Does high pixel density (D2X) make camera shake more prevalent?

I love my D2X so this is not a troll post.

With my 70-200VR lens I can only rely on about 1/125 at 200mm and consistently get sharp images. At 1/60 at 200mm I am only getting about a 25% succcess ratio. I can think of only two things. Either this lens and camera body is heavy enough to make hand held shooting iffy for me, or maybe the high pixel density is somehow magnifying camera shake. Does anyone know if my second theory has any validity?

With my previous 8 MP D-SLR I could shoot at 1/focal length all the time and get sharp shots, so I would think I qualify for Nikon's advertised 3 stop VR advantage. Although that camera body was much smaller than the D2X, the 50-500 lens attached was no lightweight.

My gut says pixel density is irrelevant and it is likely just the heft of lens and body but maybe pixel density does play a part?

Greg

--
Yves P.
Share the Knowledge

PBASE Supporter

Some pictures I like:
http://www.pbase.com/yp8/root

The same happens to me with the same setup.

I have started using tripod..heheh But because I am a big strong man, it is not the weight of the camera and lense. Its the increased density...I see it all the time photographing..blur from camerashake. Never like that with D100.
--
E. Guldseth ( Writer'n)
My pics: http://www.writern.no/picfrm.htm

yes but if you down sample to your old 8mp level, it should make you even. The weight may add to it, for some the weight may help. More inertia should steady untill it gets so heavy you get the shakes. Does VR take a second or two to kick in? I think I read that somewhere.
a

The finer the resolution the more motion blur will show.

--
-------David-------
http://www.pbase.com/david_hofmann/root

Andrew wrote:
Does VR take a second or two to kick in? I think I read

Andrew64673 said:

that somewhere.
a

Click to expand...

Yes it does, one the gyros are activated, it does take them a bit to settle down. I believe this would be more evident, as it would create a slight blur to the photos. If memory serves me correctly, the gyros when activated cause the image through the viewfinder to lift slightly up and to the left, where it then locks into place. (of course if the camera is tilted it would be up and to the right).

Best regards,
Tom

Yes. With all lenses. Makes you concentrate on your technique!

Greg Matty said:

With my 70-200VR lens I can only rely on about 1/125 at 200mm and
consistently get sharp images.

Click to expand...

Do you mean with VR switched ON? Then you have too much handshake. If no VR 1/125 @ 200 mm is a too slow speed, because you are actually shooting at 300mm effective focal length. 1/200th, or better 1/300th would be the normal lower limit speed.

regards,

Bernie

Andrew said:

yes but if you down sample to your old 8mp level, it should make
you even. The weight may add to it, for some the weight may help.
More inertia should steady untill it gets so heavy you get the
shakes. Does VR take a second or two to kick in? I think I read
that somewhere.
a

Click to expand...

Re tripods, it's not merely mass, but Center of Gravity that counts. For me, setup time to shot / stability tradeoff is a premium, and there's a tradeoff here you have to be aware of. In genral the lower C.O.G. the better. Overall leg stability is a real issue too. I'm not very tall (but over 6') and i like to work with eyepiece at eye level standing, if i can. Needing 66" of primary extension to achieve this (the physical "shift" is a bonus too, for a lot of my work) and i think even great Gitzos are too instable, save with extreme care, even with rubber feet on dry flat concrete. This is because there's little mass in those thin thin third CF extensions. Spreaders or bagging help lots, but i am sensitive that at this much extension i too often see wibble and wobble that's going to be a lot of pixels on my D2X. (Yes, i use MUP and a release almost exclusively).

My conclusion: tripods with dual leg fork extensions such as Sachtler or OConor are as close as it gets to truly solid. S/H surveyor's tripods are a much cheaper option, and it just occurred to me that with a high-viz jacket, might get me less hassle from busy body security guards near offices When i mean stable, i mean that when you gently rest your hand on the cam, there's no discernable movement, not even when you give it a gentle nudge. Many many people advocate bearing down on the cam/lens to add dampening, but i think this is less than ideal and if anything a compensation for inherently poor support. Moreover when the cam is high up, it's hard to do, and too easy to add motion if distracted in the slightest.

FWIW i came recently from the [dearly beloved, RIP] Minolta camp, and never thought (until after, oh, a full day shooting the 2X!!) just how much the D2X demands and loves being on a tripod. Maybe my tripod shortlist is extreme or expensive, but, as never a tripod lover, i come to this from a super - critical POV, and am simply advocating my assumed practise that if i have to carry a darn tripod everywhere, this is going to be the best darn tripod physically and ergonmically i can obtain. Further, whilst so many here on this forum have sheds of highly expensive Nikkors, i hardly think it's a sequitur to complain that a $2K tripod is in that context too much. I didn't buy my D2X to lark around, and specifically held off some glass purchases to budget for a top tripod. If, as the anecdotal observation goes, we shoot with one or two focals 80% of the time, i prefer to up that game instead of having assets depreciating but not being shot. (That assumption doesn't usually apply to birders and sports photogs who have to lock and load different focals and extensions frequently, however)

My view: I'd rather crop a rock solid, well focussed shot, than downsample a closer shot even if it's minutely blurred.

My present problem, whilst i can touch, hold and use a Sachtler easily in London UK, I can't find an OConor, which gives me the extra extension i need, [no center columns here!] so i am searching for a dealer or a rental where i can kick the tyres. I'll certainly report on what i decide at some point soon if it gets interesting or anyone asks.

Of note, the old Medium Format Digest thread "Beating The 50lppmm Barrier" had a very interesting comment about subterranian shake interference with resolution, suggesting even a passing El or Tube can significantly degrade a shot. Here in central London, and with recent high winds, and underground everywhere, that's interesting, and has me looking at fluid heads for the damping control. Sorry i can't link to that post i mention, the "page" prints to IIRC a hundred letter sheets or so, but is well worth some study. That kept me interested on some otherwise very dull days

On the subject of VR and gyros, has anyone here used a Kenyon gyro with their D2X/H/Hs? I'd be very interested to hear as i've only seen these gyros in use on fixed-free platforms. All gyros take a while to "spin up", even the very low frequency gyros in VR subsystems, and the VR is also collating data during "spin up", so a common problem seems to be that people turn on the VR, let it spin up in a certain circumstance, then expect it to work when switching from pseudo-random handheld motion to panning or vice - versa. VR needs i understand about a full minute in the shooting poise to work properly. Any comments or clarification from more experienced users would be genuinely appreciated.

best to y'all,

• kirbs

--
========
Possible origin of Bokeh?
--
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1000&thread=14757301
-- and --
http://imx.nl/photosite/comments/c017.html

Yeah, you are right! But I experienced the same problem with my D2x, I didn't know whether I am not as strong as I was younder or D2x really make the different, let see my story below:

I used to thing I have very steady hand last 15 years, when I was using F5/F90x with my old Tokina 100-300 F4.0, the best shutter speed I could use was 1/160 at 300mm with a deap breath and hold the breath before I press the shutter! But it wasn't digital, I couldn't see the picture in 100% to confirm, but 4x6 and 8x12 enlargement told me I was steady!

When I was using D1x with 80-200 F2.8 AFS , at 200mm (300 equiv.), I could use the same technique and took a picture at 1/160 to 1/200th sec.

Now I have the D2x with 70-200 AFS VR which is lighter then D1x with 80-200 and still digital, I can now only shoot at 1/250 to 1/300 sec. when zoom to 200mm (300mm equiv.) if VR is switch off.

I hope the answer is YES, otherwise !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Derrick

I am strictly talking about when VR is on. My technique may be to blame but with my 8 MP camera and big heavy 50-500 lens, I was still able to shoot at 1/500 at 500mm and get sharp images and there was no stabilization on that lens. That is why I am surprised I can't get much better than 1/125 at 200mm with VR on. I can go lower sometimes, but I can't count on it. In fact, I have one very sharp shot taken at 1/20 at 200mm but it is the only one.

I can see how downsampling to 8MP would help but who wants to do that when you have 12 MP's to play with. On the plus side, I now don't have to even think about going to a 16 or 20 MP camera if it is a 50% sized sensor, I'd never be able to hand shoot.

Greg

I am not pro, but this is my subjective opinion, can be all wrong.

If high desity pixel density make camera shake effect more significant, then:

Sony 828 has the same size sensor as Sony 717, but has higher pixel density. For the same shot, 828 will need higher shutter speed to get sharp image than 717. Never heard about that.

There are a lot other comparable smalpes such as Canon G2 and G3 G4 etc.etc. Never heard the higher pixel one is more subcetible to camera motion blur.

OK , let's talk DSLR, when compare Canon 1Ds Mark II and 1D Mark II . They have same size sensor as but 1Ds has much higher pixel density, but 1Ds is not more sensitive to camera motion than 1D.

If this hypothesis is right, the cheap 2 mpix camera should be much sharper and can shoot at lower light with low shutter speed than a comparable (ie same brand, same size sensor , etc) 6 mpix camera .

Before I move to D70 and then d2X, I have Sony s85 , then 717 then 828. Still have all of them. The increased pixel density of 828 does not seem related to the camera motion. Also, haven't heard such relationship between Canon 1Ds MkII and 1D MkII.

Please correct me if I am wrong. I am not posting to challange, just want to clear my doubt and learn.

If you agreed with me, please let me know, if don't, I am humble to listen to your reason.

Kin

--
Kin

http://www.pbase.com/nikond70

Your analysis of the 1DSMKII and 1DS does make sense. If my theory is correct, a 1DSMKII would need a higher shutter speed/steadier hands or whatever to get the same level of sharpness as 1DS. Like you I have not heard of this complaint.

It would take a shooter moving from the 1DS to the 1DSMKII to really know, however. A person just buying the MKII may not realize the difference, if such difference existed. Having moved from a 20D to the D2X I have certainly noticed something, but maybe it is just the heavy combination needing a monopod or tripod more often than I am used to?

With regard to the Sony models you referred to, I have not shot with any of them. If they have higher pixel densities than my D2X then they should require an even higher shutter speed overall if my theory is correct. From your experience it sounds like that is not the case.

I guess I am looking for a reason for getting more OOF/shakey shots than I would like. I HATE the idea that my camera might have a problem and needs service. I also don't want to blame my technique as I just can't seem to improve my hand held shooting enough to get the occassional 1/60 at 200mm shot that I want. I would rather it be a limitation of the camera so I can just go on shooting. I'll probably do that anyway.

Greg

Just more visible because of larger view. Make a 10" print with both and they should look similiar. HOWEVER, as some people expect the D2x to be sharp at 200% (and I am one of those) it will take some refinement with technique to get that sort of sharpness. That's why some of the serious guys always use tripods. Like, always. Or a monopod. If all you ever make is 10" prints, why bother. By the way, are you giving your 70-200 the time it needs to lock on? A lot of photographers forget about this.

Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com

The APS sensor format makes camera shake more evident than full frame format if both images are enlarged to the same final size (just because the APS-based image is enlarged more to get the same size). Assuming the same final emlargement size (i.e. that the higher pixel count does not motivate you to maker a larger print) then increasing pixel density on the same size sensor will not increase the effect of camera shake.

d3 is Exposure Delay.

switch ON for a 0.4s delay whilst the mirror whips up, allowing time to damp the slap before the shutter is fired.

last night, tired and jittery, i was playing with this, and managed to snag a couple of almost viewable shots at 1/10th, @55mm, (they were truly marginal, but the scene was quite discernable in its blurry detail) even with appalingly compromised technique i.e. caffiene jitters, exhaustion, not really concentrating, just playing with playing with bank settings. I'm sure you'll do better and so will i once i've caught up on rest.

i have not tried this in full daylight or with any VR glass. The downside is VF blanking is quite severe, as you'd expect, and may interfere with your framing when handheld. But i expect [in particular] VR users not chasing action should see some useful improvement in sharpness. I can't tell if there's a way to assign d3 to FUNC, but will glean what i can from the manual later. Else set it in a custom bank or at least it'll be on the recent settings list.

just in case anyone else, like me, didn't realize that option was there

cheers!

• kirbs

--
========
Possible origin of Bokeh?
--
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1000&thread=14757301
-- and --
http://imx.nl/photosite/comments/c017.html

Both can play a role. I find that the D2x is about 1.5 to 2 stops more demanding than the d100 in terms of what shutter speeds you need for crisp images. and about 1 stop more demanding than Provia or E100 in my F100. some of my macro work is on tripod, and i find that with the d2x the soft mirror setting is much more important than it ever was on the d100.

camera weight plays a role too, but not as big of a role. i noticed when shooting a two day thing for a local winery (harvest and crush) that was mostly the 28-70AFS and 17-35AFS that late in the first day and mid second day, my arms were tired, and I had to be more careful about bracing myself.

camera weight actually helps a bit sometimes, though. just as a heavy shotgun lets a trapshooter be smoother in following targets because the mass smooths out a flow and damps vibrations, a heavier camera and lens combo can smooth out your ability to get a follow or grab shot. (i've seen some guys who shoot motorsports with small weights hanging from the tripod foot of their mid-range zooms!) it's the second or third shot, where you're now holding the weight up for some time, where you get hurt.

--

'Everything I know I learned from someone else. Life doesn't get much easier than that.'

http://www.onemountainphoto.com

i'm not a big fan of your weight flip-flop. the extra weight steadies the shot. if you get tired, that's your problem.

as for pixel density, we agree:
representation of D100 pixel density: I I I I
representation of D2x pixel density: I I I I I I I
representation of camera shake: http://wwww

the answer is pretty clear...dav
--
don't wait for technology -- it won't wait for you

Glad to see there's a consensus on this.

The fact that opinions vary all over the map tells me there is no clear understanding of the issues involved. This should not be controversial. If someone truly understood the issues, they'd clearly explain them and the question would never be asked again. But the question keeps popping up.

My opinion probably isn't worth more than anyone else's but here it is. For a given amount of shake, smaller pixels will move a greater distance relative to their size than larger pixels. But the set of pixels in the denser sensor equal to one pixel in the sparser sensor will move the same distance as the latter. Therefore, the blurriness should be the same. Sensor density should have nothing to do with the amount of perceived blur in equal sized prints.

Now, what is the flaw in this argument?

My observation is that my hand-held D2x shots don't look any blurrier than my hand-held D70 shots, and if anything, with age my hand is steadily losing its steadiness.

--
FJP, Software Engineer

Note that it's angular movement of the camera that matters. Then you need to figure out how much blur on the print is created by camera movement through a certain angle. Then you need to decide whether you want to compare prints of the same size regardless of pixel density, or whether you want to make larger prints from the camera with greater resolution.