Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-05-2015, 08:45 PM   #31
Site Supporter
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,732
QuoteOriginally posted by Tony Belding Quote
If anybody wants to try taking pics to demonstrate this phenomenon, a helicopter might be a good subject to try. I've seen it done before (not with a Pentax AFAIK) resulting in weirdly curved and distorted helicopter blades.

Last autumn I was involved in a discussion at another forum about this effect, so I took an electric fan out onto our deck and took pictures to demonstrate the effect. Here are two of the pictures:


"correct" image taken using my K-30 [ shutter-speed = 1/2000 ]







distorted image taken using my Q-7 with the leaf-shutter turned off (so the "electronic shutter" is all there was) [ shutter-speed = 1/2000 ]




QuoteOriginally posted by Tony Belding Quote
It's not a problem that comes up too often in normal shooting.
It may come up more often than we realize. The first picture I ever posted here was a totally unprocessed picture of my first attempt to use a long lens with my Q-7; I called the thread "baby steps" because I was inching into using adapted lenses, so even though this picture was taken using an old K-mount lens, I was using a third-party adapter (without a leaf-shutter), and as a result the "electronic shutter" was the only shutter in use. The ribs on this bird feeder are absolutely straight, but the wind was blowing the feeder back-and-forth, and thus the "jello effect" caused the ribs to look curved.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/136-pentax-q/284804-baby-steps.html






Last edited by reh321; 12-05-2015 at 09:10 PM.
12-05-2015, 09:30 PM   #32
Site Supporter
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,732
QuoteOriginally posted by Professor Batty Quote
I am well aware of the rolling shutter effect. It's a feature, not a bug. Graflex cameras from the twenties and thirties could produce it. I have taken thousands of pictures with the Q's electronic shutter and have had little or no problems with it, although I don't take pictures of fans or helicopters very often. Your phrase "meaningful" is what struck me odd, is that like philosophy?
I never said it is a "bug" - it is a fact of life.
I take many pictures of objects in motion, so my Q-7 is set so that it always uses the leaf-shutter if it can.
The first picture I posted here demonstrated that effect as the bird-feeder bounced in the wind and I was using an adapter without a leaf-shutter to help the "electronic shutter".

The original exchange was as follows:
QuoteOriginally posted by Professor Batty Quote
The electronic shutter on the Q goes to 1/8000
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
I'm not sure these shutter speeds are meaningful.

For example, the Q's electronic shutter reads the sensor one line at a time. It may spend 1/8000-th second on each line, but it takes 1/30-th second to read the entire sensor. Often you go with those high speeds because you're trying to "stop" some kind of motion, and this herky-jerky reading method can lead to a totally chaotic image, with the various pieces tossed all over the place.
I felt that my reply to you was completely clear.

I see little purpose to that kind of speed other than to stop motion (as I said then)
High-speed "electronic shutter" doesn't stop motion in a useful fashion (as I said then)
Therefore, I don't see any benefit to the high-speed "electronic shutter" apart from what the leaf-shutter can provide;
in other words, my personal opinion is that the high-speed "electronic shutter" does not make a difference (in the way I take pictures)

I am a software engineer by trade and I have worked with other engineers, scientists, and mathematicians.
In that setting "meaningful" implies "makes a difference".

I'm sorry if that wasn't clear to you.

Last edited by reh321; 12-06-2015 at 05:52 AM. Reason: complete thought
12-05-2015, 09:43 PM - 1 Like   #33
Pentaxian
johnmflores's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Somerville, NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,007
QuoteOriginally posted by Professor Batty Quote
I am well aware of the rolling shutter effect. It's a feature, not a bug. Graflex cameras from the twenties and thirties could produce it. I have taken thousands of pictures with the Q's electronic shutter and have had little or no problems with it, although I don't take pictures of fans or helicopters very often. Your phrase "meaningful" is what struck me odd, is that like philosophy?
The jello is meaningful to me. I take rigged motorcycle photos and throw away a ton of otherwise good shots.


Visions of Jello
by John Flores, on Flickr

On a good day, my success rate (non-jello) is 60-70%. On a bad day, 30%.

It's quite frustrating.
12-05-2015, 10:09 PM   #34
Site Supporter
6BQ5's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Nevada, USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,064
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
I'm not sure these shutter speeds are meaningful.

For example, the Q's electronic shutter reads the sensor one line at a time. It may spend 1/8000-th second on each line, but it takes 1/30-th second to read the entire sensor. Often you go with those high speeds because you're trying to "stop" some kind of motion, and this herky-jerky reading method can lead to a totally chaotic image, with the various pieces tossed all over the place.
For still subjects this speed is totally meaningful if you are outside in broad daylight at high noon and are shooting at f/2.2 with the 01. The ND filter can help a bit but sometimes you might need faster than 1/2000. That's where the electronic shutter comes in handy.

I do agree that many high speed action shots can get distorted though.

12-06-2015, 12:18 AM   #35
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Lake District
Posts: 221
QuoteOriginally posted by Professor Batty Quote
Pictures or it didn't happen.
You could go try it yourself if your that bothered rather than getting someone else to do the work for you.
However, it's a well understood and described phenomenon, you can easily Google it also
J
12-06-2015, 08:39 AM   #36
Pentaxian
CarlJF's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Quebec City
Posts: 587
QuoteOriginally posted by 6BQ5 Quote
For still subjects this speed is totally meaningful if you are outside in broad daylight at high noon and are shooting at f/2.2 with the 01. The ND filter can help a bit but sometimes you might need faster than 1/2000. That's where the electronic shutter comes in handy.

I do agree that many high speed action shots can get distorted though.
+1!

And if you don't want to go over 1/2000 for action shot, activating the ND filter will make it nearly impossible to go faster than this if you don't want to. This is why it's there and when it should be used...
12-07-2015, 09:32 AM   #37
Pentaxian
The Squirrel Mafia's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 649
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
It may come up more often than we realize. The first picture I ever posted here was a totally unprocessed picture of my first attempt to use a long lens with my Q-7; I called the thread "baby steps" because I was inching into using adapted lenses, so even though this picture was taken using an old K-mount lens, I was using a third-party adapter (without a leaf-shutter), and as a result the "electronic shutter" was the only shutter in use. The ribs on this bird feeder are absolutely straight, but the wind was blowing the feeder back-and-forth, and thus the "jello effect" caused the ribs to look curved.
QuoteOriginally posted by johnmflores Quote
The jello is meaningful to me. I take rigged motorcycle photos and throw away a ton of otherwise good shots.

On a good day, my success rate (non-jello) is 60-70%. On a bad day, 30%.

It's quite frustrating.
Ah! This is not good. This could affect some of our photos. I haven't had this happen with the K-50 or her Canon at all. Sometimes we'll shoot as we're driving along. I have a little 1995 Mazda Miata that we ride with the top down on occasion & fire away as we're going. I can foresee some jello effects going on in some of our shots. Hmmm......... This might be a game changer.

Thanks a lot for all the feedback!
12-07-2015, 10:12 AM   #38
Pentaxian
bertwert's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Golden, BC
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,884
QuoteOriginally posted by Tony Belding Quote
If anybody wants to try taking pics to demonstrate this phenomenon, a helicopter might be a good subject to try. I've seen it done before (not with a Pentax AFAIK) resulting in weirdly curved and distorted helicopter blades.

It's not a problem that comes up too often in normal shooting.
This explains it quite well:
This is How Cameras Glitch with Photos of Propellers



12-07-2015, 10:16 AM   #39
Pentaxian
johnmflores's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Somerville, NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,007
QuoteOriginally posted by The Squirrel Mafia Quote
I have a little 1995 Mazda Miata that we ride with the top down on occasion & fire away as we're going. I can foresee some jello effects going on in some of our shots.
I had a '90 in Smurf blue and a '99 in a deeper shade of blue. I now have a '05 Honda S2000. Top down is a way of life!

Note, the shots that I'm having trouble with is when the camera is mounted to the bike which, depending upon the model, either shakes a little or a lot. The waviness that you see in the shot above is either due to the electronic shutter, IS, or a combination both. I do know that when I've used other cameras with mechanical shutters in the same fashion they performed much more reliably than the Q.

When mounted to a surface that has less vibration, i.e., myself, the rolling shutter issue is not much of a factor at all.


You Are Here
by John Flores, on Flickr


Apex Hunting
by John Flores, on Flickr

You'll likely be fine in your Miata snapping as you go. It's only when you try to attach the camera to the car and try to take shots that you should watch out.
12-07-2015, 10:31 AM   #40
Site Supporter
cali92rs's Avatar

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 3,203
QuoteOriginally posted by johnmflores Quote
The waviness that you see in the shot above is either due to the electronic shutter, IS, or a combination both.
With high shutter speeds (1/2000 and faster as being discussed here), wouldn't it be beneficial to turn off IS?
12-07-2015, 01:18 PM   #41
Site Supporter
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,732
QuoteOriginally posted by The Squirrel Mafia Quote
Ah! This is not good. This could affect some of our photos. I haven't had this happen with the K-50 or her Canon at all. Sometimes we'll shoot as we're driving along. I have a little 1995 Mazda Miata that we ride with the top down on occasion & fire away as we're going. I can foresee some jello effects going on in some of our shots. Hmmm......... This might be a game changer.

Thanks a lot for all the feedback!
This is not a problem with the Q-7 as long as you use the 01, 02, 06, and/or 08 lenses and have the leaf-shutter turned on (a menu option).

In theory, this sort of thing could happen with a DSLR like the K-50, but the motion would have to be something like ten times as fast, so I'm not aware of anyone's actually have it happen to them.
12-07-2015, 02:48 PM   #42
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: DC Metro Area
Posts: 4
FYI Olympus has a 20% off refurb coupon code (ENCORE20) until Wed if you go that route. Makes the E-PL6 kit really cheap and also puts the E-PL7 and E-M10 near your budget.
12-07-2015, 09:02 PM   #43
New Member




Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: California
Posts: 9
As a Mrs. myself (awful lot of men on this board<img src="https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/images/smilies/smile.png" border="0" alt="" title="Smile" smilieid="1" class="inlineimg" /> ) my 2 cents definitely go to the Q. I shoot a large DSLR, but was looking to replace my old p&amp;s &quot;purse&quot; camera. I actually won a Panasonic GM-5 which I received and used for about a week, but was terribly uncomfortable using it and ordered a Q about 2 weeks later. Within days of receiving it, I sold the Panasonic and have been tickled pink with my Q (and it's IQ, even though its not DSLR great, it's more than I ever thought possible in a purse cam) And yes, I even find myself using it in place of my Nikon quite often.<br />
Also, for me personally, the last thing I want on my camera is a touchscreen.<br />
<br />
Christi

---------- Post added 12-07-15 at 09:07 PM ----------

Hmmm ^^^ weird formatting in my last post. Was (awful lot of men on this board )
12-08-2015, 04:57 PM   #44
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,548
QuoteOriginally posted by Cjsk8mom Quote
As a Mrs. myself (awful lot of men on this board my 2 cents definitely go to the Q. I shoot a large DSLR, but was looking to replace my old p&s purse camera. I actually won a Panasonic GM-5 which I received and used for about a week, but was terribly uncomfortable using it and ordered a Q about 2 weeks later. Within days of receiving it, I sold the Panasonic and have been tickled pink with my Q (and it's IQ, even though its not DSLR great, it's more than I ever thought possible in a purse cam)
I still think the Panasonic LX7 or LX100 is considerably smaller - granted no lenses to change but a good range unless you need telephoto or ultrawide (24-90 FF equivalent and 16-60 APSC equivalent).
12-08-2015, 06:47 PM   #45
Site Supporter
CWRailman's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
Photos: Albums
Posts: 495
QuoteOriginally posted by Cjsk8mom Quote
I actually won a Panasonic GM-5 which I received and used for about a week, but was terribly uncomfortable using it and ordered a Q about 2 weeks later. Within days of receiving it, I sold the Panasonic and have been tickled pink with my Q (and it's IQ, even though its not DSLR great, it's more than I ever thought possible in a purse cam) And yes, I even find myself using it in place of my Nikon quite often.<br />
Also, for me personally, the last thing I want on my camera is a touchscreen.<br />
<br />
Christi
This is the first time I have ever heard of someone going from a GM-5 to a Q. Strange!! As so many have gone in the opposite direction. What did you not like about the GM-5?
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
advantage, button, camera, canon, dslr, experience, lenses, mirrorless, olympus, pentax, pentax q, pentax q10, pentax q7, pictures, q-s1, q10, q7, quality, rebel, sensor size, size
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
trying to decide on the right camera CNunez Pentax DSLR Discussion 14 12-15-2014 11:58 AM
Trying to decide between the NIkon 58mm F/1.4 and the Sigma 50mm F/1.4 ElJamoquio Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 6 08-07-2014 08:35 PM
Trying to decide between DA 15 Limited & Sigma 10-20/4-5.6 msatlas Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 15 08-28-2012 02:04 AM
Pentax *ist DS vs. Olympus Pen E-P1? iht Pentax DSLR Discussion 8 04-08-2010 09:02 PM
Trying to decide between 50mm Macro vs 35mm Macro Lens stl09 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 4 07-24-2009 07:56 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:14 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top