Reading mode: Light Dark

Camera Shake .

Go to last post
Ben Seese said:
I don't want to start a back & forth here, but I have to point this
out. Film does not have more resolution than a 300D, unless you
are doing a super-high-quality scan and printing larger than 13x19.
Click to expand...
The print size has nothing to do with the resolution of the film...(one would think that was obvious...) I've compared even cheap Kodak Gold film against my 300D and the film has more resolution. Shoot a resolution target and compare the film directly (not by looking at a scan) and it is obvious.

As for the original question on shake...the 300D has an APS sized sensor. So it needs more enlargement for a given output size and thus amplifies shake more than a full frame camera would.
 
yes that's what I thought too but what the heck this guy was talking about when he said that the sensor and the cmos was not the same thing...it is called a cmos sensor there for the cmos is a sensor...so what he is talking about?????
edtang said:
A nice analogy is like a Compactflash card and a microdrive. Both
do the same thing, but differently.

edtang
Daniella said:
anyway...here is the situation:

http://www.canon.com/technology/detail/digi_35mm/cmos/
PixelPusher said:
The 300d sensor is not the equivalent of the 35mm size...the 12mp is

But what does that have to do with resolution of the CMOS???

12MP is the equivalent to 2 1/4 square, your 300D CMOS has the same
if not slightly better resolving power of 35mm film.

PP
Click to expand...
--
I am not an English native speaker!
http://www.pbase.com/zylen
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=26918
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
I am not an English native speaker!
http://www.pbase.com/zylen
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=26918
 
He's trying to say that the sensor size is smaller on the 300D in comparision to film, however, the resolution is much better than film. Kind of like, film is a 35mm full frame sensor that is 3MP. While the 300D is a smaller sensor with 6.3MP.

I think.
Daniella said:
edtang said:
A nice analogy is like a Compactflash card and a microdrive. Both
do the same thing, but differently.

edtang
Daniella said:
anyway...here is the situation:

http://www.canon.com/technology/detail/digi_35mm/cmos/
PixelPusher said:
The 300d sensor is not the equivalent of the 35mm size...the 12mp is

But what does that have to do with resolution of the CMOS???

12MP is the equivalent to 2 1/4 square, your 300D CMOS has the same
if not slightly better resolving power of 35mm film.

PP
Click to expand...
--
I am not an English native speaker!
http://www.pbase.com/zylen
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=26918
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
I am not an English native speaker!
http://www.pbase.com/zylen
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=26918
Click to expand...
 
I wonder why then I read all the time that 6mp is not enough quality to be equivalent to 35mm film? if it had more resolution...it should be at least the same quality then film no?

and in that order..why do they say that a 12mp is the equivalent in quality of a 35mm film?

I am a bit lost here..
edtang said:
I think.
Daniella said:
edtang said:
A nice analogy is like a Compactflash card and a microdrive. Both
do the same thing, but differently.

edtang
Daniella said:
anyway...here is the situation:

http://www.canon.com/technology/detail/digi_35mm/cmos/
PixelPusher said:
The 300d sensor is not the equivalent of the 35mm size...the 12mp is

But what does that have to do with resolution of the CMOS???

12MP is the equivalent to 2 1/4 square, your 300D CMOS has the same
if not slightly better resolving power of 35mm film.

PP
Click to expand...
--
I am not an English native speaker!
http://www.pbase.com/zylen
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=26918
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
I am not an English native speaker!
http://www.pbase.com/zylen
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=26918
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
I am not an English native speaker!
http://www.pbase.com/zylen
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=26918
 
bjs1 said:
The print size has nothing to do with the resolution of the
film...(one would think that was obvious...) I've compared even
cheap Kodak Gold film against my 300D and the film has more
resolution. Shoot a resolution target and compare the film
directly (not by looking at a scan) and it is obvious.
Click to expand...
interesting..how did you compare them? were they printed with the same process?
bjs1 said:
As for the original question on shake...the 300D has an APS sized
sensor. So it needs more enlargement for a given output size and
thus amplifies shake more than a full frame camera would.
Click to expand...
--
I am not an English native speaker!
http://www.pbase.com/zylen
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=26918
 
hm said:
hm said:
Have anyone else experienced this ? or is it just me with an
unstable hand.
Click to expand...
This is a common complaint.

I have two theories for it. One is that people are comparing their
4x6 prints from film to full-screen enlargements with digital,
effectively looking closer at their digital pictures. The other is
that people are accustomed to using ASA400 speed film, but are
using their digital cameras set to ASA100.
-harry
Click to expand...
--
I am not an English native speaker!
http://www.pbase.com/zylen
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=26918
 
Daniella said:
bjs1 said:
The print size has nothing to do with the resolution of the
film...(one would think that was obvious...) I've compared even
cheap Kodak Gold film against my 300D and the film has more
resolution. Shoot a resolution target and compare the film
directly (not by looking at a scan) and it is obvious.
Click to expand...
interesting..how did you compare them? were they printed with the
same process?
Click to expand...
I'm curious too how you compare film "directly," without printing. With a loupe & light-table?

Disclaimer: I'm basing my thoughts on Michael's claims over at luminous-landscape.com, not upon first-hand comparisons.
Daniella68313 said:
Daniella68313 said:
As for the original question on shake...the 300D has an APS sized
sensor. So it needs more enlargement for a given output size and
thus amplifies shake more than a full frame camera would.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Good point there. But I think it's counter-balanced by the fact that you use a shorter-focal-length lens to compensate for the crop factor. And thus a 1/80 second exposure on a film 80mm lens would be just as blurred as a 1/80 second exposure on 300D with a 50mm lens?
 
The 6.3meg sensor is just as good as film, you have to look at it differently. In the film world were you shooting Fuji Velvia/Provia fine grain film or what's on sale or in a bulk pack. Print films of all kinds were rarely as good as D-Reb.

In film anything over 13x19 in the 35mm format looked like hell. The main issue is grain. All film has grain, digital doesn't, therefore a much smoother image even though your scanned film renders a much larger file size. File size does not equal a better image. Continuos tones or something like a blue sky will always look grainy and therefore less sharp to the eye. An 11meg sensor like the 1ds is more like a 645 or even a 6x7 with good technique/workflow. There's a reason many wedding and portrait photogs switched over to 6.3meg over their 645/6x7 systems the past year. Not to mention that you have control over your print like never before in film.

So, although not as large a scanned file size, the D-reb is just as good. Trust me. I'm the silly guy walking around with L lenses attached to a camera half the price. Best values in lenses...the 50mm 1.8II prime and 28-135IS in terms of sharpness, along with a 70-200f4L with a 1.4x TC. Try them. I used to own the cheap 75-300s and 28-80s back in the day as well, that's how to really blow away film and if you buy one used the lenses retain value. I can't tell you how much I regret travelling to all the great places I've been and missing the sharpness/results I'd like. I took the plunge and even if I decide someday to not shoot as much, there's a great resale market (doubt it after 15 years though). Enjoy shooting and use a tripod when possible. Bad technique can't make even the most expensive lens perform.
Daniella said:
The 300d sensor is not the equivalent of the 35mm size...the 12mp is.
Ben Seese said:
See Michael's articles over at http://www.luminous-landscape.com .
Daniella said:
now the 300d photos tend to be softer than film...but I am not sure
how you compare them either. what shutter speed are you refering
too? I never managed to do this with any camera, and I have pretty
good steady hands.
jvkvijay said:
Hi Everyone,
I recently graduated from a Rebelg to a 300D and have been shooting
lot of indoor pictures ( unfortunately it has been raining since
then to shoot outdoor pictures). While taking pictures with my
300D, what I observed was that while shooting pictures in low
light, with out the flash and with out a tripod, I find it really
tough to get the photo with out any shake. I took similar shots
with my rebelg and felt it was much easier to take such shots. I am
using similar settings.
On my rebelg, I was using the lens that comes with the camera, 200
speed film and in the "P" mode. On my 300D, I am using the "P" mode
and I tried various ISOs and the lens that came with the camera.

Have anyone else experienced this ? or is it just me with an
unstable hand.

thank you
Vijay
Click to expand...
--
I am not an English native speaker!
http://www.pbase.com/zylen
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=26918
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
I am not an English native speaker!
http://www.pbase.com/zylen
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=26918
Click to expand...
 
If you want to eliminate shake on 98-99% of your images start investing in IS lenses. Start with the EF28-135 f3.5-4.5 IS USM lens. Fantastic optical quality although it is not an L type. The IS works wonders if you hand hold as well often giving you an 2-3 stop advantage.

PP
jvkvijay said:
Hi Everyone,
I recently graduated from a Rebelg to a 300D and have been shooting
lot of indoor pictures ( unfortunately it has been raining since
then to shoot outdoor pictures). While taking pictures with my
300D, what I observed was that while shooting pictures in low
light, with out the flash and with out a tripod, I find it really
tough to get the photo with out any shake. I took similar shots
with my rebelg and felt it was much easier to take such shots. I am
using similar settings.
On my rebelg, I was using the lens that comes with the camera, 200
speed film and in the "P" mode. On my 300D, I am using the "P" mode
and I tried various ISOs and the lens that came with the camera.

Have anyone else experienced this ? or is it just me with an
unstable hand.

thank you
Vijay
Click to expand...
 
True--was just pointing out that the P-mode algo doesn't force you to one set of values.

D
DRG said:
Daniel Myers said:
The 300D can do what's called a program shift in P mode--press the
shutter halfway and release. Then, turn the main dial--you can
scroll through valid shutter/aperture combos. Press the shutter
again to take the shot.

Daniel
http://www.danielsphotos.org
Click to expand...
Sure, shifting the initial P mode values works, but, if you know up
front that you are going to want a faster shutter speed and if P
keeps starting you off with a slower one, it's more efficient to
use Tv and set the speed than to keep shifting.

David
Click to expand...
 
but then how can you do a fair comparison from a 4 x 6 print of a film and a 100% 74dpi monitor resolution?

it's like comparing apple to orange no?
bjs1 said:
Daniella said:
bjs1 said:
directly (not by looking at a scan) and it is obvious.
Click to expand...
interesting..how did you compare them? were they printed with the
same process?
Click to expand...
They weren't printed at all. Printing say little about the actual
resolution of film. You need to look at the film directly. An
inexpensive 30x microscope is more than sufficient.
Click to expand...
--
I am not an English native speaker!
http://www.pbase.com/zylen
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=26918
 
Hi

The first lens I purhased after getting 300D with the EF-S was a Canon EF 50mm f/1,8 II lens. It's plastic but sharp and swallowing lots of light !!!
With the EF-S lens you got 3,5-5,6 why 1,8 is one hell of a difference.
And 50 x 1,6 -> 80mm which is perfect for portraits etc :)

Ken
jvkvijay said:
Hi Everyone,
I recently graduated from a Rebelg to a 300D and have been shooting
lot of indoor pictures ( unfortunately it has been raining since
then to shoot outdoor pictures). While taking pictures with my
300D, what I observed was that while shooting pictures in low
light, with out the flash and with out a tripod, I find it really
tough to get the photo with out any shake. I took similar shots
with my rebelg and felt it was much easier to take such shots. I am
using similar settings.
On my rebelg, I was using the lens that comes with the camera, 200
speed film and in the "P" mode. On my 300D, I am using the "P" mode
and I tried various ISOs and the lens that came with the camera.

Have anyone else experienced this ? or is it just me with an
unstable hand.

thank you
Vijay
Click to expand...
 
Daniella said:
but then how can you do a fair comparison from a 4 x 6 print of a
film and a 100% 74dpi monitor resolution?
Click to expand...
The question of film resolution is determined solely by the film. So you must look at the film directly to determine its limits. Yes you can then take the image and put it to paper, or magazine or monitor or projection but each process will impose it's own limitations on the original film resolution and thus it becomes a completely different question.

For example, the same film image can be used to print out a picture in a magazine, newspaper or inkjet with obviously different qualities. In no case did you determine the original resolution or capability of the film.

As for your example, I'm afraid I can't tell what you are trying to do. Film is hardly being taxed at all to make a 4x6 inch print.
 
how about this? you scan the slide film on very high quality professional scanner and print both film and didigal at 16 x 20 with the Lighjet 5000 process? would that be a fair comparison?
bjs1 said:
Daniella said:
but then how can you do a fair comparison from a 4 x 6 print of a
film and a 100% 74dpi monitor resolution?
Click to expand...
The question of film resolution is determined solely by the film.
So you must look at the film directly to determine its limits.
Yes you can then take the image and put it to paper, or magazine or
monitor or projection but each process will impose it's own
limitations on the original film resolution and thus it becomes a
completely different question.
Click to expand...
very good point!
bjs1 said:
For example, the same film image can be used to print out a picture
in a magazine, newspaper or inkjet with obviously different
qualities. In no case did you determine the original resolution or
capability of the film.

As for your example, I'm afraid I can't tell what you are trying to
do. Film is hardly being taxed at all to make a 4x6 inch print.
Click to expand...
just trying to figure out how a person could compare film to digital for resolution.

--
I am not an English native speaker!
http://www.pbase.com/zylen
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=26918
 
hej,

how much shutter speed do you gain by using 1.8 instead of lets say 5.6?

i googled but havent found a proper list :/

thanks
thomas
 
Daniella68313 said:
Daniella68313 said:
As for your example, I'm afraid I can't tell what you are trying to
do. Film is hardly being taxed at all to make a 4x6 inch print.
Click to expand...
just trying to figure out how a person could compare film to
digital for resolution.
Click to expand...
As I mentioned, the best way for the amater is to look at the film with a microscope. Then compare it to the digital version displayed at 100%. The one that shows more detail wins. :)
Daniella68313 said:
how about this? you scan the slide film on very high quality
professional scanner and print both film and didigal at 16 x 20
with the Lighjet 5000 process? would that be a fair comparison?
Click to expand...
This approach is more indirect with more variables but can work if done correctly.

Not so easy to get a good "professional scan" since most labs use equipment that significantly limits film (people don't know/care).

The best film will take more than a 16x20 print before it runs out of resolution. But if you aren't interested in the actual limits and only want to see which is better the 300D will have run out of steam by then so 16x20 is fine.

And then you have to deal with the fact the print with more contrast at any given frequency but lower resolution looks better than the print with less contrast at the same frequencies but higher resolution. Also the print with less noise/grain will look better too. So you have to be sure to look at ONLY the resolution factor.

And you can't just take any old picture. To reach the limits of film resolution you have to pay attention to the technical side. Film is capable of such high resolution that good tripod, cable release, mirror lockup, proper lens, proper aperture etc all have to be right or they become limiting factors. Also your subject has to have the detail to start with something many people just assume is true. The choice of film matters too. High speed consumer color film is several times worse than low speed black and white film for example. Most people's results on film are limited by their technique and not the film. That's probably even true of digital.

The pitfalls are many. That's why so many people produce unreliable results.

Having said all that, I take a completely different approach. The question of resolution is relatively uninteresting. What prints better is a combination of many factors. So I print my best film images at 13x19 and my best 300D images at the same size. I like my 300D results better. So the 300D wins! :)

(Even though the 300D technically has less resolution).
 
Ben Seese said:
I'm curious too how you compare film "directly," without printing.
With a loupe & light-table?
Click to expand...
That's the idea, but a loupe doesn't have enough magnification. Use a microscope.
Ben Seese said:
Good point there. But I think it's counter-balanced by the fact
that you use a shorter-focal-length lens to compensate for the crop
factor.
Click to expand...
Hmmm, good point too. I've never tested this so have no direct results to prove or disprove our theories.
 
What is the lowest light you can shoot in with the 70-200f4L with a 1.4x TC?
Nickk said:
In film anything over 13x19 in the 35mm format looked like hell.
The main issue is grain. All film has grain, digital doesn't,
therefore a much smoother image even though your scanned film
renders a much larger file size. File size does not equal a better
image. Continuos tones or something like a blue sky will always
look grainy and therefore less sharp to the eye. An 11meg sensor
like the 1ds is more like a 645 or even a 6x7 with good
technique/workflow. There's a reason many wedding and portrait
photogs switched over to 6.3meg over their 645/6x7 systems the past
year. Not to mention that you have control over your print like
never before in film.

So, although not as large a scanned file size, the D-reb is just as
good. Trust me. I'm the silly guy walking around with L lenses
attached to a camera half the price. Best values in lenses...the
50mm 1.8II prime and 28-135IS in terms of sharpness, along with a
70-200f4L with a 1.4x TC. Try them. I used to own the cheap
75-300s and 28-80s back in the day as well, that's how to really
blow away film and if you buy one used the lenses retain value. I
can't tell you how much I regret travelling to all the great places
I've been and missing the sharpness/results I'd like. I took the
plunge and even if I decide someday to not shoot as much, there's a
great resale market (doubt it after 15 years though). Enjoy
shooting and use a tripod when possible. Bad technique can't make
even the most expensive lens perform.
Daniella said:
The 300d sensor is not the equivalent of the 35mm size...the 12mp is.
Ben Seese said:
See Michael's articles over at http://www.luminous-landscape.com .
Daniella said:
now the 300d photos tend to be softer than film...but I am not sure
how you compare them either. what shutter speed are you refering
too? I never managed to do this with any camera, and I have pretty
good steady hands.
jvkvijay said:
Hi Everyone,
I recently graduated from a Rebelg to a 300D and have been shooting
lot of indoor pictures ( unfortunately it has been raining since
then to shoot outdoor pictures). While taking pictures with my
300D, what I observed was that while shooting pictures in low
light, with out the flash and with out a tripod, I find it really
tough to get the photo with out any shake. I took similar shots
with my rebelg and felt it was much easier to take such shots. I am
using similar settings.
On my rebelg, I was using the lens that comes with the camera, 200
speed film and in the "P" mode. On my 300D, I am using the "P" mode
and I tried various ISOs and the lens that came with the camera.

Have anyone else experienced this ? or is it just me with an
unstable hand.

thank you
Vijay
Click to expand...
--
I am not an English native speaker!
http://www.pbase.com/zylen
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=26918
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
I am not an English native speaker!
http://www.pbase.com/zylen
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=26918
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
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