might have a fault, but going by the images you have posted that supposedly illustrate “an issue” we have yet to actually see anything that renders your camera anything close to 9n any shutter mode or speed “unusable”.


----------



## SteveC (Dec 15, 2020)

I'm actually in a situation where this could be critical, so I'm glad this conversation is taking place: Taking pictures of planets at 400mm results in something I'll have to 100% crop down to a few hundred pixels by a few hundred pixels, and any vibration would be quite visible.

But I recognize that's unusual.


----------



## Chris.Chapterten (Dec 15, 2020)

SteveC said:


> I'm actually in a situation where this could be critical, so I'm glad this conversation is taking place: Taking pictures of planets at 400mm results in something I'll have to 100% crop down to a few hundred pixels by a few hundred pixels, and any vibration would be quite visible.
> 
> But I recognize that's unusual.


Nothing to worry about if you use EFCS for those situations


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 15, 2020)

SteveC said:


> I'm actually in a situation where this could be critical, so I'm glad this conversation is taking place: Taking pictures of planets at 400mm results in something I'll have to 100% crop down to a few hundred pixels by a few hundred pixels, and any vibration would be quite visible.
> 
> But I recognize that's unusual.





Chris.Chapterten said:


> Nothing to worry about if you use EFCS for those situations


Exactly, for those very few people in rare situations where it might be critical there is already a work around. There is no issue that I have seen evidence of.


----------



## SteveC (Dec 15, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> Exactly, for those very few people in rare situations where it might be critical there is already a work around. There is no issue that I have seen evidence of.



Yes, but I wouldn't have known about the workaround without this. It's saved me some time at least.


----------



## usern4cr (Dec 15, 2020)

I've taken a series of R5 test shots on a tripod at 500mm to check EFCS vs mechanical shutter, reviewing only on the playback LCD screen at max magnification - Note this isn't pixel peeping on the computer. What I've noticed:
* I can *_not_* get EFCS to show any deterioration in large bokeh balls at any exposure speed (all the way up to 1/8000"). I expected to see just the tops of the bokeh ball, but I can't find any change. I don't know if this effect happens at normal focal distances as I didn't test it.
* I do see much sharper images with EFCS than mech. at slower speeds (as expected).
* I don't see any difference in sharpness between EFCS and mech. as speeds get faster (up to 1/8000").
* If I take 3 quick shots with a press & hold of the button in EFCS mode (at various speeds up to 1/8000"), I can get sharper results in the later shots if I use the slower FPS speed (symbol is a bunch of overlapping boxes) vs the faster speed (same symbol + "H" added). So the 2nd mech. shutter of the previous image is still causing vibrations affecting the next EFCS shot at high speed, but not (noticeably) at the slower speed.

YMMV, but I'm going to use EFCS for all my shots now. If I can find any problems with EFCS vs mech. as I pixel peep on the computer then I'll mention it.


----------



## Joules (Dec 15, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> * I can *_not_* get EFCS to show any deterioration in large bokeh balls at any exposure speed (all the way up to 1/8000"). I expected to see just the tops of the bokeh ball, but I can't find any change. I don't know if this effect happens at normal focal distances as I didn't test it.


What lens and aperture were you using? As far as I'm aware, you would only expect to see a difference with very wide aperatures. As you mention 500 mm, I suppose you aren't using anything near f/1.2 or 1.4 

To check out what effect you would be looking for when combining a wide aperture, fast shutter speed and EFCS, check out this thread: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/rp-is-a-bokeh-killer.38216/


----------



## usern4cr (Dec 15, 2020)

Joules said:


> What lens and aperture were you using? As far as I'm aware, you would only expect to see a difference with very wide aperatures. As you mention 500 mm, I suppose you aren't using anything near f/1.2 or 1.4


I'm using wide open, which is 7.1 for the 500mm. I didn't want to use my 500mm f1.2, as I only seem to have access to that when I'm dreaming!  

But your reply (thanks!) makes me think that I might want to do the same test at f1.2, since I do (recently) have the 85mm f1.2L.


----------



## Kit. (Dec 15, 2020)

Rzrsharp said:


> Thanks.
> It's a "seriously" flawed product which camera can not achieve well what it claimed meanwhile users cannot take sharp images at 1/100 shutter speed (range expands to 1/60-1/200 at least) with mechanical shutter though manufacturer may have a lot of words to cast to we users.
> This is not the overheating or freezing issues which happen occasionally or cases less.
> Canon should recall the camera unless someone can show me he can hand-carry take sharp image @ 1/100 with mechanical shutter, IBIS ON or OFF.


OK, let's play this game.

Below are 8 samples of 100% crops, taken at 3 meters with R5 with EF 100-400 II @ 100mm f/4.5, 1/100s, ISO 400.
All taken handheld, with IS on, as a second image in the H drive mode series.
4 of them are EFCS.
4 of them are mechanical.
All 8 are random-shuffled together and then renamed.

Can you tell which ones are mechanical and which ones are EFCS?
(hint: I cannot, unless I cheat)

Just in case, I'm sending the answers to @YuengLinger (under a spoiler, of course).











Good luck.


----------



## usern4cr (Dec 15, 2020)

Kit. said:


> OK, let's play this game.
> 
> Below are 8 samples of 100% crops, taken at 3 meters with R5 with EF 100-400 II @ 100mm f/4.5, 1/100s, ISO 400.
> All taken handheld, with IS on, as a second image in the H drive mode series.
> ...


OK - Here's my guess:
1: EFCS
2: EFCS
3: MECH (?)
4: EFCS
5: EFCS (?)
6: MECH
7: MECH
8: MECH


----------



## Aussie shooter (Dec 15, 2020)

3 and 6 look softer to my eyes. The rest look good.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 15, 2020)

Ooh I love this kind of challenge.

1/ EFCS
2/ EFCS
3/ Mech
4/ EFCS
5/ EFCS
6/ Mech
7/ Mech
8/ Mech


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 15, 2020)

Without looking first at spoilers I would guess 1,3,4,5 to be EFCS...

One of them looks softer than all the others, what I would call an outlier.


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 15, 2020)

@Kit, how do you expect us to see the difference at ISO 400 man ?? You needed to be under ISO 64 to see this major issue ! 

The "Click to Expand" looks the same on all of them to me. 

I'll go for EFC on 2, 3, 4 & 5.


----------



## Bdbtoys (Dec 15, 2020)

my guess... EFC 1,2,4,5 & Mech 3,6,7,8


----------



## docsmith (Dec 16, 2020)

hahaha....I've picked 4 about 3 different times and each time I change a couple of my selections. 

For what it is worth, here are two examples, EF 24-70 II, 50 mm, 1/60th, ISO 3200. A difference, sure. The ones I did this morning were more pronounced. But I was using a Sigma 50A at f/1.4 (liveview on 5DIV). Thought DOF could come into play so I reshot tonight at f/5.6.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 16, 2020)

I'm happy to see others confirming with their own tests.

Rzrsharp, are you going to try on a tripod too?


----------



## Rzrsharp (Dec 16, 2020)

Kit. said:


> OK, let's play this game.
> 
> Below are 8 samples of 100% crops, taken at 3 meters with R5 with EF 100-400 II @ 100mm f/4.5, 1/100s, ISO 400.
> All taken handheld, with IS on, as a second image in the H drive mode series.
> ...


This is not the best way to deal with data. Data always get value in comparison, not alone.
Below is the height of the students in a college class, can you tell me the gender of each?



When photos taken by hand held, it always results some blurry photos whatever the shutter it is, mechanical, EFCS, or full Electrical.
In this case, mechanical shutter always results blurry photo in moderate. EFCS gets clearer photo, but not 100%. There have no guarantee.

Below is the comparison between two group Row A and Row B. Each row is 5 photos in sequence (no picky).
One of the two rows the photos are* mechanical shutter, another one is EFCS*. All shot at [email protected]/100s, IBIS On. Screen capture from DPP4 quick view at 100%.
No any further processing (sharpening or NR).

I do think you guys can easily tell the diffenrece when you zoom it to 100%.



Answer:
ROW A:
ROW B:


----------



## Rzrsharp (Dec 16, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> I'm happy to see others confirming with their own tests.
> 
> Rzrsharp, are you going to try on a tripod too?


Will try on Sat or Sun on tripod.
Sure it will improve on tripod.
Thanks.


----------



## Kit. (Dec 16, 2020)

Rzrsharp said:


> This is not the best way to deal with data. Data always get value in comparison, not alone.
> Below is the height of the student in a college class, can you tell me the gender of each?


What do your gender stereotypes have to do with this topic?



Rzrsharp said:


> When photos took by hand held, it always results some blurry photos whatever the shutter it is, mechanical, EFCS, or full Electrical.
> In this case, mechanical shutter always results blurry photo in moderate. EFCS gets clearer photo, but not 100%. There have no guarantee.


So, no practical difference on a tripod, no practical difference handheld... then what are you complaining about?


----------



## Rzrsharp (Dec 16, 2020)

Kit. said:


> What do your gender stereotypes have to do with this topic?
> 
> 
> So, no practical difference on a tripod, no practical difference handheld... then what are you complaining about?



1)Gender story tell you average men are taller than women. But when you mix up the data, there have no meaning, you cannot tell the gender alone. Mix up the photos are same.
2)However you hold the camera, mechanical shutter of R5 will generate shutter shock at 1/100 (expands to 1/50-1/200 at least). And average, EFCS get higher ratio of sharp, even not 100%.


----------



## Kit. (Dec 16, 2020)

Rzrsharp said:


> 1)Gender story tell you average men are taller than women. But when you mix up the data, there have no meaning, you cannot tell the gender alone. Mix up the photos are same.


It's the other way around, actually. "Gender story" has no meaning when you work with particular humans. Human height distribution is not even bimodal anyway.



Rzrsharp said:


> 2)However you hold the camera, mechanical shutter of R5 will generate shutter shock at 1/100 (expands to 1/50-1/200 at least). And average, EFCS get higher ratio of sharp, even not 100%.


So what, if you cannot rely on it?



Rzrsharp said:


> Clear? for free.


Costed me some time of reading this, brought absolutely no new knowledge (other than that you are not moving forward in your thought process), and in particular, my questions are still unanswered.


----------



## Rzrsharp (Dec 16, 2020)

Kit. said:


> It's the other way around, actually. "Gender story" has no meaning when you work with particular humans. Human height distribution is not even bimodal anyway.
> 
> 
> So what, if you cannot rely on it?
> ...


Just don't want to argue with someone coming with confusion to bring down or cover the issue like purposely. 
I have the issue and definitely not alone.
Anyway, none of your photo is razer sharp.


----------



## Kit. (Dec 16, 2020)

Rzrsharp said:


> Just don't want to argue with someone coming with confusion to bring down or cover the issue like purposely.
> I have the issue and definitely not alone.


Maybe you should try double-blind testing. It's quite possible that knowing that you are using a "bad" mode makes your camera handling more nervous.



Rzrsharp said:


> Anyway, none of your photo is razer sharp.


The same could be said about yours. Bring them to _the same contrast level_ for proper comparison of perceived sharpness and pixel-peep them at 500% - and you'll see what I'm talking about.


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 16, 2020)

Rzrsharp said:


> Just don't want to argue with someone coming with confusion to bring down or cover the issue like purposely.
> I have the issue and definitely not alone.
> Anyway, none of your photo is razer sharp.


You need to keep this in context - issues with image degrading movement from both within and outside of the camera are as old as photography itself, and this one that you have raised is very minor. I could lend you a Pentax 67 and then you could find out what the effects from shutter shock really are !!


----------



## Kit. (Dec 17, 2020)

Spoiler: So, the answers are...



1. EFCS
2. Mechanical
3. Mechanical
4. EFCS
5. EFCS
6. EFCS
7. Mechanical
8. Mechanical


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 17, 2020)

Kit. said:


> Spoiler: So, the answers are...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Woohoo, I only got one pair wrong.

Does that mean I am male or female?


----------



## Joules (Dec 17, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> Woohoo, I only got one pair wrong.
> 
> Does that mean I am male or female?


Probably means that it depends how much you have to zoom in before you can notice the difference


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 17, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> Woohoo, I only got one pair wrong.
> 
> Does that mean I am male or female?


"What about the common belief that orange cats are always male? Well, that’s not entirely true. Orange cats are _usually_ male.

The reason? The gene that codes for orange fur is on the X chromosome. Since females have two X’s and males have one X and one Y, this means that a female orange cat must inherit two orange genes–one from each parent–whereas a male only needs one, which he gets from his mother.

This orange gene can appear in calico cats and tortoiseshells too.

In other words, male orange cats always come from mothers with an orange gene, but female orange cats also require a father with the same gene. That’s why orange cats are usually male."

Source: Cat Facts: Why Orange Cats Are Usually Male - CatTime

I sincerely hope this aids you in your noble quest to make a decision that feels right _for you._



PS I also missed one. Fun test!


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 17, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> "What about the common belief that orange cats are always male? Well, that’s not entirely true. Orange cats are _usually_ male.
> 
> The reason? The gene that codes for orange fur is on the X chromosome. Since females have two X’s and males have one X and one Y, this means that a female orange cat must inherit two orange genes–one from each parent–whereas a male only needs one, which he gets from his mother.
> 
> ...


Funnily enough I have (well I think her belief is she has me) a female calico, which due to genetics is almost always female. She is actually a dilute calico, which complicates the inheritance even more and is also recessive.


----------



## VegasCameraGuy (Dec 17, 2020)

Sporgon said:


> I could lend you a Pentax 67 and then you could find out what the effects from shutter shock really are !!


Another question would be, "Have you ever heard of a RB6x7?" LOL


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 17, 2020)

VegasCameraGuy said:


> Another question would be, "Have you ever heard of a RB6x7?" LOL


I'm pretty sure the answer would be a resounding "No". But if we were to have a competition to see which camera could create the most degraded image due to shutter shock the Pentax would win hands down due to its massive focal plane shutter, which once triggered causes the whole camera to lurch to one side, the movement of which was preceded by a loud "thwack" of the mirror releasing, a noise that would give modern "I hate mirror-slappers" nightmares for weeks. Yet despite these (and other) failings the Pentax 67 was a remarkably successful medium format camera, which surprise, surprise, managed to produce some world class images that were sharp !


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 17, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> "What about the common belief that orange cats are always male? Well, that’s not entirely true. Orange cats are _usually_ male.
> 
> The reason? The gene that codes for orange fur is on the X chromosome. Since females have two X’s and males have one X and one Y, this means that a female orange cat must inherit two orange genes–one from each parent–whereas a male only needs one, which he gets from his mother.
> 
> ...


I bet you don't get this education on Nikon Rumors !


----------



## Bdbtoys (Dec 18, 2020)

Kit. said:


> Spoiler: So, the answers are...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Only 1 pair wrong too and got to admit I thought 6 was the outlier... so I figured I was getting 1 pair wrong.


----------



## VegasCameraGuy (Dec 18, 2020)

Sporgon said:


> I'm pretty sure the answer would be a resounding "No". But if we were to have a competition to see which camera could create the most degraded image due to shutter shock the Pentax would win hands down due to its massive focal plane shutter, which once triggered causes the whole camera to lurch to one side, the movement of which was preceded by a loud "thwack" of the mirror releasing, a noise that would give modern "I hate mirror-slappers" nightmares for weeks. Yet despite these (and other) failings the Pentax 67 was a remarkably successful medium format camera, which surprise, surprise, managed to produce some world class images that were sharp !


I used the 6x7 for a while, and I agree the loud thwack was enough to wake the dead. The film advance handle looked like it came off a tractor. It shot really nice pictures though. I started with a Canon F1 with a motor drive, then the Mamaya C330's, then the RB67, and finally ran out of money with the Blad's. The difference between 35mm and 2-1/4 or 6x7 was unbelievable. Now I see the same resolution in the R5 today. I donated my B&W and Color darkroom to a college and have never missed it.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 18, 2020)

Well, subtle as the posted examples have been, Canon apparently is aware of the issue and considering options. I received an email from them last night implying that they are working on a fix. Here's a quote: _"Thank you for your patience. We just wanted to touch base with you to let you know that our engineers are still researching your issue. They are working on a solution and we will follow-up once we receive an update from them._ "

So, "Cheers" to our OP, Rzrsharp. See? 2020 really is a year in which anything is possible.


----------



## Chris.Chapterten (Dec 18, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> Well, subtle as the posted examples have been, Canon apparently is aware of the issue and considering options. I received and email from them last night implying that they are working on a fix. Here's a quote: _"Thank you for your patience. We just wanted to touch base with you to let you know that our engineers are still researching your issue. They are working on a solution and we will follow-up once we receive an update from them._ "
> 
> So, "Cheers" to our OP, Rzrsharp. See? 2020 really is a year in which anything is possible.


Great news! Let’s hope they take similar action with the freezes people have been experiencing


----------



## AlanF (Dec 18, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> "What about the common belief that orange cats are always male? Well, that’s not entirely true. Orange cats are _usually_ male.
> 
> The reason? The gene that codes for orange fur is on the X chromosome. Since females have two X’s and males have one X and one Y, this means that a female orange cat must inherit two orange genes–one from each parent–whereas a male only needs one, which he gets from his mother.
> 
> ...


The website about Orange cats missed out the crucial point, the orange gene is recessive. Let me illustrate a recessive gene by this analogy. Suppose there are 4 people, each of whom have two cameras but can use only one. One has two Canons, two have one Canon and one Sony each, the fourth has two Sony cameras. Then, the number 4 has to use a Sony but the first three use only a Canon.


----------



## EOSR FAN (Dec 18, 2020)

Just an observation of my own in regards to shutter shock. For my 70d I always used mirror lockup for landscapes and always had sharp shots. 

I bought a Eos R on release and obviously never had to do mirror lockup. Always had fantastically sharp shots and to be honest never understood the negativity towards the camera as I loved its colours, size and the image it produced. I won't mention the touch bar! 

Purchased the Eos R5 on release and i have kept scratching my head wondering why the Eos R was sharper. Initially thought it was my mistake leaving the IS on when the camera was on a tripod.

I did some Google searches a few weeks back and found lots of information on the R5 and shutter shock (a term i had never heard of prior) and similar to you guys/ladies I found really slow shutter speeds or faster than 1/200 and not really an issue.

Now this might just be my R5 but I have found a way to reduce the shutter shock for me, still definitely sharper with electronic though. Hopefully it helps anyone out there with similar. I just turned off continous autofocus and now use the Af-On button to autofocus and hold my breath when taking photos and even in mechanical shutter I can't see as big a difference handheld in sharpness between mechanical and electronic unless full on pixel peeping


----------



## EOSR FAN (Dec 18, 2020)

The difference is more pronounced on my rf 24-105mm but hard to tell when using the rf 50mm 1.2l


----------



## AlanF (Dec 18, 2020)

EOSR FAN said:


> Just an observation of my own in regards to shutter shock. For my 70d I always used mirror lockup for landscapes and always had sharp shots.
> 
> I bought a Eos R on release and obviously never had to do mirror lockup. Always had fantastically sharp shots and to be honest never understood the negativity towards the camera as I loved its colours, size and the image it produced. I won't mention the touch bar!
> 
> ...


The best advice on settings to anyone buying an R5 is to turn off Continuous AF and use Servo unless they want to run the battery down as quickly as possible.


----------



## Rzrsharp (Dec 20, 2020)

Tested on tripod as per YuengLinger suggested.
Result is sad, you can only get soft image with mechanical shutter at a certain range of shutter speed, and unlucky in most common range, *by hand-held or on a tripod whatsoeve*r.
Below is the comparison @ 1/100S


----------



## Rzrsharp (Dec 20, 2020)

Below is the comparison @ 1/50s. 
Whatever you do, you can not get photos from mechanical shutter as sharp as EFCS


----------



## Rzrsharp (Dec 20, 2020)

Below is an intresting comparison, hand-held vs Tripod @ 100dth.
Sure got improvements, but very tiny.
*The shutter shock is internal like the movement inside a mechanical watch, cannot be removed by tripod.*


----------



## Rzrsharp (Dec 20, 2020)

@1/200S, almost same in a bit favor of EFCS


----------



## Rzrsharp (Dec 20, 2020)

@ 1/400S
There are the same.



I will not use mechanical shutter :-
1) lower than 1/400S if hand held
2) lower than 1/200S if on a tripod

*Basically, R5's 14-bit mechanical shutter is 80% useless.*
You can only enjoy 12-bit or 13-bit in a general shooting (Street photography, travel, wedding, studio) *with EFCS or ES* if you are critical to the blurry shutter shock.


----------



## Rzrsharp (Dec 20, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> Well, subtle as the posted examples have been, Canon apparently is aware of the issue and considering options. I received an email from them last night implying that they are working on a fix. Here's a quote: _"Thank you for your patience. We just wanted to touch base with you to let you know that our engineers are still researching your issue. They are working on a solution and we will follow-up once we receive an update from them._ "
> 
> So, "Cheers" to our OP, Rzrsharp. See? 2020 really is a year in which anything is possible.


Thanks so much.
That is the greatest feedback from Canon.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 20, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> Well, subtle as the posted examples have been, Canon apparently is aware of the issue and considering options. I received an email from them last night implying that they are working on a fix. Here's a quote: _"Thank you for your patience. We just wanted to touch base with you to let you know that our engineers are still researching your issue. They are working on a solution and we will follow-up once we receive an update from them._ "
> 
> So, "Cheers" to our OP, Rzrsharp. See? 2020 really is a year in which anything is possible.


I wouldn’t hold your breath. I have been working with ‘Canon engineers’ for the last three weeks, it turns out the latest PS and LR have broken communications with imagePrograf large format printers. Despite this being classed as a priority fix for Canon and extensive support calls to the main Canon USA techs, and beyond, so far the only person who has actually gotten my Pro-2000 to print is me, by using an older version of PS.


----------



## Chris.Chapterten (Dec 20, 2020)

Rzrsharp said:


> @ 1/400S
> There are the same.
> View attachment 194654
> 
> ...



EFCS is 14bit


----------



## Aussie shooter (Dec 20, 2020)

Rzrsharp said:


> @ 1/400S
> There are the same.
> View attachment 194654
> 
> ...


Luckily many of us rarely shoot at such low shutter speeds so 80% useless is not a problem. Seriously. Just set it to mechanical. Problem solved. Fact is everyone desperately wanted IBIS, which means you wanted a sensor that was NOT solidly located. The consequence of that is going to be a sensor that is more prone to shutter shock. We got what we wanted and now we need to use our own work around or wait for canon to make that workaround automatic.


----------



## Rzrsharp (Dec 20, 2020)

Aussie shooter said:


> Luckily many of us rarely shoot at such low shutter speeds so 80% useless is not a problem. Seriously. Just set it to mechanical. Problem solved. Fact is everyone desperately wanted IBIS, which means you wanted a sensor that was NOT solidly located. The consequence of that is going to be a sensor that is more prone to shutter shock. We got what we wanted and now we need to use our own work around or wait for canon to make that workaround automatic.


IBIS On or OFF has no change to the shutter shock as I tested.
The shock is not from the vibration of the "floating" sensor, it's from the shutter (it's a new design which is 2-motor drive).


----------



## Rzrsharp (Dec 20, 2020)

Chris.Chapterten said:


> EFCS is 14bit


EFCS is 13bit at H+ mode.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Dec 20, 2020)

Rzrsharp said:


> IBIS On or OFF has no change to the shutter shock as I tested.
> The shock is not from the vibration of the "floating" sensor, it's from the shutter (it's a new design which is 2-motor drive).


IBIS 'on' or 'off' is irrelevant to whether the sensor is 'floating'. Simply having IBIS means the sensor is not mounted solidly inside the camera body which means there will be more ability for it to move in reaction to any external influence. Whether it is a shutter or a bump from being knocked by a person.


----------



## Rzrsharp (Dec 20, 2020)

Do


Aussie shooter said:


> IBIS 'on' or 'off' is irrelevant to whether the sensor is 'floating'. Simply having IBIS means the sensor is not mounted solidly inside the camera body which means there will be more ability for it to move in reaction to any external influence. Whether it is a shutter or a bump from being knocked by a person.


 Do you mean sensor will move when ibis is off? It will be big issue if it is.
Probably not. It will be locked firmly if ibis is off.


----------



## koenkooi (Dec 20, 2020)

Rzrsharp said:


> EFCS is 13bit at H+ mode.



No shutter mode in H+ will give you 14-bit.


----------



## Rzrsharp (Dec 20, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> No shutter mode in H+ will give you 14-bit.





Canon officially says it's 13-bit.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Dec 20, 2020)

Rzrsharp said:


> Do
> 
> Do you mean sensor will move when ibis is off? It will be big issue if it is.
> Probably not. It will be locked firmly if ibis is off.


Yes. It will move even with IBIS off. ANY system that has movable parts is going to have SOME movement even when 'locked off'. It may be miniscule(and your examples certainly suggest it is miniscule) but it will be there. And from the sounds of things it is an issue faced by ALL cameras with IBIS regardless of the manufacturer.


----------



## koenkooi (Dec 20, 2020)

Rzrsharp said:


> [snip picture]
> Canon officially says it's 13-bit.



That says:

14-bit with mechanical *and* EFCS
13-bit in H+
12-bit with ES
I don't see how that says that MS is 14-bit in H+


----------



## Rzrsharp (Dec 20, 2020)

Aussie shooter said:


> Yes. It will move even with IBIS off. ANY system that has movable parts is going to have SOME movement even when 'locked off'. It may be miniscule(and your examples certainly suggest it is miniscule) but it will be there. And from the sounds of things it is an issue faced by ALL cameras with IBIS regardless of the manufacturer.


I'd think it's like a car break mechanism.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 20, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> That says:
> 
> 14-bit with mechanical *and* EFCS
> 13-bit in H+
> ...


Just another example of how people can see the same thing and come to different conclusions....

Of course only one of you is right and I read it as you do.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Dec 20, 2020)

Rzrsharp said:


> I'd think it's like a car break mechanism.


There is movement is car brakes. There is just not a 45mp cmos senor to record it. It very much seems that having IBIS means accepting that the sensor solidity is compromised a bit. And at those shutter speeds that issue is detected. So at the moment it will be a case of using a work around and very likely in the near future Canon will implement a firmware update that has an automated workaround. But it hardly makes the camera unusable. Just shoot at a higher shutter speed. The cameras have phenomenal iso performance so it is not like you will be sacrificing any great amount of image quality.


----------



## Joules (Dec 20, 2020)

Rzrsharp said:


> *Basically, R5's 14-bit mechanical shutter is 80% useless.*
> You can only enjoy 12-bit or 13-bit in a general shooting (Street photography, travel, wedding, studio) *with EFCS or ES* if you are critical to the blurry shutter shock.


As Was pointed out to you, only the fully electronic shutter drops to 12 bit, and unless you are shooting in the fast burst modes, both mechani and first curtain electronic shutter are 14 bit.

The only downside to EFCS is reducing background blur in an unpleasant way at wide apertures and really fast shutter speeds.

As apparently you are doing 80 % work at slow shutter speeds, that should not be a factor for you most of the time. And I don't see why you would use the burst modes with such slow shutter speeds.

If you could stop trying to make an elephant out of a Mole, people would find it much simpler to relate to 'the issue' - which is not that you have to use the proper settings to achieve optimum sharpness, but rather that the body lacks an automatic setting for this particular parameter.


----------



## Rzrsharp (Dec 20, 2020)

Joules said:


> As Was pointed out to you, only the fully electronic shutter drops to 12 bit, and unless you are shooting in the fast burst modes, both mechani and first curtain electronic shutter are 14 bit.
> 
> The only downside to EFCS is reducing background blur in an unpleasant way at wide apertures and really fast shutter speeds.
> 
> ...


It sounds It's my problem don't know how to use the camera with the problem.
It's not me use such a slow shutter speed, it's the common speed. I don't know what the photos you take that are mostly faster than 1/400. Wild life or sports? Add up together, will you faster shutter guys count 1% of all users?
Why a patient needs to have specific sick to meet the doctors requirements, not should be the usual way, doctor see the patient what's the problem it is?


----------



## AlanF (Dec 20, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> I wouldn’t hold your breath. I have been working with ‘Canon engineers’ for the last three weeks, it turns out the latest PS and LR have broken communications with imagePrograf large format printers. Despite this being classed as a priority fix for Canon and extensive support calls to the main Canon USA techs, and beyond, so far the only person who has actually gotten my Pro-2000 to print is me, by using an older version of PS.


Have you contacted Adobe - they do actually provide decent support?


----------



## Viggo (Dec 20, 2020)

I’ve also read it like electronic is always 12 bit. Mechanical is 14 bit up to 8 fps, and from 8-12 it’s 13 bit.


----------



## Joules (Dec 20, 2020)

Viggo said:


> I’ve also read it like electronic is always 12 bit. Mechanical is 14 bit up to 8 fps, and from 8-12 it’s 13 bit.


Purely electronic shutter is different from electronic first curtain shutter though. The latter only drops in bit depth under the same circumstances as the mechanical shutter does as well.


----------



## usern4cr (Dec 20, 2020)

Rzrsharp said:


> View attachment 194659
> 
> Canon officially says it's 13-bit.


I can't find a mention of the 12/13/14 bit rate for raw still photos in the R5 Advanced User Guide. You would think that Canon would include this crucial data somewhere in it (if I missed it please let me know), and not force us to scour the internet to find it ourselves.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 20, 2020)

Aussie shooter said:


> Luckily many of us rarely shoot at such low shutter speeds so 80% useless is not a problem. Seriously. Just set it to mechanical...


By "many of us" do you mean a certain class of photographers? Bif, sports, other action? Do you mean photographers participating in this forum?

Are there surveys we can look to verifying your claim that 100th - 200th sec are "such low shutter speeds" as to be irrelevant outliers? "Seriously"?

Perhaps "many of us" clamored for IBIS because we often shoot at these shutter speeds.

There is a general softening of images, subtle as it is. If a firmware fix could offer switching to avoid the pitfalls of EFCS and Mechanical, why not prod Canon? Is there a fix or improvement you believe deserves higher priority? Would spending some resources on offering the auto-switching option somehow harm a concern of your own?

Just curious, because you are interested enough to chime in, yet seem to want to blow off anybody who does seek a fix. If fixing this issue does not harm you, why are you pouring cold tea on the topic?


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 20, 2020)

Ok, here's a fun exercise. If you have Lightroom, simply filter by shutter speed. Let us know what percentage of your keepers for this year, or your total catalog, as you like, were taken with shutter speeds from 1/60th-1/200th sec.

I just did mine. Of 3902 keepers this year (I cull ruthlessly), 997 shots were in the range. That's 26%. Interestingly, pretty close to Aussie Shooter's claim that only 20% of something involves these shutter speeds. Not sure if he means shots-taken, or photographers not-cool-enough to avoid these shutter speeds.

In any event, I would not want to change my technique by raising ISO--even with the beautiful new sensors--_especially after buying a camera with IBIS! _

And in many of the shots I'm looking at, the shutter speed seemed just right. Either the subject was completely stationary and didn't need a higher shutter speed, or I wanted a slight hint of motion in part of the image.

Admittedly, for 384 of those shots, 1/200th was my most common in the range, reflecting the 1/200th flash sync speed of the EOS R--though I don't know how many did use flash. Didn't check. If it had been a normal year with more studio work, 1/200th would have been higher. Now that I have the R6, I will be using flash/strobe at 1/250th. If anybody ever wants to be photographed ever again (instead of taking ducky-kiss selfies).


----------



## koenkooi (Dec 20, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> I can't find a mention of the 12/13/14 bit rate for raw still photos in the R5 Advanced User Guide. You would think that Canon would include this crucial data somewhere in it (if I missed it please let me know), and not force us to scour the internet to find it ourselves.



I think it was in the older, pre-september AUG, I can't find it in the most recent one.


----------



## Joules (Dec 20, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> Ok, here's a fun exercise. If you have Lightroom, simply filter by shutter speed. Let us know what percentage of your keepers for this year, or your total catalog, as you like, were taken with shutter speeds from 1/60th-1/200th sec.


That's 236 shots out of 492 keepers (It's been a slow year, lol. And I haven't processed everything yet) for me. So, 48 % are within the 1/60 to 1/200 range (bounds inclusive).

Looking at all JPEGs I have on my PC, it's 7844 out of 15074, so even more at 52 %.

Edit: This is a worthwhile experiment by the way. To me this is one of those things where my intuition was way off and actually doing the "measurement" was required to make any sort of accurate comment on the matter. The flipside of this data is that for about half of what I shoot, I would be just fine using EFCS.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Dec 21, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> By "many of us" do you mean a certain class of photographers? Bif, sports, other action? Do you mean photographers participating in this forum?
> 
> Are there surveys we can look to verifying your claim that 100th - 200th sec are "such low shutter speeds" as to be irrelevant outliers? "Seriously"?
> 
> ...


Wildlife. And yes. For a wildlife shooter 1/200sec is relatively slow. As for blowing others off who seek a fix, if you read the rest of my posts i am not blowing anybody off. You will get a firmware fix that gives you the option of electronic shutter at those shutter speeds. Just be patient. As i said elsewhere, everybody desperately wanted IBIS. This is a direct result of that. It is called the law of unintended consequences.


----------



## dcm (Dec 21, 2020)

I noticed some image softness that I couldn't explain on my M6 Mark II when it first came out. I did some experiments with different tripods and settings until I narrowed the difference to mechanical versus electronic shutter. No EFCS on the M6 Mark II. I'm using more electronic shutter than mechanical these days. Took a while to get used to the silence - often ended up with multiple images. No electronic shutter on my M5 . My M3 has EFCS only. 

Here's a great article from Canon News about shutter shock on the M6 Mark II that confirmed my suspicions. Note the differences between lenses that I hadn't realized. I've been too busy to go back and characterize the rest of my EF-M lenses. You might consider using their methodology rather than a visual inspection. 

I'm not surprised that R5 might suffer from a similar issue.


----------



## Joules (Dec 21, 2020)

Aussie shooter said:


> As i said elsewhere, everybody desperately wanted IBIS. This is a direct result of that. It is called the law of unintended consequences.


This is just speculation on your part though, is it? I have seen nothing that leads me to believe IBIS is the culprit.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Dec 21, 2020)

Joules said:


> This is just speculation on your part though, is it? I have seen nothing that leads me to believe IBIS is the culprit.


Yes. But it is straight up logical. Without a solid mount then you invariably introduce some amount of movement, however small. Even when IBIS is not in use. Shutter shock is likely to be very small bit it will exist. And the fact that below a certain shutter speed it does not seem to happen would back up that it is the shutter affecting the sensor at speeds fast enough to have an impact but slow enough for the impact to be registered by the sensor. However I am happy to concede that it could be something else. I just dont see what else it could be


----------



## Joules (Dec 21, 2020)

Aussie shooter said:


> Yes. But it is straight up logical. Without a solid mount then you invariably introduce some amount of movement, however small. Even when IBIS is not in use. Shutter shock is likely to be very small bit it will exist. And the fact that below a certain shutter speed it does not seem to happen would back up that it is the shutter affecting the sensor at speeds fast enough to have an impact but slow enough for the impact to be registered by the sensor. However I am happy to concede that it could be something else. I just dont see what else it could be


What do you mean by speeds that have enough impact? As far as I'm aware (for DSLR at least), the shutter moves at a constant speed, regardless of exposure setting. Different exposure times are achieved by spacing the timing between the two shutter curtains differently.

My point is just that you stated it as fact that IBIS is involved, and I'm not disagreeing that the way Canon 'locks' the sensor in place could have something to do with it. I just haven't seen a convincing argument for this yet. So it would be nice if you could elaborate on why you are convinced, or make it clear that it is only speculation.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Dec 21, 2020)

Joules said:


> What do you mean by speeds that have enough impact? As far as I'm aware (for DSLR at least), the shutter moves at a constant speed, regardless of exposure setting. Different exposure times are achieved by spacing the timing between the two shutter curtains differently.
> 
> My point is just that you stated it as fact that IBIS is involved, and I'm not disagreeing that the way Canon 'locks' the sensor in place could have something to do with it. I just haven't seen a convincing argument for this yet. So it would be nice if you could elaborate on why you are convinced, or make it clear that it is only speculation.


Yes. it is absolutely speculation. I am not trying to deny that. But as I said it seems logical. As for the shutter speed having an impact the time between first and second curtains could make all the difference. A bigger gap may reduce the combined force. Again, just speculation based on the suggestion that electronic first curtain does not seem to have as much of if any impact compared to fully mechanical.


----------



## docsmith (Dec 21, 2020)

Everyone gets to decide what is an issue in their mind. In my mind, this is negligible and not really worth worrying about. Same with the bokeh "issue" between ECFS and mechanical shutter. 

But, as dcm brought up above, this was observed on the M6II and was found to vary with different lenses. To Aussie shooters point, sure, it might have something to do with IBIS, but, for those of you that think this is an issue, you might also want to try different lenses.


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 21, 2020)

Aussie shooter said:


> Yes. it is absolutely speculation. I am not trying to deny that. But as I said it seems logical.


Actually from an engineering point of view I’m not sure your logic is logical ! The fact that the sensor is not fixed in the body but held ‘floating’ via electromagnetism could mean that it is likely to be influenced less by shocks within the body.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 21, 2020)

Aussie shooter said:


> Yes. it is absolutely speculation. I am not trying to deny that. But as I said it seems logical. As for the shutter speed having an impact the time between first and second curtains could make all the difference. A bigger gap may reduce the combined force. Again, just speculation based on the suggestion that electronic first curtain does not seem to have as much of if any impact compared to fully mechanical.


I'm no engineer, clearly. But I also wondered if the IBIS cradle/system made the camera more prone to shutter shock. If so, perhaps some minor adjustment could reduce it, but that would mean sending in an otherwise perfectly fine body. (OR, what if electric current is involved in keeping it "parked" when camera is on but IBIS is off...Could firmware address that?)

The firmware option discussed throughout this thread, and "floated" by Chris.Chapterten seems a good compromise.

And while I do think different lenses, and maybe even handholding vs tripod might influence the amount of the effect, I'm way past having the patience to do that kind of testing!

BUT--don't reject "out of hand" the difference between tripod and handholding. Consider that for sensor cleaning, Canon recommends putting the body on a "desk or other flat surface," which I guess allows the cleaning cycle's vibration to be more effective. (Or does it just allow the debris to shake off and fall where intended?) Now how this translates to a "parked" IBIS system, I'm not able to connect the dots.

Brainstorming headache. Gotta get out for fresh air, sunshine, and exercise. Otherwise the kids will mutiny.


----------



## Joules (Dec 21, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> I'm no engineer, clearly. But I also wondered if the IBIS cradle/system made the camera more prone to shutter shock. If so, perhaps some minor adjustment could reduce it, but that would mean sending in an otherwise perfectly fine body. (OR, what if electric current is involved in keeping it "parked" when camera is on but IBIS is off...Could firmware address that?)


I think the testing done by canonnews is very convincing, comparing various EF-M lenses with mechanical and fully electronic shutter on the M6 II. To me, it makes it clear that at least for the EF-M lenses, IS 'OFF' is not mechanically locked. It is simply a setting in which the forces acting on the floating lens elements attempt to keep them fixed relative to the lens body, rather than the world. Which is not that surprising, as I believe the common wisdom is that EF lenses behave exactly the same way.

But lens IS is different from IBIS, so it could have been that Canon actually has some form of lock in the IBIS unit.

I haven't thought of a good experiment to show that movement in the sensor rather than the system as a whole is the source of blur. But it does indeed sound reasonable (which is not enough to treat it as fact).

Measuring contrast rather than looking at images as done by canonnews seems much more robust methodology, as it would also allow detecting the shutter speed at which the blur is most extreme. If the motors are just applying enough torque to the body for it to move enough to degrade the quality, I would expect the most affected shutter speed to change on a lens per lens basis. After all, as the mass of the system changes, so should the time it takes for the shutter to 

So far, it sounds like everybody who did report in the 'issue' has the same experience with around 1/100 th of second though, right?

If the sensor moves despite the IBIS being off, could you attached something to the flash shoe or tripod mount so that it is in the frame, but static relative to the body? If so that subject should be sharp regardless of shutter speed and motion of the camera (as long as it is attached rigidly enough). If it doesn't, it either was affected by moving the camera (not stable enough) or the sensor inside the camera was moving, blurring the static subject in the process.


----------



## dcm (Dec 21, 2020)

For anybody that wants to try this on their own, there is some MTF software you can use without special hardware.

MTF mapper (free, Windows or Unix, source) is my choice since I'm a MacOS/Linux person with 47 years of programming experience (industry/CS faculty). There is also a Windows executable download.
Quick MTF ($, Windows executables only)
Check this *article* for a comparison of both with Imatest. Since we are primarily looking for large differences on an apples to apples comparison (same body/lens combo across a range of shutter speeds), I don't think the choice matters too much. Your test setup will probably matter more.

Another option might be FoCal. Will the Quality of Focus values reflect shutter shock? I need to look into that a bit more.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 21, 2020)

dcm said:


> For anybody that wants to try this on their own, there is some MTF software you can use without special hardware.
> 
> MTF mapper (free, Windows or Unix, source) is my choice since I'm a MacOS/Linux person with 47 years of programming experience (industry/CS faculty). There is also a Windows executable download.
> Quick MTF ($, Windows executables only)
> ...


You can use Focal. The R5 isn't supported but you can apply focal by downloading images to your computer. I use RAW files and convert them to unsharpened jpegs with DxO PL. The astigmatism output compares vertical and horizontal sharp edges and so will tell if there is directional shock.


----------



## Bdbtoys (Dec 21, 2020)

Sporgon said:


> Actually from an engineering point of view I’m not sure your logic is logical ! The fact that the sensor is not fixed in the body but held ‘floating’ via electromagnetism could mean that it is likely to be influenced less by shocks within the body.



I disagree... from point of relativity. Without IBIS, the minimal shock you would get from the shutter would not have a significant effect on the overall mass of the Lens/Body/Sensor (yes the lens is floating fixed, but don't believe shutter would effect that). With a floating sensor, outside forces near the sensor could effect it independently of the body/lens. Coupled that those with R's don't seem to have a problem supports IBIS being a factor.

I agree w/ YuengLinger initial assessment on this one. But like him I lack the proof... so I am willing to bend on it.

Edit (see strike-thru)


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 21, 2020)

Bdbtoys said:


> I disagree... from point of relativity. Without IBIS, the minimal shock you would get from the shutter would not have a significant effect on the overall mass of the Lens/Body/Sensor (yes the lens is floating, but don't believe shutter would effect that). With a floating sensor, outside forces near the sensor could effect it independently of the body/lens. Coupled that those with R's don't seem to have a problem supports IBIS being a factor.
> 
> I agree w/ YuengLinger initial assessment on this one.


You may well be right in terms of a "floating" sensor being lighter, but the movement of the shutter clearly does have an effect on cameras with fixed sensors, (or film for that matter) so therefore causing minuscule movement to the overall mass of the body and lens. My 5DS definitely does the same thing and just as has been demonstrated, the effects are really minor and not worth worrying about, but it does exist. I'm not sure about the 1/60 and 1/100th difference because I haven't specifically tested for it. The R has a lower resolution and greater pixel pitch than the R5, just as the 5DS is even smaller pitch. I never really saw a noticeable difference between EFC compared with MLU and traditional shutter on the 21 mp 5DII, so as resolution and output size gets larger these things become more pronounced.


----------



## Bdbtoys (Dec 21, 2020)

Sporgon said:


> You may well be right in terms of a "floating" sensor being lighter, but the movement of the shutter clearly does have an effect on cameras with fixed sensors, (or film for that matter) so therefore causing minuscule movement to the overall mass of the body and lens. My 5DS definitely does the same thing and just as has been demonstrated, the effects are really minor and not worth worrying about, but it does exist. I'm not sure about the 1/60 and 1/100th difference because I haven't specifically tested for it. The R has a lower resolution and greater pixel pitch than the R5, just as the 5DS is even smaller pitch. I never really saw a noticeable difference between EFC compared with MLU and traditional shutter on the 21 mp 5DII, so as resolution and output size gets larger these things become more pronounced.



I had a slight edit... but overall I think you got the jist of what I was saying. You make a good point how dot pitch can also affect perceived blur. Curious what this does on an R6 as the main difference is the pitch.


----------



## ColorBlindBat (Dec 22, 2020)

It would be interesting if someone with both an R5 and R6 could perform MTF50 testing similar to how Jim Kasson tested the Sony A7RIII versus A7RIV. Or if no one has both, maybe split the task between two people.






Sony a7RIII and a7RIV shutter shock - the last word


This is one in a series of posts on the Sony alpha 7 R Mark IV (aka a7RIV). You should be able to find all the posts about that camera in the Category List on the right sidebar, below the Articles widget. There’s a drop-down menu there that you can use to get to all




blog.kasson.com





Would also be nice to test the R5 and R6 with both a very lite lens versus a large / heavy lens to see if the lens mass improves shutter shock or not.


----------



## jeanluc (Dec 22, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> Well, subtle as the posted examples have been, Canon apparently is aware of the issue and considering options. I received an email from them last night implying that they are working on a fix. Here's a quote: _"Thank you for your patience. We just wanted to touch base with you to let you know that our engineers are still researching your issue. They are working on a solution and we will follow-up once we receive an update from them._ "
> 
> So, "Cheers" to our OP, Rzrsharp. See? 2020 really is a year in which anything is possible.


How did you contact them?


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 22, 2020)

jeanluc said:


> How did you contact them?


One of the best parts of belonging to Canon Professional Services is generally being able to get straight through to a knowledgeable tech by phone. Especially with newer models of gear, they follow up by email.


----------



## dwarven (Dec 23, 2020)

The R5 has a more durable shutter mechanism than the R6. Maybe it's more clunky/heavier and leads to more shock as a result? I've been using first curtain on the R6 and haven't had any shutter shock at all, although it's also 50% less megapixels. Usually at 1/300 and higher I'll switch to mechanical shutter and I haven't noticed any shock there either.


----------



## Rzrsharp (Dec 25, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> Ok, here's a fun exercise. If you have Lightroom, simply filter by shutter speed. Let us know what percentage of your keepers for this year, or your total catalog, as you like, were taken with shutter speeds from 1/60th-1/200th sec.
> 
> I just did mine. Of 3902 keepers this year (I cull ruthlessly), 997 shots were in the range. That's 26%. Interestingly, pretty close to Aussie Shooter's claim that only 20% of something involves these shutter speeds. Not sure if he means shots-taken, or photographers not-cool-enough to avoid these shutter speeds.
> 
> ...


Merry Christmas to all friends here!
I checked all the photos kept by Lightroom, from 2002-2020 I had 141,704 photos left on my NAS.
I would like to say the shutter shock of R5 is definitely falling in the range of my most used shutter speed.

Anyway, I'm using EFCS most now and it's okay to me.


----------



## Rzrsharp (Dec 25, 2020)

dwarven said:


> The R5 has a more durable shutter mechanism than the R6. Maybe it's more clunky/heavier and leads to more shock as a result? I've been using first curtain on the R6 and haven't had any shutter shock at all, although it's also 50% less megapixels. Usually at 1/300 and higher I'll switch to mechanical shutter and I haven't noticed any shock there either.


By checking the teardown of R5 and R6, the shutter assembly of two are identical. Don't know what makes the durability different.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 27, 2020)

Rzrsharp said:


> By checking the teardown of R5 and R6, the shutter assembly of two are identical. Don't know what makes the durability different.


I started another unrelated thread about canceling my 100-500mm lens order. Another member suggested, after I reconsidered and reordered, that I should change the title of the thread. I did!

Any chance you have changed your mind about the R5 being useless? Or even mechanical shutter on the R5?


----------



## dcm (Dec 27, 2020)

Just shared a quick analysis of shutter shock on the M6 Mark II. There may be interesting parallels with the R series, but I don' yet have one to compare.


----------



## Methodical (Dec 28, 2020)

Man, get away from indoor test charts, vitamin bottles and food cans and shoot in the real world. That crap would drive me crazy. Get out and have some fun with the camera. I'm glad I don't get bogged down by this kind of stuff and let it sideline me from getting out and shooting. I still get some out focus images with the R5, but I expect that, which any reasonable person should and if you don't then...


----------



## Joules (Dec 28, 2020)

Methodical said:


> I still get some out focus images with the R5, but I expect that, which any reasonable person should and if you don't then...


Ironic that a user with a name such as Methodical would imply that putting a suspicion observed during shooting to a rigorous test with proper charts is unreasonable.


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 28, 2020)

Joules said:


> Ironic that a user with a name such as Methodical would imply that putting a suspicion observed during shooting to a rigorous test with proper charts is unreasonable.


Yea, I thought DCM’s tests were quite methodical 
Also @Methodical clearly hasn’t seen @dcm hogging the black and white thread


----------



## dcm (Dec 28, 2020)

Sporgon said:


> Yea, I thought DCM’s tests were quite methodical
> Also @Methodical clearly hasn’t seen @dcm hogging the black and white thread



That would be @dpc. Wrong TLA.


----------



## dcm (Dec 28, 2020)

Methodical said:


> Man, get away from indoor test charts, vitamin bottles and food cans and shoot in the real world. That crap would drive me crazy. Get out and have some fun with the camera. I'm glad I don't get bogged down by this kind of stuff and let it sideline me from getting out and shooting. I still get some out focus images with the R5, but I expect that, which any reasonable person should and if you don't then...



Agreed. Can I do both? I was out shooting bald eagles and hawks during a walk yesterday. 

Test charts are something to do after the sun sets early these days or during the snow storm today. And infrequently at that. It had been more that two years since I last shot test charts. Had to upgrade FoCal to run on current MacOS. And it may be time to AFMA some lenses on my 1DX2 again, so it was good practice.

I viewed it more as a service to the forum community. As an engineer, I find it helps me know how things work to take better photos. The shutter shock discussion piqued my curiosity and thought I would share the results with those that have provided so much help on the forum. It isn’t just about sharing photos.


----------



## stevelee (Dec 28, 2020)

Aussie shooter said:


> 3 and 6 look softer to my eyes. The rest look good.


3 looks fine to me. I do agree about 6.


----------



## stevelee (Dec 28, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> That’s why orange cats are usually male."



I don't recall ever seeing a cat that was usually male, no matter what the color.


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 28, 2020)

dcm said:


> That would be @dpc. Wrong TLA.


Apologies I’ve had too much Christmas Cheer and must have got the beards mixed up


----------



## Methodical (Jan 3, 2021)

Joules said:


> Ironic that a user with a name such as Methodical would imply that putting a suspicion observed during shooting to a rigorous test with proper charts is unreasonable.



@Joule...That's because I get out and I do it in the real world on the very subjects that I actually photograph in varying conditions (i.e hot, cold, windy, rain, snow, sleet etc.) and not tripod mounted in cozy indoor conditions and definitely not on some flat piece of paper attached to the wall. My subjects move around, jump, hide, point, fly, dart, dash etc. and do not sit on a wall. Like I said that crap would drive me crazy...Methodically.

I guess COVID has folks stuck inside with too much free time on their hand.


----------



## Joules (Jan 3, 2021)

Methodical said:


> My subjects move around, jump, hide, point, fly, dart, dash etc. and do not sit on a wall. Like I said that crap would drive me crazy...


Yes, real world subjects are complicated and involve a lot of unpredictable behavior and properties. Making it hard to impossible to get good data and make meaningful statements. Controlling all variables involved in an experiment makes the results easier to analyze and replicate. Test charts and tripods are effective, straightforward measures to eliminate a lot of variables.

It is fine for you to do your testing differently. Whatever makes you feel the best about your shooting.

But in order to convince others, scientific methods are much more suitable and for you to call those crap or the people dabbling in them ridiculous is simply ironic given your user name.

I am not accusing you of the following at all, I just want to make clear where my thoughts are coming from. 

Science isn't sacred, it is necessary to critique and question it. And it does not uncover indisputable truths, it is just a best effort to come close to them.

But with experiments that are well designed, well documented and replicated by independent people, ignoring their results or disputing them without data and analysis from similarly well formed sources should not be convincing.

Science and the engineering that builts on it are responsible for many good things in our lives. Yet there are many different kinds of groups in society that are for varying reasons either ignoring the scientific consent or even believe and/or push their own pseudoscience.

And there is a real danger associated with many of those. As said, not including you in any of that, just illustrating why I see it as important to respect proper experiments, or at least not ridicule the people commiting their time and energy to them.


----------



## Kit. (Jan 3, 2021)

Joules said:


> Ironic that a user with a name such as Methodical would imply that putting a suspicion observed during shooting to a rigorous test with proper charts is unreasonable.


There is a difference between being methodical and being pedantic.


----------



## Joules (Jan 3, 2021)

Kit. said:


> There is a difference between being methodical and being pedantic.


I'm not confident interpreting what you're saying here.

Could you please elaborate?


----------



## Kit. (Jan 3, 2021)

About the same difference as between being a professional and being a scholar.


----------



## Joules (Jan 3, 2021)

Kit. said:


> About the same difference as between being a professional and being a scholar.


I know what the words mean, I just don't want to assume what you mean to imply based on so few words.

Here's what's on my mind: There are customers who bought an R5 and had a suspicion about its performance. They have independently invested time into confirming that suspicion with adequate test methods and shared their results on this forum, and in at least one instance also with Canon.

What is or isn't an issue is up to the individual user. The same is true for what degree of testing they require to feel satisfied with their gear. But at Canon, it is the engineering that matters and getting constructive feedback with good data is necessary in order for the engineers to address customer feedback.

In my opinion, ridiculing such endeavors does nothing positive and at worst (not in this context, but for other subjects) can discourage constructive discussions.

Was one of these points something you specifically wanted to critique as being out of touch or am I missing your point completely?


----------



## Kit. (Jan 3, 2021)

Joules said:


> I know what the words mean, I just don't want to assume what you mean to imply based on so few words.
> 
> Here's what's on my mind: There are customers who bought an R5 and had a suspicion about its performance. They have independently invested time into confirming that suspicion with adequate test methods and shared their results on this forum, and in at least one instance also with Canon.
> 
> ...


You are missing my point completely.

I see no _real world use_ scenario where _the only _reason why one would not prefer mechanical shutter over EFCS in R5 would be shutter shock.
Nor the OP has proposed one.

The practical usefulness of the mechanical shutter is not limited by its shutter shock, it is limited by the EFCS being a generally better mode except for some rare scenarios where the shutter shock of R5 doesn't matter anyway.


----------



## Joules (Jan 3, 2021)

Kit. said:


> You are missing my point completely.
> 
> I see no _real world use_ scenario where _the only _reason why one would not prefer mechanical shutter over EFCS in R5 would be shutter shock.
> Nor the OP has proposed one.
> ...


Okay, that makes sense. Guess you missed my point as well then, since I am not disagreeing with anything you say there.

Although I would add that to the user's who paid for an R5, it should not matter if you or me see the shutter shock effect as significant. It is their money, and their use case that determines how much it bothers them.

And Canon definitely can implement a feature to automatically switch between the modes based on shutter speed to offer the benefits of both, allowing the user to focus on more important matters. So it is not like it is unreasonable to discuss the matter.

The words used in that discussion are somewhat out of place, as I said previously I disagree with the title of this thread foe instance.

But none of that is what I commented on with the post you originally quoted, so that got me confused.


----------



## Kit. (Jan 3, 2021)

Joules said:


> But none of that is what I commented on with the post you originally quoted, so that got me confused.


Methodical is one who uses a method. Pedantic is one who pays attention to mostly irrelevant details.

If you shoot outdoor portraits in varying daylight, would you really worry that some flat chart samples could show you that some of your images might be _slightly less_ than 45 megapixel sharp?


----------



## Joules (Jan 3, 2021)

Kit. said:


> If you shoot outdoor portraits in varying daylight, would you really worry that some flat chart samples could show you that some of your images might be _slightly less_ than 45 megapixel sharp?


I don't. Do you? Does that make it wrong to care about it? Who is being hurt by posts that demonstrate how Canon can improve their product even further?

As I said, I never said the title of this thread is justified or that the phenomenon presented derserves being called an 'issue'. All I disagree with is people expressing the notion that quantifying a disappointing aspect of a product is ridiculous. Or that scientific methods are crap. And yes, that last point is reading too much into a simple remark, and I am aware of that and not accusing the one who said it of meaning it that way. But this _is_ the internet, so you never know 

The comment you originally quoted and I stand by is that it is ironic to ridicule a perfectly fine method such as using charts, tripods and multiple shots to account for statistical variance while giving yourself the name Methodical. That is neither an insult to the person, nor is it saying that you can't act methodically under the circumstances you named. It was just pointing out something I found funny while also slightly nagging about the mentality of denouncing scientific procedures, which is all too present (still) in the modern day.


----------



## dcm (Jan 3, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> Apologies I’ve had too much Christmas Cheer and must have got the beards mixed up



Does @dpc have a beard?


----------



## Sporgon (Jan 3, 2021)

dcm said:


> Does @dpc have a beard?


I’ve only ever seen his shadow but I thought he might


----------



## AlanF (Jan 3, 2021)

Kit. said:


> About the same difference as between being a professional and being a scholar.


I have had a very nice career being paid as a professional scholar.


----------



## JPAZ (Jan 3, 2021)

Chris.Chapterten said:


> Nothing to worry about if you use EFCS for those situations




Sorry I am a bit late to the thread. With a DSLR, I'd use mirror lockup when any vibration would affect an image. Even though electronic versus mechanical shutter is not the same, it kind of is. I'll change to Electronic when I am really worried about camera (or shutter) shake and somehow carry on.


----------



## Kit. (Jan 3, 2021)

JPAZ said:


> Sorry I am a bit late to the thread. With a DSLR, I'd use mirror lockup when any vibration would affect an image. Even though electronic versus mechanical shutter is not the same, it kind of is. I'll change to Electronic when I am really worried about camera (or shutter) shake and somehow carry on.


In case of mirrorless, it's even better. Mirror lockup increases the shutter lag, and a lot. EFCS _decreases_ it.

The only case where you reasonably want to use full manual shutter on mirrorless is when the EFCS produces visible artifacts (caused by two shutter "blades" being not in exactly the same plane).


----------



## R1-7D (Jan 7, 2021)

I'm still trying to determine when it's best to use mechanical shutter vs when to use electronic first curtain shutter. I primarily shoot wild life, and so far, with the R5, I've predominately used the full electronic shutter. However, sometimes there are benefits to using the other two shutter modes, and I'd like some further clarification as to when I should use one mode over the other. 

Let's saying I'm shooting birds in flight using a 600mm f/4 lens. Would I be better off remaining on EFCS, or should I switch to full mechanical shutter?

I've heard about issues with fast shutter speeds and EFCS, but I always thought that problem was in combination with using fast primes at their widest apertures, such as f/1.2. In other words, from my understanding, shooting a f/1.2 lens at 1/2500s or 1/3200s would cause problems with bokeh, etc.

However, would shooting an f/4 lens at 1/2500s or 1/3200s (or faster) cause any issues for sharpness and/or bokeh?

I ask, because one other big benefit of using EFSC over full mechanical with both the R5 and R6 is the reduced shutter lag. If you're tracking fast action, the reduced shutter lag could be beneficial.


----------



## koenkooi (Jan 7, 2021)

I would only worry about mangled bokeh when shooting at faster than f/1.8. But I've shot both the RF85 f/1.2 and RF50 f/1.2 on my RP, which only has EFCS and didn't find anything objectionable about the resulting pictures. Shooting it side by side with an R the biggest difference was that I could lift the shadows more in the R pictures.

At f/4 I wouldn't worry about a thing, but for peace of mind you could try doing a test by having the 3 modes on C1, C2 and C3 so it's easy to switch between them.

I mostly do macro with flash, so EFCS is objectively the best mode since ES doesn't work with flash enabled.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Jan 7, 2021)

R1-7D said:


> I'm still trying to determine when it's best to use mechanical shutter vs when to use electronic first curtain shutter. I primarily shoot wild life, and so far, with the R5, I've predominately used the full electronic shutter. However, sometimes there are benefits to using the other two shutter modes, and I'd like some further clarification as to when I should use one mode over the other.
> 
> Let's saying I'm shooting birds in flight using a 600mm f/4 lens. Would I be better off remaining on EFCS, or should I switch to full mechanical shutter?
> 
> ...


So far on the R6 I have found fully electronic to be the only option for birds in flight. Simply too much lag with the mechanical. TBH I am yet to try the Electronic first curtain. I really should do that.


----------



## Fischer (Jan 15, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> I've noticed similar effects with my 5DS even with MLU, so it's not just mirrorless. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with your R5, just welcome to the world of very high resolution potential FF sensors


At least the 5DS/R has a special motorized mechanical shutter to reduce mirror slap. And it works. You just have to shot a little slower fps.


----------



## Sporgon (Jan 15, 2021)

Fischer said:


> At least the 5DS/R has a special motorized mechanical shutter to reduce mirror slap. And it works. You just have to shot a little slower fps.


You mean motorised mechanical mirror ? Yes it does, and works well. I'm not aware of any differences in the 5DS shutter compared with say 5DIII.


----------



## Fischer (Jan 15, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> You mean motorised mechanical mirror ? Yes it does, and works well. I'm not aware of any differences in the 5DS shutter compared with say 5DIII.


It's a substantial upgrade - also compared to the 5DIV. Think Canon made some promotional materials explaining how it works.


----------



## Ash-r5 (Dec 6, 2021)

I recently upgrade to R5 from 5dM3 and so disappointed. After couple of shots I found that MS give a significant shutter shock as a portrait photographer it is so important to me. I returned my camera and requested for replacement, and while I was search to find the root cause I found this discussion thanks to Rzrsharp that old this.

I had no clue if my R5 is faulty as everyone in R5 FB group said they don't have any problem with MS.
So it means all of the R5 are faulty, yeah I can use EFCS but the quality of the bokeh will be affected.

I was wondering how some of the people here said there is no problem with it . I just moved from 5d M3, not only shutter shock is obvious it is in an unacceptable level.

I sent a complaint email to canon, and I believe if everyone raise an email to them they will take it to account.


----------



## Viggo (Dec 6, 2021)

Ash-r5 said:


> I recently upgrade to R5 from 5dM3 and so disappointed. After couple of shots I found that MS give a significant shutter shock as a portrait photographer it is so important to me. I returned my camera and requested for replacement, and while I was search to find the root cause I found this discussion thanks to Rzrsharp that old this.
> 
> I had no clue if my R% is faulty as everyone in R5 FB group said they don't have any problem with MS.
> So it means all of the R5 are faulty, yeah I can use EFCS but the quality of the bokeh will be affected.
> ...


Which firmware?


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 6, 2021)

Ash-r5 said:


> I recently upgrade to R5 from 5dM3 and so disappointed. After couple of shots I found that MS give a significant shutter shock as a portrait photographer it is so important to me. I returned my camera and requested for replacement, and while I was search to find the root cause I found this discussion thanks to Rzrsharp that old this.
> 
> I had no clue if my R% is faulty as everyone in R5 FB group said they don't have any problem with MS.
> So it means all of the R5 are faulty, yeah I can use EFCS but the quality of the bokeh will be affected.
> ...


What were your shutter speeds? The first shot has a much higher component of flash in it.


----------



## Ash-r5 (Dec 6, 2021)

Viggo said:


> Which firmware?


first I was bought it was on 1.3.1, then I upgrade it to 1.5.0 the same issue


----------



## Ash-r5 (Dec 6, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> What were your shutter speeds? The first shot has a much higher component of flash in it.


f1.8 1 at 125s, flash was at my other hand just the angle is different, I took near 100 photos with or without flash the same issue , doing portrait photoshoot for 10years after a couple of shots I found there is something wrong with it


----------



## Viggo (Dec 6, 2021)

Yup, something wrong, mine is razor sharp ..


----------



## dcm (Dec 7, 2021)

What lens? If zoom, wide or tele end? IS?


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 7, 2021)

Ash-r5 said:


> f1.8 1 at 125s, flash was at my other hand just the angle is different, I took near 100 photos with or without flash the same issue , doing portrait photoshoot for 10years after a couple of shots I found there is something wrong with it


I presume you haven’t been doing it for ten years with a 45mp camera handheld? As dcm says, what focal length and what crop are we looking at?

I’m not saying there isn’t an issue, but you need to address any technique or expectation issues before we move on to camera issues.


----------



## dcm (Dec 7, 2021)

I had similar issues with the M6II and characterized it a year ago (mechanical vs electronic shutter) on a variety of lenses during the holiday break. Some lenses exhibit this far more than others (zooms and IS). I'd expect the R5 to exhibit this more than the R6/R3. Not sure the R6 and the few RF lenses I have will paint much of a picture.


----------



## Ash-r5 (Dec 7, 2021)

Viggo said:


> Which firmware?


1.5.0


----------



## Ash-r5 (Dec 7, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> I presume you haven’t been doing it for ten years with a 45mp camera handheld? As dcm says, what focal length and what crop are we looking at?
> 
> I’m not saying there isn’t an issue, but you need to address any technique or expectation issues before we move on to camera issues.


85, 100 prime and 70-200, I am just comparing EFCS vs MS VS 5Dm3 only with mechanical shutter, photos are totally unusable on MS


----------



## Viggo (Dec 7, 2021)

Ash-r5 said:


> 85, 100 prime and 70-200, I am just comparing EFCS vs MS VS 5Dm3 only with mechanical shutter, photos are totally unusable on MS


Time to call Canon and get it serviced.


----------



## Ash-r5 (Dec 7, 2021)

Viggo said:


> Time to call Canon and get it serviced.


I returned the camera back and waiting for replacement one.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 7, 2021)

Ash-r5 said:


> 85, 100 prime and 70-200, I am just comparing EFCS vs MS VS 5Dm3 only with mechanical shutter, photos are totally unusable on MS


So you are handholding, with one hand, a 70-200 @ 1/125 second while dragging the shutter/mixing flash and ambient, but you still are not telling us the crop that you are showing, show us the whole frame so we can see the crop.

Personally I don’t see a camera issue yet, again I’m not saying there isn’t one just that the images you have posted don’t fully support that.


----------



## Ash-r5 (Dec 8, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> So you are handholding, with one hand, a 70-200 @ 1/125 second while dragging the shutter/mixing flash and ambient, but you still are not telling us the crop that you are showing, show us the whole frame so we can see the crop.
> 
> Personally I don’t see a camera issue yet, again I’m not saying there isn’t one just that the images you have posted don’t fully support that.


100% but it doesnt mater as both crop are identical. Canon accept and agreed it is a faulty camera, based on what you say it is not???


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 8, 2021)

Ash-r5 said:


> 100% but it doesnt mater as both crop are identical. Canon accept and agreed it is a faulty camera, based on what you say it is not???


How can you crop a 5DIV and an R5 both to 100% and the enlargement is the same? 

I expect you will be equally disappointed with your replacement.


----------



## Ash-r5 (Dec 8, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> How can you crop a 5DIV and an R5 both to 100% and the enlargement is the same?
> 
> I expect you will be equally disappointed with your replacement.


Omg, the comparison is 2 photo of canon r5, one in EFCS and the other mechanical shutter it is stated on the photo. I was able to get a single sharp image with mechanical shutter I know what I am talking about when I said even not comparable with 5dm3 in terms of sharpness. Have a look to my website all taken by 5dm3 www.gemxfoto.com/portrait


----------



## EricN (Dec 8, 2021)

Ash-r5 said:


> Omg, the comparison is 2 photo of canon r5, one in EFCS and the other mechanical shutter it is stated on the photo. I was able to get a single sharp image with mechanical shutter I know what I am talking about when I said even not comparable with 5dm3 in terms of sharpness. Have a look to my website all taken by 5dm3 www.gemxfoto.com/portrait


The R5 can easily look less sharp at 100%, because it has more pixels


----------



## ColorBlindBat (Dec 8, 2021)

Ash-r5,

Can you try to take a few pics using MF at 1/125 & 1/250 with all settings the same (auto ISO to keep exposure leveled) and see if the shutter shock is gone at 1/250?


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 8, 2021)

Ash-r5 said:


> Omg, the comparison is 2 photo of canon r5, one in EFCS and the other mechanical shutter it is stated on the photo. I was able to get a single sharp image with mechanical shutter I know what I am talking about when I said even not comparable with 5dm3 in terms of sharpness. Have a look to my website all taken by 5dm3 www.gemxfoto.com/portrait


And I said one of those images has a much larger flash component, so effective faster exposure, though both look like they have ambient exposure drag/camera motion in them to me. They certainly don’t compare to the images in the linked website in style or exposure technique.

And, I wasn’t the one who came here asking for input and opinions, don’t try and roast me because you don’t like mine, you never know I might be right.

I certainly wouldn’t send a 45mp camera back because when I viewed images at 100% of a one handed handheld shot with a 70-200 at 1/125th second in very mixed ambient and flash at the pixel level I saw blur. That simply is not a reliable test. But have at it, I’m the bad guy.


----------



## koenkooi (Dec 8, 2021)

Ash-r5 said:


> [..]yeah I can use EFCS but the quality of the bokeh will be affected.[..]


As far as I can tell, bokeh only starts to be affected with a combination of wider-than-f/1.8 and faster-than-1/500s, so at 1/125s EFCS and MS should give identical bokeh, regardless of aperture.
My fastest lens is only f/1.8 and I can't tell the difference on my R5, only that MS will rock the IBIS between 1/60s and 1/200s and impact sharpness.

So, have you actually observed the alledged bokeh effect in your day to day work?


----------



## Ash-r5 (Dec 8, 2021)

EricN said:


> The R5 can easily look less sharp at 100%, because it has more pixels


Canon confirmed it is a faulty camera full stop.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 8, 2021)

Ash-r5 said:


> Canon confirmed it is a faulty camera full stop.


If Canon has confirmed it was a faulty product when you bought it, then you are legally entitled to have it replaced, refunded etc for up to 6 years after purchase (there are no short time limitations for proven faulty goods) https://www.gov.uk/accepting-returns-and-giving-refunds
So, return it and get your money back.


----------



## Ash-r5 (Dec 8, 2021)

AlanF said:


> If Canon has confirmed it was a faulty product when you bought it, then you are legally entitled to have it replaced, refunded etc for up to 6 years after purchase (there are no short time limitations for proven faulty goods) https://www.gov.uk/accepting-returns-and-giving-refunds
> So, return it and get your money back.


Done it waiting to receive new one


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 8, 2021)

He already did return it. But I have to be honest and say I have never heard of Canon saying "yes its faulty", but even if they did, and they replace a lot of stuff every year because it is a lot cheaper than testing every unit made, that doesn't address the actual images posted that clearly show ambient drag/subject motion.


----------



## Ash-r5 (Dec 8, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> He already did return it. But I have to be honest and say I have never heard of Canon saying "yes its faulty", but even if they did, and they replace a lot of stuff every year because it is a lot cheaper than testing every unit made, that doesn't address the actual images posted that clearly show ambient drag/subject motion.


I took near 200 photos by 3 lense all EFCS were ok but Mechanical blur, the camera was funny , IS working with 85 and not with 100 and 570-200, also when I was on Manual mode every time I was pressing shutter button half way ISO was increasing automatically


----------



## stevelee (Dec 8, 2021)

EricN said:


> The R5 can easily look less sharp at 100%, because it has more pixels


The R5 pictures can look less sharp than other R5 pictures because of more pixels? I don’t follow.


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 9, 2021)

stevelee said:


> The R5 pictures can look less sharp than other R5 pictures because of more pixels? I don’t follow.


I think @EricN means at 100% the 45mp R5 is going to be a much greater enlargement than the 22 mp 5DIII, and therefore as with any greater enlargement it’s going to appear softer. My original 12mp 5D was oh-so-sharp ! I really miss it so sometimes I take a trip down memory lane and reduce my 5DS files down to 12mp.


----------



## EricN (Dec 10, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> I think @EricN means at 100% the 45mp R5 is going to be a much greater enlargement than the 22 mp 5DIII, and therefore as with any greater enlargement it’s going to appear softer. My original 12mp 5D was oh-so-sharp ! I really miss it so sometimes I take a trip down memory lane and reduce my 5DS files down to 12mp.


That's what I meant. Thanks Sporgon


----------

