handholdability disappearing on digital

In comparing the last two weddings I shot, one digital, one film, I

realised that my hand holding ability is very badly affected with

digital. I'm using the same lenses, and the camera is slightly

heavier but to stop camera-shake I'm having to shoot at 1/125 a

opposed to my usual 1/60 (lenses 17-40,28-70). I'm assuming that this

is caused by the magnification factor, and when I discussed it with

an experienced digital wedding shooter, he had noticed it too.

According to him a lot of digi wedding shooters are now using

monopods even for the PJ stuff because of this problem.

 

I use a tripod for the posed stuff and I suppose I'll have to start

hooting at 1/125 from now on, but has anyone else noticed this, and

has it changed your shooting style at all?

If you're still using lenses designed for film cameras then you are shooting with a longer

focal length than what you may be used to. This and the heavier weight of a new camera

can certainly introduce some shake.

 

I've retired (but not sold) my older lenses and have purchased newer DX lenses that are

designed for the smaller digital sensor. Hence, my effective focal length has not changed

(17-55DX f/2.8, gives me a 26-82mm f/2.8 range that is similar to the 28-70mm lens I

used to use for weddings) and my lenses are even lighter to boot.

 

New equipment often requires some retraining (and in this case, even more new

equipment). For what it's worth, I regularly shoot weddings at 1/60th of a second and

sometimes a bit slower.

Focal length is not an issue. The amount of motion blur, due to camera shake, is related to the size of the image formed and the distance from the camera to the subject (This is just trigonometry). With no difference in camera to subject difference and the same amount of camera shake, there is a greater proportion of camera movement displacement to image size with a small sensor.

 

Greater camera weight does not necessarily cause more camera shake. In fact, a camera with more mass will move less due to shutter and mirror movement.

That sounds about right. William Castleman measured that the 50% MTF point was about twice as high with current DSLRs than with fine slide film, suggesting that for the same focal length you need a shutter about one stop faster to keep the effect of camera shake the same in comparison to the film/sensor capabilities.

one stop faster, 1/60th to 1/125th, sounds right. I have to carry out some tests with my current lenses to find out what the lowest shutter speed I can use with them is. When I'm using full flash it is a lot less of a problem as the freezing affect of the flash helps, it's when I'm outdoors or the ambient light of the hall is high, that problems start to occur as the blur starts to register on the chip.

Long live film!

"Long live film!"

 

 

Hey, Schmendrick, this is related to the size of the recording media, and not the type of the recording media.

 

You keep talking up the good points of film, and it's going to die twice as it otherwise would.

The <i> SS Shmendrick</i> hits another reef.

I'll go even further than Bruce - if you look at the problem at a pixel level, this isn't related to the sensor size IMO (assuming that we talk about using the same focal length, of course, with none of that multiplication factor nonsense). It's strictly related to the fact in the domain that is relevant to the kind of photography being considered the digital sensors respond to frequencies twice higher.

 

Similarly if you were to shoot high-constrast high-resolution test targets hand-held with Velvia or TMX against a DSLR you'd find the opposite effect: the DSLR can be hand-held at longer shutter speeds than the film body without any visible effect on image quality. Or you can even do the test with film vs. film: compare TP and TMZ and you'll see that at certain shutter speeds the image on TMZ will look just fine but the TP image will be visibly sub-optimal.

 

Now, where I do agree with Bruce is that for a given print, assuming that the print is the limiting factor, the hand-holdable shutter speed (as compared to the focal length) is 1.6x shorter, i.e. for the same "35mm equivalent focal length" (whatever that means) the hand-holdable shutter speed is the same. Once again, that last paragraph assumes that the print size is the same and that the print is strictly the limiting factor, i.e. essentially that you compare 4x6 proofs.

To make this very simple:

 

There are two identical cameras, except the recoding media in one is 3cm x 3cm, and the other is 2cm x 2cm. You take a pictue of a cirle that fills the frame in each camera (the dia. of the image of the circle in one camera is 3cm and the other 2cm). Since the cameras are otherwise identical, they both have the same vibration displacements, say 0.1mm. 0.1mm is a greater percentage of 2cm than 3cm, so the camera with the 2cm recording media will display more blur.

I find my 20D great for low light hand held work.

 

1600 ASA prints well up to A4 (8x12 inches), 3200 ASA is OK -better than film.

 

The mirror is small, so there is less mirror movement.

 

This was taken at 1600 ASA, 1/20 sec, f1.4, 50mm<div></div>

This is a full scale crop from the centre - print at 300 dpi to give the equivalent of an A4 print.

 

I don't have any zooms - just 35mm 2.0, 50mm 1.4 and 135 2.0 - that might have something to do with it.<div></div>

Warning: off topic--West Cork, what kind of dog is that? I have one that looks like him/her and I don't know the breed(s) mixed up in him.

 

On topic: If what you say is true, Ben, wouldn't it be self-defeating to shoot PJ with a monopod when one of the goals of PJ is to be able to react fast and go unnoticed--something one would have more trouble doing with a monopod as without? Also self-defeating when it comes to using fast lenses but restricted to 1/125th and up?

Hmm, don't quite know what to make of this thread. I haven't noticed a difference, or if

anything, the opposite. But digital doesn't necessarily mean a lens factor either ; -)

 

Here's on I grabbed of a workman fixing my skylight just after taking the new 1DsMKII out

of the box. ISO 800 with a 180/3.5L handheld @1/50th<div></div>

I thought it was a little shakey/soft so I cranked the ISO up to 3200 and the f stop to 5.6 @

160th.<div></div>

Oh no! Morrisey's doing drywall work now!?

shyt marc u got money to BUUUUUUUUUURN

Kevin- I can't stop laughing over the Morrisey comment...that would be so sad...

According to past posts, he sold a Canon 1Ds used. They are going for about 5 grand. That means his new 1Ds Mark II cost 3,000 before taxes. Not money to burn, good business practice and simply asset relocation. Wish I had a 1Ds I could sell so my 1DsMII would only cost me 3G.

 

Marc, you do have the toys!

<i>only</i> 3k huh...rough life :D

Nope bought the 1Ds for a lot less than retail. Sold it a month ago for $5,800. lost about

$1,400. but made about $2,300. in the digital rental fees I charge with each

commercial job while owning it. Total profit $900. and free use of the 1Ds for weddings.

 

Bought the 1DsMKII for a lot less than the going price. Already made $300. in digital rental

fees this week with it. Accountant projects a $2,800 profit before dumping it... and free

use for weddings. This doesn't even take into account any tax benefits, and has nothing to

do with photographic fees.

 

The only folks with money to burn are those who don't know how to run a business and

are actually paying for their gear ; -)

one needs that money to begin with, doesnt one?

Yep, it the age old principle, got to have it to make more of it.

 

What's really ironic is that my old Leicas are what got the high-tech ball rolling in the first

place. I had some old stuff that a bunch of Japanese collectors went nuts over back when

they were buying everything on the planet. So I had the initial nest egg ready to plunk

down when the time came.

 

Now it's just a rolling investment and a mini profit center. All I have to do is capture the

depreciation from the original price and the selling price to break even (where I could bail

out and not lose a dime). Timing is everything.

didnt ted williams say that?

I guess I've got to figure out how to charge digital capture fees. All we do right now is weddings and family portraits.

 

Where is the front (or side) door to the place where cameras are free and money grows on light stands?