Larger Sensor Megapixels and shutter speed relationship?

I recently read somewhere that someone using a larger 50MP sensor doubled the shutter speed. This was to allow hand holding the camera and reduce blurry images. Instead of typical 1/200 second for a 200mm lens. It would be 1/400 second for the same 200mm lens. Is this information correct?

If a DSLR then vibration from the mirror movement may be more a factor if the physical dimensions of the sensor are larger. More pixels implies potentially larger prints that may be more prone to show movement. So some justification. Practice holding the camera to minimize vibrations, it makes a difference.

vision35 wrote in post #19132595
I recently read somewhere that someone using a larger 50MP sensor doubled the shutter speed. This was to allow hand holding the camera and reduce blurry images. Instead of typical 1/200 second for a 200mm lens. It would be 1/400 second for the same 200mm lens. Is this information correct?

Resolution (as in, recording angular resolution of light) is all about reducing blur down to the airy disc. When a pixel is larger (say, 4~5um), the focal-ratio relative to the full spectrum of light (say blue to red wavelengths) will require a relatively long focal-ratio to record all wavelengths to their critical sampling point down to around 3 times the width of the airy disc, however, most terrestrial photographers do not do this, they use much faster focal-ratios, which is severe undersampling. The undersampling means there is data that is overlapping onto a pixel and so you will not be able to differentiate that and the information between those two points will be lost and treated as one thing. As you decrease the pixel size, you can use a shorter (faster) focal-ratio to record angular resolution of light at critical sampling. So as you increase the pixel count on a same-size-sensor, you're reducing the size of the pixel. This pixel relative to a focal-ratio use will record more angular resolution, because it's closer to critical sampling of the wavelengths of light, and so it will differentiate two points of information better as it's less over-sampling, so because you are able to better differentiate information, you will better record what's happening. The old adage of using 1/200s for 200mm focal length only worked because the sampling was undersampling and so it didn't record the level of blur happening, but as you decrease the pixel size and increase the sampling level, you start to record higher resolution and now you'll notice that blur increase in the same situation (ie, hand holding moving the lens around using a slow shutter speed).

So if you want to reduce blur on a system that has tiny pixel and is sampling closer to critical sampling of angular resolution of light, you need shorter exposure times to reduce motion blur that is higher resolution recorded. So yes, use shorter exposures on those tiny pixel cameras if you want to reduce blur from your own motion. It's completely irrelevant if on a tripod, because you're not inducing motion to increase blur in the system.

Very best,

Consider that motion blur is the composite of a sharp line along with to be a certain amount of motion the sides (to one side or both sides of that sharp line.

At a distance of 5', the R6 pixel is equivalent to a width at the subject of 0.0066", while the R5 pixel is the equivalent of 0.0044"

• So let us assume that we have one sharp pixel, flanked by four pixels of blur motion (two to each side) captured by the R6 sensor... a total distance of 5*0.0066" = 0.033" on the sensor. That same 0.033" of sharp+blur motion covers 7.5 pixels on the R5 sensor. If we increased shutter speed by 33%, we could cause the blur captureed on the R5 to be 5 pixels wide again, and 5 pxiels on the R5 spans only 0.022", rather than 0.033" across five R6 pixels.
  
  
• If we increase shutter speed by 33% on the R6 as well, the total width of sharp+blur also goes from 0.033" down to 0.0022", just like the R5 at a 33% faster shutter speed. 0.022" spans 3.3 pixels on the R6,
  Both the R5 and the R6 resolve the motion of 0.022", one does it with 5 (smaller) pixels, the other does it with 3.3 (larger pixels). Arguably one might say the R6 has a slight disadvantage as the fractional pixel might register as blur, taking the representation to 4 pixels spanning 0.0264" rather than 0.022" on the R5, so the R5 seems a bit sharper than the R6...by one pixel's width.