50D harder to hand hold?

I have seen a few postings suggesting that with the increased pixel density on the 50D's cropped sensor it is more difficult to hand hold, more sensitive to camera shake.

I have moved up from an XTi to a 50D and I have found a lot of my images appear to be soft. They are not OOF, so I'm thinking it has to be camera shake. Mostly I notice it with my 70-200mm f2.8L IS, more so with the Canon 1.4x II extender. My shorter focal length lenses seem pretty good.

I use the 1/focal length rule for shutter speed as a guideline, always on the conservative side. So racked out at 280mm (with the 1.4x extender) I always try to shoot at no less than 1/400.

I would appreciate any feedback and experience.

Thanks.

I think that depending on how you look at it you could say that. If you are looking at everything at the pixel level, than yes it would be easier to notice the fuzziness due to camera shake.

You also notice incorrect focus or lack of sharpness in your lenses more easily.

However if you are just viewing the picture onscreen without zooming in, you probably would not notice it.

When I tested a Rebel Xsi for a friend, and compared to my XT, I noticed more easily when my focus was off because I tend to pixel peep.

That said, I would not claim that the 50D is harder to hand hold, just that you might notice the camera shake more easily.

SEC said:

I have seen a few postings suggesting that with the increased pixel
density on the 50D's cropped sensor it is more difficult to hand
hold, more sensitive to camera shake.

I have moved up from an XTi to a 50D and I have found a lot of my
images appear to be soft. They are not OOF, so I'm thinking it has to
be camera shake. Mostly I notice it with my 70-200mm f2.8L IS, more
so with the Canon 1.4x II extender. My shorter focal length lenses
seem pretty good.

I use the 1/focal length rule for shutter speed as a guideline,
always on the conservative side. So racked out at 280mm (with the
1.4x extender) I always try to shoot at no less than 1/400.

I would appreciate any feedback and experience.

Thanks.
--

Click to expand...

I've read the same thing, but don't understand the why if it's true that it is harder to handhold.

The cropfactor and focal lenght compared to a 30D or 40D is the same. The amount of light (combination of aperture and shutter) are the same. The only difference is that the light is divided over more pixels. How can the camera be more vulnerable for shake. Has it to do with the zooming effect just like with lenses. More tele means more vulnerable for shake, so viewing a 50d image at 100% is more 'zoom' than with a 30D etc??

I don't get it, but maybe someone can explain.

no text

Think about it this way:

Imagine you had a .5MP camera, taking the same image. It'd all be pretty blurry, wouldn't it? It'd be hard to tell exactly where your focus point was - the result being that something would have to be REALLY out of focus in order for you to be aware of it being out of focus. Similarly, a little amount of camera shake would be totally unnoticeable because you the shake wouldn't really change what each pixel captured. You only notice the shake if the shake is enough to change what some pixels capture.

So, in theory, at least, the 50D should be more demanding in terms of focus and camera shake than an Xti. The difference will be small - and, equally important - it should go away if you downsize your 50D image to match the Xti image. In practical terms you'll only see the difference if your lenses and skill are enough to see a sharpness difference between the Xti and 50D.

the impact of camera shake (if it exists in the first place). Higher resolution also allows you to see lens flaws (if they exist in the first place).

None of the above are negatives associated with the 50D; in fact, they are positives. When you do things right (i.e. use good techniques), higher resolution also allows you to capture more detail and that's a big deal for quite a few photographers.

Honestly, if you never print larger than an 8x10, hardly ever crop a picture, or the majority of your shots are resized for web viewing then a 10D is a pretty good choice for a camera. I absolutely the pictures that come out of my 10D; but it has some limitations.

Regards,

Joe Kurkjian

Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/jkurkjia



SEARCHING FOR A BETTER SELF PORTRAIT

High resolution always works that way, but only when looking at things at the pixel level.

Think about a 100x100 picture versus a 200x200 picture - all else being equal, for each one pixel in the first one, you have 4 representing it in the second. Let's say 4 pixels of blur is where it becomes unpleasant to the eye (I'm just making that number up). Say that 4 pixels represents 2 millimeters in the actual shot, so if the camera or subject moves by 2 millimeters, it'll look blurry. Now the higher res camera captures twice as much detail. If 4 pixels of blur is unpleasant, that's a mere 1 millimeter of movement for the hi res picture, half that of the low res one - so you need higher shutter speed and/or a more stable camera.

That's why higher resolution pictures are harder to get perfectly sharp on a per pixel level - you're effectively magnifying the image that much more.

if you reduce the resolution on the high res picture to the same as the lower res picture, they should look identical.

So, it only matters if you're using you 4500x3000 pixel images at full res.

-Nate

Thanks everyone for your responses.

I guess I have to cut back on the caffeine or pack my tripod more often. Or maybe better yet, quit pixel peeping and worry more about the prints.

a tripod will help (along with a remote shutter release and use of MLU whenever possible).

Regards,

Joe Kurkjian

Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/jkurkjia



SEARCHING FOR A BETTER SELF PORTRAIT

--I have never had issues hand holding my 40D with the Canon 400 5.6 on days with good light. But trying to do this with my 50D I am having very little luck. So I thought it must be the camera so I got out my monpod and shot a few and looks good.
Tanglefoot47
Tulalip Wa.

It's not harder to hand-hold, but it can detect smaller motion blur artifacts than a lower-resolution camera.

The 50D has 1.222x more pixels over a given object than the XTi. So, if motion blur was 10 pixels across on your old camera, it's 12 pixels across on your new one. Theoretically, if you use 1/100 sec and were happy with the motion blur before, you'll average the same results only if you step up to 1/125 sec.

If your work requires pixel-peeping, this is a consideration. If you print or full frame images or downsize them for display, the results should be exactly the same in terms of camera shake degrading the image.

Nobody's mentioned this, maybe because it's too obvious... but I will, as an owner of an XTi, 40D, and 50D (one who's wildly enthusiastic about all three models). The 50D is heavier than the XTi.

Yes, many folks will call this an advantage because it balances heavy L glass better, fits their meaty paws better, et cetera, blahblahblah... but it's still heavier. And its added weight (along with the higher resolution, as someone else mentioned) will magnify any flaws in handholding technique; e.g., holding the camera far from one's center of gravity.

Just another possibility to consider.

--
geek
--
A 'must watch' for forum participants everywhere!
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/posting