[reh321]

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 ]

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.

[reh321]

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:

The electronic shutter on the Q goes to 1/8000

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.

[johnmflores]

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.

[6BQ5]

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.

[jethro10]

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

[CarlJF]

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...

[The Squirrel Mafia]

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.

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!

[bertwert]

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

[johnmflores]

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.

[cali92rs]

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?

[reh321]

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.

[12thgear]

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.

[Cjsk8mom]

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 )

[UncleVanya]

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).

[CWRailman]

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?