bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

"Shutter shock" and the Panasonic GX8 blew up as an internet issue right after I bought mine. Worse case was supposed to be with the 14-140. It really bothered me that I had such an "awful" camera and lens combination. I think it dramatically impacted sales for the GX8. It didn't take long for the GX85 to come out with a different shutter design.

I spent a week trying to see the problem in my gear. I tried the worst settings and still got pictures I liked. The people that "proved" shutter shock in the GX8 were taking pictures of things like the stock listings in newspapers. I never went that far.

For me, electronic shutter works for everything that's not moving fast so my camera is usually on that setting.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Rolling on the floor laughing!

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

It is best on Panasonic cameras, where the JPEG processor corrects chromatic aberration (color fringing). The 14-140 is a bit slow, but it is very versatile as a travel zoom, walk-around zoom, and 10:1 video zoom lens. As Bill Sprague hinted, don’t put a protective filter on it (DO use a lens shade).

aikiboy

I have the first gen of the lens (not weatherproof) and it has been a fave walking around lens for years. Not perfect, but a really great all rounder. I like the image quality from my PL 12-60 a bit more, but for versatility and additional range the 14-140 is hard to beat. Hadn't realized that the filter might be a problem as I put one on the day I got it, but will try shooting without and see if it makes a difference.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

I don’t want to start another filter argument. But anything you put in front of a lens will degrade the optical quality. IF you are in the camp of wanting a glass over the lens, then to maintain the best optical quality you want to buy good quality optical glass. That is not cheap. If you put a $20 plastic filter in front of a $1500 lens you will degrade the optical quality of the lens to that of the $20 filter.

User ID

Since the actual loss is not visible in most pictures, it’s tough to justify the other $1480 for that lens.

IOW your claim is a GROSS exaggeration of a basic kernel of truth. Not helpful.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

That’s your experience. My experience with cheap filters is different. If I can see a notable degradation, not pixel peeping, I think it matters. Reflections, distortion in some areas across the frame, color shifts, are some of the things I have encountered with cheap filters/covers.

However I will conceded If you cannot see a difference (Not pixel peeping) then it doesn’t matter.

User ID

Not a big argument. I said exaggeration, not untruth. I did say gross exaggeration and really the “gross” qualifier perhaps needs clarification. Whatever you mean by “$20 filter” is vague. Certainly if it were a 72 or 77mm for a fat zoom, I must agree that a low price on a big filter would be very suspect.

But here we’re talking about a lens for a m43 camera so the filters are small. You can buy a pretty decent filter for pocket money. “Pretty decent” does not mean perfect but neither does it mean “image wrecker”.

User ID

Back on the topic of the 14-140 zoom. Two posts in this thread remarked that this lens seems unfriendly to filters. IOW not so much suggesting the filter was seriously deficient but more along the idea that this particular lens design happens to be especially vulnerable to adding a piece of glass right where the filter threads just happen to logically be.

In some other thread the same idea was expressed about a certain Canon zoom. This does not sound impossible to me. I’d guess that even in a simple tessar or planar prime lens that there’s some location within it that would be a very disruptive place to put an extra piece of flat glass ... even if that glass were perfect.

And I’m also aware that with a compact zoom, with its complex design, that certain “locations” that are INSIDE a simple prime lens can be “magically” repositioned to exist outside of the physical structure of a complex zoom.

So, is that possibly why certain zooms are “intolerant” of a front filter ? Does the location a few mm ahead of the front element just happen to be that “very disruptive” place in the optical path ? Just a sad coincidence ?

If I’ve expressed the question clearly, I’m asking: Can there be lens designs that would have no loss using a quality clip-in filter in the body flange location, but that same quality of filter is bad news if mounted to the filter threads ?

Sorry for the long post but it’s not a simple question:-(

JD750 Loc: SoCal

 🤔

Those are good questions. I will look forward to hearing from the optics experts.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

In terms of 10x zoom lenses, I believe the Panasonic 14-140s are sharp and optically good - with great Panasonic firmware automatically correcting for other optical abberations. As I say - "In terms of 10x zooms" they are a desirable lens to have. If a photographer understands the limtations of longer range zooms he will not be disappointed.
The GX8 was designed to be a quality, innovative, retro-design, weather resistant, flagship M43 camera - Panasonic's first with 20mpx. Everyone (including Panasonic) was surprised when shutter-shock showed up as a major? problem when the GX8 was used with certain lenses at certain settings (usually between 1/60 and 1/300). The problem was particularly in evidence when combined with the 14-140.
Panasonic quickly introduced a firmware work-around, which gave a menu option enabling the camera to automatically switch to electronic shutter, depending on lens and shutter speed. The other option is to use electronic shutter all the time, depending on type of photography.
Panasonic's next cameras were introduced with a new type of electro-magnetic shutter, which exempted them from the industry wide problem of shutter shock, caused by mechanical shutters.
Camera shake and DSLR mirror slap have often been blamed for shutter-shock, and I believe the problem has been known of for years and kept quiet about by the whole industry, but as resolution continued to improve the problem became more evident. Panasonic fixed it.

User ID

So you have not encountered any shutter shock in the GX85 ? With ‘Dual IS-2’, plus no AA filter, if it’s still happening it should be rather clearly evident, were it to occur.

I never use the mechanical shutter and so if I find any evidence of seismic blur in my pix then there is only myself to blame :-(

BobT Loc: southern Minnesota

I have not been aware of any blurring due to shutter shock.

User ID

And you often use the mechanical shutter (for non flash pix) ?

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

I have a GX8, but I haven't had SS with the lenses I have. I don't think Dual IS would help with SS, but maybe it would.