Shutter Speeds (Page 4): I know that they do test for accuracy on a sample basis. But whether the accuracy is 10%, 5%, or somewhere inbetween, or even variable depending on the shutter...

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

JayHT wrote:

I find it impressive that today's cameras can achieve such high shutter speeds, but I wonder how accurate are these speeds. When cameras are represented to achieve speeds of 1/8000th of a second just how close do they get? Is it perhaps "close, but not quite" or are they 100% on spec? Are you aware of lab tests that verify the manufacturer's claims?

Regards,
JayHT

I know that they do test for accuracy on a sample basis. But whether the accuracy is 10%, 5%, or somewhere inbetween, or even variable depending on the shutter speed, someone else will have to tell us. I do know that a 10% change in exposure is hardly noticeable. Most cameras can only go down to 1/3 stop increments (33.3%) and most of the time most people will not see that difference.

Mike1017

Holy smoke this is crazy whats the point you will never see it ??

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

Maybe time to put cameras away and take up bowling?

Jimmy T Loc: Virginia

I believe that similar results may be achieved with a sun dial.

dpullum wrote:

Check it with a stop watch.

CamB Loc: Juneau, Alaska

I didn't know this and as kind of a tech guy it's interesting.

lmTrying Loc: WV Northern Panhandle

Anyone know what an ibstant is?
I'm not a tech, not even a techie. But most of this tech stuff discussed here I can follow and it is helping me to understand these modern machines.
Or I'm getting really good laughs at some of the absurdities, puns, and induindos.

John_F Loc: Minneapolis, MN

Okay, I confess to ibstant instead of instant. On my iPad the "n" button is next to the "n" button. I have a bad habit of not watching my button punching finger. Fibgeribg, er fingering, errors are one of my fortes. Sigh.

lmTrying wrote:

Anyone know what an ibstant is?
I'm not a tech, not even a techie. But most of this tech stuff discussed here I can follow and it is helping me to understand these modern machines.
Or I'm getting really good laughs at some of the absurdities, puns, and induindos.

lmTrying Loc: WV Northern Panhandle

John_F wrote:

Okay, I confess to ibstant instead of instant. On my iPad the "n" button is next to the "n" button. I have a bad habit of not watching my button punching finger. Fibgeribg, er fingering, errors are one of my fortes. Sigh.

I knew that. It gave me lol, just like your reply. Did you notice? Don't read my posts too close 'cause you'll find them in mine too. "Ibstant" in the context just caught my funny side. I hope everyone laughs and has a good time.

If you want errors, try using Google's "sliding" keyboard.

Manglesphoto Loc: 70 miles south of St.Louis

JayHT wrote:

I find it impressive that today's cameras can achieve such high shutter speeds, but I wonder how accurate are these speeds. When cameras are represented to achieve speeds of 1/8000th of a second just how close do they get? Is it perhaps "close, but not quite" or are they 100% on spec? Are you aware of lab tests that verify the manufacturer's claims?

Regards,
JayHT

Does it really matter ?

BebuLamar

Manglesphoto wrote:

Does it really matter ?

It matters to me and that's why I tried the best I can to answer the OP. In these days of digital cameras there are very little interest in shutter accuracy while the mechanical shutter in a typical DSLR probably has the highest margin of error compared to other components.

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

BebuLamar wrote:

I think all current DSLR still have mechanical shutter (although all of them are electronically controlled). Some DSLR also has purely electronic shutter but they still have the mechanical one.

I did not know that. To be honest I never gave it any thought either and may never think of it again. Not a big deal either way as long as my cameras work fine.

Dennis

jonjacobik Loc: Quincy, MA

Amazing picture. So I did a little math and concluded a 500 mph jet traveled 1.09" in 1/8000th second. Then I thought about converting that to pixels. I saw about 3 pixels of blur against the sky which wasn't moving, and 6 pixels of blur against the other jet. Then I decided I the math was beyond me, but someone out there should know how long it would take the jet to travel 3 pixels.

BebuLamar

jonjacobik wrote:

Amazing picture. So I did a little math and concluded a 500 mph jet traveled 1.09" in 1/8000th second. Then I thought about converting that to pixels. I saw about 3 pixels of blur against the sky which wasn't moving, and 6 pixels of blur against the other jet. Then I decided I the math was beyond me, but someone out there should know how long it would take the jet to travel 3 pixels.

You will have to take into account of the lens focal lenght and the distance between the camera and the jet.

aellman Loc: Boston MA

JayHT wrote:

I find it impressive that today's cameras can achieve such high shutter speeds, but I wonder how accurate are these speeds. When cameras are represented to achieve speeds of 1/8000th of a second just how close do they get? Is it perhaps "close, but not quite" or are they 100% on spec? Are you aware of lab tests that verify the manufacturer's claims?

Regards,
JayHT

If it's a little off, does that really make a difference? >Alan

a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

I have no modern data but in the days of film the magazines would test and report on shutter and aperture accuracy. My recollection from so many years ago is that as the speeds got up around 1/1000 or faster the accuracy would diverge quite a bit. Back then I don't recall ever seeing 1/8000 or even 1/4000. The horizontal focal plane shutter was the best mechanical version at the time and it depended on a variable slot and an assumed constant velocity across the film plane.

It's no great trick these days to time 1/8000 of a second electronically. Just look at your car's tachometer for example. Your computer on which you are viewing this has a CPU that is in the GHZ speed range and the GPS in your cell phone can use timing to determine your position on the earth's surface to better than 9 meters. That little trick is totally dependent upon accurate timing of electric signals from satellites and detecting the incredibly small differences between the times from the various satellites. I can't give you the numbers but it's a much smaller interval than 1/8000. You get the picture (joke).

I use the electronic shutter option on my bridge camera but mostly because it is completely silent, not for any perceived problem with accuracy. Besides, the higher the speed the larger the required aperture for a given ISO and I only F 4.0 available.