external “Mirror Lockup Is a Conspiracy (Sort of)”

— Jim Harmer at Improve Photography

So, in theory, mirror lockup makes perfect sense. It stands to reason that getting rid of vibration would cause sharper pictures–especially for longer exposures. But I’ve always felt like it was a conspiracy of the camera manufacturers. I think they got together in some high rise in Japan and decided to put one feature in our cameras that was a complete placebo, and they’ve been laughing about it ever since. ”What fools!” they say, as we tout the placebo and use it religiously so that we can feel like our photos are sharper than the blockhead next to us who hasn’t yet discovered it.

Visit this link → · Shared on Jul 02, 2013
  • Charles

    I’ve come to the same conclusion myself! The 2 second or 10 second (if you’re feeling very methodical) shutter delay is really what makes a difference.

  • TSY87

    actually, mirror lock up does in fact make a difference. I was doing some night time landscape shots above SF and upon review, my shorts were coming up just slightly blurry. I was using a 100mm zeiss lens with a remote shutter. Afterwards, I used mirror lockup and low and behold, the images came out sharp.

    The tiny vibrations dont make a big deal if you arent shooting at longish focal lengths but when you do, it really does make a difference.

  • Zos Xavius

    yeah, and most dslrs lock the mirror with the timer (mine does), so you are still locking the mirror. i find 10s helpful with long lenses that amplify vibration personally, but mostly use 2s.

  • spiralphoto

    One word: Astrophotography