56 mp fx ?

Started Feb 23, 2013 | Discussions thread
noirdesir Forum Pro • Posts: 13,580
Re: We do not agree :-)

Grevture wrote:

noirdesir wrote:

Grevture wrote:

noirdesir wrote:

Grevture wrote:

and virtually impossible to handhold.

That however is a fairly hard limit. It is my impression that, while very good, stabilisation systems don't fully reach the level of a good tripod. Of course this limit is a function of AOV, 'speed' of the lens and the ambient light level.

If we stay within reasonable levels of FOV (eg, 200 mm FF equiv.), already 12 MP required at least 1/400 s. Staying at base ISO, eg, 200, that is f/11 in bright sunlight. Going to 100 MP, ie, quadrupling in linear terms, we are at f/5.6. And that is in bright sunlight.

But maybe it this just confirms the old saying that one needs a tripod for a technically really good photo.

Look, we can successfully handhold compact cameras with way, way, way higher pixel densities, and with their flimsy weight, they are actually more difficult to handhold then a reasonably heavy DSLR.

I think be both agree that it is not the pixel density but the total number of MP and the AOV. Handholding a compact camera or a FF DSLR for the same AOV and the same MP poses exactly the same challenges (well having a viewfinder or not influences posture).

No, I do not agree on that What amount of camera shake you can detect is a factor of pixel density at any given focal length, pure and simple.

You agree that it is necessary to look at two parameters, in your case pixel density and focal length. I criticised your paragraph where you omitted the second parameter, because it might fool some people into thinking, it is only the pixel density that matters.

And if you look at what pixel density times sensor width is: the number of pixels in the horizontal direction of the sensor. And what focal length divided by sensor width is: AOV (ok, there is another constant conversion factor in there). So, I just took your definition and converted the two variables, using the same conversion factor (ie, sensor width), into measures that are of more practical relevancy in my opinion.

I just think that phrasing the general problem (of handholdability) using the internal variables pixel density and focal length is less straightforward than the external observable variables number of MP and AOV. Take an image file and strip it of its metadata, what remains as observable variables are the number of MP and to some degree the AOV (from the perspective).

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow