Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Another insight with the A7r
Didn't Nikon have to publish a guide to get best performance when the D800 came out? There will be a need for faster shutters as the density increases.


Now, that may be irrelevant here. 35mm needing faster than 1/160s does sound like another mechanism other than user movement. Is there an obvious repeatable direction to the blur matching the shutter? If we use flash sync speed as a guide to the shutter travel time, the 1/100-1/160 ball park would be worst affected by direct shutter movement. Faster than that, you substantially complete the exposure before the curtains close. And if you go much longer, the blur would be averaged out, assuming any residual vibration is damped quickly.

<a class="bbc_url" href="">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.
Quote:I'm a bit confused by this talk of pixel density affecting these new Sony FF cameras. The pixel density of even the 16MP APS-C NEX cameras is about the same as the A7R, and it has never been a problem with those models, so why the fuss now? Doesn't this simply point to shutter shock on the A7R being the main culprit when it comes to lack of sharpness?
Yes, it is the shutter doing that. Not all nex-es have that problem.

Quote:I do not know for sure but I haven't been able to get a really sharp shot at 1/100 or 1/160.
It would be a shame were it to be the shutter.  It's already a poor landscape cam because the body isn't very hefty to hold lenses still on a tripod, and the battery sucks, but were it to need fast shutter speeds it would be crap.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)