Mirror lock up

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Alfred Molon, Mar 17, 2008.

  1. Alfred Molon

    Alfred Molon Guest

    It seems the Sony A350 does not have mirror lock up (don't know why - I
    thought all DSLRs had mirror lock up). How important is it for long
    exposures?
    --

    Alfred Molon
    ------------------------------
    Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
    http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
    http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
     
    Alfred Molon, Mar 17, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. [A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
    Alfred Molon
    <>], who wrote in article <>:
    > It seems the Sony A350 does not have mirror lock up (don't know why - I
    > thought all DSLRs had mirror lock up). How important is it for long
    > exposures?


    Did you try 2-sec self-timer?

    Hope this helps,
    Ilya
     
    Ilya Zakharevich, Mar 17, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Alfred Molon

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    "Alfred Molon" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > It seems the Sony A350 does not have mirror lock up (don't know why - I
    > thought all DSLRs had mirror lock up). How important is it for long
    > exposures?
    > --
    >
    > Alfred Molon
    > ------------------------------
    > Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
    > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
    > http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site


    From my experience, mirror lockup isn't all that important for long
    exposures. The self-timer usually works just fine to eliminate camera
    shake.

    I suppose, if you had a really light camera, and if the mirror slams open
    just as the exposure begins, it might become an issue. But, I think that
    would be a rather rare case.

    The lockup thing takes on more importance when you are trying to shoot
    multiple fast exposures. In this case, if the mirror can't open as fast as
    the shutter, it gums up the works and limits the fps rate.

    Good Luck,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Mar 17, 2008
    #3
  4. Alfred Molon

    Alfred Molon Guest

    In article <frmnq1$2naq$>, Ilya Zakharevich says...

    > Did you try 2-sec self-timer?


    I don't have the A350 (yet). What does this self-timer do?
    --

    Alfred Molon
    ------------------------------
    Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
    http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
    http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
     
    Alfred Molon, Mar 17, 2008
    #4
  5. Alfred Molon

    frederick Guest

    Dudley Hanks wrote:
    > "Alfred Molon" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> It seems the Sony A350 does not have mirror lock up (don't know why - I
    >> thought all DSLRs had mirror lock up). How important is it for long
    >> exposures?
    >> --
    >>
    >> Alfred Molon
    >> ------------------------------
    >> Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
    >> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
    >> http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

    >
    > From my experience, mirror lockup isn't all that important for long
    > exposures. The self-timer usually works just fine to eliminate camera
    > shake.
    >
    > I suppose, if you had a really light camera, and if the mirror slams open
    > just as the exposure begins, it might become an issue. But, I think that
    > would be a rather rare case.
    >
    > The lockup thing takes on more importance when you are trying to shoot
    > multiple fast exposures. In this case, if the mirror can't open as fast as
    > the shutter, it gums up the works and limits the fps rate.
    >
    > Good Luck,
    > Dudley
    >

    I disagree with that.
    Between about 1/60th of a second and 1/2 second exposure, mirror-slap
    when the camera used on a tripod _is_ a significant effect. A self
    timer doesn't solve the problem.
    Progressively with longer exposures than that, and the effect doesn't
    show (the shaking subsides quickly).
    How bad the effect is,and at which shutter speeds it really matters
    depends on lens, tripod etc. With a longer lens, I'd expect that all
    other things being equal, the camera/lens would shake longer than with a
    light/short lens. I have been using a D70 (also with no MLU) for macro,
    and in natural light, sod's law seems to determine that most of the time
    you're in the critical zone where it's a real problem. I was using a
    105mm lens, unfortunately with no tripod ring. I had better success
    with no tripod, but using a bean-bag to cradle the lens - apparently
    damping the mirror slap better than a tripod.
    Using a D80, with shutter release delay (still no full MLU), was a huge
    improvement. Full MLU is a further improvement.
     
    frederick, Mar 17, 2008
    #5
  6. Alfred Molon

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    "frederick" <> wrote in message
    news:1205792974.829092@ftpsrv1...
    > Dudley Hanks wrote:
    >> "Alfred Molon" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> It seems the Sony A350 does not have mirror lock up (don't know why - I
    >>> thought all DSLRs had mirror lock up). How important is it for long
    >>> exposures?
    >>> --
    >>>
    >>> Alfred Molon
    >>> ------------------------------
    >>> Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
    >>> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
    >>> http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

    >>
    >> From my experience, mirror lockup isn't all that important for long
    >> exposures. The self-timer usually works just fine to eliminate camera
    >> shake.
    >>
    >> I suppose, if you had a really light camera, and if the mirror slams open
    >> just as the exposure begins, it might become an issue. But, I think that
    >> would be a rather rare case.
    >>
    >> The lockup thing takes on more importance when you are trying to shoot
    >> multiple fast exposures. In this case, if the mirror can't open as fast
    >> as the shutter, it gums up the works and limits the fps rate.
    >>
    >> Good Luck,
    >> Dudley
    >>

    > I disagree with that.
    > Between about 1/60th of a second and 1/2 second exposure, mirror-slap when
    > the camera used on a tripod _is_ a significant effect. A self timer
    > doesn't solve the problem.
    > Progressively with longer exposures than that, and the effect doesn't show
    > (the shaking subsides quickly).
    > How bad the effect is,and at which shutter speeds it really matters
    > depends on lens, tripod etc. With a longer lens, I'd expect that all other
    > things being equal, the camera/lens would shake longer than with a
    > light/short lens. I have been using a D70 (also with no MLU) for macro,
    > and in natural light, sod's law seems to determine that most of the time
    > you're in the critical zone where it's a real problem. I was using a
    > 105mm lens, unfortunately with no tripod ring. I had better success with
    > no tripod, but using a bean-bag to cradle the lens - apparently damping
    > the mirror slap better than a tripod.
    > Using a D80, with shutter release delay (still no full MLU), was a huge
    > improvement. Full MLU is a further improvement.


    Well, I've hand-held many a shot in the 1/60 to 1/15 range, even 1/8 once
    and a while, and vibration from mirror slap was never a problem. Ditto for
    tripod shots.

    Of course, I used Canon equipment...

    Further, it seems to me that longer telephotos are normally heavier, so they
    should be impacted less by mirror vibrations. -- unless your mount was
    really loose and the camera was free to move independant of the lens.

    Perhaps that is a Nikon issue as well.

    As soon as VR / IS comes into play, this should be a non issue since that is
    exactly the range where this system works best, and most modern digital SLRs
    at least have an optional shake reduction system available.e. Or, doesn't
    Nikon's work in that range?

    Smile,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Mar 17, 2008
    #6
  7. Alfred Molon

    frederick Guest

    Dudley Hanks wrote:
    > "frederick" <> wrote in message
    > news:1205792974.829092@ftpsrv1...
    >> Dudley Hanks wrote:
    >>> "Alfred Molon" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>> It seems the Sony A350 does not have mirror lock up (don't know why - I
    >>>> thought all DSLRs had mirror lock up). How important is it for long
    >>>> exposures?
    >>>> --
    >>>>
    >>>> Alfred Molon
    >>>> ------------------------------
    >>>> Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
    >>>> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
    >>>> http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
    >>> From my experience, mirror lockup isn't all that important for long
    >>> exposures. The self-timer usually works just fine to eliminate camera
    >>> shake.
    >>>
    >>> I suppose, if you had a really light camera, and if the mirror slams open
    >>> just as the exposure begins, it might become an issue. But, I think that
    >>> would be a rather rare case.
    >>>
    >>> The lockup thing takes on more importance when you are trying to shoot
    >>> multiple fast exposures. In this case, if the mirror can't open as fast
    >>> as the shutter, it gums up the works and limits the fps rate.
    >>>
    >>> Good Luck,
    >>> Dudley
    >>>

    >> I disagree with that.
    >> Between about 1/60th of a second and 1/2 second exposure, mirror-slap when
    >> the camera used on a tripod _is_ a significant effect. A self timer
    >> doesn't solve the problem.
    >> Progressively with longer exposures than that, and the effect doesn't show
    >> (the shaking subsides quickly).
    >> How bad the effect is,and at which shutter speeds it really matters
    >> depends on lens, tripod etc. With a longer lens, I'd expect that all other
    >> things being equal, the camera/lens would shake longer than with a
    >> light/short lens. I have been using a D70 (also with no MLU) for macro,
    >> and in natural light, sod's law seems to determine that most of the time
    >> you're in the critical zone where it's a real problem. I was using a
    >> 105mm lens, unfortunately with no tripod ring. I had better success with
    >> no tripod, but using a bean-bag to cradle the lens - apparently damping
    >> the mirror slap better than a tripod.
    >> Using a D80, with shutter release delay (still no full MLU), was a huge
    >> improvement. Full MLU is a further improvement.

    >
    > Well, I've hand-held many a shot in the 1/60 to 1/15 range, even 1/8 once
    > and a while, and vibration from mirror slap was never a problem. Ditto for
    > tripod shots.
    >
    > Of course, I used Canon equipment...
    >

    Lol - I can tell when someone's using a rebel when they are 20 feet
    behind me, my eyes are closed, and volume on my iPod is less than full.
    >
    > Further, it seems to me that longer telephotos are normally heavier, so they
    > should be impacted less by mirror vibrations. -- unless your mount was
    > really loose and the camera was free to move independant of the lens.
    >

    Longer means that a small movement is seen more, also I expect that
    inertia an lower "resonance frequency" of a long lens on a tripod means
    that even if it shakes less, the effect is probably seen more, and/or at
    different shutter speeds.

    > Perhaps that is a Nikon issue as well.
    >

    Lol

    >
    > As soon as VR / IS comes into play, this should be a non issue since that is
    > exactly the range where this system works best, and most modern digital SLRs
    > at least have an optional shake reduction system available.e. Or, doesn't
    > Nikon's work in that range?
    >

    Nikon, in a rare moment of non-brilliance, produced a solution for a
    problem that wasn't needed, and doesn't work anyway. They made a macro
    lens with VR. VR doesn't work with Macro. Macro is what I'd use
    MLU/release delay mode for, and IS is a complete waste of time.

    YMMV.
     
    frederick, Mar 18, 2008
    #7
  8. Alfred Molon

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    "frederick" <> wrote in message
    news:1205800363.484372@ftpsrv1...
    > Dudley Hanks wrote:
    >> "frederick" <> wrote in message
    >> news:1205792974.829092@ftpsrv1...
    >>> Dudley Hanks wrote:
    >>>> "Alfred Molon" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:...
    >>>>> It seems the Sony A350 does not have mirror lock up (don't know why -
    >>>>> I
    >>>>> thought all DSLRs had mirror lock up). How important is it for long
    >>>>> exposures?
    >>>>> --
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Alfred Molon
    >>>>> ------------------------------
    >>>>> Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
    >>>>> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
    >>>>> http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
    >>>> From my experience, mirror lockup isn't all that important for long
    >>>> exposures. The self-timer usually works just fine to eliminate camera
    >>>> shake.
    >>>>
    >>>> I suppose, if you had a really light camera, and if the mirror slams
    >>>> open just as the exposure begins, it might become an issue. But, I
    >>>> think that would be a rather rare case.
    >>>>
    >>>> The lockup thing takes on more importance when you are trying to shoot
    >>>> multiple fast exposures. In this case, if the mirror can't open as
    >>>> fast as the shutter, it gums up the works and limits the fps rate.
    >>>>
    >>>> Good Luck,
    >>>> Dudley
    >>>>
    >>> I disagree with that.
    >>> Between about 1/60th of a second and 1/2 second exposure, mirror-slap
    >>> when the camera used on a tripod _is_ a significant effect. A self
    >>> timer doesn't solve the problem.
    >>> Progressively with longer exposures than that, and the effect doesn't
    >>> show (the shaking subsides quickly).
    >>> How bad the effect is,and at which shutter speeds it really matters
    >>> depends on lens, tripod etc. With a longer lens, I'd expect that all
    >>> other things being equal, the camera/lens would shake longer than with a
    >>> light/short lens. I have been using a D70 (also with no MLU) for macro,
    >>> and in natural light, sod's law seems to determine that most of the time
    >>> you're in the critical zone where it's a real problem. I was using a
    >>> 105mm lens, unfortunately with no tripod ring. I had better success
    >>> with no tripod, but using a bean-bag to cradle the lens - apparently
    >>> damping the mirror slap better than a tripod.
    >>> Using a D80, with shutter release delay (still no full MLU), was a huge
    >>> improvement. Full MLU is a further improvement.

    >>
    >> Well, I've hand-held many a shot in the 1/60 to 1/15 range, even 1/8 once
    >> and a while, and vibration from mirror slap was never a problem. Ditto
    >> for tripod shots.
    >>
    >> Of course, I used Canon equipment...
    > >

    > Lol - I can tell when someone's using a rebel when they are 20 feet behind
    > me, my eyes are closed, and volume on my iPod is less than full.


    You walk around with your eyes closed and listening to your ipodat high
    volumes? I didn't realize I am not the only user on this group with a guide
    dog...

    But, I know what you mean. I'm still looking for the silencer I'm sure
    Canon included with the packing material...

    >>
    >> Further, it seems to me that longer telephotos are normally heavier, so
    >> they should be impacted less by mirror vibrations. -- unless your mount
    >> was really loose and the camera was free to move independant of the lens.
    >>

    > Longer means that a small movement is seen more, also I expect that
    > inertia an lower "resonance frequency" of a long lens on a tripod means
    > that even if it shakes less, the effect is probably seen more, and/or at
    > different shutter speeds.


    This is an interesting question. Which factor impacts mirror slap related
    vibrations more, lens weight or focal length? I tend to think that lens
    weight plays a bigger role because the lens would have to slap harder to get
    the lens moving. Minimal lens slap, and I think most modern cameras tend to
    have only minimal slap, would be damped by the weight of most telephoto
    lenses. I think this is one reason why VR / IS works fairly well. On the
    flip side, though, you are right. Whatever vibration is there will be
    magnified by the longer focal length.

    >
    >> Perhaps that is a Nikon issue as well.
    > >

    > Lol


    I should point out that in my previous reply, I had to bite my tongue. I
    was going to add a little barb that the rumour mill is rampant about Nikon's
    new ABC system which will cut down on camera wear and tear and act as a
    support
    mechanism to the company's embattled VR system. With ABC standing for Air
    Buffered Components...

    >
    >>
    >> As soon as VR / IS comes into play, this should be a non issue since that
    >> is exactly the range where this system works best, and most modern
    >> digital SLRs at least have an optional shake reduction system
    >> available.e. Or, doesn't Nikon's work in that range?
    >>

    > Nikon, in a rare moment of non-brilliance, produced a solution for a
    > problem that wasn't needed, and doesn't work


    I thought it was Panasonic that is "slightly ahead of its time."

    anyway. They made a macro
    > lens with VR. VR doesn't work with Macro. Macro is what I'd use
    > MLU/release delay mode for, and IS is a complete waste of time.


    I haven't done much macro work, so I can't comment on that area, yet.
    Lately, I've been trying out some quasi-macro shots with my Powershot A720
    IS, but, the mirror slap is still a non-issue with this camera. Maybe, I'll
    just have to bite the bullet and get a macro lens for the Rebel...

    >
    > YMMV.


    Take Care,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Mar 18, 2008
    #8
  9. Alfred Molon

    frederick Guest

    Dudley Hanks wrote:
    >
    > I haven't done much macro work, so I can't comment on that area, yet.
    > Lately, I've been trying out some quasi-macro shots with my Powershot A720
    > IS, but, the mirror slap is still a non-issue with this camera. Maybe, I'll
    > just have to bite the bullet and get a macro lens for the Rebel...
    >

    I do a bit of landscape shooting too, but generally using such a wide
    lens that mirror-slap is a non event at any shutter speed. I'd guess it
    would be more of a problem with a long telephoto as it is with macro
    where the problem is that unless bumping ISO right up beyond reason,
    outdoors - unless in (preferably filtered) sunlight, at f8-16, the
    shutter speed falls longer than 1/60th more often than not. If you're
    shooting very close in natural light, expect some frustrations with the
    dslr - it's not easy compared to using a compact camera, and it might
    take a while to get results that improve on what you can already get.
     
    frederick, Mar 18, 2008
    #9
  10. Alfred Molon

    Pete D Guest

    "Dudley Hanks" <> wrote in message
    news:icFDj.106899$w57.44572@edtnps90...
    >
    > "frederick" <> wrote in message
    > news:1205800363.484372@ftpsrv1...
    >> Dudley Hanks wrote:
    >>> "frederick" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:1205792974.829092@ftpsrv1...
    >>>> Dudley Hanks wrote:
    >>>>> "Alfred Molon" <> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:...
    >>>>>> It seems the Sony A350 does not have mirror lock up (don't know why -
    >>>>>> I
    >>>>>> thought all DSLRs had mirror lock up). How important is it for long
    >>>>>> exposures?
    >>>>>> --
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Alfred Molon
    >>>>>> ------------------------------
    >>>>>> Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
    >>>>>> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
    >>>>>> http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
    >>>>> From my experience, mirror lockup isn't all that important for long
    >>>>> exposures. The self-timer usually works just fine to eliminate camera
    >>>>> shake.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I suppose, if you had a really light camera, and if the mirror slams
    >>>>> open just as the exposure begins, it might become an issue. But, I
    >>>>> think that would be a rather rare case.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> The lockup thing takes on more importance when you are trying to shoot
    >>>>> multiple fast exposures. In this case, if the mirror can't open as
    >>>>> fast as the shutter, it gums up the works and limits the fps rate.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Good Luck,
    >>>>> Dudley
    >>>>>
    >>>> I disagree with that.
    >>>> Between about 1/60th of a second and 1/2 second exposure, mirror-slap
    >>>> when the camera used on a tripod _is_ a significant effect. A self
    >>>> timer doesn't solve the problem.
    >>>> Progressively with longer exposures than that, and the effect doesn't
    >>>> show (the shaking subsides quickly).
    >>>> How bad the effect is,and at which shutter speeds it really matters
    >>>> depends on lens, tripod etc. With a longer lens, I'd expect that all
    >>>> other things being equal, the camera/lens would shake longer than with
    >>>> a light/short lens. I have been using a D70 (also with no MLU) for
    >>>> macro, and in natural light, sod's law seems to determine that most of
    >>>> the time you're in the critical zone where it's a real problem. I was
    >>>> using a 105mm lens, unfortunately with no tripod ring. I had better
    >>>> success with no tripod, but using a bean-bag to cradle the lens -
    >>>> apparently damping the mirror slap better than a tripod.
    >>>> Using a D80, with shutter release delay (still no full MLU), was a huge
    >>>> improvement. Full MLU is a further improvement.
    >>>
    >>> Well, I've hand-held many a shot in the 1/60 to 1/15 range, even 1/8
    >>> once and a while, and vibration from mirror slap was never a problem.
    >>> Ditto for tripod shots.
    >>>
    >>> Of course, I used Canon equipment...
    >> >

    >> Lol - I can tell when someone's using a rebel when they are 20 feet
    >> behind me, my eyes are closed, and volume on my iPod is less than full.

    >
    > You walk around with your eyes closed and listening to your ipodat high
    > volumes? I didn't realize I am not the only user on this group with a
    > guide dog...
    >
    > But, I know what you mean. I'm still looking for the silencer I'm sure
    > Canon included with the packing material...
    >
    >>>
    >>> Further, it seems to me that longer telephotos are normally heavier, so
    >>> they should be impacted less by mirror vibrations. -- unless your mount
    >>> was really loose and the camera was free to move independant of the
    >>> lens.
    >>>

    >> Longer means that a small movement is seen more, also I expect that
    >> inertia an lower "resonance frequency" of a long lens on a tripod means
    >> that even if it shakes less, the effect is probably seen more, and/or at
    >> different shutter speeds.

    >
    > This is an interesting question. Which factor impacts mirror slap related
    > vibrations more, lens weight or focal length? I tend to think that lens
    > weight plays a bigger role because the lens would have to slap harder to
    > get the lens moving. Minimal lens slap, and I think most modern cameras
    > tend to have only minimal slap, would be damped by the weight of most
    > telephoto lenses. I think this is one reason why VR / IS works fairly
    > well. On the flip side, though, you are right. Whatever vibration is
    > there will be magnified by the longer focal length.
    >
    >>
    >>> Perhaps that is a Nikon issue as well.
    >> >

    >> Lol

    >
    > I should point out that in my previous reply, I had to bite my tongue. I
    > was going to add a little barb that the rumour mill is rampant about
    > Nikon's new ABC system which will cut down on camera wear and tear and act
    > as a support
    > mechanism to the company's embattled VR system. With ABC standing for Air
    > Buffered Components...
    >
    >>
    >>>
    >>> As soon as VR / IS comes into play, this should be a non issue since
    >>> that is exactly the range where this system works best, and most modern
    >>> digital SLRs at least have an optional shake reduction system
    >>> available.e. Or, doesn't Nikon's work in that range?
    >>>

    >> Nikon, in a rare moment of non-brilliance, produced a solution for a
    >> problem that wasn't needed, and doesn't work

    >
    > I thought it was Panasonic that is "slightly ahead of its time."
    >
    > anyway. They made a macro
    >> lens with VR. VR doesn't work with Macro. Macro is what I'd use
    >> MLU/release delay mode for, and IS is a complete waste of time.

    >
    > I haven't done much macro work, so I can't comment on that area, yet.
    > Lately, I've been trying out some quasi-macro shots with my Powershot A720
    > IS, but, the mirror slap is still a non-issue with this camera. Maybe,
    > I'll just have to bite the bullet and get a macro lens for the Rebel...
    >
    >>
    >> YMMV.

    >
    > Take Care,
    > Dudley
    >

    Have to agree with Frederick here, IMHE, macros (assuming a non moving
    target) works much better with MLU and no IS/VR with close subjects.
     
    Pete D, Mar 18, 2008
    #10
  11. Alfred Molon

    Alfred Molon Guest

    In article <w6DDj.106794$w57.41450@edtnps90>, Dudley Hanks says...
    >
    > Well, I've hand-held many a shot in the 1/60 to 1/15 range, even 1/8 once
    > and a while, and vibration from mirror slap was never a problem. Ditto for
    > tripod shots.


    So we have different views here. I might upgrade from the Sony R1 (no
    mirror) to the A350 (has a swinging mirror). How bad is the camera shake
    introduced by a swinging mirror?
    --

    Alfred Molon
    ------------------------------
    Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
    http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
    http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
     
    Alfred Molon, Mar 18, 2008
    #11
  12. Dudley Hanks <> wrote:

    > "frederick" <> wrote in message
    > news:1205792974.829092@ftpsrv1...
    >> Dudley Hanks wrote:
    >>> "Alfred Molon" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...


    >>>> It seems the Sony A350 does not have mirror lock up (don't know why - I
    >>>> thought all DSLRs had mirror lock up). How important is it for long
    >>>> exposures?


    >>> From my experience, mirror lockup isn't all that important for long
    >>> exposures. The self-timer usually works just fine to eliminate camera
    >>> shake.


    It won't reduce mirror slap shake unless the mirror lifts as the timer
    is started.

    >>> I suppose, if you had a really light camera, and if the mirror slams open
    >>> just as the exposure begins, it might become an issue. But, I think that
    >>> would be a rather rare case.


    It's much more complex than that. The effect on the image can be
    magnified by a long telephoto more than the mass of the telephoto
    reduces it, and when mounted on a tripod, the rotational inertia of
    the telephoto around the tripod bolt will markedly slow down the
    period of the resulting vibration and reduce the speed with which it
    decays away.

    >> I disagree with that.
    >> Between about 1/60th of a second and 1/2 second exposure, mirror-slap when
    >> the camera used on a tripod _is_ a significant effect.


    I've had bad effects from mirror slap on a 35mm film SLR with a 300mm
    lens in church interior exposures of a few to several secs. There was
    a softening of the images which looked like marginally off focus which
    I simply couldn't get rid of. The tripod was a Benbo locked up in a
    pretty solid configuration. Using manual shutter open and close and
    the old hat trick finally solved the problem. And decided me never to
    use an SLR without mirror lock up again!

    >> A self timer
    >> doesn't solve the problem.


    Unless it allows you raise the mirror at timer start. IIRC at least
    one DSLR has a kind of shutter delay which does just that for that
    reason.

    >> Progressively with longer exposures than that, and the effect doesn't show
    >> (the shaking subsides quickly).


    Except the longer the telephoto, the slower the effect subsides, and
    it's with long teleophotos that the effect on the image is most
    magnified and most noticeable.

    >> How bad the effect is,and at which shutter speeds it really matters
    >> depends on lens, tripod etc. With a longer lens, I'd expect that all other
    >> things being equal, the camera/lens would shake longer than with a
    >> light/short lens. I have been using a D70 (also with no MLU) for macro,
    >> and in natural light, sod's law seems to determine that most of the time
    >> you're in the critical zone where it's a real problem. I was using a
    >> 105mm lens, unfortunately with no tripod ring. I had better success with
    >> no tripod, but using a bean-bag to cradle the lens - apparently damping
    >> the mirror slap better than a tripod.
    >> Using a D80, with shutter release delay (still no full MLU), was a huge
    >> improvement. Full MLU is a further improvement.


    A bean bag supporting the lens length would be better. As would be the
    trick sometimes used of having two tripods, one for the camera, and
    the other for the lens :)

    > Well, I've hand-held many a shot in the 1/60 to 1/15 range, even 1/8 once
    > and a while, and vibration from mirror slap was never a problem. Ditto for
    > tripod shots.


    I don't think you're talking about long telephoto shots here :)

    > Of course, I used Canon equipment...


    Do you recommend Canon tripods? Note that the kick given to the camera
    by the mirror lift is a function of mirror mass and mirror lift time,
    so there is a trade off between shutter lag and the camera movement
    imparted by mirror movement. A camera optimised for high speed
    photography will not be optimised for minimum mirror slap.

    > Further, it seems to me that longer telephotos are normally heavier, so they
    > should be impacted less by mirror vibrations. -- unless your mount was
    > really loose and the camera was free to move independant of the lens.


    No, because what shows up most in the image with a long telephoto is
    camera rotation about the tripod bolt axis, and the longer the
    telephoto the worse that particular kind of vibration is, because of
    the larger rotational inertia about the most compliant and least
    damped mode of vibration of the camera/tripod combination, most
    especially if the extension column is used.

    > Perhaps that is a Nikon issue as well.


    It's got little to do with camera design, being mostly concerned with
    how well the tripod design handles vibrations involving the high
    rotational inertia of long lenses. Put a really big long lens on your
    camera, fit it to your sturdiest tripod, extend the column to max, and
    then give the lens a knock to see what I mean.

    > As soon as VR / IS comes into play, this should be a non issue since that is
    > exactly the range where this system works best, and most modern digital SLRs
    > at least have an optional shake reduction system available.e. Or, doesn't
    > Nikon's work in that range?


    Provided that the VR/IS in question can outperform the camera with
    VR/IS off and mounted on a rigid tripod, which I understand is at most
    very few, although I'd love someone to prove me wrong on that :)

    Not having mirror lockup is like not having full manual control of
    exposure. Mostly you don't need it, and many people never need it, but
    when you do need it, if you haven't got it you're stuffed unless you
    have the time and resources for various kinds of DIY bodgery.

    --
    Chris Malcolm DoD #205
    IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
    [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
     
    Chris Malcolm, Mar 18, 2008
    #12
  13. Dudley Hanks <> wrote:

    > This is an interesting question. Which factor impacts mirror slap related
    > vibrations more, lens weight or focal length? I tend to think that lens
    > weight plays a bigger role because the lens would have to slap harder to get
    > the lens moving. Minimal lens slap, and I think most modern cameras tend to
    > have only minimal slap, would be damped by the weight of most telephoto
    > lenses.


    Extra weight will lessen the movement imparted by mirror slap, but
    that lessening is not damping. In fact extra weight will lessen the
    effect of whatever damping there is in the system, i.e. slow down the
    rate with which vibrations subside. What is more, if the added weight
    is a long telephoto lens, then the extra rotational inertia given by
    extension of mass away from the mounting point and axis of possible
    rotational vibration will be more important than the simple addition
    of weight. Think of the leverage difference holding an outstretched
    broom by the brush end or by the end of the handle, but the weight is
    the same.

    --
    Chris Malcolm DoD #205
    IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
    [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
     
    Chris Malcolm, Mar 18, 2008
    #13
  14. On Mar 17, 3:24 pm, Alfred Molon <> wrote:
    > It seems the Sony A350 does not have mirror lock up (don't know why - I
    > thought all DSLRs had mirror lock up). How important is it for long
    > exposures?
    > --
    >
    > Alfred Molon
    > ------------------------------
    > Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum athttp://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/http://myolympus.org/photo sharing site


    My Nikon D40X does not have lockup either. In a previous thread on
    this, apparently many of the cheaper DSLRs do not. Since I felt the
    D40x price was great, I really can't complain. I just adjust the
    aperture so as to avoid the 1-3 second exposures.
     
    Don Stauffer in Minnesota, Mar 18, 2008
    #14
  15. Alfred Molon

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    >>>> From my experience, mirror lockup isn't all that important for long
    >>>> exposures. The self-timer usually works just fine to eliminate camera
    >>>> shake.

    >
    > It won't reduce mirror slap shake unless the mirror lifts as the timer
    > is started.


    You are starting your argument from the premis that there already is a
    problem. I just stated that, from my experience, there is no significant
    problem. I think the fact that millions of cameras exist without mirror
    lockup is a fairly good indication that the problem is not rampant.

    Note, I am not saying it does not exist, I'm just saying that mirror slap
    induced vibration is not a major problem with most modern digital cameras.

    >
    >>>> I suppose, if you had a really light camera, and if the mirror slams
    >>>> open
    >>>> just as the exposure begins, it might become an issue. But, I think
    >>>> that
    >>>> would be a rather rare case.

    >
    > It's much more complex than that. The effect on the image can be
    > magnified by a long telephoto more than the mass of the telephoto
    > reduces it, and when mounted on a tripod, the rotational inertia of
    > the telephoto around the tripod bolt will markedly slow down the
    > period of the resulting vibration and reduce the speed with which it
    > decays away.


    Once again, assuming that there is a problem.

    Let's say you have a six-and-a-half pound lens with a 1 or 2 pound camera.
    The total weight of the combo is about seven-and-a-half to eight-and-a-half
    pounds.

    Now, how heavy is your typical mirror? 10 or 20 grams max?

    How much is that 10 or 20 grams going to move that much heavier mass of the
    combo? Especially since, in addition to the light mass of the mirror, there
    will be some sort of damping mechanism incorporated in the mirror mechanism?

    I agree, and I said it before, that IF the mirror slap is sufficient to
    induce a vibration, then the effects of the vibration will be magnified by
    the longer focal length. I just don't think that it is a problem in most
    modernSLRs and DSLRs. If it were as big a problem as is being suggested,
    then would not Canon and Nikon, in their advertising for their vibration
    reduction systems, be saying "VR / IS does a really good job of getting rid
    of camera shake imaging problems caused by hand holding the camera at slow
    shutter speeds, and the problems associated with mirror slap induced
    vibrations"? I have yet to see any mention of the latter in any discussion
    (other than this one) where mirror slap is a burning issue.

    >
    >>> I disagree with that.
    >>> Between about 1/60th of a second and 1/2 second exposure, mirror-slap
    >>> when
    >>> the camera used on a tripod _is_ a significant effect.

    >
    > I've had bad effects from mirror slap on a 35mm film SLR with a 300mm
    > lens in church interior exposures of a few to several secs. There was
    > a softening of the images which looked like marginally off focus which
    > I simply couldn't get rid of. The tripod was a Benbo locked up in a
    > pretty solid configuration. Using manual shutter open and close and
    > the old hat trick finally solved the problem. And decided me never to
    > use an SLR without mirror lock up again!


    Now, Chris, you are basing your argument on one camera and one
    configuration? How scientific is that?

    I don't want to trivualize your position, but would we have ever managed to
    put a man on the moon or a probe around mars if we developed programs based
    on the results of one experiment?

    >
    >>> A self timer
    >>> doesn't solve the problem.


    If there is a problem...

    >
    > Unless it allows you raise the mirror at timer start. IIRC at least
    > one DSLR has a kind of shutter delay which does just that for that
    > reason.


    Once again, one case.

    >
    >>> Progressively with longer exposures than that, and the effect doesn't
    >>> show
    >>> (the shaking subsides quickly).

    >
    > Except the longer the telephoto, the slower the effect subsides, and
    > it's with long teleophotos that the effect on the image is most
    > magnified and most noticeable.


    Assuming that the light little mirror mannaged to get the heavy lens moving.
    It's kind of like trying to ring the Big Ben bells with a feather. The
    result would be less than spectacular...
    >
    >
    >> Well, I've hand-held many a shot in the 1/60 to 1/15 range, even 1/8 once
    >> and a while, and vibration from mirror slap was never a problem. Ditto
    >> for
    >> tripod shots.

    >
    > I don't think you're talking about long telephoto shots


    Obviously, the hand-helds weren't with a 300mm lens at 1/8 second, although
    there have been many a time I wished I had hands that steady. But, on a
    tripod, I've used lenses in the 300mm to 600mm range without much problem
    for film, and I'm starting to play around with lenses in the 450mm to 960mm
    range with the DSLR.

    If I have problems, I'll detail them on the group.

    >
    >> Of course, I used Canon equipment...

    >
    > Do you recommend Canon tripods? Note that the kick given to the camera
    > by the mirror lift is a function of mirror mass and mirror lift time,
    > so there is a trade off between shutter lag and the camera movement
    > imparted by mirror movement. A camera optimised for high speed
    > photography will not be optimised for minimum mirror slap.


    You are ignoring any attempt by the manufacturer to dampen mirror vibration
    by including damping materials, etc, in the mirror mechanism.

    You are also forgetting that the recording medium also plays a role. For
    instance, a slower film will be effected less than a high speed film. Using
    digitals, I assume that the ISO range is not exactly the same in this
    regard, since the difference in speed relates to the amplification of the
    signal and not the actual speed at which the sensor translates light waves
    into an electronic signal. But I think a comparison of how much signal
    induced during the first 5% or 10% of the exposure time (the time most
    likely to be affected by mirror shake) to that induced during the remainder
    of the exposure would show that very few (if any) pixels would be bumped up
    over the noise threshold by the signal induced during the time affected by
    vibration.

    >
    >> Further, it seems to me that longer telephotos are normally heavier, so
    >> they
    >> should be impacted less by mirror vibrations. -- unless your mount was
    >> really loose and the camera was free to move independant of the lens.

    >
    > No, because what shows up most in the image with a long telephoto is
    > camera rotation about the tripod bolt axis, and the longer the
    > telephoto the worse that particular kind of vibration is, because of
    > the larger rotational inertia about the most compliant and least
    > damped mode of vibration of the camera/tripod combination, most
    > especially if the extension column is used.


    Actually, that part of my post was meant as a sort of tongue-in-cheek poke
    at the Canon / Nikon war. Note the forth-coming barb?

    But, as pointed out above, you are starting from the assumption that the
    camera already has an existing problem with lens slap induced vibrations.
    My contention is that this isn't that big of a problem for most users ...

    >
    >> Perhaps that is a Nikon issue as well.

    >
    > It's got little to do with camera design, being mostly concerned with
    > how well the tripod design handles vibrations involving the high
    > rotational inertia of long lenses. Put a really big long lens on your


    You are totally discounting the camera manufacturer's attempt to add
    vibration damping materials to the mirror mechanism? This is the logic
    which flaws your argument at its most basic foundations...

    > camera, fit it to your sturdiest tripod, extend the column


    Sturdy isn't always better. A bit of flex in the tripod can also help to
    damp the vibration. This is why cars are now built much less "sturdy" than
    they were 50 years ago. They crumple much easier, but the passenger
    compartment does a much better job at cushioning the occupants.

    Perhaps if you didn't lock up the camera, lens and tripod into a rock-solid
    mass, there wouldn't be as much shake? Just a thought...

    to max, and
    > then give the lens a knock to see what I mean.


    I stand six-foot-four and weigh 250 pounds. I've got meat-hooks the size of
    a fair sized sledge hammer. I don't think the knock I'd give the lens is
    comparable to the 10 to 20 gram mirror.

    Perhaps, tapping it with a pencil would yield more appropriate results.

    >
    >> As soon as VR / IS comes into play, this should be a non issue since that
    >> is
    >> exactly the range where this system works best, and most modern digital
    >> SLRs
    >> at least have an optional shake reduction system available.e. Or,
    >> doesn't
    >> Nikon's work in that range?

    >
    > Provided that the VR/IS in question can outperform the camera with
    > VR/IS off and mounted on a rigid tripod, which I understand is at most
    > very few, although I'd love someone to prove me wrong on that :)


    Now, this is where the whole area gets really interesting. I've heard that
    many VR / IS systems turn themselves off when mounted on a tripod. If so,
    there is no difference in that case than not having the system installed. I
    don't really understand why the system shouldn't work the same on a tripod
    as off, but then again, I haven't given the issue much thought.

    On the other hand, if the system stays active, and if it really messes up
    tripod shots, then the camera isn't worth the cost of its packing materials
    to anyone who tends to shoot a lot of long exposures.

    Having said all of the above, let us not forget that this thread was started
    with a simple question. The OP was going to buy a camera and noted it
    didn't have a mirror lock-up facility. He just wanted to know if it was
    going to be a major problem.

    My answer was that, in my experience it is not enough of a problem to be a
    deal breaker. This isn't to say that no photographer will ever need it.
    Hardly. If such were the case, the feature wouldn't be included on any
    camera.

    Still, when you look at the cameras with the lock-up feature, they tend, and
    I use the word tend rather loosely here, to be more advanced cameras
    intended for more proficient shooters. So, once again, this supports my
    contention that for most shutterbugs, in most situations, the feature won't
    be missed.

    >
    > Not having mirror lockup is like not having full manual control of
    > exposure. Mostly you don't need it, and many people never need it, but
    > when you do need it, if you haven't got it you're stuffed unless you
    > have the time and resources for various kinds of DIY bodgery.


    I know there are a few photographers on the group who spend a fair bit of
    time playing with long lenses. I'd be interested in hearing what their
    experience with the lock-up feature, or lack of it, has been.
    >
    > --

    Take Care,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Mar 18, 2008
    #15
  16. Alfred Molon

    Paul Furman Guest

    Chris Malcolm wrote:
    > Dudley Hanks <> wrote:
    >
    >>> A self timer
    >>> doesn't solve the problem.

    >
    > Unless it allows you raise the mirror at timer start. IIRC at least
    > one DSLR has a kind of shutter delay which does just that for that
    > reason.


    The D200 has a delay mode which raises the mirror about 1/2 second
    before the shot. This doesn't really help with long tele or extreme
    macro shots.

    >>> Progressively with longer exposures than that, and the effect doesn't show
    >>> (the shaking subsides quickly).

    >
    > Except the longer the telephoto, the slower the effect subsides, and
    > it's with long teleophotos that the effect on the image is most
    > magnified and most noticeable.
    >
    >>> How bad the effect is,and at which shutter speeds it really matters
    >>> depends on lens, tripod etc. With a longer lens, I'd expect that all other
    >>> things being equal, the camera/lens would shake longer than with a
    >>> light/short lens. I have been using a D70 (also with no MLU) for macro,
    >>> and in natural light, sod's law seems to determine that most of the time
    >>> you're in the critical zone where it's a real problem. I was using a
    >>> 105mm lens, unfortunately with no tripod ring. I had better success with
    >>> no tripod, but using a bean-bag to cradle the lens - apparently damping
    >>> the mirror slap better than a tripod.
    >>> Using a D80, with shutter release delay (still no full MLU), was a huge
    >>> improvement. Full MLU is a further improvement.

    >
    > A bean bag supporting the lens length would be better. As would be the
    > trick sometimes used of having two tripods, one for the camera, and
    > the other for the lens :)


    I got one of those 'long lens support' arms that you use when the lens
    has it's own mount: it locks in the camera mount & clamps on a leg of
    the tripod. It's not as effective as I had hoped. I don't know why.
     
    Paul Furman, Mar 18, 2008
    #16
  17. Alfred Molon

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    > I got one of those 'long lens support' arms that you use when the lens has
    > it's own mount: it locks in the camera mount & clamps on a leg of the
    > tripod. It's not as effective as I had hoped. I don't know why.


    Paul, you seem to do a lot of long lens work with a lot of different lenses.
    Have you noted any correlations between lens weight and focal length with
    the shake issue? ie. does the problem start at a certain focal length
    regardless of weight? or, does lens weight make a difference in the case of
    two lenses with the same focal length?

    Quite Curious,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Mar 18, 2008
    #17
  18. Alfred Molon

    Dave Guest

    Paul Furman wrote:
    > Chris Malcolm wrote:
    >> Dudley Hanks <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>> A self timer doesn't solve the problem.

    >>
    >> Unless it allows you raise the mirror at timer start. IIRC at least
    >> one DSLR has a kind of shutter delay which does just that for that
    >> reason.

    >
    > The D200 has a delay mode which raises the mirror about 1/2 second
    > before the shot. This doesn't really help with long tele or extreme
    > macro shots.
    >
    >>>> Progressively with longer exposures than that, and the effect
    >>>> doesn't show (the shaking subsides quickly).

    >>
    >> Except the longer the telephoto, the slower the effect subsides, and
    >> it's with long teleophotos that the effect on the image is most
    >> magnified and most noticeable.
    >>
    >>>> How bad the effect is,and at which shutter speeds it really matters
    >>>> depends on lens, tripod etc. With a longer lens, I'd expect that all
    >>>> other things being equal, the camera/lens would shake longer than
    >>>> with a light/short lens. I have been using a D70 (also with no MLU)
    >>>> for macro, and in natural light, sod's law seems to determine that
    >>>> most of the time you're in the critical zone where it's a real
    >>>> problem. I was using a 105mm lens, unfortunately with no tripod
    >>>> ring. I had better success with no tripod, but using a bean-bag to
    >>>> cradle the lens - apparently damping the mirror slap better than a
    >>>> tripod.
    >>>> Using a D80, with shutter release delay (still no full MLU), was a
    >>>> huge improvement. Full MLU is a further improvement.

    >>
    >> A bean bag supporting the lens length would be better. As would be the
    >> trick sometimes used of having two tripods, one for the camera, and
    >> the other for the lens :)

    >
    > I got one of those 'long lens support' arms that you use when the lens
    > has it's own mount: it locks in the camera mount & clamps on a leg of
    > the tripod. It's not as effective as I had hoped. I don't know why.

    Paul,

    I believe those mounts are designed primarily to support a fairly heavy
    camera hanging off a lens that is mounted to the tripod. Not really
    meant to stop vibrations, just to take the strain off the lens/camera mount.

    Hope this helps,
    Dave

    PS - Mirror slap tends to show up most at shutter speeds between 1/2 and
    around 1/30 second. Slower and faster speeds show little to no effect.
    It looks like fuzziness when it is present. Softens the image.

    PPS - VR on the 105 Micro is there for when you're NOT shooting macro.
    Some of us use the lens for things other than just macro.
     
    Dave, Mar 18, 2008
    #18
  19. Alfred Molon

    Alfred Molon Guest

    In article <eEQDj.108193$w57.90756@edtnps90>, Dudley Hanks says...

    > My answer was that, in my experience it is not enough of a problem to be a
    > deal breaker. This isn't to say that no photographer will ever need it.
    > Hardly. If such were the case, the feature wouldn't be included on any
    > camera.
    >
    > Still, when you look at the cameras with the lock-up feature, they tend, and
    > I use the word tend rather loosely here, to be more advanced cameras
    > intended for more proficient shooters. So, once again, this supports my
    > contention that for most shutterbugs, in most situations, the feature won't
    > be missed.


    Well, the camera in question is the Sony A350, which has a whopping 14MP
    and therefore needs as much stability as possible. It may be an entry
    level camera, but it certainly does not benefit from additional camera
    shake.
    --

    Alfred Molon
    ------------------------------
    Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
    http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
    http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
     
    Alfred Molon, Mar 18, 2008
    #19
  20. Alfred Molon

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    "Alfred Molon" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <eEQDj.108193$w57.90756@edtnps90>, Dudley Hanks says...
    >
    >> My answer was that, in my experience it is not enough of a problem to be
    >> a
    >> deal breaker. This isn't to say that no photographer will ever need it.
    >> Hardly. If such were the case, the feature wouldn't be included on any
    >> camera.
    >>
    >> Still, when you look at the cameras with the lock-up feature, they tend,
    >> and
    >> I use the word tend rather loosely here, to be more advanced cameras
    >> intended for more proficient shooters. So, once again, this supports my
    >> contention that for most shutterbugs, in most situations, the feature
    >> won't
    >> be missed.

    >
    > Well, the camera in question is the Sony A350, which has a whopping 14MP
    > and therefore needs as much stability as possible. It may be an entry
    > level camera, but it certainly does not benefit from additional camera
    > shake.
    > --
    >
    > Alfred Molon
    > ------------------------------

    And, if the OP never intends to use a lens longer than the kit lens?
    If the tripod / camera combo is sufficiently compatible to absorb whatever
    minimal shake is present?
    If the mirror mechanism is so finely tuned and damped that the camera clicks
    as smoothly as a Swiss watch?

    I don't understand how a camera's resolution dictates the need for mirror
    lock-up...

    Pondering,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Mar 18, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Neil
    Replies:
    39
    Views:
    1,078
  2. Steven C \(Doktersteve\)

    Mirror Lock. Newbie to 35mm & slr has a question.

    Steven C \(Doktersteve\), Sep 1, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    449
    Charlie D
    Sep 2, 2003
  3. GTO

    Nikon D70 vs D100 (mirror lock feature)

    GTO, Jan 31, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    37
    Views:
    4,891
    Roger Halstead
    Feb 4, 2004
  4. GT

    Mirror lock-up

    GT, May 17, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    614
  5. ransley

    Mirror lock up

    ransley, Nov 8, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,290
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Nov 10, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page