# Analysis: Canon EOS M6 Mark II shutter shock performance



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 6, 2020)

> Canon News has completed a full analysis of the Canon EOS M6 Mark II and the effect shutter shock has on images. Unfortunately, it looks like this is one area in which the Canon EOS M6 Mark II is a bit weak.
> The Canon EOS M6 Mark II lacks an Electronic First Curtain Shutter, which is a strange omission and does have a negative impact on image sharpness.
> *From Canon News:*
> The M6 Mark II is a hopped-up little camera that is fun to use and is an amazing performer – but the deliberate lack of EFCS on this camera reduces it’s ability in some cases to deliver the highest IQ possible.  Now to be fair, the M6 Mark II (as well as the 90D) are the two most exacting and demanding cameras on the market today, as both have 32.5MP APS-C sensors when the rest of the industry mostly has 24MP.  However, this makes it more puzzling as it is more prone to show the effects of shutter shock than any other camera as well...



Continue reading...


----------



## canonnews (May 6, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> While we all love graphs and numbers when analyzing cameras and lenses, this topic probably won’t be noticed by a vast majority of shooters.



Gasp! 

It was certainly a surprise that certain lenses were very prone to this behavior AND that Canon would gimp the camera this way and release it.


----------



## Mark3794 (May 6, 2020)

I actually was going to buy this camera but i didn't: for me the fact that you can't mount both a flash and a EVF at the same time was a big letdown, reading about the shutter shock was the final nail in the coffin.
Hoping for a M5 mark II


----------



## Sibir Lupus (May 6, 2020)

Seeing as all shutter functionality is controlled electronically, is it possible for Canon to add an EFCS to the M6 Mark II via a firmware update? And if it is possible, how much pressure will it take from enthusiasts to get Canon to fix it?


----------



## EverydayPhotographer (May 6, 2020)

The M6 Mk II is broken. Crippled. Gimped. Useless. Wow. These analytics just amaze me. As we reach peak critical analysis, we get closer and closer to treating a portable, field instrument like precision lab equipment. And then scream when they don’t meet that impossible criteria. All the while, we gripe about the lack of our favorite feature or killer specification. Are micro-vibrations that your hand will likely dampen really the new hill we want to die on?

By these standards, every SLR ever made, every great medium format camera, and (god forbid) every 4x5 or larger camera, is incapable of generating a decent image. And yet the Ansel Adamses and Darius Kinseys and Dorothea Langes of the world did just that and more. (And I don’t recall seeing any whining ninny reviews of their equipment either - coincidence?)

Photography is the only art form that I know of where the equipment gets all of the credit for the result. If I had a dollar for every time someone said “that’s a nice photo - you must have a good camera“ I could afford a good camera. Gnat’s ass analytics like this - and the wholesale condemnation that comes with it - only serve to propel that myth forward. And they feel vaguely like excuses.

We’re witnessing a golden age. Photographic equipment has never been closer to technical perfection than it is right now. And yet we’ve also made major advancements in finding ways to knock them down. I think we can agree that cameras like the SpeedGraphic 4x5 and Hasselblad 500c are iconic. And results with them bear that out. But if we held them to the same modern standards, they’d be deemed unusable.

I’ve taken some pretty good photos in my four decades with a camera - and some pretty bad ones. The common thread in those failures wasn’t faulty equipment or missing features - it was the idiot staring into the viewfinder.


----------



## Danglin52 (May 6, 2020)

EverydayPhotographer said:


> The M6 Mk II is broken. Crippled. Gimped. Useless. Wow. These analytics just amaze me. As we reach peak critical analysis, we get closer and closer to treating a portable, field instrument like precision lab equipment. And then scream when they don’t meet that impossible criteria. All the while, we gripe about the lack of our favorite feature or killer specification. Are micro-vibrations that your hand will likely dampen really the new hill we want to die on?
> 
> By these standards, every SLR ever made, every great medium format camera, and (god forbid) every 4x5 or larger camera, is incapable of generating a decent image. And yet the Ansel Adamses and Darius Kinseys and Dorothea Langes of the world did just that and more. (And I don’t recall seeing any whining ninny reviews of their equipment either - coincidence?)
> 
> ...



Totally agree with you. My favorite is the whole dynamic range/ high ISO performance debates that are never ending. Compare the dynamic range / ISO capabilities today compared that what's available in the "good old days" of film. Gettin to ISO 1600/3200 has had a tremendous impact on wildlife photography. We have people wanting to change systems because of 1 -1.5 stop of difference between two vendors when there is far more to photography than just the bodies. More is always better, but we have tools that are capable of delivering far more than the majority of photographers skillset.


----------



## canonnews (May 6, 2020)

EverydayPhotographer said:


> The M6 Mk II is broken. Crippled. Gimped. Useless. Wow. These analytics just amaze me. As we reach peak critical analysis, we get closer and closer to treating a portable, field instrument like precision lab equipment. And then scream when they don’t meet that impossible criteria. All the while, we gripe about the lack of our favorite feature or killer specification. Are micro-vibrations that your hand will likely dampen really the new hill we want to die on?



Shutter shock hasn't been a canon thing because they have all had EFCS since the EOS 40D.
This is one of, or the ONLY camera that doesn't have EFCS that Canon has made since.

While you may not have had to live with shutter shock, people in other brands most certainly have.
Unlike DR which requires R&D/ Fabrication and a lot of development challenges - this is simply firmware for Canon. Canon HAS EFCS on the 90D, the same sensor that is in the M6 Mark II. It's mind-boggling that they would remove a feature that assists with resolving the most from the sensor in a camera equipped with the highest resolving APS-C sensor on the market today.


----------



## Pape (May 6, 2020)

I bet those famous photograpers used 20kg tripod 
I use 2 kg shaky benbo trekker when shooting rocks and things on my desc . shutter shake wouldnt be good at all.


----------



## TMHKR (May 6, 2020)

After reading this topic, and some similar ones on the internet, I tried to test my own camera (a T5i) to see if there's any difference between normal viewfinder shooting, viewfinder + mirror lockup, and finally live view. Tripod, 10 seconds timer, stabilizer off, manual settings. Couldn't find a single difference between the three photos.

The thing is, you could manually enable/disable EFCS on old Canon models - on newer ones, it's always enabled and you can't turn it off. However, the bigger culprit is that Rebels use a single motor for both mirror and shutter, so the mirror always flips before taking a photo no matter what.


----------



## Sporgon (May 6, 2020)

Looks to me as if the lightest lens was the worst. The 55-200 and 32/1.4 weight about the same as each other and 120 grams or so more than the 15-45, so maybe the extra weight giving more mass to the camera helped.


----------



## josephandrews222 (May 6, 2020)

I'm surprised at the relative paucity of posts on this (at least to me) important topic.

I presume this 'bug' be fixed with firmware...?

Or is there a reason that Canon has saddled the M6II with this 'feature'?

Feature...or bug?


----------



## LSXPhotog (May 6, 2020)

I'm several thousand images into my M6 Mark II ownership - this has never been an issue in any way.


----------



## Otara (May 6, 2020)

To me it seems like the answer is obvious - if you're shooting very low shutter speeds on a 200mm, use full electronic shutter. Its so slow that any movement will result in blur, so readout speed becomes a non-issue anyway.

I rather suspect this is why they did it, given its designed to do things like high burst mode with full ecs.

And if you want maximum resolution, use a prime where it seems to be a non-issue anyhow.


----------



## David_E (May 7, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> _lacks an Electronic First Curtain Shutter, which is a strange omission and does have a negative impact on image sharpness._


That should read "...and could conceivably have a negative impact on image sharpness, just as it _could_ have had in the millions upon millions of photos made in the film era, but will almost certainly _*not*_ have such an impact."


----------



## David_E (May 7, 2020)

josephandrews222 said:


> _Feature...or bug?_


Try "tempest in a teacup," a non-issue.


----------



## canonnews (May 7, 2020)

David_E said:


> That should read "...and could conceivably have a negative impact on image sharpness, just as it _could_ have had in the millions upon millions of photos made in the film era, but will almost certainly _*not*_ have such an impact."


film era NEVER had to deal with the relative image magnification that we commonly do with digital sensors in this day and age. film is a poor example, and even in film days, people used mirror lockup to reduce the level of vibrations that occurred when the camera mechanics started to shoot.

and really - again, this is a feature that exists in every single Canon camera since the 40D, and even exists in the 90D. The omission of the feature may cause problems depending on the shutter speed that you are using and the lens. it can have a dramatic impact on the 15-45 and the 55-200 and I suspect the 18-150 even though I haven't tested it yet. These are some of the most commonly used lenses for the camera.

I'd rather highlight the problem, and hope that Canon can fix it. They should be able to.


----------



## Sporgon (May 7, 2020)

canonnews said:


> film era NEVER had to deal with the relative image magnification that we commonly do with digital sensors in this day and age.



This is certainly true, and to day when you do shoot a figital workflow you can see that you need just as fast a shutter speed on fine grain (high resolution) film as you do on a modern high res digital sensor, when scanning to the same kinds of output size, although there is no comparison in sharpness and clarity. The old "rule" of shutter speed no less than focal length for sharp hand held images really applied only to the standard of a 10x 8 print viewed at 2' away, just like the perceived depth of field.


----------



## basketballfreak6 (May 7, 2020)

M6II user since launch. Still love the pocket rocket today (and I am someone that used 5D4 full time before thisand a modified 77D for astro) but can confirm that's one of the first thing I noticed when I first got my M6II and I did struggle a bit getting sharp shots initially at shutter speeds I expected myself to have no issues with. I've gotten used to it though.


----------



## SecureGSM (May 7, 2020)

canonnews said:


> Shutter shock hasn't been a canon thing because they have all had EFCS since the EOS 40D.
> This is one of, or the ONLY camera that doesn't have EFCS that Canon has made since.
> 
> While you may not have had to live with shutter shock, people in other brands most certainly have.
> Unlike DR which requires R&D/ Fabrication and a lot of development challenges - this is simply firmware for Canon. Canon HAS EFCS on the 90D, the same sensor that is in the M6 Mark II. It's mind-boggling that they would remove a feature that assists with resolving the most from the sensor in a camera equipped with the highest resolving APS-C sensor on the market today.



I am keen to understand how is this shutter shock issue did not affect prime lenses that were tested and affected zoom lenses with IS capabilities exclusively.
understand that IS functionality has been disabled in the lens. but are we confident that even when disabled it has not affected focusing in some ways? a bug?
or is there an issue with focusing implementation specific to mechanical shutter?
I am not buying that shutter shock can selectively affect some lenses and not others if the overall size and weight of these lenses is in the same ball park..especially on tripod. not to that degree that was demonstrated with charts.

the focusing precision with mechanical shutter is affected on lenses with IS function. correct.

I suggest repeating tests with the same camera mounted on extremely solid tripod and solid flooring. I would suggest that results won't be any different regardless. even if bolted permanently to a brick wall.


----------



## AlanF (May 7, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> I am keen to understand how is this shutter shock issue did not affect prime lenses that were tested and affected zoom lenses with IS capabilities exclusively.
> understand that IS functionality has been disabled in the lens. but are we confident that even when disabled it has not affected focusing in some ways? a bug?
> or is there an issue with focusing implementation specific to mechanical shutter?
> I am not buying that shutter shock can selectively affect some lenses and not others if the overall size and weight of these lenses is in the same ball park..especially on tripod. not to that degree that was demonstrated with charts.
> ...


The interplay between shuttershock and IS quite complicated and can be affected by resonance. For example, the Nikon 300mm F/4 PF IS (VR) failed miserably for a range of speeds with some bodies but the addition of a grip cured it.


----------



## koenkooi (May 7, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> [..]understand that IS functionality has been disabled in the lens.[..]



Nitpick: With EF-M lenses you can't disable IS in the lens, there's no switch for that. You can only disable it through software using the menu in the camera.
So you have to take the cameras word for it, especially with wide lenses that have a silent IS motor.


----------



## AlanF (May 7, 2020)

I use my gear for a variety of purposes, and for many of them the vibrations reported by Canon News are too small to be noticeable. But, I do push my gear to the limits and these problems are killers, like when you are photographing fine details or heavy cropping. Those railing against the good work done by Canon News are like those who say that they managed perfectly well with 16 Mpx and that 20 Mpx are more than enough for anyone.


----------



## canonnews (May 7, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> I am keen to understand how is this shutter shock issue did not affect prime lenses that were tested and affected zoom lenses with IS capabilities exclusively.
> understand that IS functionality has been disabled in the lens. but are we confident that even when disabled it has not affected focusing in some ways? a bug?



IS enabled or disabled made no difference.



SecureGSM said:


> or is there an issue with focusing implementation specific to mechanical shutter?
> I am not buying that shutter shock can selectively affect some lenses and not others if the overall size and weight of these lenses is in the same ball park..especially on tripod. not to that degree that was demonstrated with charts.



It could be the IS units themselves. perhaps more susceptible to the shutter vibrations. the masses as well aren't all the same and it is focal length dependant. that results show that. even with the same lens, the results vary depending on focal length.

This seems to be the case with some of Canon's cheaper STM units (perhaps eureka moment here)
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=11407
They discovered or mentioned that with the EF-S 10-18mm STM lens the IS unit has a different "lock":

"When the IS is Off, image stabilization optics are locked in place with a spring suspension mechanism rather than a center lock mechanism. "

this would make it susceptible to the small vibrations of the shutter. Then perhaps with the IS unit being ON it would make little difference because it can't react that fast to the small vibrations of the shutter (theory).

This would also explain why the EF-M 32mm did not exhibit as much of a problem.



SecureGSM said:


> the focusing precision with mechanical shutter is affected on lenses with IS function. correct.
> I suggest repeating tests with the same camera mounted on extremely solid tripod and solid flooring. I would suggest that results won't be any different regardless. even if bolted permanently to a brick wall.



the tests were repeated and performed three different ways, different orientations of the camera to tripod head, with and without 10 second timer.

if it was a focusing precision issue or even a tripod issue than the EF-M 32mm would have shown dramatically different results, as well as the EF-M 55-200mm at 55m.

Also, the test was done in such a way to also try to mimic handholding to a certain degree by putting the camera in portrait mode. but in reality, it didn't make much difference.

------------
Takeway - I guess you could argue that it's not "shutter shock" but it's obvious that it's IQ loss derived by the fact that it does have shutter shock paired with the EF-M lenses that most likely have spring based lock mechanisms. In reality it really doesn't matter - the shutter is causing the problem.

I seem to recall this being a similar problem with other IS's on cameras that did have shutter shock years back, but that information is pretty scant to find these days.

I'm still pretty confident to call it like it is, even though I think semantically you can argue the term. The M6 Mark II is shipped with these zooms, and exhibits the problems when using the mechanical shutter and these zooms.


----------



## SecureGSM (May 7, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> Nitpick: With EF-M lenses you can't disable IS in the lens, there's no switch for that. You can only disable it through software using the menu in the camera.
> So you have to take the cameras word for it, especially with wide lenses that have a silent IS motor.


Very good observation. Thank you. So..

I suggest having the test done with a good EF zoom: without IS. Say EF 24-70/2.8 IIL
And then with a reasonably sized prime with IS. 
say, EF 100/2.8 Macro L. With IS on and off.

somehow I feel that 24-70/2.8 will be relatively unaffected.


----------



## SecureGSM (May 7, 2020)

canonnews said:


> IS enabled or disabled made no difference.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thank you. Are you able to run a quick test on EF 24-70/2.8 II L?
there is no IS group to be affected. Only the focusing group.
100/2.8 Macro L with IS on and off would be also great to have tested.
I am thinking that EF-m zoom lenses tested are the issue.


----------



## hachu21 (May 7, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> Thank you. Are you able to run a quick test on EF 24-70/2.8 II L?
> there is no IS group to be affected. Only the focusing group.
> 100/2.8 Macro L with IS on and off would be also great to have tested.
> I am thinking that EF-m zoom lenses tested are the issue.


And test it also with a M6 mk1 as a reference.
Why on earth did they remove this? Any idea?


----------



## canonnews (May 7, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> Thank you. Are you able to run a quick test on EF 24-70/2.8 II L?
> there is no IS group to be affected. Only the focusing group.
> 100/2.8 Macro L with IS on and off would be also great to have tested.
> I am thinking that EF-m zoom lenses tested are the issue.


- I don't have those lenses, so no.
- I have other EF-M lenses without IS that I can test with as time goes on. Each lens test that I do will have a section on this. The 24-70 wouldn't necessarily show anything different than the 32mm 1.4 does.
- I do have the EF-m 28mm which does the macro IS unit, but again, they are made to be cheaper - well, so is the entire EF-M platform really.

The zooms themselves aren't the issue, the camera is causing the vibrations.

While I get testing or expanding to include EF lenses in with it, I think my point is that EOS-M lenses that were developed for the mount should work with the camera.


----------



## woodman411 (May 7, 2020)

canonnews said:


> - I don't have those lenses, so no.
> - I have other EF-M lenses without IS that I can test with as time goes on. The 24-70 wouldn't necessarily show anything different than the 32mm 1.4 does.
> - I do have the EF-m 28mm which does the macro IS unit, but again, they are made to be cheaper - well, so is the entire EF-M platform really.



I'm glad you tested this, I owned an M3 and 70D and couldn't get as sharp shots on the M3, even though they both had the same sensor and lenses (adapted on the M). I suspected shutter shock since the shutter click was noticeably louder and stronger on the M3, something about the smaller frame that doesn't seem to dampen the vibrations as much.


----------



## Kjsheldo (May 7, 2020)

I tried out this camera thinking it would be a good walk-around camera, but the shutter was so loud, I couldn't do it. Makes sense it has insane shutter shock as well. The EOS R's shutter is loud as well. Didn't think that would matter too much to me, but after using the Panasonic S1, GH5, and Fuji XT3, I can't go back to the very attention-grabbing clanks of Canon's mirrorless cameras. Hopefully they fixed that with the R5...


----------



## Sibir Lupus (May 7, 2020)

hachu21 said:


> And test it also with a M6 mk1 as a reference.
> Why on earth did they remove this? Any idea?



I've been wondering that myself, and the only real reason I can think of (minus "crippling" the camera) is so the M6 Mark II doesn't have an EFCS to process for when capturing photos at up to 14 FPS with the mechanical shutter. That is assuming though that having an EFCS does take some processing out of the shot-to-shot performance in any camera.


----------



## Sporgon (May 7, 2020)

Pape said:


> I bet those famous photograpers used 20kg tripod
> I use 2 kg shaky benbo trekker when shooting rocks and things on my desc . shutter shake wouldnt be good at all.


Yes and leaf shutters ! My G1x doesn’t suffer from any shutter shock at low speeds . Personally I’m really surprise and disappointed that Canon chose not to put EFCS on their highest resolution sensor. On the 5DS I definitely see sharper images when using live view and EFCS and that camera’s a lot heavier than the M6, so the lack of it in the M6ii worthwhile bringing to light.


----------



## Dragon (May 7, 2020)

This test is not complete. There will always be shutter shock wit a mechanical shutter and the specific resonance of the mounting system will either amplify or null the effect. The test needs to be rerun first with the camera in landscape, and then with a couple of EF lenses (a light one like the 40mm pancake and something heavy like a 70-200L f/2.8 would be a good start). Secondly, try a different tripod setup and see if the results are the same or peaking in a different place (almost inevitable). Now test with some added mass and find out where the camera is least affected. Anyone who has successfully done distance shots with a long mirror lens understands the critical nature of tripod resonance. The changes with focal length with the zooms could have as much to do with the change in mass moment when zooming as anything else. If you are going to do a scientific test, then you have to analyze all the variables.


----------



## padam (May 7, 2020)

Kjsheldo said:


> I tried out this camera thinking it would be a good walk-around camera, but the shutter was so loud, I couldn't do it. Makes sense it has insane shutter shock as well. The EOS R's shutter is loud as well. Didn't think that would matter too much to me, but after using the Panasonic S1, GH5, and Fuji XT3, I can't go back to the very attention-grabbing clanks of Canon's mirrorless cameras. Hopefully they fixed that with the R5...


The EOS RP shutter is much quieter (interestingly, it is the opposite of the M6 Mark II, so EFCS only, can't turn it off), I also felt that it shakes the camera less than the shutter on the R (but the extra grip and weight of the R helps stability).
I don't think the R5 shutter will be very quiet if it can do 12fps, but the electronic shutter mode should be less limited than before.


----------



## JLAG (May 7, 2020)

I don't understand, I have made several tests with my m6 mkii and different lenses (efm 15-45, EFS 18_135 USM, ... even with my sigma 150-600 at 600 mm !!!) and I have not observed differences between the photos made with the electronic or mechanical shutter .
The differences discussed in the article could be due to a problem with the tested camera (?) (or with the tripod  )


----------



## Otara (May 7, 2020)

AlanF said:


> I use my gear for a variety of purposes, and for many of them the vibrations reported by Canon News are too small to be noticeable. But, I do push my gear to the limits and these problems are killers, like when you are photographing fine details or heavy cropping. Those railing against the good work done by Canon News are like those who say that they managed perfectly well with 16 Mpx and that 20 Mpx are more than enough for anyone.



It would irritate me if I had it.

This is most likely a marketting choice, similar to the no 24fps.


----------



## peters (May 8, 2020)

I am a freelancing photographer with an agency for video production, photography, design and wedding photography for 8 years now.
I must say that shutter shock is the single most important thing in a camera that I ever found. Canon has to seriously step up their game if they don't want to fall further behind. Sonys Shuttershockperformance is a gamechanger and canon is certainly ******* if they dont stop to cripple their lower models with an incredible bad Shuttershockperformance. Especialy for product shots, but also for event photos, birds, sports and landscape I found the shutter shock blurr realy problematic. This deliberate crippling shows once again how out of touch canon is with their customers.
/s

Seriously, I never experienced any issue at all with any canon camera with "shutter shock". I know that my models have a special shutter mode to avoid it, but in like 10 years (8 professionally) I never needed it.


----------



## SecureGSM (May 8, 2020)

peters said:


> I am a freelancing photographer with an agency for video production, photography, design and wedding photography for 8 years now.
> I must say that shutter shock is the single most important thing in a camera that I ever found. Canon has to seriously step up their game if they don't want to fall further behind. Sonys Shuttershockperformance is a gamechanger and canon is certainly ******* if they dont stop to cripple their lower models with an incredible bad Shuttershockperformance. Especialy for product shots, but also for event photos, birds, sports and landscape I found the shutter shock blurr realy problematic. This deliberate crippling shows once again how out of touch canon is with their customers.
> /s
> 
> Seriously, I never experienced any issue at all with any canon camera with "shutter shock". I know that my models have a special shutter mode to avoid it, but in like 10 years (8 professionally) I never needed it.



What a great example of SONY trolling.. Just Marvelous....

two completely opposite statements:

1. Canon has to seriously step up their game if they don't want to fall further behind. Sonys Shuttershockperformance is a gamechanger

and

2. Seriously, I never experienced any issue at all with any canon camera with "shutter shock".

The test demonstrated that a prime lens was unaffected. Only a specific group of cheap ef-m zoom lenses with likely AF group (IS) design issues was affected


----------



## canonnews (May 8, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> What a great example of SONY trolling.. Just Marvelous....
> 
> two completely opposite statements:
> 
> ...


you missed his /s (sarcasm)

Also shutter shock doesn't happen with any another canon camera, because as we mention they all have EFCS.

While the prime did show it was mostly unaffected, the EF-M lenses used were also ones that are commonly used in the EF-M ecosystem, and in reality, they work on every other EOS-M camera EXCEPT the M6 Mark II while in mechanical shutter between around 1/80 and 1/150 of second shutter speed.

So it's really hard to toss the blame on the lenses. Also EF-S lenses and maybe even the RF 35mm F1.8 are designed the exact same way. The EF-M lens ecosystem is small enough without having to toss out 2/3's of the available lenses because they really don't work with the camera.

I'm usually pretty good at explaining why Canon did x,y or z.. but in this case I have no answer.

I think we've done enough to identify that it MAY be a problem, and that care should be exercised between 1/80 and 1/200th of a second if you are using a EF-M IS lens with the M6 Mark II. That is NOT something you ever have to worry about with any other EOS-M camera, but the M6 Mark II - so it is what it is.

I'm going to do some more testing over the weekend, but really I want to prepare for the EF-M 32 and Sigma 30mm shootout  because I'm really curious on who wins that.


----------



## SecureGSM (May 8, 2020)

canonnews said:


> you missed his /s (sarcasm)
> 
> Also shutter shock doesn't happen with any another canon camera, because as we mention they all have EFCS.
> 
> ...


thank you. just a quick one:
yes, it is may be a problem. however the problem is with specific type of lenses. and even more specific with how either focusing group or AF group being affected by mechanical shutter...
here is my point:
if mechanical shutter operation results in such a massive shock, it should have affect any lenses attached to the camera in the same size weight category.
it is the camera body that supposedly being shocked, vibrates and transfer vibrations onto the lens...
the prime lens not being affected disprove this theory.
IS or AF unit, is either not being properly parked or interfere with the mechanical shutter operation of this camera.

I would run a test in a manual focusing mode as well to ensure that we have enough information to arrive at a solid conclusion.


----------



## canonnews (May 8, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> thank you. just a quick one:
> yes, it is may be a problem. however the problem is with specific type of lenses. and even more specific with how either focusing group or AF group being affected by mechanical shutter...
> here is my point:
> if mechanical shutter operation results in such a massive shock, it should have affect any lenses attached to the camera in the same size weight category.
> ...



it could be the focus groups, but more likely it's the IS mechanism.

there is no physical "park/lock" with the lower end IS units unlike the L lenses.

there a few tests I want to do .. one specifically is to try two shots handheld just to make sure the problem exists in a normal case versus tripod. I really don't think it's the tripod, I tried different heights based upon the center column which is usually the problem, and no difference, and no different in landscape / portrait 

I did IS on/off so even if it's the IS unit, it looks like it can't react fast enough to the vibration frequency of the shutter.

I'll try some manual lenses as well, but in reality, I'm to the point where I want to put the information into the individual lens reviews.


----------



## SecureGSM (May 8, 2020)

righto.

+++ there is no physical "park" with the lower end IS units unlike the L lenses.

so it is all in camera firmware then. It occurs to me that you have identified yet another "phenomenon" that Canon would love to hear about and address.
Let Canon know?


----------



## canonnews (May 8, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> righto.
> 
> +++ there is no physical "park" with the lower end IS units unlike the L lenses.
> 
> ...



no it's certainly not firmware (unless you mean EFCS being nerfed on the M6 II).

from what I gather the high end IS units actually Lock the elements, the IS units on the smaller / lighter lenses don't do that - so, in theory, they could be susceptible to shutter shock more than professional L IS.


----------



## SecureGSM (May 8, 2020)

Suggest you refer your online publication to Canon. Let them investigate. You are onto something here. Thank for you.


----------



## canonnews (May 8, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> Suggest you refer your online publication to Canon. Let them investigate. You are onto something here. Thank for you.


I'll do a few more side tests while I'm waiting for equipment this weekend.


----------



## peters (May 8, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> What a great example of SONY trolling.. Just Marvelous....
> 
> two completely opposite statements:
> 
> ...




you missed the /s tag, right? ;-)

Of course you are correct. Its a non issue and only in the lab relevant


----------



## SecureGSM (May 8, 2020)

peters said:


> you now the /s tag, right? ;-)





peters said:


> you now the /s tag, right? ;-)



as in [sarcasm] [/sarcasm]? well.. it has not been properly opened and closed.
/s stands for tag opened or closed? or what?

in a few words: /s was not a prominent enough sign or of evidence for me to acknowledge your message being sarcastic. it could have been a slip[[ of tongue7f as in slip of keyboardddd /s

apologies for coming across as a ten ton shiite truck. Am getting really seek of Sony unwashed trolls pestling around.


----------



## peters (May 8, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> as in [sarcasm] [/sarcasm]? well.. it has not been properly opened and closed.
> /s stands for tag opened or closed? or what?
> 
> in a few words: /s was not a prominent enough sign or of evidence for me to acknowledge your message being sarcastic. it could have been a slip[[ of tongue7f as in slip of keyboardddd /s
> ...


dont worry  
this trolling is indeed annoying :-D In general the discussion about cameras became quite heated. Its like PC vs Mac, like a religion. While its only a tool in reality


----------



## SecureGSM (May 8, 2020)

peters said:


> dont worry
> this trolling is indeed annoying :-D In general the discussion about cameras became quite heated. Its like PC vs Mac, like a religion. While its only a tool in reality


I have nothing against SONY as a system. I see some major shortcomings, disadvantages and outright faults in it. However I feel uncomfortable and downright disturbed with mindless drivel thrown at such a great system Canon really is. not being defensive of my decision to shoot with Canon. I see how creatives are better of with Canon than with SONY. not talking about lens and camera body collectors and/or cross brand ship jumpers. Apologies for yet another long-winded post.


----------



## BillB (May 8, 2020)

If I am following this, it seems that if you want to make large prints using the M6II and some EF-M zooms, you may be able to see some quality improvement if you use the e shutter ( and a tripod of course). We don’t know whether there would be any observable quality difference in prints (or even measurable resolution differences) using the e shutter when shooting hand held.


----------



## Sibir Lupus (May 8, 2020)

In all honesty, I'm not sure how significant it is for the M6 Mark II to not have an EFCS. Yes, it should still be addressed and hopefully fixed by Canon via a firmware update. But it doesn't make the M6 Mark II "crippled" from my short time with it so far. Example: I was taking some handheld shots of the full moon last night with my M6 Mark II and EF-M 55-200mm lens using both the mechanical shutter (set at 1/250) and electronic shutter. I was able to get some clear photos with both shutters settings, both with IS on. By no means is this anything scientific, but at least its a small example that shows the camera isn't "useless". And the M6 Mark II makes taking photos of the moon far easier then my M10 or M2 (thank you DPAF). Though I do wish I had brought my tripod and recently purchased EF-S 55-250mm lens .


----------



## hachu21 (May 8, 2020)

canonnews said:


> Also shutter shock doesn't happen with any another canon camera, because as we mention they all have EFCS.
> 
> While the prime did show it was mostly unaffected, the EF-M lenses used were also ones that are commonly used in the EF-M ecosystem, and in reality, they work on every other EOS-M camera EXCEPT the M6 Mark II while in mechanical shutter between around 1/80 and 1/150 of second shutter speed.



Why do you write off the faster speeds? From what I understand from your graphs, the similar results between mechanical and electronic shutters are due to high-iso bluring. So maybe we need more tests with faster speeds AND lower isos?

Another point : now you've managed to identify the settings to reproduce this phenomenon, I would like to see a couple of real world picture to assess the resolution loss in a real life context (some trees in the distance or something like that…).
(I don't have the M6 II to do it myself  )


----------



## justaCanonuser (May 8, 2020)

Obviously, history seems to repeat itself after all at least in photography. I remember about the same "shock wave" when it was shown that Sony's original A7 had such a shutter shock problem with some shutter speeds.


----------



## Sibir Lupus (May 8, 2020)

justaCanonuser said:


> Obviously, history seems to repeat itself after all at least in photography. I remember about the same "shock wave" when it was shown that Sony's original A7 had such a shutter shock problem with some shutter speeds.



Did Sony ever attempt to fix the issue on that camera?


----------



## justaCanonuser (May 8, 2020)

Sibir Lupus said:


> Did Sony ever attempt to fix the issue on that camera?


I dunno, never used that camera, since this first gen FF ML from Sony had awkward menus and produced really bad colors out of the camera back then, so I preferred to stay with Canon. But since it was the A7's mechanical shutter, if I remember correctly, I doubt that it could be fixed simply by a firmware update.


----------



## justaCanonuser (May 8, 2020)

peters said:


> dont worry
> this trolling is indeed annoying :-D In general the discussion about cameras became quite heated. Its like PC vs Mac, like a religion. While its only a tool in reality


I am with you, Peter, I am completely unreligious regarding camera, other gadget or car brands. I like to use Canon, because I know the gear will just work reliably when I am somewhere in the wilderness, with rain, dust etc. - Canon's quality is really great, in contrast to Nikon's decreasing quality since the past 10-15 years (we shoot Canon and Nikon side by side, and in the past ten years we had a lot of Nikon repairs vs only one Canon service required).


----------



## Sibir Lupus (May 8, 2020)

justaCanonuser said:


> I dunno, never used that camera, since this first gen FF ML from Sony had awkward menus and produced really bad colors out of the camera back then, so I preferred to stay with Canon. But since it was the A7's mechanical shutter, if I remember correctly, I doubt that it could be fixed simply by a firmware update.



Ah, I figured the issue was due to the original A7 not having an EFCS (which I do see that it does have after looking it up). If the issue was due to the mechanical shutter itself, then no firmware update was going to fix that heh.


----------



## justaCanonuser (May 8, 2020)

Sibir Lupus said:


> Ah, I figured the issue was due to the original A7 not having an EFCS (which I do see that it does have after looking it up). If the issue was due to the mechanical shutter itself, then no firmware update was going to fix that heh.


Since then, Sony really had developed their tech to impressive matureness.


----------



## trounds (May 8, 2020)

I purchased this camera the day it was released and don't regret it at all! As for a small compact camera that I can take everywhere and have the quality images that it produces, you couldn't pry it out out my hands. As all cameras, they are not 100% perfect, but the M6 mk2 is a great camera.


----------



## Cat_Interceptor (May 9, 2020)

So not repeated on other copies of the camera? Yeah nah I am not going a step past there even tho I can spot other issues. This is not in any way shape or form a valid conclusion if this test is not repeated on several other copies - especially when others have not seen this with their camera.


----------



## canonnews (May 9, 2020)

Cat_Interceptor said:


> So not repeated on other copies of the camera? Yeah nah I am not going a step past there even tho I can spot other issues. This is not in any way shape or form a valid conclusion if this test is not repeated on several other copies - especially when others have not seen this with their camera.



Others have reported it too under testing see dpreview thread in EOS-M forums. And it's a common problem for cameras that do NOT use EFCS. Across multiple vendors.

kind of amusing though that you think I should purchase another M6 II to test though.


----------



## canonnews (May 9, 2020)

trounds said:


> I purchased this camera the day it was released and don't regret it at all! As for a small compact camera that I can take everywhere and have the quality images that it produces, you couldn't pry it out out my hands. As all cameras, they are not 100% perfect, but the M6 mk2 is a great camera.


without a doubt, I love my M6 Mark II.. when I go back to my M5 which at the time I thought was a great little camera, I now see just what a gulf between the M5 and M6 II really is. it's significant.

I usually explain away Canon "doing things", especially in articles on my site, but this is one case where I have no explanation. I'm hoping some of the Japanese websites pick it up, and we can put pressure on Canon to just fix the damned problem.

Edit: I noticed digicam-info picked it up yesterday, so it should start moving everywhere now.


----------



## canonnews (May 9, 2020)

justaCanonuser said:


> Since then, Sony really had developed their tech to impressive matureness.


not really.

they still can't compress a RAW file right, their video was good back in 2016. Not so much anymore. h.264 at 100mb/s bitrate and 8bit depth is showing it's age. even with having smartphones they still can't figure out a touchscreen after all these years either. they are getting better but they have left a confusing amount of problems compared to other brands that you'd THINK would be easy for a company like Sony to simply fix.

Where I am seriously impressed with Sony is their optical creds. They have produced some mighty fine lenses over the last 4-5 years.


----------



## canonnews (May 9, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> thank you. just a quick one:
> yes, it is may be a problem. however the problem is with specific type of lenses. and even more specific with how either focusing group or AF group being affected by mechanical shutter...
> here is my point:
> if mechanical shutter operation results in such a massive shock, it should have affect any lenses attached to the camera in the same size weight category.
> ...


I updated the website article. Basic gist is that I did the 15-45mm EF-M handheld with almost exactly the same results. I'm pretty confident to say we have a shutter shock problem that is amplified by the EF-M IS units.

the rest of the testing with either go into a ) part 2 article and/or b) individual lens reviews.


----------



## koenkooi (May 9, 2020)

canonnews said:


> without a doubt, I love my M6 Mark II.. when I go back to my M5 which at the time I thought was a great little camera, I now see just what a gulf between the M5 and M6 II really is. it's significant.
> 
> I usually explain away Canon "doing things", especially in articles on my site, but this is one case where I have no explanation. I'm hoping some of the Japanese websites pick it up, and we can put pressure on Canon to just fix the damned problem.
> 
> Edit: I noticed digicam-info picked it up yesterday, so it should start moving everywhere now.



"Canon announces a version II of all EF-M IS lenses and introduces the 22/1.4 and 50/1.4 to round out the f/1.4 trinity, available immediately"

We can hope, right?


----------



## justaCanonuser (May 9, 2020)

canonnews said:


> not really.
> 
> they still can't compress a RAW file right, their video was good back in 2016. Not so much anymore. h.264 at 100mb/s bitrate and 8bit depth is showing it's age. even with having smartphones they still can't figure out a touchscreen after all these years either. they are getting better but they have left a confusing amount of problems compared to other brands that you'd THINK would be easy for a company like Sony to simply fix.
> 
> Where I am seriously impressed with Sony is their optical creds. They have produced some mighty fine lenses over the last 4-5 years.


In terms IQ I meant with "mature" that it's acceptable now - if you don't know what Canon cameras can deliver. Funny, before Ming Thein's now famous real life field review of the 5DSR, you were really dissed at DPR or elsewhere when you tried to explain, that one of Canon's strengths were, and are, out-of-the-box colors (https://blog.mingthein.com/2015/08/19/long-term-canon-5dsr/). I think, this was based (1) on the fact that many gearheads posting on such sites have in fact often not any clue about photography including colors, and (2) on the missing chance to compare different systems in real life side by side. I have this possibility since many years because my wife has a Nikon gear that is comparable with my Canon gear, and we often shoot side by side the same settings. She was really seriously considering to change to Canon because of Canon's colors just out of the camera. If she wouldn't love her analogue Nikons, which she still uses, she would have changed. Well, now, Canon's "color science" has turned into a sort of written meme on the internet, what isn't bad.

You are right, Sony makes some really great lenses nowadays, in particular their latest tele lenses are impressive. I think they now could stop copying Canon's white finish, they could be more self-confident now.


----------



## AlanF (May 9, 2020)

justaCanonuser said:


> In terms IQ I meant with "mature" that it's acceptable now - if you don't know what Canon cameras can deliver. Funny, before Ming Thein's now famous real life field review of the 5DSR, you were really dissed at DPR or elsewhere when you tried to explain, that one of Canon's strengths were, and are, out-of-the-box colors (https://blog.mingthein.com/2015/08/19/long-term-canon-5dsr/). I think, this was based (1) on the fact that many gearheads posting on such sites have in fact often not any clue about photography including colors, and (2) on the missing chance to compare different systems in real life side by side. I have this possibility since many years because my wife has a Nikon gear that is comparable with my Canon gear, and we often shoot side by side the same settings. She was really seriously considering to change to Canon because of Canon's colors just out of the camera. If she wouldn't love her analogue Nikons, which she still uses, she would have changed. Well, now, Canon's "color science" has turned into a sort of written meme on the internet, what isn't bad.
> 
> You are right, Sony makes some really great lenses nowadays, in particular their latest tele lenses are impressive. I think they now could stop copying Canon's white finish, they could be more self-confident now.


Canon introduced white for telephotos in 1976. Minolta followed suit about 10 years later, and Sony bought Minolta for its lenses, so they have been going a long while. I shoot half Canon and half Nikon now, and the colour science doesn't worry me as I shoot RAW.


----------

