Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

We have continuing endless discussions about DSLrs vs mirrorless cameras. Personally I expect some form of mirrorless technology to be come dominant over time. Part of this involves the switch from mechanical shutters - sometimes derided as mirror slappers - to electronic shutters. Yet today the technology of electronic shutters seems to still need to evolve. A large (APS-C or FF) sensor appears to be constrained by the speed of light, and electronic shutters can suffer from rolling shutter effect - meaning that the full image cannot be captured in one instant, not an issue for video, but can be for stills. Is that an accurate perception? Electronic global shutters promise that can capture and transfer a complete image in an instant seem to be the goal, but seem to be still in the future, or if they exist today are small and have limitations.

So, what do you guys say? Is that accurate or is it incorrect? Does it matter? If so why, and what impact do you think it will have on the future of camera technology? In what time frame?
I have an opinion, but I do not know the answer - this is not a test - but a solicitation for informed opinions from an erudite bunch of individuals. I'm not looking for a precise answer as much as a range of thoughts from some of the most respected individuals on UHH, and dissenting opinions would not be an issue. It's more of a sanity check on the technology landscape, so think of it like a panel discussion between select and knowledgeable individuals.

Thank you in advance.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Peter, if you aren't right on with this, you're very close. Here's a very good article on the issues with rolling shutters.
https://petapixel.com/2014/10/13/math-behind-rolling-shutter-phenomenon/

--Bob

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Thank you, that helps frame the question well for anyone that follows this thread.

I'm working on the assumption that until we have a better, cheaper, faster kind of light (or electrons) that some interesting developments will have to happen to work around the current laws of physics. So, what does this mean for camera shutters? It seems that fully capable electronic shutters are in still in the future by some way. How will this affect the adoption of mirrorless and electronic shutter cameras?

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Practically, I don’t find rolling shutter effect to be a big deal. So long as you have both a mechanical shutter and an electronic shutter in the same camera, each has a role to play.

I use the electronic shutter for macro/copy work, for theatre and concerts, some events, some photojournalism, and other still life sorts of work. For fast moving subjects, I use the mechanical shutter.

I prefer the electronic shutter when I can use it. It’s silent, shock free, and only adds to the advantages of having no mirror slap vibrations or mirror noise. It enhances the value of optical image stabilization.

As processors get faster and sensor read outs get faster, rolling shutter is reduced.

Eventually, the engineers will find a way to read the whole sensor at the same instant, rather than sequentially. THAT will be exposure nirvana...

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Thank you. This is exactly the kind of response that I was hoping for. Do you have an opinion on how long it will take to get to Nirvana?

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Apparently Panasonic have made a start-

https://petapixel.com/2018/02/21/panasonic-unveils-first-global-shutter-cmos-sensor-8k-36mp/

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Yes, however, the devil may be in the details. What real world comparisons to current technology are there? It may function well for video, but does it also meet all the requirements for still photography?

Panasonic is clearly doing excellent work, but how does it compare in real world scenarios?

What should the criteria be?

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

For older folks, like me, who may be reading on, we should differentiate between the old electronic shutters and the ones we are discussing here and now. The old term was applied to basically mechanical shutters that were set and actuated by some kind of internal electromagnetic solenoid-like mechanism. Theses were popular on large format view cameras to facilitate more convenient setting and actuation operations. The newfangled guys, simply stated, are solid state circuitry that turn the sensor on and off at the speeds we now know and love and are capable of extremely rapid speeds to boot. Without all the gear trains, cams and springs, they make for smaller and lighter cameras and feature noiseless operation.

Did y'all know that in the old Hollywood days, Fresnel spotlights worked on carbon-arc systems so lights could not be switched on and off raptly- there were a long startup and cool down times. Shutters were install on the lights so when the director shouted “lights”! the shutter was opened and the the cameras would roll and the actors would act.

My engineer friends tell me that anything that can be done electronically is usually more accurate repeatable, consistent efficient that the same work done mechanically. There is no need for lubricants with all their maintenance and temperature issues. Semiconductors have replaced many mechanical and electromagnetic components in everything from cars to thermostats to communications devices. Nowadays we have “digital” toaster and washing machines. Sooner or later, cameras, for the most part will be entirely electronic.

As it stands now, the electronic shutter, to a certain extent, is still in the developmental stage and there are “bugs” that need to be solved before they can replace the conventional shutters in most of our mainstream equipment. Although theses new shutters can achieve speeds of 1/3200 sec., they really can't “freeze”certain kinds of movement or action, that is, unless you want strange abstract imagery of aircraft propellers and other such things in motion. I understand there is an issue with flash synchronization as well.
Rumor has it that the good folks at Canon are working on debugging the system- stay tuned!

Shutter travel has always presented some challenges, even conventional leaf shutters could cause uneven densities on the periphery of the image in some very large (diameter) large format lenses. Many older focal plane shutters have limited synchronization issues but as time goes on, many innovations in shutter and camera design have increased the versatility of theses shutters exponentially.

Electrical currents moving through circuitry usually don't make noise or cause vibration unlike their mechanical counterparts. So...electronic shutter are free of all those “horrible” brain rattling- eardrum breaking sounds of conventional shutters. Combined with “mirror slap” we are talking jackhammer -like vibration and the resulting hearing loss and blurred images! ...And ya gotta be like an Arnold Schwarzenegger to lift those monstrous DSLRs- I AM BEING SARCASTIC! Thus the popularity of the emerging
mirrorless cameras.

Are all theses electronic marvels making photographers lazy, lacking resourcefulness and weak? As I alluded to, I am old so I remember making portraits with an 8x10 camera with a Packard shutter- it was pneumatic- air driven and had any shutter speed you wanted as long as it was 1/30 sec. or slower. It did not have a cable, electronic or remote control release- it employed an air hose (rubber tubing) with a rubber squeeze bulb at the end of it that looked more like suppository kinda device than a camera part. The studio I worked in also had a 4x5 Graflex SLR with a mirror the size of a dinner plate- when you released the focal plane shutter, the camera could jump off the table- that's why it was bolted down to a 100 pound wood and cast iron camera stand! Good old Hasselblads and RZs scored pretty high in the db department too! Point is, we somehow managed sharp precisely focused, blur-free images- it took a modicum of technique and hard work! People did not mind the noise, the were to busy complainag about the hot and blinding lights. The nose, did however, upset the studio cat.

Back in the olden days we had “mirror-less” and somewhat noiseless cameras too- they were called 35mm and medium format rangefinder cameras with leaf shutters, and well- twin lens reflex cameras- they had mirrors but the did not swing out of the way! What's with all this business about “noise”??? The next thing folks will want is invisible photographers and cameras- you won't SEE them OR HEAR them! Yes- I once use flashbulbs. No- I am too young to have used flash powder- but I would have loved to!

Time and progress marches on and nowadays in “double time”! Camera and accompanying accessories are getting smaller, lighter, and more efficient. Eventually, cameras will be completely electronic or even utilize technologies yet to be discovered . Don't laugh, someday soon LENSES will be relics of the past- imagine just dialing in your focal length!. Again...stay tuned!

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

A couple of observations. Rolling shutter has a huge impact on video; one of the largest problems with using DSLRs for video work. I've noticed a significant time lag when using full electronic shutter vs. e-front curtain only on my Sony A7RII. And full mechanical shutter on a mirrorless also induces a time lag, since the shutter has to close first before it can fire. The problem with e-front curtain is that it creates horrible effects and exposure irregularities across the frame at speeds higher than about 1/3200 of a second, which is arguably the time when you need the quickest shutter response. So that is perhaps the biggest downside to mirrorless vs. dslr that I have found, and for me a significant problem in many situations like this one

(Download)

R.G. Loc: Scotland

They seem to be ahead of Sony (back illumination aside)-

https://petapixel.com/2018/02/17/sony-creates-groundbreaking-backlit-cmos-sensor-global-shutter/

8K video requires a resolution of 33.2MP, which is somewhat more impressive than Sony's 1.4MP. The test would be to get it to work at shutter speeds that are faster than what video requires (they don't say whether that's possible or not).

As an added thought, if they can combine high sensitivity with high saturation in a single exposure, they've cracked the high dynamic range problem.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Thank you. This is the kind of informed insight that I was looking for.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Thank you, this is also the kind of response that I was looking for. Universally applicable global shutters appear to be a little more complex than some might suggest, and possibly more than a year or two away.

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

My contribution to the conversation, thus far, has been fairly low-tech. I do have some questions for the other participants who are more abreast of the latest technology in this area of camera/shutter design, research and development and the manufacturers who are engaged in theses endeavors .

In my daily work in commercial/portrait and event photography, I seldom have workaday requirement for extremely high shutter speeds. I can accommodate most action and movement with shutter speeds rarely exceeding 1/1000 sec. In many studio and location scenarios, I depend on electronic flash for lighting and action stopping functions. Even for the purpose of selective focus, I can get to wide apertures, even in bright daylight with nominal shutter speeds. I have no ongoing issues with vibration, blur due to camera movement or mirror slap, shutter noise or camera weight and size.

My questions pertain to the occasional odd assignment or more significantly for other photographers who routinely photograph, sports events, high speed motor sports, wildlife situations of fleeting or extremely nimble animals or do certain kinds of scientific and high speed analysis photography and could benefit from extraordinarily rapid shutter durations with speeds of 1/3200+ sec. Woould theses shutter speeds be practicable even if the rolling shutter issues were negated? What kind of ISO sensitivity and apertures (lens speed) would be required to attain sufficient exposure in other than very intense light levels. Would not the very wide apertures limit depth of field when required and the necessary high ISO settings somewhat reduce image quality due to “noise”?

It would certainly be interesting if the photographer could “freeze” the motion of hummingbird wings or “stop” a hi-li ball in midair and get stroboscopic-like results in available light situations.

I would imagine that there are significant research and development in the areas of sensor and optical capabilities that will have to coincide with the new breeds of cameras and shutters.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

That may be one of the reasons why Panasonic mentioned the possibility of a high sensitivity mode with their technology. With a high sensitivity sensor you wouldn't need ultra-wide apertures or ultra-high ISOs when using ultra-fast shutter speeds. I suspect that they may have high sensitivity technology already but one of the limitations is that it saturates quickly. In other words the dynamic range may be lacking. And that may be why Panasonic mentioned high saturation capabilities along with the high sensitivity possibilities. Combine both and you have a camera that can work in very low light and/or at very fast shutter speeds without having to resort to high ISOs (i.e. high in-camera amplification of the sensor signal) while still being capable of capturing scenes that have a high range of brightness levels (which describes the real world much of the time).