20D and being quiet

[Ray]

[font color=\'#000000\']Maybe it's a deliberate design feature to convert harmful (to image quality) physical vibration to less harmful sound vibration  [/font]

[didger]

[font color=\'#000000\']

Seriously though has anyone tried bolting a huge weight to their camera to study the effect on mirror slap?

This would not actually be very difficult to do.  You could use the exact same technique of a laser pointer attached to the camera that I used for testing tripods.  I'm not personally very interested in doing this experiment, since I would much prefer that my 1ds weighed much less rather than so much.  In any case, what's wrong with MLU to avoid any mirror slap vibrations at all?

As for the notion that the noisy mirror of the 20D is intentional, I assumed this was a joke, particularly since the idea of "converting physical vibration to sound vibration" is total nonsense, since sound vibration IS purely physical.  Any physical vibration in a suitable frequency range will BE sound unless it's happening in a vacuum.  Any camera vibration in the audio frequency range will NOT be desirable for picture sharpness.[/font]

[Garrett Adams]

[font color=\'#000000\']I glossed over Phil's review dealing with the shutter but I would think the 20D may be louder than the 10D due to their respective mirror configurations. Unless Canon has come up with a new solution they are probably still using the unique mirror path first employed on the Rebel/300D in order to use EF-S lenses.[/font]

[Alberio]

[font color=\'#000000\']

I think that part of the reason that the mirror slap is louder is that Canon has sped up the mirror actuation to allow for the higher FPS rating. I  remember reading a spec that stated the 20D had a reduced mirror blackout time (meaning the mirror flipped up and down faster than on the 10D).

I think that the added mirror noise is the downside of the increased mechanical performance.

Sheldon

Yes, that occured to me too! The thing I don't get is that my A2 also has a max of 5 fps, but does so with a much bigger mirror and with much less slap (in fact, the lowest among all of Canon's SLRs). It also has a max shutter speed of 1/8000s. So ...?

I think Garrett is right and Canon just cheaped out by grafting the 300D mirror assembly onto the 20D. Sigh, the more things change ....[/font]

[Alberio]

[font color=\'#000000\']

I think Garrett is right and Canon just cheaped out by grafting the 300D mirror assembly onto the 20D. Sigh, the more things change ....

Sound level is directly proportional to operating speed. The 20D's mirror has to go faster to accomodate the 5FPS shooting speed, so it's hardly surprising that it's louder. It would require an upgraded level of cushioning and dampening just to keep things the same.

Yes, that was my point exactly: I was wondering how the over decade-old A2, with the same fps and max shutter speed -- AND with a much larger mirror -- manages to be nearly silent when the 20D, with physics in its favor, can't. I accused Canon of "cheap[en]ing out" because the 20D OUGHT to be quieter than a 300D. I mean, if they indeed took the mechanism directly out of a 300D, then surely Canon could have spent a bit more effort to make it quieter.

Why should they've? 'Cause I said so!

Anyway, in the spirit of picking on Canon's latest not-yet-shipping product, I thought I would contribute a legitimate reason to choose a 10D on discount over a 20D.  I love it when I can hand a subject a candid picture and see their delight and surprise, to hear them say those golden words: "I didn't even know you were taking pictures!" My Elan 7E and definitely my A2 performed brilliantly for that. But can a 20D?[/font]

[eawckyegcy]

[font color=\'#000000\']

"shutter release recoil"

The mirror is a low-mass affair (probably in the O(5 gram) area, but I await be to surprised), so any recoil is going to be trivial when mounted in a camera 100-150x as massive.  Maybe one day the Canon 0D will have a counter-weighted mirror or something, just for the purists.  (Did Canon ever use  more of the pellicle mirror stuff in the 1RS?)

Of much more concern is how the mirror's energy due to its motion is dissipated.  If anything, holding the camera is probably a good thing here -- one's soft cushy hands and arms are like a bean-bag.  Too bad they shake so much though...[/font]

[Alberio]

[font color=\'#000000\']

The mirror is a low-mass affair (probably in the O(5 gram) area, but I await be to surprised), so any recoil is going to be trivial when mounted in a camera 100-150x as massive.

Never experienced MLU? Ever try shooting at ISO 50 on an overcast day with a 100-400mm lens racked to the max? Boing, boing, boing ....

I could wack a bathtub full of water with a bamboo stick and nothing will happen, but if the sides are made of plastic, the water will vibrate. The reason a tiny mirror makes a difference in a seemingly-giant camera is that the framework holding the lens -- as well as some of the constituent lenses -- is of comparable or less weight, and thus can be easily moved.

I would guess though that hand-holding will probably create more motion-blurring effects than mirror slap.[/font]

[Alberio]

[font color=\'#000000\']Hi,

Over at DPreview Phil is reporting that the 20D's mirror slap is a good deal louder than the 10D and Nikon D70. I find this a bit surprising given the smaller size of the 20D's mirror, and also a bit disappointing (I'm coming from an A2 and Elan 7e). Can anyone confirm this?

Thanks.[/font]

[Tony Collins]

[font color=\'#000000\']A loud shutter/mirror noise points to greater force or a lack of cushioning and I would expect shake to be greater. (Though whether enough to affect picture quality? Who knows?

(Does your head move further if you give your face a loud smack or a quiet one?)

The lighter 20D will of course be more prone to mirror vibrations as the reduced mass compared to the 10D will have less damping effect.

Sorry folks, just an impecunious but fairly happy 10D owner persuading himself not to buy one :laugh:  :laugh:  :laugh:

Seriously though has anyone tried bolting a huge weight to their camera to study the effect on mirror slap?[/font]

[boku]

[font color=\'#000000\']Obviously, the audible noise aspect matters for Wedding Ceremony shooters or Theatrical photogs on a movie set.

Noise does not necessarily imply vibration problems in the image (usually, but not always).

For the two applications I just described, MLU eliminates the vibration, not the noise. But MLU eliminates the camera from being able to take candid frames.

Ever been stared down by an angry Minister or Rabbi?

And, I suspect, Wedding jocks will buy the 20D in droves.

The 20D is smaller and lighter. There is less damping from the frame and body. Strange thing is that the mirror is smaller as well to accomodate the EF-S mount. One would have thought there would have been less kinimatic reaction. I would not have expected the 20D to turn out louder due to the "girlie-man" mirror. (I just had to say something controvertial.)[/font]

[Sheldon N]

[font color=\'#000000\']I think that part of the reason that the mirror slap is louder is that Canon has sped up the mirror actuation to allow for the higher FPS rating. I  remember reading a spec that stated the 20D had a reduced mirror blackout time (meaning the mirror flipped up and down faster than on the 10D).

I think that the added mirror noise is the downside of the increased mechanical performance.

Sheldon[/font]

[Ray]

[font color=\'#000000\']As for the notion that the noisy mirror of the 20D is intentional, I assumed this was a joke, particularly since the idea of "converting physical vibration to sound vibration" is total nonsense, since sound vibration IS purely physical.[/font]

[font color=\'#000000\']Didger,
I know from previous comments of yours you are familiar with sound technology, so I'm greatly suprised at the above comments. Sound is physical but audible frequency varies. A shutter that produces 'loud' and image damaging frequencies at 20Hz (actually inaudible) might well produce very audible sounds at 1KHz that are 'physically' less damaging to image quality. If there's no 20Hz (or even 100Hz) component, the sound will appear as loud, but the physical vibration will be less.

An extreme example of this would be when I play the Bach 'Toccata & Fuge in D Minor' which has notes as low as 16 Hz. I can't 'hear' 16Hz, but the fittings and fixtures sure rattle   .[/font]

[Jonathan Wienke]

[font color=\'#000000\']I think Garrett is right and Canon just cheaped out by grafting the 300D mirror assembly onto the 20D. Sigh, the more things change ....[/font]

[font color=\'#000000\']Sound level is directly proportional to operating speed. The 20D's mirror has to go faster to accomodate the 5FPS shooting speed, so it's hardly surprising that it's louder. It would require an upgraded level of cushioning and dampening just to keep things the same. The Canon 1-series bodies have a function to optionally reduce the actuation speed of the mirror and thereby reduce noise levels. It works quite well.[/font]

[BJL]

[font color=\'#000000\']A broader question; does any anyone have a good sense for the relative importance of "shutter release recoil" (from mirror slap and shutter curtain motion) to blurring in hand-holding at low shutter speeds? I used to think that movement of the camera as a whole by the photographer's hands is the only significant problem in hand-holding, but now I am wondering whether in some situations, with good hand-holding technique, the internal jerk from mirror and such could also be significant. (This only because I have read claims that certain cameras with very quiet shutter release have an edge in minimum hand-holdable speed.)

Perhaps one way to measure is to compare "very carefully hand-held" to "tripod mounted with no mirror lock up", at least for those of us vain enough to think that, with great care and avoidance of stress and caffeine, we can hand-hold decently down to significantly below the 1/f guideline.[/font]

[Ray]

[font color=\'#000000\']Of much more concern is how the mirror's energy due to its motion is dissipated.  If anything, holding the camera is probably a good thing here -- one's soft cushy hands and arms are like a bean-bag.  Too bad they shake so much though...[/font]

[font color=\'#000000\']Exactly! You've got to dissipate the energy. There may be many and varied techniques of doing this, and I'm not an engineer so I'm not going to give you a whole pile of incomprehensible formulas. But in general terms, if you can 'shift' the energy of frequencies that do most harm to higher frequencies that do less harm, then you're getting a result.

I don't know if Canon have done this in the 20D. Is it possible they haven't thought of it? I doubt it.  [/font]