Reading mode: Light Dark

More megapixels, higher shutter speed, higher ISO

Go to last post
Z

ZJ24

Leading Member
Messages
600
Reaction score
486
Great comment by Mark Pain (sport professional featured in the D5 review). For sport and action more megapixels means a higher shutter speed and higher ISO. Unless you're printing larger than 20 x 30 or cropping extensively, the very affordable D700 or D3/s can still be great options, especially indoors.

"Even at ISO 2000 the files look sharp with a complete lack of noise or signs of in camera over-processing. Now that the D5 has 20.8 megapixels a shutter speed of at least 1/2000th is needed to freeze most fast moving sport. What many people don’t realise is that the more megapixels you have the faster shutter speeds necessary to freeze the same action. In real camera terms, six years ago I would have been shooting the whole of this year’s FA Cup Final on a D3s on a shutter speed of 1/800th sec. This year I was shooting the match at 1/2000th sec on a D5 - to freeze the very same type of images."
 
ZJ24 said:
Great comment by Mark Pain (sport professional featured in the D5 review). For sport and action more megapixels means a higher shutter speed and higher ISO. Unless you're printing larger than 20 x 30 or cropping extensively, the very affordable D700 or D3/s can still be great options, especially indoors.

"Even at ISO 2000 the files look sharp with a complete lack of noise or signs of in camera over-processing. Now that the D5 has 20.8 megapixels a shutter speed of at least 1/2000th is needed to freeze most fast moving sport. What many people don’t realise is that the more megapixels you have the faster shutter speeds necessary to freeze the same action. In real camera terms, six years ago I would have been shooting the whole of this year’s FA Cup Final on a D3s on a shutter speed of 1/800th sec. This year I was shooting the match at 1/2000th sec on a D5 - to freeze the very same type of images."
Click to expand...
I'm primary shooting the AirShow. for the 1st AirShow I have with D5, I'm using the very same setting from my D3, and had terrible results. with examined through the images, on the 2nd Airshow I went, I raise the shutter speed and with other appropriate adjustment, its totally different ball game . :)
 
Every time I mention this about the D800/E/D810, I practically get booed. :)
 
You need the extra shutter speed to keep camera shake at bay. To get the most out of any camera, and especially high MP bodies, you have to be careful of more than just subject movement.
 
ZJ24 said:
, six years ago I would have been shooting the whole of this year’s FA Cup Final on a D3s on a shutter speed of 1/800th sec. This year I was shooting the match at 1/2000th sec on a D5 - to freeze the very same type of images."
Click to expand...
Couldn't he just downsize his 21MP pics to 12 mp and have the same sharpness?
 
RedFox88 said:
ZJ24 said:
, six years ago I would have been shooting the whole of this year’s FA Cup Final on a D3s on a shutter speed of 1/800th sec. This year I was shooting the match at 1/2000th sec on a D5 - to freeze the very same type of images."
Click to expand...
Couldn't he just downsize his 21MP pics to 12 mp and have the same sharpness?
Click to expand...
At 100% pixel level viewing, more MP means you will more readily see the effects of camera shake or motion blur.

But that's not the same thing as viewing at output size. When viewing at the same output size a 24, 36, or higher MP camera will not look any worse than a 12 MP camera.

If you want to take full advantage of more MP in order to be able to produce bigger prints then you will have to exercise more care. But at common output sizes (regular sized prints or web) the high MP camera will look no worse than the low MP camera.
 
Agree, although I guess camera shake is going to be more likely to come in when you're shooting landscapes or portraits at slower speeds, but you're right, what you can hand hold depends a lot on the resolution of the camera.
 
michaeladawson said:
RedFox88 said:
ZJ24 said:
, six years ago I would have been shooting the whole of this year’s FA Cup Final on a D3s on a shutter speed of 1/800th sec. This year I was shooting the match at 1/2000th sec on a D5 - to freeze the very same type of images."
Click to expand...
Couldn't he just downsize his 21MP pics to 12 mp and have the same sharpness?
Click to expand...
At 100% pixel level viewing, more MP means you will more readily see the effects of camera shake or motion blur.

But that's not the same thing as viewing at output size. When viewing at the same output size a 24, 36, or higher MP camera will not look any worse than a 12 MP camera.

If you want to take full advantage of more MP in order to be able to produce bigger prints then you will have to exercise more care. But at common output sizes (regular sized prints or web) the high MP camera will look no worse than the low MP camera.
Click to expand...
That's not my point. he's whining about being able to use slower shutter speeds on older cameras. So he has nothing to complain about to get the sharpness he used to get.
michaeladawson said:
--
Mike Dawson
Click to expand...
 
Jana:

The same thing happened to me on the Nikonians forum. When I said the higher-res cameras show movement more, my statement was called 'misleading'. I had to go back and say that I meant at the native resolution of the D810, and not when the D810 was downsampled to D750 resolution. Sigh ....
 
It's not quite that simple, when you downsize by an uneven division, such as a third, the pixel binning may or may not end up looking similar to shooting at that size in the first place. It can still result in a final product that looks less sharp at the same viewing size.

Jay
 
NikonJ said:
It's not quite that simple, when you downsize by an uneven division, such as a third, the pixel binning may or may not end up looking similar to shooting at that size in the first place. It can still result in a final product that looks less sharp at the same viewing size.
Click to expand...
No. A larger resolution pic downsized to a smaller size is sharper than a native pic of said smaller size.
NikonJ said:
Jay
Click to expand...
 
UncleAl said:
Jana:

The same thing happened to me on the Nikonians forum. When I said the higher-res cameras show movement more, my statement was called 'misleading'. I had to go back and say that I meant at the native resolution of the D810, and not when the D810 was downsampled to D750 resolution. Sigh ....
Click to expand...
 
RedFox88 said:
michaeladawson said:
RedFox88 said:
ZJ24 said:
, six years ago I would have been shooting the whole of this year’s FA Cup Final on a D3s on a shutter speed of 1/800th sec. This year I was shooting the match at 1/2000th sec on a D5 - to freeze the very same type of images."
Click to expand...
Couldn't he just downsize his 21MP pics to 12 mp and have the same sharpness?
Click to expand...
At 100% pixel level viewing, more MP means you will more readily see the effects of camera shake or motion blur.

But that's not the same thing as viewing at output size. When viewing at the same output size a 24, 36, or higher MP camera will not look any worse than a 12 MP camera.

If you want to take full advantage of more MP in order to be able to produce bigger prints then you will have to exercise more care. But at common output sizes (regular sized prints or web) the high MP camera will look no worse than the low MP camera.
Click to expand...
That's not my point. he's whining about being able to use slower shutter speeds on older cameras. So he has nothing to complain about to get the sharpness he used to get.
Click to expand...
I think you and I are in basic agreement here. My comments were mostly just for the benefit of others by expanding on the point.
 
RedFox88 said:
NikonJ said:
It's not quite that simple, when you downsize by an uneven division, such as a third, the pixel binning may or may not end up looking similar to shooting at that size in the first place. It can still result in a final product that looks less sharp at the same viewing size.
Click to expand...
No. A larger resolution pic downsized to a smaller size is sharper than a native pic of said smaller size.
Click to expand...
Again, we agree. I have downsized 36 MP files to 12 for my own testing. Although only by an almost imperceptible amount, the downsized files are sharper than the original 12 MP files.
 
Makes me think that a dF is the ideal nikon these days if I dont print >20x30. It has an amazing dynamic range, small body and simple and fast to operate. I just wish it had the focussing abilities of the d5
 
Dyun27 said:
Every time I mention this about the D800/E/D810, I practically get booed. :)
Click to expand...
Boooooooo...!!! :)

LOL! Only kidding! I couldn't resist!

I also have noticed that I need to really jack up the shutter speed on my D800. When shooting baseball, I need to be at 1/2000 to get a really great shot, and sometimes I can by at less (no less than 1/1000), but the results are less than ideal. The problem comes during night games under the lights, I have to crank the ISO to stay even at 1/1000 with my D800, and we all know that ISO3200 on the D800 is of marginal quality (I will probably get flamed for saying that).

The D800 is definitely not a sports or low-light camera, and I am OK with that. It is amazing as a portrait and landscape camera, and that is why I bought it. I am struggling with the US$6,500 price tag on the D5 for the small number of times that I need it, but it would be nice to have for other reasons as well. Sigh...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top