snubbr.com

1.5x sensor/crop with digital... (1 image)
I see a lot of questions and conflicting answers. A lot has to do with the shutter speed rule with tele-photo lens. Some others have to do with printing and enlargement size. I think both issues revolve around camera shake and sharp images. I put this together to show a full frame and cropped sensor, it's not proportional but represents the film plain/sensor surface..

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

The way I see it the distance from the lens is the same, you get more picture with a FF than you do with a smaller sensor. At that point it makes sense to me that the shutter speed rule stays the same based on the focal length of the lens. A lot of folks here say you have to factor in the crop and treat your 300mm as if it were a 450mm. In my mind that doesn't make sense since the lens projects the image as if there was a full frame sensor on the film plane. If something changed and the lens focused on the smaller sensor so the full image fit on the sensor (smaller overall image on the film plain) then I can see how there is more chance of blur from camera shake. Do I have that right? If not, try to keep it simple and explain how it works....

I do realize once out of the camera (assuming FF and 1.5x are both digital) a graphic image of the same dimensions will result in the FF being equivalent to 300mm and the 1.5x that of a 450mm lens. The thing is that is out of the camera not on the sensor where camera shake comes into play. To me this is where this gets confused, the mechanic's of the lens putting an image on the sensor don't change. By mechanics, I'm thinking of ratios as the image comes through the lens and then becomes projected onto the film plain (sensor). At that point the shake should effect the FF or 1.5x the same..

Now lets assume that some sharpness is lost as you crop beyond 100% of full frame, that's how you get the same size image with a 1.5x sensor, right? This is really where the visual difference comes into play as well. Does shooting 300mm at 1/450th as opposed to 1/300th create a sharper image that can be taken beyond 100% of full frame? If so wouldn't the sharpness of FF be that much better at 1/450th?.

Have I over thought this? Am I missing something? Just looking to understand this so I can use it to better my photography... And I do realize that rules of thumb are basic suggestions, not hard fast rules that must be adhered too..

...Dennis..

Comments (31)

I'm not going to answer your question because I'm not sure myself about the truth, but I'll give you some advice from a lot of experience..

Forget about the rules of thumb and just learn your own limits. What shutter speed you can get away with, when hand-holding, depends how steady your hands are. Mine aren't very steady so I can't get away with less than 1/500 with a 300mm lens on a D200. And that's in the best circumstances; usually I won't try to go under 1/750..

Just see what you can get away with and make up your own equations. For me, I go with shutterspeed >= 2x actual focal length..

Something else to keep in mind is the subject matter. The finer the detail in your subject, the worse the effects of shake will be..

Murrayhttp://www.pbase.com/mmcculloch..

Comment #1

Murray McCulloch wrote:.

Forget about the rules of thumb and just learn your own limits. Whatshutter speed you can get away with, when hand-holding, depends howsteady your hands are. Mine aren't very steady so I can't get awaywith less than 1/500 with a 300mm lens on a D200. And that's in thebest circumstances; usually I won't try to go under 1/750..

This makes more sense than anything else I've read on this subject! .

JohnPentax *ist-D, K100D, Fuji F20/31fd, Oly Stylushttp://www.pbase.com/jglover..

Comment #2

Dennis said...

"Does shooting 300mm at 1/450th as opposed to 1/300th create a sharper image..... that can be taken beyond 100% of full frame?.... If so wouldn't the sharpness of FF be that much better at 1/450th?".

Yes, but there's a limit to sharpness; image motion during exposure is only one of the limits to sharpness..

Diffraction effects are another important limit to sharpness; the maximum resolution of a perfect lens' image on the sensor is about f-stop/3 (in micrometers for greenish light.).

So for an f/6 lens you can expect to resolve no better than dots 2 micrometers apart on the sensor. You simply can't do any better than this with standard optics. It is the same for your versions of FF and sub-frame..

You also can't get resolution any better than the actual spacing between the pixels on your sensor..

So the physical limit of resolution will be the larger of the diffraction limit or the pixel pitch..

In addition, say the image is moving while the exposure takes place; if the image moves rapidly, the exposure must be short enough to insure that the image moves only a small fraction of the sensor's resolution during the exposure. This is the source of the common wisdom about exposure time & focal length - because focal length is proportional to image magnification at the sensor..

Your question includes the phrase "...that can be taken beyond 100% of full frame?..."; 100% crop implies you are displaying at the resolution limit fixed by your sensor's pixel pitch. You can't meaningfully display beyond that limit..

Dave..

Comment #3

Keeping this simple is not easy but we'll try. let's take too many variable out say, a moving subject. why? a moving subject at 5 mph, will require a different shutter speed than a subject moving at 100 mph. so, different speed at which the subjects is moving across the camera's frame will require different shutter speed. then you have to factor in the size of the moving object in relation to your frame. or is it? how about a static subject? a mountain, a building, or perhaps a flag pole.

But the speed of the moving subject is no longer there. is this simple enough? maybe, maybe not. well, at least we are no longer concerned about the moving subject. but lets' proceed already. say we're using a 50mm.

Now, a 50mm will require at least 1/60 sec when handheld. a mountain can fill a frame more than a building. flagpole can be 1/30 of the frame compared to a building occupying maybe 1/4 of the frame or a mountain taking up the entire frame. will this affect the shutter speed/focal length scenaro? hmm. so variable here is the size of the subject.

How about fov? (help!). moving on to another variablesensor size (dx and fx frame). can we all agree that sensor is film? that light gathering property of digital sensor is equivalent to silver halides in film. well, at least they are all about photo sites. i'm sure it's not that simple of a comparison.

As in the op's example, dx only represents a smaller sensor (a cropped fov) but not a bigger subject at the same distance. I don't have all day (my wife is calling me now). please expound on what I have given above. i'll be backhasta la vista, baby! thanks...

Comment #4

5D DjD wrote:.

At that pointit makes sense to me that the shutter speed rule stays the same basedon the focal length of the lens..

Great! Try that out with a 1/2.5" superzoom set at 72mm at 1/80s with IS off, then get back to me..

Have I over thought this? Am I missing something?.

Yep. Your hands shake a certain amount in 1/80s. How much movement doesn't matter. It's about the same whether you are holding a 645, 35mm, APS-C, 4/3", 2/3", 1/1.8", 1/2.5", etc camera. For sake of argument, let's just call it 0.1 degrees..

Now put an 80mm lens (or as close as you can get) on all of these cameras and shoot at 1/80s. On 645, 80mm gives about 48 degrees angle of view. A movement of 0.1 degrees represents a shift of 1/480th of the total angle of view. If you print 8x10, that's a shift of around 0.5mm. A little blurry, but you wouldn't notice unless you looked close..

On 1/2.5", 80mm gives about 5 degrees. A movement of 0.1 degrees represents a shift of 1/50 of the total angle of view. If you print 8x10, that's a shift of around 5mm. Pretty easy to see, I think..

Seen in a fortune cookie:Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed..

Comment #5

Victor beato wrote:.

Keeping this simple is not easy.

It's easy. You are making it needlessly complicated..

Seen in a fortune cookie:Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed..

Comment #6

Thanks for the reply Murry- I tend to agree, that's why I said a rule of thumb isn't or shouldn't be a hard fast rule. Let it get you into the ball park and go from there......Dennis..

Comment #7

Thanks Dave - Of course sharpness related to equipment quality is a big factor....Dennis..

Comment #8

You should use the equivalent focal length, i.e. 1/450th for 300mm. Why? To make the same size print (or other use of the image) from a crop sensor camera as you would from full-frame, you have to magnify it 50% more. Magnifying it more might make the shakiness from a 1/300th exposure visible..

Of course, it's just a rule of thumb. You could use a way slower speed for a low resolution web page, or need a much higher one for a 20x30 print...

Comment #9

Thanks Victor, I think! Not sure if you are trying to help or are mocking me. Yes I understand shutter speed in relation to motion. For the sake of simplicity there is no motion it's a still object and it fills 3/4ths of teh frame......Dennis..

Comment #10

Sorry, dennis. not my intention to mock anyone here. I cited the subject's motion and shutter speed because the other poster used this factor. I know your example is static..

Here's another example of focal length/fov debate in relation to shutter speed. using my 18-200mm (i turned vr off) both pictures taken at 70mm at 1/80. same lighting situation. different distances..

70mm at 6 feet away..

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

70mm at 2 feet away..

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

The fact that same focal length (70mm) at 1/80 for these two images but different fov does not mean I have to increase shutter speed. why? because even though image #2 fills up the frame doesn't mean I need to increase shutter speed. it's still the same focal length but with different fov. now, if I used the other property of the lens (zoom in), this means i'm using it's magnifying power, then yes, I will therefore change the shutter speed to reciprocate the increased focal length. now, even if I use a different lens, say my 180mm, then yes, I will increase shutter speed to at least 1/180 (or more, depending on the lighting conditon) in accordance to the increased focal length of the lens. the magnifying power of the lens dictates the 1/f rule.

In fact, the lighting situation plays a bigger influence but nowhere in this example that fov will affect 1/f rule. fov can be changed by zooming in or out with your feet but it does not affect 1/f rulethere is no magnification taking place (see example above). the changes are in the perspectives. therefore, you don't have to increase shutter speed as in the above example (again). thanks...

Comment #11

.05 - why complicate it more with an even smaller sensor?...Dennis..

Comment #12

Victor beato wrote:.

The fact that same focal length (70mm) at 1/80 for these two imagesbut different fov.

Those images, assuming both really were shot at 70mm on the same sensor, are the same FOV. They are a different view, and presumably different focus distance, but no matter. It's just a different view..

FOV is angular. A 70mm lens on an APS-C camera "sees" the same angle regardless of what you are looking at, and how far away you are. Would you be more comfortable if the term angle of view were used? They are interchangeable..

Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_of_view.

Seen in a fortune cookie:Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed..

Comment #13

5D DjD wrote:.

.05 - why complicate it more with an even smaller sensor?.

Complicate? I'm making it simpler by amplifying the magnitude to make the difference more obvious..

If, as you say, 1/f works for 35mm and APS-C because "sensor crop" doesn't matter, then please explain why should it not also work for 645 and 1/2.5"? Focal length is focal length, right?.

Seen in a fortune cookie:Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed..

Comment #14

Nickleback wrote:.

Victor beato wrote:.

The fact that same focal length (70mm) at 1/80 for these two imagesbut different fov.

Those images, assuming both really were shot at 70mm on the samesensor, are the same FOV. They are a different view, and presumablydifferent focus distance, but no matter. It's just a different view..

FOV is angular. A 70mm lens on an APS-C camera "sees" the same angleregardless of what you are looking at, and how far away you are.Would you be more comfortable if the term angle of view were used?They are interchangeable..

Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_of_view.

Seen in a fortune cookie:Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed.

The decreased fov in my example is the same as the cropped sensor. no magnification took place...

Comment #15

Victor beato wrote:.

Nickleback wrote:.

Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_of_view.

The decreased fov in my example is the same as the cropped sensor. nomagnification took place..

For the second time:.

Your example does not exhibit decreased FOV. The FOV is the same. FOV is angular..

It does exhibit a different perspective, because you are standing 6 feet from the subject in 1 picture and 2 feet from it in the next..

I'm sorry these terms confuse you..

Seen in a fortune cookie:Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed..

Comment #16

Nickleback wrote:.

5D DjD wrote:.

.05 - why complicate it more with an even smaller sensor?.

Complicate? I'm making it simpler by amplifying the magnitude tomake the difference more obvious..

If, as you say, 1/f works for 35mm and APS-C because "sensor crop"doesn't matter, then please explain why should it not also work for645 and 1/2.5"? Focal length is focal length, right?.

Seen in a fortune cookie:Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed.

It's just throwing in a different set of numbers, a smaller crop from FF and from what I have been reading the FF/1.5 crop has a lot of folks confused as it is. Yes what is being transfered through the lens to the sensor is the same regardless of sensor size. Case in point I had to look up the 645 and 1/2.5" to really know what you were refering to. Remember this is the Beginner Forum...Dennis..

Comment #17

Also from wilkepedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutter_speednowhere in the article mentioned about separate rule on digital and film. there is no mention of field of view affecting blur. fov is just an unavoidable consequence of focal length..

Shorter fl will have wider fov and longer wil have narrower fov. that's it. the real factor is the incresed magnification brought about by the increased or decreased fl. if you zoom out with you lens, you need less shutter speed and zoom in, more shutter speed..

Here is a quote from them:.

"Slow shutter speeds are often used in low light conditions, extending the time until the shutter closes, and increasing the amount of light gathered. This basic principle of photography, the exposure, is used in film and digital cameras, the image sensor effectively acting like film when exposed by the shutter.".

Also:.

"The rough guide used by most 35 mm photographers is that the slowest shutter speed that can be used easily without much blur due to camera shake is the shutter speed numerically closest to the lens focal length. For example, for handheld use of a 35 mm camera with a 50 mm normal lens, the closest shutter speed is 1/60 s. This rule can be augmented with knowledge of the intended application for the photograph, an image intended for significant enlargement and closeup viewing would require faster shutter speeds to avoid obvious blur. Through practice and special techniques such as bracing the camera, arms, or body to minimize camera movement longer shutter speeds can be used without blur. If a shutter speed is too slow for hand holding, a camera support  usually a tripod  must be used. Image stabilization can often permit the use of shutter speeds 3-4 stops slower (exposures 8-16 times longer)."..

Comment #18

Nickleback wrote:.

Victor beato wrote:.

Nickleback wrote:.

Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_of_view.

The decreased fov in my example is the same as the cropped sensor. nomagnification took place..

For the second time:.

Your example does not exhibit decreased FOV. The FOV is the same.FOV is angular..

It does exhibit a different perspective, because you are standing 6feet from the subject in 1 picture and 2 feet from it in the next..

I'm sorry these terms confuse you..

Seen in a fortune cookie:Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed.

Who would know if I used the same or different focal length for my sample in my previous post. I could have zoomed in or out with my lens. would you know? sensor or film are in the the same situation. they don't differentiate between lenses. they only record what the lens sees...

Comment #19

5D DjD wrote:.

It's just throwing in a different set of numbers, a smaller crop fromFF and from what I have been reading the FF/1.5 crop has a lot offolks confused as it is..

A different set of numbers where the sensor sizes are quite different, on the order of 10x crop from 645 to 1/2.5"..

Yes what is being transfered through thelens to the sensor is the same regardless of sensor size..

OK, so go prove it. Prove me wrong or yourself wrong. A picture is worth 1000 words..

Grab a 1/2.5" superzoom camera. Not hard to do, they're everywhere. Just waltz into Best Buy or whatever electronics-and-vacuums store is in your area. Bring along a memory card (SD, memory stick, xD). Pick up a camera that kind of looks like a DSLR but has an integrated lens. Examples include the Canon S series (SD card), Panasonic FZ series (SD card), Sony H series (memory stick), Olympus SP ad Fuji S series (xD card).



Make sure the camera you chose is appropriate for the card you have. Pop the card in. Turn off IS (varies, could be a button or menu). Switch to shutter priority mode and set shutter speed to 1/80. Set lens to max telephoto, which should be around 70mm or 80mm (i.e. 420mm to 500mm "35mm equivalent")..

Now pop off a few shots. Doesn't really matter what the subject is. Maybe of the salesperson that's been nagging you. Switch the shutter speed to 1/500. Pop off a few more shots. Grab your card, thank the salesman, and leave the store..

At home, look at the shots. We the 1/80s shots sharp? How about the 1/500 shots?.

Remember this is the Beginner Forum.

I just gave you complete instructions..

Seen in a fortune cookie:Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed..

Comment #20

Victor beato wrote:.

Also from wilkepediahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutter_speed nowhere in the articlementioned about separate rule on digital and film..

I did not mention a separate rule for digital and film. That would be silly, as there are many sizes of film, just as there are many sizes of digital sensors. However the 1/f rule is specifically for 35mm. That's clearly stated in the linked article..

Fov is just an unavoidable consequence of focal length..

...and film/sensor size..

Anyhow, here's the quote that you grabbed from the article but failed to comprehend. Note the mention (twice!) that this is the rule for 35mm format:.

"The rough guide used by most 35 mm photographers is that the slowestshutter speed that can be used easily without much blur due to camerashake is the shutter speed numerically closest to the lens focallength. For example, for handheld use of a 35 mm camera with a 50 mmnormal lens, the closest shutter speed is 1/60 s..

Seen in a fortune cookie:Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed..

Comment #21

Victor beato wrote:.

Who would know if I used the same or different focal length for mysample in my previous post..

You said you used the same focal length. That appears to be the case. If you lied, oh well..

I could have zoomed in or out with my lens. would you know?.

Perhaps, as moving closer changes perspective (the misnamed "wide angle effect"). For instance, the shape of the lamp. If both were taken from the same distance, the lamp would have the same apparent depth (or lack of depth) regardless of focal length. Move closer and the lamp looks "fatter". It appears you used the same focal length and moved closer..

They don't differentiate between lenses. they only record what thelens sees..

In that case, throw out 1/f, you can get sharp shots at any shutter speed on any sensor or film size regardless of the focal length..

But we both know that's incorrect..

Seen in a fortune cookie:Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed..

Comment #22

Nickleback wrote:.

Victor beato wrote:.

Also from wilkepediahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutter_speed nowhere in the articlementioned about separate rule on digital and film..

I did not mention a separate rule for digital and film. That wouldbe silly, as there are many sizes of film, just as there are manysizes of digital sensors. However the 1/f rule is specifically for35mm. That's clearly stated in the linked article..

Fov is just an unavoidable consequence of focal length..

...and film/sensor size..

Anyhow, here's the quote that you grabbed from the article but failedto comprehend. Note the mention (twice!) that this is the rule for35mm format:.

"The rough guide used by most 35 mm photographers is that the slowestshutter speed that can be used easily without much blur due to camerashake is the shutter speed numerically closest to the lens focallength. For example, for handheld use of a 35 mm camera with a 50 mmnormal lens, the closest shutter speed is 1/60 s..

Seen in a fortune cookie:Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed.

How did the 1/f rule come about? back in the old days, most new cameras came with a 50mm lens (most affordable and popular at that time). average human heart beats at 60-80/min. the threshhold at which many believed camera will tolerate the shake from an average person's hand with average heart rate (the slower the heartbeat, the more stable the handlook, they were just looking for a simple formula then. easy to remember, easy to apply. they could have chosen 80 but what do other lens with longer focal length use? 100 at 1/160 which is more complicated or 1/125 which is closer to 100 and readily available, easier to remember. camera back then has only 1/60, 1/125, 1/250, and so on.

They took the one closest to 50mm. hence, 50mm at 1/60 and later applied to 100mm requiring at least 1/125, 200 at 1/250. they did not measure the size of the film to arrive at this rule. same goes with the sensor. clearly, sensor size or film size has no bearing on 1/f rule...

Comment #23

Victor beato wrote:.

How did the 1/f rule come about?.

By coincidence of 35mm normal focal length and the already-known reasonably handholding shutter speed..

Back in the old days, most newcameras came with a 50mm lens (most affordable and popular at thattime)..

Back in the old days, most cameras used larger than 35mm film. Their lenses were in the ballpark of 100mm. But yet they produced images free of camera shake at 1/50s. Why? Because they were shooting larger-that-35mm film formats. 1/f wasn't the rule..

By the 1950's, when 35mm started to get popular, the focal length nicely coincided with the already existing "1/50s handheld with a normal lens" rule, since a normal on 35mm is about 50mm (actually 43.3mm, but there's a reason that 50mm is used and that is off-topic)..

Average human heart beats at 60-80/min. the threshhold atwhich many believed camera will tolerate the shake from an averageperson's hand with average heart rate.

If this is the only factor, then you could use 1/60s to 1/80s for any focal length on any size sensor/film, and therefore angle of view, from fisheye to long telephoto..

They did not measure the size of the film to arrive at thisrule..

Nope, they measured the normal, and by coincidence, on 35mm, the focal length matched the rule..

Seen in a fortune cookie:Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed..

Comment #24

Victor beato wrote:.

Clearly, sensor size or film size has no bearing on 1/f rule..

Trivial to prove or disprove. Follow the directions I already posted to acquire some shots at 70-80mm actual focal length (i.e. around 400 to 500mm "35mm equivalent") on a compact superzoom with 1/2.5" sensor with IS off at shutter speeds of 1/80 and 1/500, then look at the results..

Seen in a fortune cookie:Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed..

Comment #25

Murray,.

Thanks for being the voice of reason. I asked about this in another thread and it turned in to a type of war.  .

While trying myself to see if it made a difference, I realized I had been trained as a biathlete, hollowing out dimes with a .22 at 50m while trying to control my pounding heart from skiing 5km. Holding steady is second nature to me, and I've recently quit coffee..

All of a sudden it dawned on me that it was a rule of thumb, not a rule. I deliberately tried to blur an image at 70mm with 1/500s by holding the camera poorly. And I pulled off a blurry image quite successfully. There's nothing saying a well trained, disciplined individual couldn't hold a camera as steady as a tripod - sounds like a great exercise for one of my kung-fu friends. (They're always doing zany discipline stuff like remaining unmoving while people break planks of wood on their heads.).

So, I guess I will just find out how well I can hold a camera, and bump up the speed if I drink coffee first...

Comment #26

Of course it's just a rue of thumb, of course it varies between photographers, of course it's been discussed a thusand times before..

But inquiring minds still want to know and yours is the best explanation I have seen. Thank you. I'm saving this post for future reference..

BTW I think your explanation also debunks the silly (IMHO) idea that higher MP cameras are more prone to [visible] camera shake. Based on your explanation, the amount (in degrees / fraction of the field of view) of movement due to shake is so significant - for, say, an 80mm lens at 1/80 sec on a typical DSLR sensor - that the pixel density is vanishinlgy irrelevant to how it shows up in the final picture / print..

Thanks again..

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..

Comment #27

Nickleback wrote:.

Victor beato wrote:.

How did the 1/f rule come about?.

By coincidence of 35mm normal focal length and the already-knownreasonably handholding shutter speed..

Exactly so!.

The *1/50th second rule*....

(where FoV is that of a lens in which f-length equals film format diagonal).

..... was applied for DECADES before 35mm cameras came into common use..

Indeed, the first ever hand-holdable Box Cameras of 1900s (Brownies etc.) were fitted with shutters that delivered 1/50 sec..

{Well, to be more accurate, it was closer to 1/40th in most of them! The longer shutter speed was tolerable because body sway at waist-level is less than at eye-level..}.

So, the shutter speeds that were safe for hand-holding were well known LONG before a small sized camera came along where the film's diagonal happened to be 50mm (approx) corner to corner......

.....and therefore needed a 50mm lens to yield what could, quite accurately, be referred to as...... the 1/50th second FIELD OF VIEW !!!.

As nickleback says.....

Back in the old days, most cameras used larger than 35mm film. Theirlenses were in the ballpark of 100mm. But yet they produced imagesfree of camera shake at 1/50s. Why? Because they were shootinglarger-that-35mm film formats. 1/f wasn't the rule..

By the 1950's, when 35mm started to get popular, the focal lengthnicely coincided with the already existing "1/50s handheld with anormal lens" rule, since a normal on 35mm is about 50mm (actually43.3mm, but there's a reason that 50mm is used and that is off-topic)..

They did not measure the size of the film to arrive at thisrule..

Nope, they measured the normal, and by coincidence, on 35mm, thefocal length matched the rule..

Exactly so!.

The 1/f-length rule was such a serendipitous event (happy accident) for 35mm photographers, and 35mm size was so popular for so very long, many people have come to believe it is something inherent in the f-lengths themselves..

Be assured. It is NOT! It is inherent in "35mm camera f-lengths" ONLY!!.

It was the 35mm camera that made the rule 'work'... not the f-length(s) themselves!!.

All other cameras sizes use exactly the SAME shutter speeds to combat camera shake with any one FoV but this generates a DIFFERENT relationship between the f-length and shutter speed used. It can no longer be the 1/f-length relationship, because........

# All cameras larger than 35mm use f-lengths that are LONGER than 35mm ones, so have a relationship where safe shutter speed has to be a FRACTION of f-length..

# All cameras where image is smaller than 35mm use f-lengths that are SHORTER than 35mm ones, so have a relationship where safe shutter speed is a MULTIPLE of f-length....

..... the multiple being 1.5 times in the case of APSC...

APSC example:-.

35mm f-length lens gives same FoV as 50mm lens on FF35mm, therefore 35mm length lens lens needs same safe shutter speed as 50mm lens on FF35mm..

Safe shutter speed is therefore 1/50th or so, same as at has always been.....

..... right back to the point at the beginning of the last century, when light sensitive materials became light sensitive enough to make the business of hand holding a camera without shake "just about" possible ... if you were careful !! .

=======================================So, in a nutshell and as stated....

The actual speeds recommended for camera shake safety are always the same speeds for any one FoV, and this is true whatever size of camera is in use..

However, the convenient 1/f rule that has helped so many 35mm users to REMEMBER what the safe speeds are -(and have always been!)- must be appropriately modified for use with cameras with larger or smaller frame sizes..

Alternatively, just remember the ACTUAL SAFE SPEEDS for your different zoom levels/framing, and forget the damned rule!! This works for any camera. Okay?=======================================Victor,.

This is my last try. I hope you have got it now, really I do! Regards,Baz..

Comment #28

Arrowman wrote:.

BTW I think your explanation also debunks the silly (IMHO) idea thathigher MP cameras are more prone to [visible] camera shake..

They are, if you look at 100% pixels. But that's not an apples-to-apples comparison..

Take images from two sensors of the same physical size but different MP count. If you look at the same size image on a monitor or print, you are using the same enlargement. If you look at 100% pixels, the higher mp image is enlarged more..

Which brings us full circle. The degree of enlargement matters..

Seen in a fortune cookie:Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed..

Comment #29

Often, after reading threads like this, I wonder how I've ever managed to take photo's but I appear to have been doing it for some years now. There used to be a joke to the effect that birds could fly because they didn't know about or understand aerodynamics. I guess a version of that applies to me, now..

Regards, David..

Comment #30

Arkoc wrote:.

There's nothing saying a well trained, disciplinedindividual couldn't hold a camera as steady as a tripod - sounds like.

True - even I can be very steady if I have the luxury of configuring my body as a stable platform..

So, I guess I will just find out how well I can hold a camera, andbump up the speed if I drink coffee first..

Or in my case, bump up the speed if I *don't* drink coffee first. http://www.pbase.com/mmcculloch..

Comment #31

Click Here to View All...

Sponsored Amazon Deals:

1. Get big savings on Amazon warehouse deals.
2. Save up to 70% on Amazon Products.


This question was taken from a support group/message board and re-posted here so others can learn from it.

 

Categories: Home | Diet & Weight Management | Vitamins & Supplements | Herbs & Cleansing |

Sexual Health | Medifast Support | Nutrisystem Support | Medifast Questions |

Web Hosting | Web Hosts | Website Hosting | Hosting |

Web Hosting | GoDaddy | Digital Cameras | Best WebHosts |

Web Hosting FAQ | Web Hosts FAQ | Hosting FAQ | Hosting Group |

Hosting Questions | Camera Tips | Best Cameras To Buy | Best Cameras This Year |

Camera Q-A | Digital Cameras Q-A | Camera Forum | Nov 2010 - Cameras |

Oct 2010 - Cameras | Oct 2010 - DSLRs | Oct 2010 - Camera Tips | Sep 2010 - Cameras |

Sep 2010 - DSLRS | Sep 2010 - Camera Tips | Aug 2010 - Cameras | Aug 2010 - DSLR Tips |

Aug 2010 - Camera Tips | July 2010 - Cameras | July 2010 - Nikon Cameras | July 2010 - Canon Cameras |

July 2010 - Pentax Cameras | Medifast Recipes | Medifast Recipes Tips | Medifast Recipes Strategies |

Medifast Recipes Experiences | Medifast Recipes Group | Medifast Recipes Forum | Medifast Support Strategies |

Medifast Support Experiences |

 

(C) Copyright 2010 All rights reserved.