# Strange case of blur images. Canon RF 24-70 f2.8



## nitsuga (Nov 16, 2020)

Hello, I’m having the following issue with my Canon R5 and the RF 24-70 f2.8:

Settings:
Focal: 35mm
Focus is on a Building 6 meters away.
V: 1/100
A: anyone you like up to f/10
ISO: 100
Stabilizer: ON
Shutter: Mechanical

With this configuration I’am having blur images all the time, even mounting the camera on a tripod. 

If I change the speed to 1/200 the image is perfectly fine. 

And the other odd thing is if I change the shutter to ELECTRONIC mode the image is perfectly fine at 1/100.

Can any of you confirm (or deny) this?


Many thanks!


Agustín


----------



## Del Paso (Nov 16, 2020)

I suspect this issue is due to the optical stabilization not working the way it should...
I'd send it back to Canon.


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 16, 2020)

Can you try below 1/100 as well? E.g. 1/50s.
The 1/100-1/160s range is known to cause issues with Canon IS systems.


----------



## nitsuga (Nov 16, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> Can you try below 1/100 as well? E.g. 1/50s.
> The 1/100-1/160s range is known to cause issues with Canon IS systems.


Woow you are right! At 1/30 the image is very sharp handheld. So is the IS of my lens bad?


----------



## SteveC (Nov 16, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> Can you try below 1/100 as well? E.g. 1/50s.
> The 1/100-1/160s range is known to cause issues with Canon IS systems.



You may have accidentally solved an issue I was having! Thank you, sir!


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 16, 2020)

nitsuga said:


> Woow you are right! At 1/30 the image is very sharp handheld. So is the IS of my lens bad?



It works as Canon intends it to work 

I think it's bad, but so far only the 600mm F/4L III has had a firmware update to improve IS in that range. So Canon considers it good, unless many, many people make very visible complaints about it.


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 16, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> It works as Canon intends it to work
> 
> I think it's bad, but so far only the 600mm F/4L III has had a firmware update to improve IS in that range. So Canon considers it good, unless many, many people make very visible complaints about it.


We need to get on it!


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 16, 2020)

I just confirmed. Exactly as OP describes.

However, this is not just an IBIS/IS issue. I'm finding that the blur at 1/100th happens when IBIS is off and Shutter Mode is Mechanical. As soon as I switch to EFCS, issue is not present.

Apparently it is a shutter shock issue, so IBIS cannot help. Maybe because the sensor is "floating"?


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 16, 2020)

Del Paso said:


> I suspect this issue is due to the optical stabilization not working the way it should...
> I'd send it back to Canon.


Not only (in my testing)...See above post.


----------



## Bdbtoys (Nov 16, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> Can you try below 1/100 as well? E.g. 1/50s.
> The 1/100-1/160s range is known to cause issues with Canon IS systems.



Wasn't there something stated about how this was only an issue after the 1.1 firmware was applied?


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 16, 2020)

Ok, this might be an issue in the studio. I've always used mechanical shutter with strobes, often at 1/125th. Will have to start trying with EFCS to see if anything looks off. Yes, I can go up to 1/200th with strobes and flash, but sometimes a little lower shutter speed is good for ambient. ISO will work.


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 16, 2020)

Just got off the phone with a Canon Pro Services tech. I am actually seeing the same effect on the R6 too, but not nearly as pronounced as on the R5, where it is clearly visible on the back LCD.

CPS techs now are working at home, but they call into higher level "engineers" who are "in the building." So I was not able to talk to the person doing the actual testing, but had to relay info through the tech who took my call.

Bottom line: The engineer set up an R5 with an Rf 24-70mm and shot at 1/100th with mechanical shutter and EFCS. He saw no difference. No blur or shutter shock evident. On a tripod. IBIS on, IBIS off.

I did NOT think to ask which firmware version his R5 had, but why would it not be the latest--unless they knew of issues with it already?

The tech said to send in the camera, but I pointed out that I'm seeing the same issue slightly on the R6 also.

My workaround is obvious. Use a higher shutter speed, and use a higher ISO to get there when shooting ambient indoors with artificial lighting. Still have to test with strobes, but when I do use strobes, the ambient light in my little space is either fairly dim window light or an LED that is hopefully too dim to be involved in the exposure.

Sigh. Always something! I don't think sending it in for service would fix anything, and I'm pretty sure replacing it would result in the same. It is so obvious when I test; why in the world doesn't CPS see the same?

Please, other R5 owners, try your camera at OP's settings and let us know. Also try the same without IBIS. Thanks!


----------



## Bdbtoys (Nov 17, 2020)

I just did a quick test on the R5 at 100 & 160 and am not noticing any blur on firmware 1.1.1 w/ mechanical shutter + ibis w/ my 70-200. Do you have 2 pictures showing the difference?


----------



## nitsuga (Nov 17, 2020)

Bdbtoys said:


> I just did a quick test on the R5 at 100 & 160 and am not noticing any blur on firmware 1.1.1 w/ mechanical shutter + ibis w/ my 70-200. Do you have 2 pictures showing the difference?


Sure, here they are:


----------



## nitsuga (Nov 17, 2020)

Bdbtoys said:


> I just did a quick test on the R5 at 100 & 160 and am not noticing any blur on firmware 1.1.1 w/ mechanical shutter + ibis w/ my 70-200. Do you have 2 pictures showing the difference?


In addition to your post, my test was conducted with the RF 24-70 at 35mm, not the 70-200. Thanks!


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 17, 2020)

nitsuga said:


> In addition to your post, my test was conducted with the RF 24-70 at 35mm, not the 70-200. Thanks!


I am seeing it in a range of focal lengths. I've tried 24mm, 35mm, and 50mm on the 24-70mm. All about the same. Doing a lot of things at once today, and will be working tomorrow, so not a lot of time to do exhaustive testing...


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 17, 2020)

A little searching led to this Swedish photography site, here translated into English. Seems right on point. "Risk of Blur with Canon EOS R5"









Risk för oskärpa med Canon Eos R5


Flera Eos R5-användare rapporterar att de i vissa lägen får sämre skärpa när de använder mekanisk slutare. Nu svarar Canon på kritiken.




translate.google.com





(Leads to www.fotosidan.se)


----------



## nitsuga (Nov 17, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> A little searching led to this Swedish photography site, here translated into English. Seems right on point. "Risk of Blur with Canon EOS R5"
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well let’s hope for a new FW to come. Meanwhile we should choose the proper shutter every time...


----------



## Bdbtoys (Nov 17, 2020)

nitsuga said:


> In addition to your post, my test was conducted with the RF 24-70 at 35mm, not the 70-200. Thanks!



I don't have the 24-70 at this time (still holding out for a sale later this month), so could only shoot w/ what I had close to it. Other option was a 50mm... but felt the one I used was probably better to mimic as shutter shake on the ibis should really be noticeable with any lens.


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 17, 2020)

Bdbtoys said:


> I don't have the 24-70 at this time (still holding out for a sale later this month), so could only shoot w/ what I had close to it. Other option was a 50mm... but felt the one I used was probably better to mimic.


I don't think it is limited to a single lens, and definitely not a single focal length. But I'll take shots with different lenses just to check.

This seems to be related to the shutter shock and the way the sensor is mounted within the IBIS "cradle," or whatever the technical term might be. And, according to the article above, higher resolution makes the phenomenon (as Canon would call it!) more pronounced. It doesn't seem to matter if IBIS is turned on.

But the sensor must be kept stable during any type of shot, maybe just more rigidly when the IBIS is set to OFF. I mean the sensor wouldn't just be rattling around, right? So some type of passive stabilizing must be happening whenever the camera is on...unless it gets locked into place? But then why do we hear a rattle when the camera is powered off?

Is this a case of "be careful what you wish for"?


----------



## Bdbtoys (Nov 17, 2020)

So did a little more very quick testing... R5, 70-200 @ 200, F8, ISO Auto, w/ 430EXii on camera, handheld, from 1/30, 1/60, 1/125, 1/160, 1/200, EFC vs Manual, IS+IBIS vs off, 12 ft away from a vitamin bottle focused on the text. Could not find a noticeable shutter shock blur from each setting.


----------



## jd7 (Nov 17, 2020)

Without wishing to take this thread off topic ...

In recent months I have been trying out live view with face tracking AF on my 6DII, for portraits with fast prime lenses. When it works well, the AF is very accurate even at wide apertures, and I do see the potential advantage in that regard over traditional DSLR AF. However, I get a surprising number of blurry photos, and they remind me of the sample blurry image YuengLinger nitsuga has posted in this thread. The photos don't seem have the plane of focus in the wrong place, they seem to be blurry all over. I thought at first it must be user error, but it has kept happening despite me being more careful about holding the camera stable. Now I'm wondering if I'm seeing the same issue that this thread is about?

Of course, I'm not using an R5 or R6 and there is no IBIS on my 6DII, so maybe my issue is completely different.

If relevant, I am seeing the issue with Canon lenses and Sigma lenses, with my zooms as well as my fast primes, and with lenses with and without IS.

Below are three examples, taken with a Canon 70-200/2.8L IS II, Sigma 35 Art and Canon 24-70/4L IS. As mentioned above, not all shots I take with live view are like this (some are great), but I get patches where I seem to get a group of blurry shots like these ones.


----------



## jd7 (Nov 17, 2020)

And for comparison, here is a shot taken with the Sigma 35 Art but not using live view.


----------



## Joules (Nov 17, 2020)

jd7 said:


> Of course, I'm not using an R5 or R6 and there is no IBIS on my 6DII, so maybe my issue is completely different.


Your problem may be related in the sense that it could have to do with shutter shock. Using LiveView, I guess you are holding the camera differently than when using the OVF, right? Which may cause the forces acting on the shutter to impact the image.

I believe silent mode in the 6D II uses electronic first curtain shutter? If so, you could try that and see if the problem persists. It shouldn't, if my guess is correct.

Regardless, only shutter speeds of 1/100, but not lower, being affected by the issue in this thread, it seems likely the IBIS is at least in part to blame. And your 6D II doesn't have that, so it is a different issue.

*alternative guess: Make sure to use focus priority if you do not need the highest possible FPS.


----------



## jd7 (Nov 17, 2020)

Joules said:


> Your problem may be related in the sense that it could have to do with shutter shock. Using LiveView, I guess you are holding the camera differently than when using the OVF, right? Which may cause the forces acting on the shutter to impact the image.
> 
> I believe silent mode in the 6D II uses electronic first curtain shutter? If so, you could try that and see if the problem persists. It shouldn't, if my guess is correct.
> 
> ...


Thanks Joules. I will try silent mode as soon as I get chance. I will also check whether I have the camera set on release priority or focus priority.

And yes, using LiveView I do hold the camera differently compared with when using the OVF. My initial thought was that was the reason I was getting blurry images, ie just not holding the camera steady enough. However, on more recent occasions I have tried to be very careful about holding the camera steady and I have still had the issue. I guess it's possible I'm still not holding it steady enough and the answer is as simple as that, but I would be a bit surprised if that is the explanation.

It's frustrating because when it works well, LiveView gives me images which are perfectly in focus.


----------



## Joules (Nov 17, 2020)

jd7 said:


> However, on more recent occasions I have tried to be very careful about holding the camera steady and I have still had the issue.


As far as I'm aware, in LiveView, the shutter closes, before then opening in order to take the picture and closing again to stop the exposure. With EFCS, this initial closing is avoided and hence, no shake is introduced before the image capture begins.

I don't think just gripping the camera more firmly is sufficient to deal with this kind of shake.

Take a look at this jn depth article, if you want to know more:









Canon EOS M6 Mark II - Analysis of Shutter Shock


During some discussions, shutter shock came up with the Canon EOS M6 Mark II. Simply put, shutter shock is the vibration that happens at the start of the exposure caused by the movement of the shutter. This usually happens in slower shutter speeds around 1/200th to 1/25th shutter speed...



www.canonnews.com


----------



## Del Paso (Nov 17, 2020)

I start being happy that my current cameras do NOT have IBIS.
This sacred bird seems to have some serious drawbacks...


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 17, 2020)

jd7 said:


> Without wishing to take this thread off topic ...
> 
> In recent months I have been trying out live view with face tracking AF on my 6DII, for portraits with fast prime lenses. When it works well, the AF is very accurate even at wide apertures, and I do see the potential advantage in that regard over traditional DSLR AF. However, I get a surprising number of blurry photos, and they remind me of the sample blurry image YuengLinger has posted in this thread...


I can't take credit for any photos posted here yet. By tonight I will post some shots showing mechanical shutter vs electronic first curtain, stabilisation on and stabilization off. Got to go!


----------



## jd7 (Nov 17, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> I can't take credit for any photos posted here yet. By tonight I will post some shots showing mechanical shutter vs electronic first curtain, stabilisation on and stabilization off. Got to go!


Ah, apologies, the photos I was referring to were actually posted by nitsuga. I should have paid more attention.


----------



## Joules (Nov 17, 2020)

jd7 said:


> Below are three examples, taken with a Canon 70-200/2.8L IS II, Sigma 35 Art and Canon 24-70/4L IS.


I missed those images previously. They look like defocus blur to me, not shake. Especially the man with the baby, his shoulder is much sharper than the more distant parts of the image.

Have you made any adjustments to AFMA in the camera or perhaps with the dock in case of the sigma lenses?


----------



## jd7 (Nov 17, 2020)

Joules said:


> I missed those images previously. They look like defocus blur to me, not shake. Especially the man with the baby, his shoulder is much sharper than the more distant parts of the image.
> 
> Have you made any adjustments to AFMA in the camera or perhaps with the dock in case of the sigma lenses?


I know I haven't made any changes via the Sigma dock, but I'd have to check AFMA adjustments ... but I didn't think AFMA was relevant when shooting in LiveView?


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 17, 2020)

I've attached four shots taken at 1/100th of a second, f/2.8, ISO 640. Window light. The file names indicate which ones were taken with EFCS or Mechanical, IBIS or no IBIS.

They were all taken with an Rf 24-70mm f/2.8L IS at 35mm. I found the same results at 24mm, but didn't test at a longer Focal Length. I also found similar results, but not as pronounced using an ef 35mm f/1.4L at the same settings.

I took the same shots at 1/200th and found that, at 100%, the shutter shock was barely detectable, not a real world factor, but if I zoomed in to 200%, I could see the tiniest bit of difference. Really not any issue, imo.

I did the same tests at 1/30th of a second (ISO 160), and I've attached two of those to show that there is still visible shutter shock, though not as bad as at 1/100th. Both were taken with NO IBIS because the results were pretty much the same with it on, and because I _think _most photographers at 1/30th are going to choose no IBIS on a tripod. I do know that 1/30th is in the range dSLR shooters would use mirror lock-up, but I will admit I thought the blur at around 1/30th in dSLR's was caused by the mirror. I guess the mechanical shutter is involved there too.

For myself, I have to put some perspective on this. The R5 shows shutter shock at 1/100th of a second with mechanical shutter. This is aggravating because I tend to shoot quite a lot indoors from 1/60th to 1/160th, and I'm USED to mech shutter, I trust it. But I have been taking photos under LED with EFCS, and I'm not seeing any drawbacks in my images. So all I have to do is remember to switch to mechanical outdoors, bright light, wide apertures to avoid the bokeh problems. Am I missing any EFCS drawbacks here that might bite me someday?

Another perspective that helps me deal with a less than absolutely perfect camera, I know that shutter shock has been a quiet issue for decades, and that we learned to work around it when shooting in that slower shutter-speed danger zone. I can still work around it easily here, but I just have to remember which Shutter Mode to use in various situations. I think for the most part, as a portrait and events photographer, I can use EFCS most of the time. Bright sunshine and higher shutter speeds, go to mechanical.

Can this be fixed with a firmware update? If not, would Canon make some change in production to improve the vibration issue? If so, where would that leave us early adopters?

(I'm really getting behind on yardwork this week, and it's only Tuesday! Cheers!)


----------



## nitsuga (Nov 17, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> I've attached four shots taken at 1/100th of a second, f/2.8, ISO 640. Window light. The file names indicate which ones were taken with EFCS or Mechanical, IBIS or no IBIS.
> 
> They were all taken with an Rf 24-70mm f/2.8L IS at 35mm. I found the same results at 24mm, but didn't test at a longer Focal Length. I also found similar results, but not as pronounced using an ef 35mm f/1.4L at the same settings.
> 
> ...


Your test confirms what I've found. 1/100 is the speed to avoid using mechanical shutter. i can live with that...i guess


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 17, 2020)

I think for owners of the R5 it is very important to know whether this problem affects only a small number of cameras or is a characteristic of the R5.


----------



## Jonathan Thill (Nov 18, 2020)

Shutter shock was covered in-depth on DPreview 






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





Good read.


----------



## Chris.Chapterten (Nov 18, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> I think for owners of the R5 it is very important to know whether this problem affects only a small number of cameras or is a characteristic of the R5.



I found the same shutter shock issues with my R5... reported it on the forums about a month ago. I contacted Canon and let them know about it. I then requested that they add an automatic switch from EFCS to Mechanical that is shutter speed dependent. I believe Nikon and Fuji already have this feature.

I don’t think a firmware update will be able to remove the shutter shock so probably best to contact Canon to request the automatic shutter mode switching feature. It’s our best hope... just need a whole bunch of people to request this feature...


----------



## Bdbtoys (Nov 18, 2020)

So when I was looking for shutter shock I was looking for tells such as nitsuga originally shown (as actual blur, which I don't see). However looking at YuengLinger's images and ones from Ramage's link, it appears to be more of a softening of the image (or almost like an un-sharp mask). I went back thru my pictures last night as noticed this softening on my mechanical shutters around the 1/100 mark w/ IBIS on.

I'll be honest... if this wasn't pointed out to me I may have missed it since I don't normally pixel peep to that level.


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 18, 2020)

Bdbtoys said:


> So when I was looking for shutter shock I was looking for tells such as nitsuga originally shown (as actual blur, which I don't see). However looking at YuengLinger's images and ones from Ramage's link, it appears to be more of a softening of the image (or almost like an un-sharp mask). I went back thru my pictures last night as noticed this softening on my mechanical shutters around the 1/100 mark w/ IBIS on.
> 
> I'll be honest... if this wasn't pointed out to me I may have missed it since I don't normally pixel peep to that level.



I started noticing it 2 years ago when I rented an R and shot with the 100mm L macro next to my RP with a Sigma 150mm, at 100s the antennae and probisces of butterflies showed way more motion blur with the 100mm+R than 150mm+RP. I switched the R to EFCS and it went away. Closer inspection showed motion blur across the whole picture, but the antennae where shot against a blue sky which made the blur stand out more.

I had set the R to MS because I also rented the RF50 f/1.2 and the internet at the time was scared of the bokeh-destroying EFCS 

On my R5 the EF50 STM at 1/125s is the worst, the lens has trouble focussing and the lens weighs virtually nothing, so no mass to dampen vibrations. I keep forgetting to update C1, every other mode is set to EFCS already since I can't spot any effect on bokeh with f/1.8 lenses.


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 18, 2020)

Chris.Chapterten said:


> I found the same shutter shock issues with my R5... reported it on the forums about a month ago. I contacted Canon and let them know about it. I then requested that they add an automatic switch from EFCS to Mechanical that is shutter speed dependent. I believe Nikon and Fuji already have this feature.
> 
> I don’t think a firmware update will be able to remove the shutter shock so probably best to contact Canon to request the automatic shutter mode switching feature. It’s our best hope... just need a whole bunch of people to request this feature...


Ok, I wrote an email to CPS describing the issue, opining that it is a typical characteristic, not a defect in certain bodies, and offering your work around. However, I also said I hoped a firmware fix could improve the issue. 

I understand your doubt, though, as this is happening at the moment of the shot, and not related to active IBIS. Brainstorming, what if the sensor could be set by firmware so that when IBIS is not enabled, the sensor is kept in place in such a way as to be less prone to showing the shock? As I speculated earlier, the sensor doesn't seem to be simply locked down when IBIS is off; otherwise, why do we hear a rattle when the body is powered off? So wouldn't that mean that the IBIS function is holding the sensor tightly when IBIS is disabled?

One more thing. CPS told me that Canon has just this week started rolling out a new "Customer's Voice" program. No further info--just that it started in the USA as recently as this week.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 9, 2020)

DOH! Real world pain in the butt. Just below freezing here, so decided it was a good time to knock down a very big wasp nest. Taking shots straight up in challenging early morning light, I FORGOT TO CHECK MY SHUTTER MODE! Of course I was in mechanical. And, with some distractions from my little boy, and difficulty seeing much because of glare in the EVF, I also let my shutter speed go lower than necessary, 1/200th on a 70-200 lens. So I did not get a sharp shot of the wasp nest before knocking it down.

If I hadn't done the test shots, I would have just thought all the distractions blew the shot. I know I was steady and still at the moment of capture, and I now believe this was shutter shock. DOH!


----------



## AlanF (Dec 9, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> DOH! Real world pain in the butt. Just below freezing here, so decided it was a good time to knock down a very big wasp nest. Taking shots straight up in challenging early morning light, I FORGOT TO CHECK MY SHUTTER MODE! Of course I was in mechanical. And, with some distractions from my little boy, and difficulty seeing much because of glare in the EVF, I also let my shutter speed go lower than necessary, 1/200th on a 70-200 lens. So I did not get a sharp shot of the wasp nest before knocking it down.
> 
> If I hadn't done the test shots, I would have just thought all the distractions blew the shot. I know I was steady and still at the moment of capture, and I now believe this was shutter shock. DOH!


Count yourself lucky it wasn't anaphylactic shock from wasp stings.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 9, 2020)

AlanF said:


> Count yourself lucky it wasn't anaphylactic shock from wasp stings.


Are you allergic? That would be horrible. I usually don't bother the nests, but this one got too big, scaring the kids. And this is a pretty aggressive variety. The dinner plate adds scale--the wasps are about the size of a toddler's pinky. Big!

The last shot, an hour after the first two, is sharper because the shutter speed was way up.


----------



## Jonathan Thill (Dec 9, 2020)

Yep no thanks!!!!

We have good old yellow jacket wasps here in BC and those are enough for me. Those look absolutely evil.


----------

