[Zygonyx]

Just stop posting here, this thread just merit sinking in the unproven/infamatory ocean.

---

Last edited by Zygonyx; 05-22-2016 at 06:55 AM.

[clackers]

Osv must be hurting. There *is* a camera notorious for its shutter shake problems - the A7R he bought instead of a Pentax. He should stop crying, stop bothering us in our forum, and get on with life, IMHO.

I have been shooting this weekend with my K-1 and couldn't be happier.

[Wheatfield]

I'll take wheatfield's feeling as conclusive.

Shucks.

My past experience with Pentax SLRs is that if they are going to have a bounce problem, it is going to be in the range of 1/15 to 1/60th of a second. This is something that has held true for me from the 1980s and the Super Program film camera (more bounces than the Pump Roadhouse on a Saturday night) to the K5, which I had some bounce problems with in that speed range.

I've used the K1 both on and off the tripod at a variety of speeds within this range, and have seen ZERO evidence of either mirror or shutter induced vibration.

I'm not ruling out the possibility, but at this point, I would ask the OP, who apparently now owns a K1, to post some images showing that his camera has a vibration problem.

[reh321]

Shucks.

My past experience with Pentax SLRs is that if they are going to have a bounce problem, it is going to be in the range of 1/15 to 1/60th of a second. This is something that has held true for me from the 1980s and the Super Program film camera (more bounces than the Pump Roadhouse on a Saturday night) to the K5, which I had some bounce problems with in that speed range.

This is very interesting. I used my Super Program for eleven years, hand-held at all shutter speeds {including occasionally below 1/60} and I never had a noticeably blurry photograph. I'm beginning to think that this "bounce problem" is as much about the photographer as it is about the camera {because I used Kodachrome 25 most of the time, I developed a very steady grip}

added: There may be a small difference between various (D)SLR cameras, but noise and vibration is built into the basic design. Several years ago, I was very much aware of someone using a DSLR to take pictures at a small baptism - the clunk, clunk, clunk gave her away. In fact, there have been a lot of cases like that. I really like the leaf shutter used by my Q-7, which makes it almost perfectly silent. Yesterday I was asked to photograph during a new worker dedication ceremony at our church; I used my Q-7 specifically because of its lack of noise.

---

Last edited by reh321; 05-23-2016 at 08:53 AM. Reason: added comment

[Rupert]

Not a problem.....there is another thread going that says SR is made just for this purpose.....and nothing else.

You know, you can read most anything here one place or another!

Regards!

[Wheatfield]

This is very interesting. I used my Super Program for eleven years, hand-held at all shutter speeds {including occasionally below 1/60} and I never had a noticeably blurry photograph. I'm beginning to think that this "bounce problem" is as much about the photographer as it is about the camera {because I used Kodachrome 25 most of the time, I developed a very steady grip}

I actually ran quite a comprehensive test some 15 years or perhaps a bit more ago. The Super program I had bounced noticeably with a Manfrotto 055 tripod, and when turned vertically was quite a bit worse. It took a 15 LB Zone VI wood tripod to tame that particular beast.
I had a pair of LX cameras at the time, neither had any problems with mirror or shutter vibration

added: There may be a small difference between various (D)SLR cameras, but noise and vibration is built into the basic design. Several years ago, I was very much aware of someone using a DSLR to take pictures at a small baptism - the clunk, clunk, clunk gave her away. In fact, there have been a lot of cases like that. I really like the leaf shutter used by my Q-7, which makes it almost perfectly silent. Yesterday I was asked to photograph during a new worker dedication ceremony at our church; I used my Q-7 specifically because of its lack of noise.

I don't really think it matters how much noise the camera makes, it's how much, if any, vibration is interfering with image sharpness.

[reh321]

I actually ran quite a comprehensive test some 15 years or perhaps a bit more ago. The Super program I had bounced noticeably with a Manfrotto 055 tripod, and when turned vertically was quite a bit worse. It took a 15 LB Zone VI wood tripod to tame that particular beast.
I had a pair of LX cameras at the time, neither had any problems with mirror or shutter vibration

So either you got a really bad Super Program or I got a really good one.
Great for me! {not so great for you}

I don't really think it matters how much noise the camera makes, it's how much, if any, vibration is interfering with image sharpness.

Maybe yes, maybe no. Noise is a kind of vibration. I doubt if a quiet camera would vibrate noticeably. I doubt if a camera that vibrated so much as to interfere with image sharpness would be quiet.
Obviously this is something the companies need to work on, but these complaints seem to come as onesies, not in flocks {like the K-30/50 aperture issue complaints do}

We have Newton's Third Law at work here. Any camera that starts-then-stops a moving mirror will feel a reaction. Any camera that starts-then-stops fast-moving focal plain shutter "curtains" will feel a reaction.

[Wheatfield]

So either you got a really bad Super Program or I got a really good one.
Great for me! {not so great for you}



Maybe yes, maybe no. Noise is a kind of vibration. I doubt if a quiet camera would vibrate noticeably. I doubt if a camera that vibrated so much as to interfere with image sharpness would be quiet.
Obviously this is something the companies need to work on, but these complaints seem to come as onesies, not in flocks {like the K-30/50 aperture issue complaints do}

We have Newton's Third Law at work here. Any camera that starts-then-stops a moving mirror will feel a reaction. Any camera that starts-then-stops fast-moving focal plain shutter "curtains" will feel a reaction.

The Super Program was notorious for being bouncy at certain speeds. It's quite likely that you would never have known about it if you shot handheld, which dampens the camera, or didn't use a tripod at the problematic speeds, or didn't make large prints or projections. Nowadays we have pixel peeping, it shows up problems pretty quickly.

If it isn't causing visible problems on the image, it is immaterial what noise the camera makes, and mirror/shutter induced vibration is impossible to miss at the pixel level.

[Zygonyx]

Please change the title of this thread : nothing is related with K-1.
Time for me to unsubscribe.

[jatrax]

nothing is related with K-1. Time for me to unsubscribe.

Yeah, especially since now we have a 100 post thread talking about a non-existing 'issue'. That will come up in every search for eternity and become an 'internet fact'.

[reh321]

The Super Program was notorious for being bouncy at certain speeds. It's quite likely that you would never have known about it if you shot handheld, which dampens the camera, or didn't use a tripod at the problematic speeds, or didn't make large prints or projections. Nowadays we have pixel peeping, it shows up problems pretty quickly.

If it isn't causing visible problems on the image, it is immaterial what noise the camera makes, and mirror/shutter induced vibration is impossible to miss at the pixel level.

Yes, every picture I took with my Super Program was hand-held; it is ironic if I can provide more steadiness hand-held than your tripod can do.
Yes, every picture I took with my Super Program was a slide; we looked at slides from a distance that enabled us to see the entire picture at once.
I use the term "needle sharp" instead of "razor sharp" because people today are so addicted to sharpness. but this is absurd.
You would be so focused on Da Vinci's brush strokes that you wouldn't see the Mona Lisa.
It is ironic that we are having this discussion here, when at general photo discussion forums people are talking about getting such great value in DR at such a great price.

I have nothing more to say on the subject.

[Wheatfield]

Yes, every picture I took with my Super Program was hand-held; it is ironic if I can provide more steadiness hand-held than your tripod can do.

I can't help that you don't know about how metal tripods work. That's your problem.

Yes, every picture I took with my Super Program was a slide; we looked at slides from a distance that enabled us to see the entire picture at once.
I use the term "needle sharp" instead of "razor sharp" because people today are so addicted to sharpness. but this is absurd.
You would be so focused on Da Vinci's brush strokes that you wouldn't see the Mona Lisa.

Apparently you are missing what this thread is about.

It is ironic that we are having this discussion here, when at general photo discussion forums people are talking about getting such great value in DR at such a great price.

I have nothing more to say on the subject.

You haven't said anything on the subject yet.

[Gimbal]

I use the term "needle sharp" instead of "razor sharp" because people today are so addicted to sharpness.

The few needles I have aren’t nearly as sharp as my razorblades so I guess a needle sharp picture is a slightly less sharp picture.

[2351HD]

it's not just about mirror vibration, and digitalrev isn't the only site making claims about k-1 vibration issues:

"Also includes a StdRes shot at f/9 for comparison to SuperRes at f/9, which by serendipity shows Pentax K1 shutter vibration problems. This confirms a serious image quality issue (at 77mm!) already discussed in Pentax K1 Shutter Shake Evaluated at 140mm, Siemens Target.

I am dumbfounded that Pentax would use an EFC shutter in the K1 for SuperRes mode, but not offer the feature in StdRes single-shot mode. Maybe a firmware update will fix it, and maybe not. It is stupefying in its juxtaposition to the ground-breaking sophistication of pixel shift technology. How is it even possible for one camera to combine such contradictory approaches to image sharpness?"
diglloyd: PENTAX SMCP-FA FA 77mm f/1.8 Limited Aperture Series: Mosaic (Pentax K1 SuperRes)

The shutter shake is there OSV, it's just that they refuse to see it. It has to be there, without an EFC shutter it can not be banished, no matter how good the shutter.

The K1 is nice but could do with a menu option for EFC in live view, heck, we know they can do it, it's in the pixel shift mode.

Just like my 645z, my K1 will experience exactly the same issues with shutter shake, on lenses over 90mm with shutter speeds between roughly 1/20 and 1/200, the danger zone for any lens with a normal shutter.

All I need now is a K1v with an EVF, no mirror, on sensor AF and full time life view with EFC shutter. Oh how good that would be.

---------- Post added 05-28-16 at 04:45 AM ----------

Shucks.

My past experience with Pentax SLRs is that if they are going to have a bounce problem, it is going to be in the range of 1/15 to 1/60th of a second. This is something that has held true for me from the 1980s and the Super Program film camera (more bounces than the Pump Roadhouse on a Saturday night) to the K5, which I had some bounce problems with in that speed range.

I've used the K1 both on and off the tripod at a variety of speeds within this range, and have seen ZERO evidence of either mirror or shutter induced vibration.

I'm not ruling out the possibility, but at this point, I would ask the OP, who apparently now owns a K1, to post some images showing that his camera has a vibration problem.

I think you would find that it would be there, it kinda has to be there (shutter shock that is) because of the fact that there is a shutter and no EFC. It might be small, but it will be there. Will it ruin a photo, maybe not, but there might be some combinations of FL and shutter speed and orientation that will cause it to show its ugly head.

---------- Post added 05-28-16 at 04:47 AM ----------

I must say though, after using the K1 for a bit, although the shutter shake will be there, I doubt it will ruin a photo (I say doubt because I have yet to test a 70-200 lens or longer to see)

[normhead]

We have Newton's Third Law at work here. Any camera that starts-then-stops a moving mirror will feel a reaction. Any camera that starts-then-stops fast-moving focal plain shutter "curtains" will feel a reaction.

So what you;re saying here is, there's no such thing as damping? And you're quoting Newton's third law, as if that proves it?
That's a very disturbing extrapolation.

Yes, every picture I took with my Super Program was a slide; we looked at slides from a distance that enabled us to see the entire picture at once

And having taught photography for 14 years, I have had access to materials where people have tested that theory and come to the conclusion, that every hand held image up to 1/1000 of a second has discernible motion blur viewed at 11x14, when compared to the same image taken with a tripod. Research would suggest that you weren't as good as you thought you were.