Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Mirror Lockup and sharpness test with Canon 300D

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
December 14, 2004 5:17:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Todd H." <t@toddh.net> wrote in message news:m0brcwke9u.fsf@ripco.com...
> "Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>
>> Nothing very scientific - just a small test.
>> http://www.geocities.com/losttoy2000/MLU-Test.html
>
> Wow. Cool. Thanks for doing that.

For those of us without time to download the raw data and analyze it
ourselves -- What did you conclude?
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
December 14, 2004 10:17:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1103033298.872779.99670@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Nothing very scientific - just a small test.
> http://www.geocities.com/losttoy2000/MLU-Test.html

On the D-Rebel were you using the timer since you don't have a remote?
Anonymous
December 15, 2004 8:11:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Colin D wrote:
> As the owner of a 300D, and considering the Wasia hack, I was very
> interested in your test, Siddartha.
>
> I have some downstream questions, though, that you might be kind
enough
> to answer for the enlightenment of interested people.
>
> 1. How rigid was the tripod? Was it lightweight, or a pro or
semi-pro
> tripod?
Its a light-weight. I bought it for about $25.

> 2. Was the centre column raised, and/or was it properly tightened up
> with the screw?
Yes, the centre column was raised and tightened up well.

> 3. Was the pan-tilt head secure, and was the rotate bearing under the
> head tight, to prevent rotary motion?
Yes, that was secured well as well.

> 4. Were the tripod legs firmly set on the ground, with no play where
> they support the centre yoke?
Yes, it was on a level floor with no play.

> 5. Were the shots indoor or outdoor? if outdoor, was there any wind?
Indoors with not even the fan ;-)

> 6. What were the actual shutter speed and aperture settings used, and
> was it the same for both shots?
Yes, both were at:
Focal length: 37mm
ISO: 200
Aperture: f5
Shutter: 1/5 sec

The EXIF info is there in all the photos on the webpage.


> 7. Looking at the original images, the blurring seems to me to be
more
> like slight out-of-focus, rather than camera shake initiated by the
> mirror. Was the camera set on autofocus, or was it critically
focussed
> manually? I presume the lens was the 18-55mm kit lens (which is
pretty
> good).

Good point. I used the "P" mode and AF. Will repeat the test with MF. I
plan to do the test at three different focal lengths and will post
four crops of each, MLU and non-MLU.
Thanks for the input,

Siddhartha
Anonymous
December 15, 2004 8:12:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Dave knows who wrote:
> "Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1103033298.872779.99670@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > Nothing very scientific - just a small test.
> > http://www.geocities.com/losttoy2000/MLU-Test.html
>
> On the D-Rebel were you using the timer since you don't have a
remote?

Duh!! Stupid me ... will definitely keep that in mind alongwith using
MF.

Thanks,

Siddhartha
Anonymous
December 15, 2004 9:25:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Michael A. Covington wrote:
> "Todd H." <t@toddh.net> wrote in message
news:m0brcwke9u.fsf@ripco.com...
> > "Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
> >
> >> Nothing very scientific - just a small test.
> >> http://www.geocities.com/losttoy2000/MLU-Test.html
> >
> > Wow. Cool. Thanks for doing that.
>
> For those of us without time to download the raw data and analyze it
> ourselves -- What did you conclude?

There is no raw data ;)  Just a couple of pics and two crops, one with
MLU and the other without MLU. MLU looks far sharper but as people
above pointed out that it could be an AF issue and I did not use
shutter timer. So I plan to do some more improved tests soon.
- Siddhartha
Anonymous
December 15, 2004 4:51:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hm. The original posting isn't in google (!?).

Todd H. wrote:
> "Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>
>> Nothing very scientific - just a small test.
>> http://www.geocities.com/losttoy2000/MLU-Test.html

Was the camera manually focused? Did the focus change from one image
to the next? I ask because the non-MLU version looks more defocused to
me than motion-blurred. Compare the horizontal and vertical edges on
some of the lettering; I would expect a directional smear than a
roughly even fuzz-out.

Anyways, even if the experiment was done "right", the conclusion comes
as no particular surprise.
Anonymous
December 15, 2004 6:11:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Siddhartha Jain wrote:

> Nothing very scientific - just a small test.
> http://www.geocities.com/losttoy2000/MLU-Test.html
>
> - Siddhartha

As the owner of a 300D, and considering the Wasia hack, I was very
interested in your test, Siddartha.

I have some downstream questions, though, that you might be kind enough
to answer for the enlightenment of interested people.

1. How rigid was the tripod? Was it lightweight, or a pro or semi-pro
tripod?
2. Was the centre column raised, and/or was it properly tightened up
with the screw?
3. Was the pan-tilt head secure, and was the rotate bearing under the
head tight, to prevent rotary motion?
4. Were the tripod legs firmly set on the ground, with no play where
they support the centre yoke?
5. Were the shots indoor or outdoor? if outdoor, was there any wind?
6. What were the actual shutter speed and aperture settings used, and
was it the same for both shots?
7. Looking at the original images, the blurring seems to me to be more
like slight out-of-focus, rather than camera shake initiated by the
mirror. Was the camera set on autofocus, or was it critically focussed
manually? I presume the lens was the 18-55mm kit lens (which is pretty
good).

Questions 1 to 5 basically ensure that tripod movement is ruled out as a
cause of loss of sharpness; q.6 could be interesting, as higher speeds,
say 1/200 upwards tend to be too quick for the shake to be apparent, and
slow speeds of 1/2 sec or slower tend to mask any movement that might
happen in a 1/10 second or thereabouts.

Question 7 is the most interesting one. If autofocus was used, slight
errors in focussing and refocussing can easily cause loss of definition,
specially with wide-aperture shots. I have found there seems to be some
hysteresis built-in to autofocus systems, to avoid having the lens
constantly hunting for focus. Repeated focussing on a subject without
moving the camera results in the lens stopping at slightly different
points each time. With normal subject matter, depth of field usually
masks any slight misfocus, but when shooting a flat surface where DOF
doesn't apply, slight misfocus can be all too apparent.

I mention all of this because, as I said in q.7, the blur looks very
much like out-of-focus blur, and not like the blur one gets with camera
movement - a sharp image smeared in one direction.

Colin
Anonymous
December 15, 2004 6:11:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Colin D wrote:
[]
> I mention all of this because, as I said in q.7, the blur looks very
> much like out-of-focus blur, and not like the blur one gets with
> camera movement - a sharp image smeared in one direction.

That was very much my impression as well.

David
Anonymous
December 16, 2004 12:54:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:32ads5F3l05h3U1@individual.net...
> Colin D wrote:
> []
> > I mention all of this because, as I said in q.7, the blur looks very
> > much like out-of-focus blur, and not like the blur one gets with
> > camera movement - a sharp image smeared in one direction.
>
> That was very much my impression as well.
>
> David
>
I carried out some intensive focus tests with a 20D and initially got
variable results, thinking it was mirror slap that caused it. later, when I
begain using an extremely ridged mount and an electronic cable release, the
differences were much less.

There is an old established rule of thumb about shutter speed and sharpness
which goes along the lines of 125% of the focal length should be the minium
speed. If you use a 100 mm lens then the shutter speed should be 1/125th of
a second minimum. The longer the lens, the faster the shutter to avoid out
of focus from hand and mirror movement.

When I applied this rule to my tests, there was no focus difference between
mirror up and normal exposures. I suggest the tests this fellow did were in
low light and with slow shutter speeds. These rather than the mirror shudder
itself are probably the cause of the focus variations.

The unclear part of my rule of thumb is with the 1.6 X of DSLRs. Should we
presume a 75mm lens to be 100 for the purpose of that rule? My tests in this
area are inconclusive. None the less, since being more aware of the shutter
speeds, my photographs are much sharper... The resulting shallow depth of
field is OK with some subjects and not with others.

Doug
Anonymous
December 16, 2004 1:39:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1103116270.702604.223240@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
SNIP
> I plan to do the test at three different focal lengths and
> will post four crops of each, MLU and non-MLU.

If I recall correctly, at about 1/15th of a second the mirror slap
seems to be most noticable. You may test that on your setup and use it
as the most sensitive shutterspeed to run tests with.

Bart
Anonymous
December 18, 2004 5:17:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Siddhartha Jain wrote:
> Nothing very scientific - just a small test.
> http://www.geocities.com/losttoy2000/MLU-Test.html

Update
========

I ran the tests again with manual focus, shutter timer and the camera
in manual mode. I took 36 exposures in total. Three each at:
- 18mm 1/8 F4 Non-MLU
- 18mm 1/8 F4 MLU
- 18mm 1/4 F5.6 Non-MLU
- 18mm 1/4 F5.6 MLU

- 35mm 1/6 F4.5 Non-MLU
- 35mm 1/6 F4.5 MLU
- 35mm 3/10 F6.3 Non-MLU
- 35mm 3/10 F6.3 MLU

- 55mm 1/4 F5.6 Non-MLU
- 55mm 1/4 F5.6 MLU
- 55mm 1/2 F8 Non-MLU
- 55mm 1/2 F8 MLU

Lens: Canon 18-55mm F4-5.6 on Canon 300D

Well, I have yet to do a more careful analysis of the images but looks
like I'll have to retract my earlier conclusion. This time, my eyes
were hard pressed to find the difference in sharpness between Non-MLU
and MLU!!
Will post the results soon alongwith the images.

- Siddhartha
Anonymous
December 19, 2004 4:08:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1103408240.210513.78950@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
SNIP
> Will post the results soon alongwith the images.

Thanks for sharing.

Bart
Anonymous
December 19, 2004 10:45:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Siddhartha Jain wrote:

> Siddhartha Jain wrote:
> > Nothing very scientific - just a small test.
> > http://www.geocities.com/losttoy2000/MLU-Test.html
>
> Update
> ========
>
> I ran the tests again with manual focus, shutter timer and the camera
> in manual mode. I took 36 exposures in total. Three each at:
> - 18mm 1/8 F4 Non-MLU
> - 18mm 1/8 F4 MLU
> - 18mm 1/4 F5.6 Non-MLU
> - 18mm 1/4 F5.6 MLU
>
> - 35mm 1/6 F4.5 Non-MLU
> - 35mm 1/6 F4.5 MLU
> - 35mm 3/10 F6.3 Non-MLU
> - 35mm 3/10 F6.3 MLU
>
> - 55mm 1/4 F5.6 Non-MLU
> - 55mm 1/4 F5.6 MLU
> - 55mm 1/2 F8 Non-MLU
> - 55mm 1/2 F8 MLU
>
> Lens: Canon 18-55mm F4-5.6 on Canon 300D
>
> Well, I have yet to do a more careful analysis of the images but looks
> like I'll have to retract my earlier conclusion. This time, my eyes
> were hard pressed to find the difference in sharpness between Non-MLU
> and MLU!!
> Will post the results soon alongwith the images.
>
> - Siddhartha

Thanks for that, Siddartha. Will be pleased to see the images as and
when.

Colin
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 4:29:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Colin D wrote:
>
> Thanks for that, Siddartha. Will be pleased to see the images as and
> when.

A bit busy playing with my Pentax 50mm f/1.4 :)  So here's what I could
do in a hurry.

At 18mm, shutter 1/4 sec, F5.6, ISO200. To your left is non-MLU and to
the right MLU:
http://www.geocities.com/losttoy2000/18mm-1by4-f5.6-com...

At 35mm, shutter 3/10 sec, F6.3, ISO200. Left:Non-MLU, Right-MLU
http://www.geocities.com/losttoy2000/35mm-3by10-f6.jpg

At 55mm, shutter 1/2 sec, F8, ISO200, Top:Non-MLU, Bottom:MLU
http://www.geocities.com/losttoy2000/55mm-1by2-f8-compa...

So going by these images, the difference is hard to see. I would very
much like someone else to corroborate my conclusions or even dispute
them.

-Siddhartha
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 4:42:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Colin D wrote:
> Thanks for that, Siddartha. Will be pleased to see the images as and
> when.

Sorry for the delay, I am having fun with the Pentax 50mm f/1.4 :) 
Here's what I could do in a hurry:

18mm, 1/4 sec, F5.6, ISO200. To your Left: Non-MLU, Right: MLU
http://www.geocities.com/losttoy2000/18mm-1by4-f5.6-com...

35mm, 3/10 sec, F6.3, ISO200, Left: Non-MLU, Right: MLU
http://www.geocities.com/losttoy2000/35mm-3by10-f6.jpg

55mm, 1/2 sec, F8, ISO200, Top: Non-MLU, Bottom: MLU
http://www.geocities.com/losttoy2000/55mm-1by2-f8-compa...

So going by these, there doesn't seem to be any noticeable difference.
I'd definitely like someone to corroborate this or even dispute this -
but with some evidence.

The original JPEGs are large, however if you want them for the EXIF
info, mail me.

- Siddhartha
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 4:46:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Colin D wrote:
> Thanks for that, Siddartha. Will be pleased to see the images as and
> when.

Sorry for the delay, I am having fun with the Pentax 50mm f/1.4 :) 
Here's what I could do in a hurry:

18mm, 1/4 sec, F5.6, ISO200. To your Left: Non-MLU, Right: MLU
http://www.geocities.com/losttoy2000/18mm-1by4-f5.6-com...

35mm, 3/10 sec, F6.3, ISO200, Left: Non-MLU, Right: MLU
http://www.geocities.com/losttoy2000/35mm-3by10-f6.jpg

55mm, 1/2 sec, F8, ISO200, Top: Non-MLU, Bottom: MLU
http://www.geocities.com/losttoy2000/55mm-1by2-f8-compa...

So going by these, there doesn't seem to be any noticeable difference.
I'd definitely like someone to corroborate this or even dispute this -
but with some evidence.

The original JPEGs are large, however if you want them for the EXIF
info, mail me.

- Siddhartha
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 9:52:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk> a écrit dans le message de
news:1103660919.970848.113840@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Colin D wrote:
> >
> So going by these images, the difference is hard to see. I would very
> much like someone else to corroborate my conclusions or even dispute
> them.
>
> -Siddhartha
>

Interesting, thanks for reporting.
Can you confirm that the focus was manual and was strictly the same
(unchanged accidentaly or through a new auto-focus) in each comparison pair?

m.b.
Anonymous
December 22, 2004 3:17:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

m.b. wrote:
> Interesting, thanks for reporting.
> Can you confirm that the focus was manual and was strictly the same
> (unchanged accidentaly or through a new auto-focus) in each
comparison pair?

Yes, focus was manual. Between the MLU and non-MLU shots at a
particular focal length, I did not touch the camera except for changing
the mode from non-MLU to MLU. In doing so I did not touch the lens at
all.

- Siddhartha
Anonymous
December 22, 2004 3:56:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Siddhartha Jain wrote:

> Colin D wrote:
> > Thanks for that, Siddartha. Will be pleased to see the images as and
> > when.
>
> Sorry for the delay, I am having fun with the Pentax 50mm f/1.4 :) 
> Here's what I could do in a hurry:
>
> 18mm, 1/4 sec, F5.6, ISO200. To your Left: Non-MLU, Right: MLU
> http://www.geocities.com/losttoy2000/18mm-1by4-f5.6-com...
>
> 35mm, 3/10 sec, F6.3, ISO200, Left: Non-MLU, Right: MLU
> http://www.geocities.com/losttoy2000/35mm-3by10-f6.jpg
>
> 55mm, 1/2 sec, F8, ISO200, Top: Non-MLU, Bottom: MLU
> http://www.geocities.com/losttoy2000/55mm-1by2-f8-compa...
>
> So going by these, there doesn't seem to be any noticeable difference.
> I'd definitely like someone to corroborate this or even dispute this -
> but with some evidence.
>

Very interesting. I can see just the slightest difference in favour of the
mlu shots - but given your use of a lightweight tripod, one could assume a
heavier tripod would improve the non-mlu shots, in which case there would
be no practical difference. I am pleased with this outcome, as I don't
have Wasia installed, and it appears that mlu is unnecessary after all.
Thanks for the work you put in there,

Colin
Anonymous
December 22, 2004 11:28:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1103703465.725624.253740@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> m.b. wrote:
> > Interesting, thanks for reporting.
> > Can you confirm that the focus was manual and was strictly the same
> > (unchanged accidentaly or through a new auto-focus) in each
> comparison pair?
>
> Yes, focus was manual. Between the MLU and non-MLU shots at a
> particular focal length, I did not touch the camera except for changing
> the mode from non-MLU to MLU. In doing so I did not touch the lens at
> all.
>
> - Siddhartha

I wouldn't expect to see any difference in the 300D. The mirror is
lightweight and relatively slow moving. It also hits the lens mount,
which is very solid. Maybe somebody can try it at 400mm without IS.
!