bwcolor wrote:
### Why the Reciprocal Rule Falls Short
The reciprocal rule was developed for 35mm film cameras and assumes a certain tolerance for blur based on typical sensor or film resolution and viewing conditions… Smaller pixels can make camera shake more noticeable, as even slight movement translates into blur across more pixels. Without IBIS to counteract hand movement, a faster shutter speed than the reciprocal rule suggests may be necessary for consistently sharp results..
There’s an important but apparently subtle inaccuracy there.
Smaller pixels don’t make camera shake more noticeable. If you make the same photograph with 25MP and 100MP sensor cameras (of the same format) using the same lens and settings and camera shake was present, and you make identical-size prints from both of them, the amount of motion blur in the two prints would be…
… exactly the same.
The higher MP camera would image the shake more accurately, but there would not be any more or less of it. If you understand how digital sampling works, you’ll see why this isat the case.
So the issue isn’t that “shake is more noticeable” in the higher resolution sensor. It is that one important potential advantage of the higher resolution sensor is that when shake is eliminated (or nearly so) and when using a great lens the camera can take advantage of the higher resolution potential of the sensor. E.g., the larger sensor is never worse in this regard, and it has the potential to be better.
The way I would look at it not that the higher resolution sensor makes “shake more noticeable,” but that using a higher resolution sensor when shake is not well controlled largely negates the potential resolution advantage of the higher resolution sensor.
- - -
As to calculating the longest usable shutter speed, all the math in the world doesn’t overcome the huge range of variables that play into this. How steady is the individual photographer? How quickly is he/she working? Is there something around to lean on? What failure (e.g. not quite sharp enough shot) rate is acceptable? How large will the images be reproduced? To what extent is a bit of blur unacceptable? What is the ideal compromise between the risk of blur at a lower ISO versus some image degradation at a higher ISO?
IN the end, the best predictor of what shutter speeds are useful is the photographer’s experience.
Mar 25, 2025 at 10:26 AM
Notice: Undefined offset: 0 in /var/www/vhosts/fredmiranda.com/httpdocs/forum/viewedits.php on line 155
bwcolor wrote:
### Why the Reciprocal Rule Falls Short
The reciprocal rule was developed for 35mm film cameras and assumes a certain tolerance for blur based on typical sensor or film resolution and viewing conditions… Smaller pixels can make camera shake more noticeable, as even slight movement translates into blur across more pixels. Without IBIS to counteract hand movement, a faster shutter speed than the reciprocal rule suggests may be necessary for consistently sharp results..
There’s an important but apparently subtle inaccuracy there.
Smaller pixels don’t make camera shake more noticeable. If you make the same photograph with 25MP and 100MP sensor cameras (of the same format) using the same lens and settings and camera shake was present, and you make identical-size prints from both of them, the amount of motion blur in the two prints would be…
… exactly the same.
The higher MP camera would image the shake more accurately, but there would not be any more or less of it. If you understand how digital sampling works, you’ll see why this isat the case.
So the issue isn’t that “shake is more noticeable” in the higher resolution sensor. It is that one important potential advantage of the higher resolution sensor is that when shake is eliminated (or nearly so) and when using a great lens the camera can take advantage of the higher resolution potential of the sensor. E.g., the larger sensor is never worse in this regard, and it has the potential to be better.
The way I would look at it not that the higher resolution sensor makes “shake more noticeable,” but that using a higher resolution sensor when shake is not well controlled largely negates the potential resolution advantage of the higher resolution sensor.
- - -
As to calculating the longest usable shutter speed, all the math in the world doesn’t overcome the huge range of variables that play into this. How steady is the individual photographer? How quickly is he/she working? Is there something around to lean on? What failure (e.g. not quite sharp enough shot) rate is acceptable? How large will the images be reproduced? To what extent is a bit of blur unacceptable?
IN the end, the best predictor of what shutter speeds are useful is the photographer’s experience.
Mar 25, 2025 at 10:24 AM
Notice: Undefined offset: 0 in /var/www/vhosts/fredmiranda.com/httpdocs/forum/viewedits.php on line 155
bwcolor wrote:
### Why the Reciprocal Rule Falls Short
The reciprocal rule was developed for 35mm film cameras and assumes a certain tolerance for blur based on typical sensor or film resolution and viewing conditions… Smaller pixels can make camera shake more noticeable, as even slight movement translates into blur across more pixels. Without IBIS to counteract hand movement, a faster shutter speed than the reciprocal rule suggests may be necessary for consistently sharp results..
There’s an important but apparently subtle inaccuracy there.
Smaller pixels don’t make camera shake more noticeable. If you make the same photograph with 25MP and 100MP sensor cameras (of the same format) using the same lens and settings and camera shake was present, and you make identical-size prints from both of them, the amount of motion blur in the two prints would be…
… exactly the same.
The higher MP camera would image the shake more accurately, but there would not be any more or less of it. If you understand how digital sampling works, you’ll see why this isat the case.
So the issue isn’t that “shake is more noticeable” in the higher resolution sensor. It is that one important potential advantage of the higher resolution sensor is that when shake is eliminated (or nearly so) and when using a great lens the camera can take advantage of the higher resolution potential of the sensor. E.g., the larger sensor is never worse in this regard, and it has the potential to be better.
The way I would look at it not that the higher resolution sensor makes “shake more noticeable,” but that using a higher resolution sensor when shake is not well controlled largely negates the potential resolution advantage of the higher resolution sensor.
Mar 25, 2025 at 10:19 AM
Previous versions of gdanmitchell's message #16780401 « Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread »
