Originally posted by BarryE Here's a quick annotated example.
OK...I will spill it.
I looked real hard and also brought this example into an image editor and bumped contrast etc. and was unable to see convincing evidence of camera motion or doubling on the 1/100s side. If there is "doubling", it appears to be less than one pixel wide, though it is tough to say when not doing the comparison at full resolution. Yes, there is a difference between the two sides, but comparing two separate images at much reduced resolution, both of which appear to have had significant post processing, it is hard to ferret out whether the "nervous" softening on the left is due to camera motion, slight misfocus, or artifact generated by the differences in significant amount of PP applied to both images. (Yes, the right side is lighter than the left.)
This is not to say that there is no shutter shock present, only that I would not lean that direction if I saw such on my own images at this resolution. I would lean towards slight missed focus compounded by CA.*
This in mind, I considered how I might test this out and it occurred to me that the most damning evidence might come from short duration flash (mild fill) at the shutter speeds in question using a high contrast target. Fine detail would not be required, just a strong edge. Any ghosting should be obvious with severity bracketing strongly within a limited range of shutter speeds if shutter shock.
Just some ramblings.
Steve
* Both the FA 43 and FA 35 may exhibit lateral CA and/or longitudinal CA.