Does camera shake effect all cameras the same?

[fotolopithecus]

<p>By which I mean is it more critical to hold a 24 mp camera steady than a 12 mp camera. If so why is that?</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>What will you be doing with the resulting image? If you take the image made with the 12mp camera, and print it as large as you can while maintaining good resolution (let's just say an 8x10 print, for argument's sake) ... and then take the same image, with the same amount of shake, using the 24mp camera ... but print the image at the same size (that 8x10), you'll see no difference.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>It makes a difference if you look at the results on a pixel level. The same shake that results in a 1 pixel blur at 12 MP makes a 2 pixel blur at 48 MP (square law). As Matt says, if you print the same size, you get the same results.</p>

<p>It also depends on the focal length (or effective focal length). A 100 mm lens will be twice as affected as a 50 mm lens. The closer you get to the subject, the greater the effect of camera shake. Roughly speaking, the average "shake" imparted by a person is about 2 minutes (of angle)/sec (about 2 pixels at 12 MP with a 50 mm lens).</p>

<p>In a practical sense, since I'm inclined to look at all images on a pixel basis, the more resolution of the camera the more care it takes to get it sharp. Mirror up, electronic first shutter (if available), image stabilization off, and a soft cable release (or self-timer) and a sturdy tripod. Medium format is roughly twice the size as 35 mm, hence twice as sensitive to vibration. Again, if you print the results at the same size, there's no difference, but what's the purpose of MF if you do that?</p>

<p>I find myself tripod-bound with an Hasselblad, but happy as a clam, hand-held with a 24 MP A7ii (with image stabilization). With a 42 MP A7Rii, it's back to tripods and cable releases if I want to squeeze every pixel out of the image.</p>

[fotolopithecus]

<p>Thanks Guys. It always seemed to me that it was easier to get sharp results when I was shooting with a twelve megapixel camera than with a 24 megapixel one. I guess the difference is fairly slight, or may even have been imaginary.;)</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>The difference is (24/12)^-2 = 1.4, enough to make a noticeable difference.</p>

[mightypir]

<p>The 24mpx sensor is clearly more demanding of handling than the older 12mpx ones were. When you see images at 100% its more apparent. <br>

Having recently moved from a D300 to a D7200 I too was seeing a lot of unusable images. I find that the smaller camera body doesn't help much either with my larger hands. So have added the battery grip to help, and gone back to the basics...breathing out, bracing as I shoot etc!! :O No issues on a tripod, so its my sloppy form that is at fault. <br>

But, luckily the D7200's ISO performance means that I am also able to keep the shutter speeds on the higher side. This has helped considerably. </p>

<p> </p>

[fotolopithecus]

<p>Thank you Guys, this just brings up another thought which is what size print would be analogous to the previously mentioned 8x10 for a 12mp camera, in the 24mp camera?</p>

[art_thomas1]

<p>" The same shake that results in a 1 pixel blur at 12 MP makes a 2 pixel blur at 48 MP (square law)." </p>

<p>Truth from a knowledgeable source. </p>

<p>Also, all image stabilizers are not created equal. </p>

<p> </p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<blockquote>

<p>Thank you Guys, this just brings up another thought which is what size print would be analogous to the previously mentioned 8x10 for a 12mp camera, in the 24mp camera?<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Um, all 8x10 prints are the same. If shake occurs, it is the same regardless of resolution, so the effect on the same size print would be the same.<br>

<br>

Are you asking what size print can it get? The rule of thumb for printing is 300 dpi, which translates roughly to 8"x 12" for a 12 MP camera, and 12"x 18" for a 24 MP camera (rounding up to standard sized prints). In practice, you can resample the resolution of a sharp digital image by up to a factor of 2, or 16"x 24" and 24"x 36" respectively. That's pushing the envelope, so you would want to use all the tools at your disposal to eliminate vibration and focus sharply.</p>

[fotolopithecus]

<p>Thanks Edward. ;)</p>

[rob_.3]

<p>As smaller sensors will provide a greater telephoto effect, I am assuming that camera shake will be more prevalent in a simulated longer shot.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Smaller sensors have a smaller angle of view than larger sensors, given the same focal length lens on both. The effect of shake is the same, thanks to that same focal length. But if you enlarge the resulting smaller image to the same size as the image of the larger sensor (not a "greater telephoto effect", that. Just a closer look, at a crop from the image of the lens the larger sensor captures more completely ) any fault will become more visible.<br>So no: not more shake with small sensors. But shake made more visible.

[frode]

<blockquote>

<p>By which I mean is it more critical to hold a 24 mp camera steady than a 12 mp camera. If so why is that?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If the sensors have the same size and the focal lengths are equal, the only difference for the same amount of camera shake will be that the 24 mp camera might show more details. Under the mentioned circumstances the 24 mp camera will never show less detail than the 12 mp camera. If there is enough camera shake they might end up showing the same amount of details.<br>

The only reason that the 24 mp camera might look soft at pixel level while the 12 mp camera does not (same circumstances as before mentioned) is that the 24 mp might show you details of camera shake that the 12 mp camera is not able to show you. In this the (potential) sharpness of the 24 mp is at least as good as that of the 12 mp camera. You might even reduce the 24 mp image to 12 mp to remove the extra blur that is in the 24 mp vs. the 12 mp.</p>

<p>Cheers,</p>