Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 4, 2009, 1:08 PM   #21
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kazuya View Post
surely a big factor in camera shake is of course whos taking the picture and how steady they can hold the camera
Agreed. But, for purposes of discussion, Craig is the same photographer with both cameras. So, his argument is - same photog, same lens,same situation but more shake evident in the larger MP camera results.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 4, 2009, 4:35 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
BillDrew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Hay River Township, WI
Posts: 2,512
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peripatetic View Post
... It's not that complex, and not very contentious either. The claim is simple: with the new wave of high resolution cameras you may want to consider using a faster shutter speed than you do with lower resolution cameras. ...
I don't think it is really the higher resolution of the camera, it is the desire to make photos with more detail. Only part of that is the camera - only those exhausting all other issues will need higher resolution cameras to see the effect peripatetic is rightly making.

Although peripatetic's point is valid, I think he somewhat exaggerates it. To need a factor of two increase in shutter speed, there would need to be a factor of four in pixel count.
BillDrew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2009, 2:26 PM   #23
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peripatetic View Post
... It's not the pixel pitch. Otherwise this would all be very evident on P&S cameras and it's not. ..
Why would you say that it's not? (Aside from the fact that nobody makes a 22MP P&S yet.)

Do you not think that a 12MP P&S digicam is more capable of capturing motion blur due to camera shake than a P&S digicam with a 6MP sensor?
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.

Last edited by TCav; Dec 5, 2009 at 4:55 PM.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 6, 2009, 5:27 AM   #24
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

Now I'm confused.

I thought you were saying it's NOT the resolution that matters, but the pixel pitch. I WOULD expect to see it on a 22Mp P&S, because I think the problem is chiefly a function of the higher resolution.

Curiously my Canon 20D (8Mp) had almost exactly the same pixel pitch as my new 5DMkII (22Mp). The 1/FL rule worked fine for the 20D and 5D, and not for 5D2.

Anyway, I'm sure everyone is bored of this by now.
__________________
My gallery
My X100 blog
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 6, 2009, 6:57 AM   #25
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

A 6MP P&S digicam would have a lower pixels per degree of angle of view than one with a 12MP image sensor, so at the same equivalent focal length, and the same shutter sepped, the 12MP image sensor would show more motion blur due to camera shake in 100% crops. Your 12MP 5D has a lower pixels per degree of angle of view than your 5D MkII, and so show motion blur due to camera shake at different levels in 100% crops. But the A900 and A700 have the same pixels per degree of angle of view so they show the same level of blur due to camera shake in 100% crops.

You keep ignoring half of what I say so you can attack the other half. It's not just resolution. The rule of thumb works well up to a certain pixels per degree of angle of view, but it's just a rule of thumb. And just because you have a high resolution camera doesn't mean the rest of us should abandon it.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 6, 2009, 8:58 AM   #26
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

I understand what you are saying, I just think you're wrong.

It just doesn't coincide with my experience, and many others too. The 20D and 5D2 have the same pixel pitch. The problem is evident on the 5D2 only. People moving up to cameras like the A900 from the A700 are reporting the same thing. People moving to 40+Mp MFD from 20Mp MFD are reporting the same thing. All of that data cannot be explained by your hypothesis.

Also, to be clear - I never said that anyone should abandon anything. Just that if you ever do get a 20+ Mp camera you may want to consider adjusting your technique.

APS-C cameras will soon be breaking those limits. The Canon 7D now has 18Mp, and Sony and Nikon will soon be entering that territory too.

If you ever use one let me know how if you still feel the same way. Until then you're just speculating based on what you think the underlying issue is. Your hypothesis makes intuitive sense, but it doesn't explain the evidence.
__________________
My gallery
My X100 blog
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 6, 2009, 9:08 AM   #27
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Bottom line (from my perspective)...

If you want to "take advantage" of higher resolution sensors (either by printing at larger sizes and/or cropping the images more for a given print size), you may need to use faster shutter speeds for sharper images compared to the old 1/(35mm equivalent) focal length rule of thumb.

Given higher resolution sensors, with more users cropping images (since today's software makes that easy), with the trend towards larger and higher resolution displays for viewing those images (even if you're not printing them), I think it probably makes sense to start adjusting that formula as time passes.
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 6, 2009, 9:22 AM   #28
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

IOW, I strongly suspect that this rule of thumb (shutter speed needed for a sharp hand held photo without blur from camera shake) did not anticipate advances in technology. It probably became popular when most users were never printing anything much over 3x5" prints, and my guess is that it assumed around 8x10" as the largest size. But, I don't know it's origin.
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 6, 2009, 9:31 AM   #29
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Ditto for many Depth of Field calculators. IOW, the default Circle of Confusion assumes limited magnification of the original (defaults are designed to maintain acceptable sharpness at a given print size and viewing distance). But, you can change the CoC to something else if larger prints are needed.

However, with the "rule of thumb" for hand held photos without blur, you don't have the equivalent of variable CoC.
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 6, 2009, 10:25 AM   #30
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimC View Post
... I think it probably makes sense to start adjusting that formula as time passes.
For each individual, as the need arises, absolutely.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 5:37 PM.