D810 handheld shooting? Why is it even an issue?

[Simon Garrett]

Or....is it? I've read several articles talking about how you have to he super careful when hand-holding shots with the D810. Talking about how it's tough to get tack sharp images unless on a tripod. Why is that? I've had one for two weeks but haven't actually gotten out with it to shoot enough to understand these types of comments. Thx.

Shoot something in your home handheld then shoot the same scene on a tripod. Look at the RAWs at 100%. Tell us what you see.

Or better still, don't look at 100%. Look at normal magnification, as you intend to use the images. That is, print normal size, or view at normal size on the monitor. Now can you see the blur without a tripod - blur that a tripod fixes?

If so, presumably you are viewing at higher magnificatation than you could have done with a lower-resolution camera. I mean: if you are magnifying the image enough to see the difference between hand-held and tripod-mounted, assuming shutter speed no longer than (1 / focal length), then clearly you need D810 resolution, and images from a D700 (for example) at that magnification would be useless anyway.

 

[sgoldswo]

Or....is it? I've read several articles talking about how you have to he super careful when hand-holding shots with the D810. Talking about how it's tough to get tack sharp images unless on a tripod. Why is that? I've had one for two weeks but haven't actually gotten out with it to shoot enough to understand these types of comments. Thx.

Of course there is a difference between shooting any camera handheld and on a tripod.

It isn't a particular issue with the D810. This discourse developed because some people found they needed to increase the shutter speed on the D800/E above 1x focal length to get sharp images. I and others put that down to excessive vibration caused by the mirror and shutter. The Sony A7R suffered in a similar way due to its vibration heavy shutter.

It's fair to say the D810 isn't in that bracket and from my perspective in normal use is exactly the same as any other 35mm sensor DSLR. In theory and practice, it's actually better than other 35mm sensor DSLRs when EFCS is used. For me, that's the end of the story.

 

[AlGor]

But all of yours examples downsampled heavily, which is not proving your statement. BTW good landscaping shots.

Al.

 

[Rick Knepper]

Or....is it? I've read several articles talking about how you have to he super careful when hand-holding shots with the D810. Talking about how it's tough to get tack sharp images unless on a tripod. Why is that? I've had one for two weeks but haven't actually gotten out with it to shoot enough to understand these types of comments. Thx.

Shoot something in your home handheld then shoot the same scene on a tripod. Look at the RAWs at 100%. Tell us what you see.

Or better still, don't look at 100%. Look at normal magnification, as you intend to use the images. That is, print normal size, or view at normal size on the monitor. Now can you see the blur without a tripod - blur that a tripod fixes?

this would be the next logical and admittedly practical course of action for proving to oneself whether or not a tripod is needed. Cropping skews this particular test though. Also, what you see at 100% may not be able to be unseen at lower file sizes. This argument may be akin to the "good enough" topic in another thread.

Finally, just because your immediate application does not call for large prints (that can/will reveal hand shake), new applications may one day could, and I think many folks have that in the back of their minds when determining how much stabilization they need.

If so, presumably you are viewing at higher magnificatation than you could have done with a lower-resolution camera. I mean: if you are magnifying the image enough to see the difference between hand-held and tripod-mounted, assuming shutter speed no longer than (1 / focal length), then clearly you need D810 resolution, and images from a D700 (for example) at that magnification would be useless anyway.

 

[Silverstreaks]

Or....is it? I've read several articles talking about how you have to he super careful when hand-holding shots with the D810. Talking about how it's tough to get tack sharp images unless on a tripod. Why is that? I've had one for two weeks but haven't actually gotten out with it to shoot enough to understand these types of comments. Thx.

Shoot something in your home handheld then shoot the same scene on a tripod. Look at the RAWs at 100%. Tell us what you see.

--
Rick Knepper, photographer, shooting for pleasure. It is better to have It and not need It than need It and not have It. Mystery Gardner: "Rick, you have a passion for photography but not a position. That's a good thing." Based on 2014 keepers, I shot the following percentages: 5D3=42%, D800=31%, 6D=25% & D3x=2%. Various RAW comparisons at Link below. Includes 5D3 vs D800E (new uploads), 5D3 vs. 6D, Zeiss lenses etc. https://app.box.com/s/71w40ita6hrcfghojaie

>>>>>>Shoot something in your home handheld then shoot the same scene on a tripod. Look at the RAWs at 100%. Tell us what you see.<<<<<<

If that was the case with the D810 well I'm already feeling so sorry for those future Canon super doopa 5D whatever 50mp camera owners.

Just think of all those blurry images taken handheld ----- Keepers 0%

 

[primeshooter]

Or....is it? I've read several articles talking about how you have to he super careful when hand-holding shots with the D810. Talking about how it's tough to get tack sharp images unless on a tripod. Why is that? I've had one for two weeks but haven't actually gotten out with it to shoot enough to understand these types of comments. Thx.

Shoot something in your home handheld then shoot the same scene on a tripod. Look at the RAWs at 100%. Tell us what you see.

 

[Simon Garrett]

Or....is it? I've read several articles talking about how you have to he super careful when hand-holding shots with the D810. Talking about how it's tough to get tack sharp images unless on a tripod. Why is that? I've had one for two weeks but haven't actually gotten out with it to shoot enough to understand these types of comments. Thx.

Shoot something in your home handheld then shoot the same scene on a tripod. Look at the RAWs at 100%. Tell us what you see.

Or better still, don't look at 100%. Look at normal magnification, as you intend to use the images. That is, print normal size, or view at normal size on the monitor. Now can you see the blur without a tripod - blur that a tripod fixes?

this would be the next logical and admittedly practical course of action for proving to oneself whether or not a tripod is needed. Cropping skews this particular test though. Also, what you see at 100% may not be able to be unseen at lower file sizes. This argument may be akin to the "good enough" topic in another thread.

Finally, just because your immediate application does not call for large prints (that can/will reveal hand shake), new applications may one day could, and I think many folks have that in the back of their minds when determining how much stabilization they need.

If so, presumably you are viewing at higher magnificatation than you could have done with a lower-resolution camera. I mean: if you are magnifying the image enough to see the difference between hand-held and tripod-mounted, assuming shutter speed no longer than (1 / focal length), then clearly you need D810 resolution, and images from a D700 (for example) at that magnification would be useless anyway.

I completely agree, Rick. The extra resolution of a D8xx means that there is more risk of camera shake, and so to prevent that one may need higher shutter speed or a tripod. As you say, one might be very glad of that extra sharpness at some time.

To me, that certainly doesn't mean "no hand-held shots". It just means that I try for a one-stop faster shutter speed than I would have used with 12 Mpixel. That might equate to faster than 1 / (focal length) without VR (slower with VR, obviously).

 

[Penny123]

An interesting thread to read as I currently using a d700 and was thinking of upgrading in May. It is such a difficult choice deciding which model is the best for me. The d810 seems a great camera but I had been put off reading about how ultra sensitive it is and 90% of my shots are handheld out walking (yes I know I should use a tripod more) Maybe worth reconsidering this camera as an option.
--

Loading…

www.flickr.com

 

[creativedogmedia]

An interesting thread to read as I currently using a d700 and was thinking of upgrading in May. It is such a difficult choice deciding which model is the best for me. The d810 seems a great camera but I had been put off reading about how ultra sensitive it is and 90% of my shots are handheld out walking (yes I know I should use a tripod more) Maybe worth reconsidering this camera as an option.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sarahb86/

It's an amazing piece of metal and I've decided that I am not going to let something like this get in my way of going out and shooting. Unless you are super nervous or have issues that may cause hand shake, take a deep breath and fire away.

 

[Marianne Oelund]

An interesting thread to read as I currently using a d700 and was thinking of upgrading in May. It is such a difficult choice deciding which model is the best for me. The d810 seems a great camera but I had been put off reading about how ultra sensitive it is and 90% of my shots are handheld out walking (yes I know I should use a tripod more) Maybe worth reconsidering this camera as an option.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sarahb86/

Upgrading from D700 to D810 increases linear resolution (along each axis) by 73%. If you wish to take full advantage of that increase, a similar increase in shutter speed is warranted.

However, there will probably be many cases where your final output is downsampled and does not demand more resolution than the D700 is capable of. In those cases, you can use the D810 at the same shutter speed you would have used with the D700, with no penalty. That statement may not be as true for the D800/E, which has a higher level of mechanical ("shutter") shock.

 

[PHXAZCRAIG]

The resolution of the D8xx cameras is so high that it exposes minor flaws. Mostly if you pixel peep at 100%.

This is a good thing.

You can zoom in and see exactly what, if anything, is technically wrong in terms of focus accuracy, subject or camera movement, and lens performance from center to edge. Missed focus by 1/4 inch? You can see the difference (but only if you look closely). Got a tiny bit of shake when you handheld? You can see it. Lens not as good in the corners as the center? You'll see it.

Downsize that 36mp image to fit on a web page, print at less than 11x14, and the flaws disappear, unless they were so bad you would have seen them on a 12mp camera.

The reason I think is a good thing to see these details is that it will help you improve your technique, should you care to. For instance, you may start choosing a higher shutter speed, or stop down a bit more, or hold that camera better, or start using your tripod more.

--
Craig
www.cjcphoto.net

 

[Marianne Oelund]

Haven't used one before but own a D610 and many other dslrs before! I've easily handheld my Olympus e3 (10mp which has same density as 40mp full frame) and my 12mp m4/3 camera (same density as 48mp full frame)

This is not a valid comparison unless you are using the same physical (not effective) focal-length lens on each camera - but then you would not be taking the same photo with each.

These combinations have the same FOV. Which puts more pixels on the subject, thus requiring higher shutter speed?

36Mpix FX camera with 200mm lens;

24Mpix DX camera with 135mm lens;

12Mpix M4/3 camera with 100mm lens.

 

[lock]

An interesting thread to read as I currently using a d700 and was thinking of upgrading in May. It is such a difficult choice deciding which model is the best for me. The d810 seems a great camera but I had been put off reading about how ultra sensitive it is and 90% of my shots are handheld out walking (yes I know I should use a tripod more) Maybe worth reconsidering this camera as an option.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sarahb86/

Upgrading from D700 to D810 increases linear resolution (along each axis) by 73%. If you wish to take full advantage of that increase, a similar increase in shutter speed is warranted.

However, there will probably be many cases where your final output is downsampled and does not demand more resolution than the D700 is capable of. In those cases, you can use the D810 at the same shutter speed you would have used with the D700, with no penalty

Then what is the added value of 24 mp?

Lock

 

[W A Stewart]

I just did two days in a row in the same snowy trail, the first day with a tripod and the second handheld. In both cases I used a 90mm f/2.8 Tamron VC (their term of VR or IS), partly because I tend to take miniscapes and partly as it was new to me. Of course I used IS (VC) the handheld day.

Here are tradeoffs I see:

It's a challenge getting stable enough bases for a tripod in snow. Of course that only applies to snow or other unsteady surfaces. It's easier to get just the framing you want handheld.

The advantage of the tripod: you can stop down more, which you really want to do in this sort of thing. (Even at f/11 you can have a largely blurred background, if that is what you want.) Also, you can shoot at ISO 64. Handholding, you need to boost the ISO at least somewhat, even in bright snowy conditions if you want f/10 or so.

The IS (VC) in the Tamron is such that holding steady something under 1/100th is equally as sharp at 100% as I managed with the tripod (at 90mm of course) and I didn't need more than ISO 400; ISO 200 was typical. Without an exact count I think I got about the same number of really sharp ones either way, due to challenges with the tripod in the snow. However, the bright snowy conditions are what also made handholding more possible. In these conditions I find a non-IS lens can get super sharp images also (and with my D800E before I switched to a D810), provided I had a shutter speed of roughly 1/0000 or more. Some may do better, but my technique is fairly OK and I am referring to really sharp images.

 

[Marianne Oelund]

Upgrading from D700 to D810 increases linear resolution (along each axis) by 73%. If you wish to take full advantage of that increase, a similar increase in shutter speed is warranted.

However, there will probably be many cases where your final output is downsampled and does not demand more resolution than the D700 is capable of. In those cases, you can use the D810 at the same shutter speed you would have used with the D700, with no penalty

Then what is the added value of 24 mp?

Zero, if your final output doesn't make it visible.

Just as there is no advantage to having a 360hp engine in your car, instead of a 120hp engine, when you only have the throttle at 20%.

 

[Tony Beach]

Upgrading from D700 to D810 increases linear resolution (along each axis) by 73%. If you wish to take full advantage of that increase, a similar increase in shutter speed is warranted.

Not necessarily if you are using MLU and a tripod, or if the shutter speed is already sufficiently high.

--

Photo 1 of 12, Twelve Images

 

[Karl Persson]

Upgrading from D700 to D810 increases linear resolution (along each axis) by 73%. If you wish to take full advantage of that increase, a similar increase in shutter speed is warranted.

However, there will probably be many cases where your final output is downsampled and does not demand more resolution than the D700 is capable of. In those cases, you can use the D810 at the same shutter speed you would have used with the D700, with no penalty

Then what is the added value of 24 mp?

Zero, if your final output doesn't make it visible.

Just as there is no advantage to having a 360hp engine in your car, instead of a 120hp engine, when you only have the throttle at 20%.

But if you downsize the 36 Mp image to 12 Mp you will have colour accuracy and dynamic range way beyond what the 12 Mp camera can do.

(And at 20% throttle the 360 hp car will most likely need much less fuel than the 120 hp car at full throttle...)

 

[Rick Knepper]

Or....is it? I've read several articles talking about how you have to he super careful when hand-holding shots with the D810. Talking about how it's tough to get tack sharp images unless on a tripod. Why is that? I've had one for two weeks but haven't actually gotten out with it to shoot enough to understand these types of comments. Thx.

Shoot something in your home handheld then shoot the same scene on a tripod. Look at the RAWs at 100%. Tell us what you see.

Or better still, don't look at 100%. Look at normal magnification, as you intend to use the images. That is, print normal size, or view at normal size on the monitor. Now can you see the blur without a tripod - blur that a tripod fixes?

this would be the next logical and admittedly practical course of action for proving to oneself whether or not a tripod is needed. Cropping skews this particular test though. Also, what you see at 100% may not be able to be unseen at lower file sizes. This argument may be akin to the "good enough" topic in another thread.

Finally, just because your immediate application does not call for large prints (that can/will reveal hand shake), new applications may one day could, and I think many folks have that in the back of their minds when determining how much stabilization they need.

If so, presumably you are viewing at higher magnificatation than you could have done with a lower-resolution camera. I mean: if you are magnifying the image enough to see the difference between hand-held and tripod-mounted, assuming shutter speed no longer than (1 / focal length), then clearly you need D810 resolution, and images from a D700 (for example) at that magnification would be useless anyway.

I completely agree, Rick. The extra resolution of a D8xx means that there is more risk of camera shake, and so to prevent that one may need higher shutter speed or a tripod. As you say, one might be very glad of that extra sharpness at some time.

To me, that certainly doesn't mean "no hand-held shots".

It doesn't keep me from handheld shooting.

It just means that I try for a one-stop faster shutter speed than I would have used with 12 Mpixel. That might equate to faster than 1 / (focal length) without VR (slower with VR, obviously).

This is exactly what it boils down to - extra care.

 

[sgoldswo]

An interesting thread to read as I currently using a d700 and was thinking of upgrading in May. It is such a difficult choice deciding which model is the best for me. The d810 seems a great camera but I had been put off reading about how ultra sensitive it is and 90% of my shots are handheld out walking (yes I know I should use a tripod more) Maybe worth reconsidering this camera as an option.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sarahb86/

Upgrading from D700 to D810 increases linear resolution (along each axis) by 73%. If you wish to take full advantage of that increase, a similar increase in shutter speed is warranted.

definitely true of the D800/E. Don't believe it to be true of the D810 at all. 1x focal length is enough for most subjects. Sometimes action demands higher, but it would on a lower MP camera too. Static subjects can be shot in MUP mode at less than 1x focal length.

However, there will probably be many cases where your final output is downsampled and does not demand more resolution than the D700 is capable of. In those cases, you can use the D810 at the same shutter speed you would have used with the D700, with no penalty. That statement may not be as true for the D800/E, which has a higher level of mechanical ("shutter") shock.

 

[G K]

I came to digital from Hasselblads and RB-67s so I know the value of tripods if for no other reason than "weight relief". Then I climbed the digital ladder - Fuji S2 Pro, Nikon D70, D200, D300 and then bought the D800E when it was released. Operational wise I made no changes when moving from the D300 to the D800E and now only use the tripod in the studio. Several years ago I decided I would never buy another lens unless it had VR and that allowed me to leave the tripod in the car. Also when I got the D800E I also got better glass - a 24-120f/4 VR and the 70-200 f/2.8 VRII. All outdoor portraits are hand held with VR on. I sell lots of 20X24 portraits and they are tack sharp. At Christmas I photographed a large family group and they ordered a 24X30 and it was also razor sharp. I use the 5:4 ratio setting about 90% of the time. I did, however, use a tripod for this outdoor sitting only because the large group was also broken down into smaller family groups 5,4, and 3 people. Since the sitting ran long and I was using the 70-200 f/2.8 VRII I no longer have the arm strength to hold that beauty for hours at a time (I will be 82 in a couple of months). So what I did with my D300 I do with the D800E with regard to basic camera settings. It just works.

Regards,