[biz-engineer]

What I experienced while using the K1 for over a year: From 1/200th and higher, there is not difference in sharpness between images captured with EFCS and mechanical shutter. At 1/100th shutter speed, which I use very often with standard focal length, the shutter shock is visible, loss of sharpness is about 30% (K1 36Mp output is comparable to a 24Mp output of the K3). When using between 1/100 and 1/200 with K1 in crop mode and DFA150-450 @ 400 (wildlife) + mechanical shutter, on solid tripod, the images are blurred. Workaround is to use LV + ES, but the downsides are slow AF and battery drain, although with the battery grip fully charge, LV can be used for 4 hours without having overheat shutdown. K3 also has shutter shock vibration transmitter to the lens elements, it is also visible at 400mm, especially with the DA300+TC, using a beanbag over the full area of the camera body+lens reveals that the DA300+TC optics are sharp, but the lens vibration not being damped (when using the lens tripod collar instead of beanbag) ruin the optical sharpness potential. The worst lens of all at getting the vibrations into the image is the DFA28-105. When I use the K1 with the DFA24-70 or DFA15-30, there is also the shutter shock effect but to an extent that sharpness degradation is not obvious. ...........

I've learned to cope with that:
- either using TAv (have shutter speed at 1/200+, and auto ISO)
- or use LV+ES
- or use OVF + pixel shift (handheld) and keep only frame #1 in post, that works very well but the camera buffer gets clogged by pixels shifted frames that will be discarded later.

Not so straightforward and a bit annoying for an expensive camera.That's why I'm looking forward to have a firmware update with the implementation of EFCS in non-live view mode (that is pixel shift mode aborted after frame#1, like it is on the KP and like Nikon have done on the D850...). I think this is an important consideration for the full frame system that cost many thousand Eur/$, and if Ricoh wants to sell DFA* primes lenses, they better have also EFCS with small delay usable with OVF, because I wonder what will be the point to sell outstanding big premium prime glass if the shutter shock degrade the fine resolution achievable with those new lenses?. Lets see if Ricoh listen.

---

Last edited by biz-engineer; 09-09-2017 at 10:57 PM.

[beholder3]

This all is about frequencies and how the momentum of the shutter affects the whole system of camera, lens, tripod, dampening fixation (like hands).
And as such the specific lens weight and size matters.
The existence of a tripod and the exact model matters.
The type of connection from camera to tripod matters (to lens or body).
The type of dampening matters which is created by holding it with a human hand and where you hold it.
The ground matter on which a tripod stands.

Usually the more heavy the lens is, the more firm you grip it, will improve things.
Handholding probably also should create better results than using a tripod.

[biz-engineer]

Usually the more heavy the lens is, the more firm you grip it, will improve things

The effect of shutter vibration disappear with the DFA*70-200 and battery grip with eneloop pro loaded. That's a 3kg setup.

[texandrews]

Marking this thread to watch. Thanks to the posters so far.

[derekkite]

I shoot long, 500mm Sigma f4.5 predominantly. The K1 with battery grip. Vibration is a non factor except for very long shots on a tripod. I use the electronic shutter in those instances, as well as standard mirror up and time delays.

We have a landlocked salmon in the lake here, and some spawn on the shore near our home. This is last year with the K1. First shot apc-crop mode, the second cropped further. They are a long way off, first light. I had trouble getting decent shots with the K3 due to shutter shock and having to keep the iso low. f/5.6 1/1250 500mm ISO2500.

I think this is electronic shutter. The low light performance helps enormously.

[DSLRnovice]

There is a long and in-depth thread specifically on the shutter shock issue. Fundamentally it's a design defect / QC issue affecting the shutter mechanism. One of my K-1's is perfectly fine at those shutter speeds, while another exhibits the same type of pixel-level blur you're describing, most notably at 1/180s and 1/125s.

If seems to me that if one of your K-1's does not have this problem, that this is not a design flaw but a defect in that particular shutter/body. If this could be proven, should not Ricoh fix the defective ones?

---------- Post added 09-10-2017 at 04:32 PM ----------

Handholding probably also should create better results than using a tripod.

Could you explain how handholding would create better results than using a tripod to control vibration?

[awscreo]

It's a bummer I never tested my other lenses for this. DFA 28-105 definitely has the issue with my body. I know many people have the combo, but so far only seen few people complaining about the shutter shock, maybe it's no really wide spread

[pschlute]

Could you explain how handholding would create better results than using a tripod to control vibration?

A camera and lens on a tripod is not neccesarily the rock solid contraption you may think it is. A long lens attatched at the foot has significant weight both in front and behind the mounting point. You can see this yourself by simply tapping gently on the front of the lens. The whole assembly can resonate a bit like a see-saw. The better the tripod is; the better the tripod head is; the more weight you hang from the tripod hook will all make things better but cannot be eliminated entirely.

If you introduce a mechanical shock such as a camera shutter this can create just the right resonance to induce blur. This is not a new phenomenon, and some cameras are more prone than others. usually only affecting a limited range of shutter speeds.

Handholding the camera/lens when using these shutter speed ranges can improve things .... first the hands provide a damping action so the resonance is not as pronounced, and secondly the SR system can possibly reduce the affect. With the K1 and DA*300mm I can get better pictures handheld at 1/60 than I can on a tripod at the same shutter speed.

edit....and I might add I use a Gitzo Series-3 tripod and head !

[beholder3]

Could you explain how handholding would create better results than using a tripod to control vibration?

pschlute already explained it well.

That is also why simple bean bags (if there is the option to use one) can be much better than the average tripod.

[DSLRnovice]

pschlute already explained it well.

That is also why simple bean bags (if there is the option to use one) can be much better than the average tripod.

So you are saying that the vibration is transferred to the tripod itself and possibly magnified? I have been realizing this recently when trying to dampen the volume of an acoustic drum kit. The nearby wall not only reflects the sound but also resonates with the sound. Special absorbant materials are required to actually absorb the sound.

All this is making me miss the leaf shutter lenses on my Mamiya RZ67. With the mirror up there is only the faint sound of a click. Pentax67 users had to deal with the vibration that the large FP shutter generated.

Which reminds me of the solution that I read in one of the forums. Pentax67 users claimed that carbon fiber tripods made a difference. Has anyone tried changing tripods and finding improvements?

[pschlute]

Pentax67 users claimed that carbon fiber tripods made a difference. Has anyone tried changing tripods and finding improvements?

Been there, done that ! I am using a Series-3 Gitzo carbon fibre tripod and Series-3 head. Rated for 18kg of weight. It is not the tripod that is the problem.

The solution is to use LV ES when using shutter speeds in the problem range.

[beholder3]

So you are saying that the vibration is transferred to the tripod itself and possibly magnified?

Outside the much better gripping of a camera and lens with two hands (which would require you to fix the body/lens combo with two separate pieces to your tripod to simulate its about the dampening of the resonances.

Compare:
Screw a craftsman's metal ruler on one end onto a sturdy steel table and snap a finger against it.
Hold that same ruler in a hand and snap a finger against it.
Which one vibrates longer and more and at a higher frequency?

If I want no resonating I use a Berlebach ash wood 2-segment tripod.

People seem to be using them for heavier equipment as well: Which Berlebach tripod ? - Mounts - Cloudy Nights

[Rondec]

As has been mentioned, this is not an issue when hand holding. If you are on a tripod, just try to use the electronic shutter if in this particular zone of shutter speeds. I tend to use the e shutter most of the time on a tripod, but honestly, my shutter speeds are seldom in this zone either -- they are typically quite a bit slower on a tripod since I'm stopped down and iso is set for 100.

[DSLRnovice]

As has been mentioned, this is not an issue when hand holding. If you are on a tripod, just try to use the electronic shutter if in this particular zone of shutter speeds. I tend to use the e shutter most of the time on a tripod, but honestly, my shutter speeds are seldom in this zone either -- they are typically quite a bit slower on a tripod since I'm stopped down and iso is set for 100.

This is more like my habits as well.

Using a Paterson resolution target, I compared the DFA 100mm macro with the DFA28-105 at 105. On a tripod, with 2 Sec delay and cable release, the macro looked almost as good as with LVES on mechanical speeds from 1/40th to 1/250th sec. With the 28-105 there was a slightly more noticable drop from ES when the same speeds were used, with 1/40th and 1/50th going a little softer than the rest.

I should mention that I used the tripod with no legs extended. Other times when the legs were extended,I had differing results. Also, the softness was most evident on the smallest lines and patterns on the target.

It did not occur to me that a lens could have such a bearing on the amount of blur caused by the shutter shake. Maybe the additional moving parts of a zoom are a factor.

In handholding I did not get better results than on the tripod, except for the 1/40 and 1/50th sec mechanical speed. I have to say that SR is very effective most of the time.

Since the main purpose of the 28-105 is convenience when on the go, I will be handholding it much of the time, with SR on. So far I did not see any instance where SR did not give a better chance for sharper images when handholding.

[siegbert]

I did some testing with K3 + 300mm last year and it has the most blur at about 1/100s.
For shorter times the blur was less, until at about 1/320s the ISO blur rises.
I noticed, when laying the camera on a solid desk, there is less motion blur. When puting some weak thing between the camera and the desk, the blur rises.
When mounting on a tripod, there is less blur when fixing at the camera compared to fixing at the lens.