Shuttered Moose writes:
<<I wonder if the DR effect in shadows is a result of quick flushing
not being
<<<quite complete.
Hmm,
This EFC stuff is almost as inscrutable as the DOF discussions usually
occurring in the depths of winter.
As I recall Sony has somehow allowed for flash on Nex and I am sure on
the A7--all designed to have EFC and not a firmware update.
I see reports of uneven exposure if pushing the sync speed with A7
using EFC. No Flash with EFC on Panny (and unlikely on E-M1
either)--except with GM-1.
Artifacts (some are very cool) seen with EFC include banding in
florescent light, banding if shooting panos moving the cam or with
moving objects, funky bokeh with high speeds/large apertures---gets
squished.
The GM-1 is an engineering tour de force and has an obligate EFC.
Above 1/500 sec the shutter is 100% electronic and one loses a stop or
so of DR----as best one can tell it is related to file only being
10 bit instead of 12---the sensor readout however is faster---1/25 sec
or so instead of 1/15. I very much wonder how the bokeh with specular
highlights would look at high SS and largish aperture with long tele
on GM-1 vs GX-7 with latter using EFC. The faster readout should
decrease the weird bokeh on the GM-1.
Panny enabled flash with EFC n GM-1 but sync speed is 1/50. On could
only imagine the shutter shock on the tiny GM-1 w/o EFC. Not sure how
Fuji was able to almost completely avoid the shutter shock.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/panasonic-gm1/panasonic-gm1TECH.HTM
Shocked Mike
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|