D800 Tripod myth

[studio460]

<p>Well, I don't know if you can calculate a sensor's susceptibility to camera shake from a simple pixel-count (you probably have make some calculation based on pixel-site dimension, etc.), but if it's at least a gross measure, comparing a 12.1MP D3s to a 36.6MP D800, the D800's pixel-count is 173% greater, in each axis.</p>

<p>I'm not saying you <em>can't</em> shoot the D800 handheld, I'm just saying what <em>I</em> plan to do with the camera. And, if in fact a higher-MP sensor is more sensitive to motion-induced, image-blur, then I plan to take extra care in minimizing camera shake, and one of the simplest ways to do that is to bag your center column. Most gallery stuff I see is shot either medium-format film, MFDB, or 4x5--many of which are tripod-ed. Yes, I know many here have shot medium-format film handheld, and so have I (with a Mamiys RB67, back in the film days). But with modern MFDBs costing in excess of $10K, the D800 at least gives me a fighting chance when competing against these larger formats. For these shots, I will be most-often shooting this camera on a tripod.</p>

[studio460]

<p>Dan said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Perhaps I'm not confused about the definition of dynamic range. I would think that a D3X would hit a noise floor sooner than a D3S.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The D3s/D4 have sensor designs optimized for low-SNR, and have the lowest noise floor in the product line. The D3x/D800 are optimized for dynamic range at low- to moderate ISOs. Dynamic range is the measure of a recording process' ability to capture extremes in signal amplitude, or in photography, the measure of the sensor's ability to capture the highest-to-lowest luminance values in a scene.</p>

[studio460]

<p>Skyler wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Ralph, although I've never shot photojournalism style professionally, my vast experience in shooting on location with film cameras tells me the biggest obstacle to over come on location is lighting.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Again, I'm referencing only my own experience. Motion-blur (both due to subject and/or camera movement), happens to be my most-common technical error. Just when I think I have a high-enough shutter speed, a quick head-turn, or fast eye-blink is easily enough to ruin the shot. Plus, handholding any tele lens, without the benefit of VR or a monopod, over 200mm on a DX body, or 300mm on FX, is doable, but remains a challenge at 1/250th (just under reciprocal-speed). Again, I think my handheld technique is rather accomplished, since I make handheld shots for television (which admiittedly is less-critical than for stills) with the equivalent of a 1,320mm lens on a daily basis (using a 22x7 broadcast ENG lens mounted on a 2/3" video camera, which has a 3.93x crop factor for a 35mm equivalent).</p>

<p>As far as lighting being a challenge, when shooting stills under available-light, my problem is always just not having enough of it (that's where my D3s and f/1.4 lenses come in handy). As far as dynamic range, shooting video for my day job certainly forces me to accommodate contrast ratios far beyond what my camera can reproduce. Everyday, I'm choosing backgrounds that I can still expose for, given the tools I have available to me in our vans: FlexFills, silks, Westcott kits, Foamcore, Matthboards, Diva 200s, Joker 400/800s. When composing for stills, I'm always striving to frame scenes with contrast ratios already within the capabilities of my sensor (e.g., I almost never shoot stills for personal work when the sun is high in the sky). Having a body which has more of that recording capability will certainly be welcome.</p>

[daniel_johnson6]

<p>For me, my D3x does a great job at action photography...I do a lot of running horses and when the shot is perfect, the 24MP make it look really nice. I'm just saying that my technique has to be right on, I can't afford to be sloppy or you will be able to see it (when viewed at a large magnification).</p>

[dan_south]

Ralph, thanks for the explanation. That confirms my understanding. My suspicion is that even though the D3X has

greater actual DR, the shadow area would have more noise. But I could be wrong as I've never used that particular

model.

[studio460]

<p>Dan said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Ralph, thanks for the explanation. That confirms my understanding. My suspicion is that even though the D3X has greater actual DR, the shadow area would have more noise.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You're welcome. Yes, I believe that's true (although, I've never actually compared a D3x with a D3s). I'm no expert, but other pro photographers have told me that even MFDBs tend to get noisy at even moderately high ISOs (since, I assume, they tend to be designed more for optimum dynamic range). I believe that's true with high-MP Nikon DLSRs as well--that the D3x exceeds the D3s' dynamic range at low- to moderate-ISOs, but that the D3s would be quieter at same ISOs. I'm assuming the similar case holds true for the D800 and D4 also.</p>

[studio460]

<p>Quoting Thom Hogan on the subject:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>. . . Consider this: a 16mm lens on D7000 puts ~5000 pixels across 74 degrees, while a 24mm lens on a D800 puts ~7000 pixels across the same angle. Put another way, 1° of motion is 68 pixels on the D7000, 94 pixels on the D800. 1° on a D2h was just 33 pixels and 41 pixels on a D70, You've got to handle a D800 cleaner than a D7000 folks . . .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Using Thom's argument, a D800 is 38% more sensitive to camera shake than a D7000. Again, I'm not saying you <em>can't</em> shoot a D800 handheld, but I think these figures are at least good to be aware of, and probably means that for those planning on printing sizable enlargements, the nominal handheld shutter speed indicated by the reciprocal rule should be increased accordingly.<br /> <br /><br /> </p>

[dan_south]

Ralph, the D800 would be more susceptible to camera shake only if the image is blown up to the same pixels per inch

size. If you printed a 12x18 from a D700 and a D800, for example, motion blur would appear to be about the same. But if

you made a print with the D800 at the same pixel per inch spacing as a 12x18 print from a D700, it would be much larger,

and you'd notice not only more motion blur but also more diffraction.

[cyrus_procter]

<p>On an advanced test of 35mm motion picture film, it was estimated that approximately 10K of resolution could be gotten off the sensor. That's well over 40 Megapixels. My point is, Film has always has more resolution than digital, the D800 isn't going to change to that. While I did not shoot in the film days, I do not recall any stories of a tripod being required for 35mm film.</p>

<p>I'm not saying there isn't a time for tripods, even at normal shutter speeds. This morning I was shooting a close up shot of the mountains with my D7000 and a 300mm. Even on a monopod at @ 1/200th of a second I was having difficulty getting razor shots (I did eventually go to 1/400th and that fixed the problem). That happens when you shoot a subject several miles away on a super telephoto. My point about the myth was ultimately the D800 does have a super high pixel count, but in the long run, the times that will actually effect quality on the final print compared to other cameras of less resolution will be very, very rare in my humble opinion. I see people posting that they aren't going to buy a D800 because they will have to use a tripod, and there only logic for this is because Shun posted in his preview that to get the most out of a D800 you would have to have a tripod. Its not that I don't agree with Shun's assessment, I just don't see how it doesn't apply to every other camera made as well, and just like every other camera under most conditions the D800 will produce fantastic handheld images, provided of course the photographer is being realistic about his shutter speed\focal length\subject\final output relationships.</p>

[bob_sunley]

<p>No, tripods weren't required for film, but back in the early days of 10-25 ASA/ISO colour film, if you wanted a sharp negative, you used one. All that's happened is that affordable electronic image sensors have gotten better. :)</p>

<p> </p>

[studio460]

<p>Dan said:</p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>Ralph, the D800 would be more susceptible to camera shake only if the image is blown up to the same pixels per inch size.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, that makes sense--thanks. I do plan to shoot images specifically for large printing when I get a D800, mainly tripod-ed, time-exposure cityscapes.</p>

 

[studio460]

<p>Skyler said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>This morning I was shooting a close up shot of the mountains with my D7000 and a 300mm. Even on a monopod at @ 1/200th of a second I was having difficulty getting razor shots (I did eventually go to 1/400th and that fixed the problem).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Since the reciprocal rule previously applied 35mm film cameras, i.e., "full-frame" cameras, the rule, as applied to the DX body in your example, would actually be 1/450th for a 450mm-equivalent lens, so your results seem in line with that logic.</p>

[cyrus_procter]

<p>You are absolutely right Ralph, did you account for the monopod though? I thought those figures were for handheld, I would estimate the monopod compensated for a stop of vibration. However thinking maybe my monopod technique wasn't that good I pulled it off the monopod and then turned VR on (yes I know that if I have VR on the monopod it will actually add vibration), even with VR on at 1/200th of a second I got about the same results. One should be fine at 300mms with VR on at 1/200th, right?</p>

[studio460]

<p>I'm a big fan of monopods, and yes, that should decrease your minimum usable shutter speed. You can use a monopod with VR turned on as well. I've gotten sharp images at a 600mm-equivalent length (80-400mm on a DX body) with as little as a 1/15th shutter speed, using a monopod and VR.</p>