Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
Thread started 30 Dec 2011 (Friday) 10:09
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Shutter Speed vs Resolution

 
mafoo
Goldmember
Avatar
1,503 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Dec 2011
     
Dec 30, 2011 22:03 |  #31

AJSJones wrote in post #13623280 (external link)
Can I get a glass or toke of whatever Delija is having :)

lol, I think it's one, followed by the other :)


-Jeremy
5D Mk II | SL1 | 24-105 f4.0L IS | 70-200 f2.8L IS | S35 1.4 | 40 2.8 Pancake | Samyang 14 2.8 | 430EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Delija
Goldmember
Avatar
1,095 posts
Joined Jan 2009
     
Dec 30, 2011 22:11 |  #32

Higgs Boson wrote in post #13620178 (external link)
I'd like this thread to elaborate on this concept of higher resolutions needing more shutter speed and also what shutter speeds the experienced photogs here use for a given situation.

..

Bosscat wrote in post #13623227 (external link)
Resolution has little to do with this as much as the speed and direction of travel in relation to the shutter speed used.

Yeah, sorry I got so far off the OP topic. But I agree with what Bosscat here says - resolution (in a perfect world) would have virtually nothing to do with shutter speed. There is an affect (less and less as technology improves) but it's due to the heat build-up on a sensor with a digital camera if at all - But with normal shutter speeds and normal ISO settings shutter speeds should be irrelevant. With today's modern SLR cameras, if shooting at 1/20th of a second at ISO 100 or if shooting at 1/400 of a second at ISO 1600, the results should be indistinguishable.

I don't see where resolution is a factor at all...or even can be quite sure as to what your mean by the term. A Canon 1D3 has 10MP and a Canon 5D has 12MP - I would think that a 15MP 50D would not get as good results with the same (normal) shutter speeds (with same aperture and ISO) as either of the older cameras - A newer tech 18mp Rebel should give any of the three of them a run or the money. So it's about the state of technology more than any "ideal" settings.


Wow, what a nice picture! You must have a really great camera!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FlyingPhotog
Cream of the "Prop"
Avatar
57,560 posts
Likes: 142
Joined May 2007
Location: Probably Chasing Aircraft
     
Dec 30, 2011 22:13 |  #33

Rules of Thumb exist so people can be aware of certain issues without having to understand them at the sub-atomic or doctorate level.

1/Focal Length
Rule of Thirds
Look / Move Space
Normal or Longer for portrait focal lengths
Etc...

It is possible to achieve Paralisys By Analisys whereby you spend so much time studying the finer points of photography that you never go out and actually commit photography.


Jay
Crosswind Images (external link)
Facebook Fan Page (external link)

"If you aren't getting extraordinary images from today's dSLRs, regardless of brand, it's not the camera!" - Bill Fortney, Nikon Corp.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mafoo
Goldmember
Avatar
1,503 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Dec 2011
     
Dec 30, 2011 22:25 |  #34

Delija wrote in post #13623360 (external link)
I don't see where resolution is a factor at all...or even can be quite sure as to what your mean by the term. A Canon 1D3 has 10MP and a Canon 5D has 12MP - I would think that a 15MP 50D would not get as good results with the same (normal) shutter speeds (with same aperture and ISO) as either of the older cameras - A newer tech 18mp Rebel should give any of the three of them a run or the money. So it's about the state of technology more than any "ideal" settings.

Well, there your comparing the quality of the light collected, not the effect on resolution.

Resolution doesn't matter if you don't crop, and all samples are presented to the viewer in a size where the lowest resolution has enough fidelity to make the two indistinguishable.

The only reason resolution was really something I talked about, was the OP wanted to know why the image, when looked at 100% crop, showed motion.


-Jeremy
5D Mk II | SL1 | 24-105 f4.0L IS | 70-200 f2.8L IS | S35 1.4 | 40 2.8 Pancake | Samyang 14 2.8 | 430EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AJSJones
Goldmember
Avatar
2,647 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 92
Joined Dec 2001
Location: California
     
Dec 30, 2011 22:42 |  #35

Delija wrote in post #13623360 (external link)
I don't see where resolution is a factor at all...or even can be quite sure as to what your mean by the term.

Whether it's DoF or diffraction, the blur will spread a sharp image across more pixels than it should. So does motion of either the camera or the subject. For diffraction, the smaller the pixels, the more easily they are degraded by stopping down the aperture (external link) because the stopping down increases the blur. SO you can tolerate less blur if you print so the sharpness of each pixel is visible. If you don't print that lrge (or crop that much) it will not be visible.

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #13623364 (external link)
Rules of Thumb exist so people can be aware of certain issues without having to understand them at the sub-atomic or doctorate level.

It is possible to achieve Paralisys By Analisys whereby you spend so much time studying the finer points of photography that you never go out and actually commit photography.

So in the rainy afternoons, aren't you glad there are people who think about, understand and advance the technology for your benefit so we can all go out and commit photography. Just because someone understands this and has a doctorate or something has no bearing on whether they are a good photographer or not - so wisecracks like that are a bit irritating.

mafoo wrote in post #13623413 (external link)
Resolution doesn't matter if you don't crop, and all samples are presented to the viewer in a size where the lowest resolution has enough fidelity to make the two indistinguishable.

The only reason resolution was really something I talked about, was the OP wanted to know why the image, when looked at 100% crop, showed motion.

Right - the answer is still "It depends" but increased resolution can make blur more visible and blur can be decreased by shooting with a faster shutterspeed. The waves in the water are probably also a little blurrier than they would have been with a faster shutterspeed, but that would depend on the windspeed, not the trainspeed :D


My picture galleries (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mafoo
Goldmember
Avatar
1,503 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Dec 2011
     
Dec 30, 2011 22:47 |  #36

AJSJones wrote in post #13623470 (external link)
Right - the answer is still "It depends" but increased resolution can make blur more visible...

But I thought we agreed that only happens after we reach the point where the lower resolution image would start to show diminished overall quality due to it's resolution.

So in my eyes, it really doesn't matter, because the only way to make it matter, is to create a senario where the other option is unacceptable anyway.


-Jeremy
5D Mk II | SL1 | 24-105 f4.0L IS | 70-200 f2.8L IS | S35 1.4 | 40 2.8 Pancake | Samyang 14 2.8 | 430EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Raylon
Goldmember
Avatar
1,078 posts
Joined Sep 2010
Location: Plainfield, IL
     
Dec 30, 2011 22:47 |  #37

I think the point of the 1/FL rule has been completely missed by mostly everyone on this thread, unless I am readings something wrong.

It has nothing to do with motion blur of the subject, but with the motion blur of you.

I was under the impression that 1/FL was how fast you had to have the shutter speed to negate any effects of hand holding the lens. The shorter the lens, the less movement of your arm effects the image. But a long lens, any movement you have is greatly exagerated by the lens.

EDIT: Nvm, I see this thread took a turn near the beginning I missed.


7D l Canon 70-200 f/4L IS l Canon 85mm f/1.8 l ∑ 17-50 f/2.8 l Canon 50mm f/1.8 II l S95
Full Gear List and Marketplace Feedback
My SmugMug (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bosscat
Goldmember
1,892 posts
Joined Apr 2005
Location: Ontario Canada
     
Dec 30, 2011 22:55 |  #38

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #13623364 (external link)
It is possible to achieve Paralisys By Analisys whereby you spend so much time studying the finer points of photography that you never go out and actually commit photography.

That sounds like something Ken Rockwell says about forums....LOL!!!


Your camera is alot smarter than the "M" Zealots would have you believe

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mafoo
Goldmember
Avatar
1,503 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Dec 2011
     
Dec 30, 2011 22:57 |  #39

Raylon wrote in post #13623492 (external link)
I think the point of the 1/FL rule has been completely missed by mostly everyone on this thread, unless I am readings something wrong.

It has nothing to do with motion blur of the subject, but with the motion blur of you.

I was under the impression that 1/FL was how fast you had to have the shutter speed to negate any effects of hand holding the lens. The shorter the lens, the less movement of your arm effects the image. But a long lens, any movement you have is greatly exagerated by the lens.

EDIT: Nvm, I see this thread took a turn near the beginning I missed.

What would you know about hand held photography?

<looks over at Raylon's avatar, and backs out of the room slowly>


-Jeremy
5D Mk II | SL1 | 24-105 f4.0L IS | 70-200 f2.8L IS | S35 1.4 | 40 2.8 Pancake | Samyang 14 2.8 | 430EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FlyingPhotog
Cream of the "Prop"
Avatar
57,560 posts
Likes: 142
Joined May 2007
Location: Probably Chasing Aircraft
     
Dec 30, 2011 23:00 |  #40

AJSJones wrote in post #13623470 (external link)
So in the rainy afternoons, aren't you glad there are people who think about, understand and advance the technology for your benefit so we can all go out and commit photography. Just because someone understands this and has a doctorate or something has no bearing on whether they are a good photographer or not - so wisecracks like that are a bit irritating.

So are those who profess profound photographic knowledge without ever posting an image...


Jay
Crosswind Images (external link)
Facebook Fan Page (external link)

"If you aren't getting extraordinary images from today's dSLRs, regardless of brand, it's not the camera!" - Bill Fortney, Nikon Corp.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FlyingPhotog
Cream of the "Prop"
Avatar
57,560 posts
Likes: 142
Joined May 2007
Location: Probably Chasing Aircraft
     
Dec 30, 2011 23:01 |  #41

mafoo wrote in post #13623525 (external link)
What would you know about hand held photography?

<looks over at Raylon's avatar, and backs out of the room slowly>

Did ya happen to notice mine...? ;)


Jay
Crosswind Images (external link)
Facebook Fan Page (external link)

"If you aren't getting extraordinary images from today's dSLRs, regardless of brand, it's not the camera!" - Bill Fortney, Nikon Corp.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Kaljam
Member
154 posts
Joined Feb 2010
Location: Connecticut
     
Dec 30, 2011 23:06 |  #42

The train, if traveling 45 mph, is moving 0.16875 feet in the 1/400 second your shutter is open no matter the MP. The blur will be spread across more pixels if you're pixel peeping but unless your printing a billboard, I really don't think you'd see it.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AJSJones
Goldmember
Avatar
2,647 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 92
Joined Dec 2001
Location: California
     
Dec 30, 2011 23:34 |  #43

mafoo wrote in post #13623490 (external link)
But I thought we agreed that only happens after we reach the point where the lower resolution image would start to show diminished overall quality due to it's resolution.

That's exactly what happens when you get a newer camera with more MP (per the OP's question) - you can print bigger than you used to (if you think e.g. 240ppi is a good resolution to print at), so you are printing at an enlargement (from sensor size to print size) beyond where the lower res camera would have pooped out because the lower resolution didn't capture the details well enough to print big. So that's a big yes - we have more MP, so we can print bigger (or crop more) and then we need to consider blur more carefully than we did before.


My picture galleries (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AJSJones
Goldmember
Avatar
2,647 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 92
Joined Dec 2001
Location: California
     
Dec 30, 2011 23:48 |  #44

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #13623533 (external link)
So are those who profess profound photographic knowledge without ever posting an image...

So now someone has to post on sites where your eyes frequent before you can consider they might understand some of the technology and be able to take good photos??? Even more condescending, I'd say.

If you really want to see some of my pictures, you can look here (external link) for some very tiny images from my 4x5 camera but you won't have any idea what the 24x30 prints look like, so that's why I don't often post postage stamp size pictures (and when I do it isn't necessarily here,if that's how you have "judged" my comments). The other albums contain images of varying "quality" depending on their purpose. This is all by way of a hobby while my training is in spectroscopy and, yes, I do have a Doctorate but alas, not at the sub-atomic level, merely biophysics :rolleyes:


My picture galleries (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
artyman
Sleepless in Hampshire
Avatar
14,402 posts
Gallery: 17 photos
Likes: 69
Joined Feb 2009
Location: Hampshire UK
     
Dec 31, 2011 03:35 |  #45

To throw something else into this most interesting (but probably pointless) discussion, the direction of the slot of the focal plane shutter and orientation will also affect the result. A vertical shutter slot traversing the sensor in the opposite direction of travel will affect what each pixel sees, as will a horizontal slot. :D


Art that takes you there. http://www.artyman.co.​uk (external link)
Ken
Canon 7D, 350D, 15-85, 18-55, 75-300, Cosina 100 Macro, Sigma 120-300

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

8,987 views & 0 likes for this thread
Shutter Speed vs Resolution
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is SparksCK
1219 guests, 307 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.