70/200 2.8 IS...Hand Held??

sm1rf wrote in post #5536349
In short NO, because both display the same amount of shake, but since the image you look at in the 5D normally isn't cropped then you don't normally see the shake. So since your images from a crop camera are already cropped you always see the cropped effect, if your with me. Neither is more likely to show shake it's just you're more likely to see it in a crop body as the image is always cropped, unlike a 5D which is only cropped when you want too. Thats the way i see it anyway!

So it's a factor becuase you are looking closer, in effect. Got it. I'm with you. So techinically it really does not matter, but in real use it does because you will be looking at the crop image relatively closer. The same artifacts would show in the full frame, if you blew it up the same as the crop, or cropped it the same and blew it up.

Mr Crowe is entirely correct. Physiological attributes completely outweight any amount of mathematics you can throw at this argument.

Pete wrote in post #5536416
Mr Crowe is entirely correct. Physiological attributes completely outweight any amount of mathematics you can throw at this argument.

Absolutely agreed. But understanding given the same conditions on how to best approach a shot relative to shutter speed is an important thing to know. In other words it does not matter all the factors. If you are given the exact same conditions from one shot to the next, same photographer same equipment, etc. then what is going to effect the image in terms of image blur. So it's important to know if a crop sensor is a factor or not.

If i am an old guy hopped up on caffeine who's been up for three days and i know I will need faster than the standard rule I also want to know if a 1.6 sensor comes into play or not as well so i can factor it in. Of course the limit on my 5D is 1/8000 so i may be out of luck anyway.

Anything you shoot at speeds under that suggested by the math is a potential crap shoot. So......the most important factor is the importance of the shot. Can it be shot again? Or is it a one time deal? A monopod would be really helpful. Maybe that's why you see so many in the sports arenas. More keepers.

Dermit wrote in post #5535810
Is this true? Do you really have to add in the x1.6? I mean a 200mm lens on a 1.6 sensor is NOT a 320mm lens. The only thing that happens is that the sensor only sees the same field of view (FOV) as a 320mm lens. So it is NOT magnifying the image the same as a 320mm. And camera shake only becomes more amplified when an image is more magnified, which in this case it is NOT. A 200mm lens on a 1.6 sensor camera is still a 200mm lens. Of course I could be missing something here, so if I am let me know.

With IS on I have successfully shot down as low a 1/30 shutter on my 70-200 IS.

Dermit wrote in post #5535925
Actually I have an old D60, which is a 1.6 factor sensor and, no, the image is NOT magnified, it is cropped. I could emulate a 1.6 factor sensor on my 5D by taking a picture and then crop the image to only include what the 1.6 sensor would see.

A 1.6 sensor seems like a magnification because we see less field of view, which is what longer focal length lenses do. But in this case it sees narrower because the sensor is smaller, not because it is more magnification.

This is a subject I have been curious about so i am not saying i am right or wrong, just that I would like to understand it. So far I don't understand how given the exact same focal length you can get more actual magnification just because the sensor is smaller.

Dermit wrote in post #5536017
Sorry, I am still not there. I think I understand what you are trying to say, but it's not playing well with the issue. One thing i agree on is the closer pixels are together the more critical camera shake becomes. But that is a resolution issue and the same would be true for a 1.6 or a full size sensor. If both had identical pixel pitch the focal length and crop factor still would not matter (in my head) in regards to hand holding the camera and shutter speed. The exact same image transmits through the lens and falls on the focal plane of the camera. It's just that the 1.6 sensor is only capturing a smaller center portion of that projected image. True? Or am i way off base, or just not getting it?

The 1/focal length rule-of-thumb was adopted many years ago for the 35mm film format (size of the film frame or sensor in a camera). I do believe it originated with medium-format cameras, but the fact is that it's been an accepted rule-of-thumb for 35mm film cameras for at least four decades that I know about.

The difference between shooting with a 35mm film (or "full-frame" DSLR) camera and an APS-C camera is that the image from the APS-C camera must be enlarged more to fill the same sized print. For example - if you were to make an 8-inch by 12-inch print from a 35mm film negative (or from a 5D, for example), you'd have to enlarge the in-camera image by a factor of 8.47 (in each direction). If you were to make the same 8-inch by 12-inch print from the image taken with a 40D, you'd have to enlarge the in-camera image by a factor of 13.55 (again, in each direction).

If you had "X" amount of physical motion of the camera/lens (remember it's the SAME lens on both cameras) that resulted a blur that is .05mm wide IN THE CAMERA, you would have a blur on the print from the 35mm camera that is .423mm wide and a blur on the print from the 40D that is .678mm wide.

From this, you can see that to match the blur of the print made from the 35mm camera you would have to shorten the IN-CAMERA blur by a factor of 1.6. How do you do that? You would have to shorten the shutter speed time by a factor of 1.6.

Thus, to keep the rule-of-thumb the same for different format cameras, you need to add the "crop factor" (or whatever you want to call the ratio of the two format sizes) to the rule-of-thumb. This, of course, assumes that the rule-of-thumb works for one of the formats involved.

A rule-of-thumb is a generalization for the average population, and for any individual the value may be high or low. That does not change the fact than you cannot apply the same formula to different camera formats and have the same result. I hope you understand my math above that proves this.

SkipD wrote in post #5537295
The 1/focal length rule-of-thumb was adopted many years ago for the 35mm film format (size of the film frame or sensor in a camera). I do believe it originated with medium-format cameras, but the fact is that it's been an accepted rule-of-thumb for 35mm film cameras for at least four decades that I know about.

The difference between shooting with a 35mm film (or "full-frame" DSLR) camera and an APS-C camera is that the image from the APS-C camera must be enlarged more to fill the same sized print. For example - if you were to make an 8-inch by 12-inch print from a 35mm film negative (or from a 5D, for example), you'd have to enlarge the in-camera image by a factor of 8.47 (in each direction). If you were to make the same 8-inch by 12-inch print from the image taken with a 40D, you'd have to enlarge the in-camera image by a factor of 13.55 (again, in each direction).

If you had "X" amount of physical motion of the camera/lens (remember it's the SAME lens on both cameras) that resulted a blur that is .05mm wide IN THE CAMERA, you would have a blur on the print from the 35mm camera that is .423mm wide and a blur on the print from the 40D that is .678mm wide.

From this, you can see that to match the blur of the print made from the 35mm camera you would have to shorten the IN-CAMERA blur by a factor of 1.6. How do you do that? You would have to shorten the shutter speed time by a factor of 1.6.

Thus, to keep the rule-of-thumb the same for different format cameras, you need to add the "crop factor" (or whatever you want to call the ratio of the two format sizes) to the rule-of-thumb. This, of course, assumes that the rule-of-thumb works for one of the formats involved.

A rule-of-thumb is a generalization for the average population, and for any individual the value may be high or low. That does not change the fact than you cannot apply the same formula to different camera formats and have the same result. I hope you understand my math above that proves this.

I fully understand the 1/focal length rule of thumb. I've been shooting 35mm SLR since 1984-ish and am well aware of the rule.

I agree with what you are saying. The path I started down originally in this thread had nothing to do with a print and blowing up anything after the shot was taken as it was never mentioned. Neither was the intent to capture the same FOV with different sensor by shooting at physically different distances and not by cropping the full size sensor image to get the same FOV. I was assuming a shot taken at the same distance with indentical cameras except for sensosr size (as these were the only differing factors mentioned in the OP) and cropping the full size sensor shot to equalt the same FOV as the 1.6 shot. Most everyone else is assuming taking the shot at different distances to create the same FOV and then printing them out at the same size, which of course matters. The magnification is happening in the print, not the camera. So for any statements about this issue to make sense or draw any conclusions one must state more factors or people will draw their own conclusions based on how they interpret the intended argument... which is what we've just done.

Matt30D wrote in post #5535311
How do you figure what the slowest hand-held time? Is it 1/logest focal length? So It would be 1/200 for the 70-200 2.8 IS?? That seems a little slow to me???

Turn on the IS and it'll be fine. You might even be able to go a little slower on the shutter speed, too, with IS turned on.

Dermit, here is a comparison shot I took last month. Wish I had new 1dsNk3 to add to the compairson.

5d on left. Then 1dmk2, 30d and finally 400d on right. All taken with canon 400mm f5.6. 100% crops without any pp. Show in RAW. Subject to camera distance was same.

I am sure we cleared it all up for the OP...

Pete, are you sure that's all that is happening under the bushes?

Pete wrote in post #5536119
1/20sec at 400mm.
Steady hand-held shots aren't that much of a problem at these speeds, as long as you develop steady hands.

The best way of developing steadiness is to get into manually-focused macro photography. When you get good at taking steady shots in dim conditions under bushes on your hands and knees, then anything else is easy.

bobbyz wrote in post #5538034
Dermit, here is a comparison shot I took last month. Wish I had new 1dsNk3 to add to the compairson.

5d on left. Then 1dmk2, 30d and finally 400d on right. All taken with canon 400mm f5.6. 100% crops without any pp. Show in RAW. Subject to camera distance was same.

Yes, nice test, it's what I would expect. But, see the FOV for the diff. sensors and how they are different? Now, the full frame sensor 100% crop images, if you now scaled them up to the same size (FOV) as the 1.6 sensor images they would degrade. And if the sensors and cameras were identical in resolution/pixel-pitch and IQ then they would look even more alike. That is the way I was looking at it.

How did you get a hold of so many cameras for the test? They yours?

SkipD wrote in post #5537295
The 1/focal length rule-of-thumb was adopted many years ago for the 35mm film format (size of the film frame or sensor in a camera). I do believe it originated with medium-format cameras, but the fact is that it's been an accepted rule-of-thumb for 35mm film cameras for at least four decades that I know about.

The difference between shooting with a 35mm film (or "full-frame" DSLR) camera and an APS-C camera is that the image from the APS-C camera must be enlarged more to fill the same sized print. For example - if you were to make an 8-inch by 12-inch print from a 35mm film negative (or from a 5D, for example), you'd have to enlarge the in-camera image by a factor of 8.47 (in each direction). If you were to make the same 8-inch by 12-inch print from the image taken with a 40D, you'd have to enlarge the in-camera image by a factor of 13.55 (again, in each direction).



If you had "X" amount of physical motion of the camera/lens (remember it's the SAME lens on both cameras) that resulted a blur that is .05mm wide IN THE CAMERA, you would have a blur on the print from the 35mm camera that is .423mm wide and a blur on the print from the 40D that is .678mm wide.

From this, you can see that to match the blur of the print made from the 35mm camera you would have to shorten the IN-CAMERA blur by a factor of 1.6. How do you do that? You would have to shorten the shutter speed time by a factor of 1.6.

Thus, to keep the rule-of-thumb the same for different format cameras, you need to add the "crop factor" (or whatever you want to call the ratio of the two format sizes) to the rule-of-thumb. This, of course, assumes that the rule-of-thumb works for one of the formats involved.

A rule-of-thumb is a generalization for the average population, and for any individual the value may be high or low. That does not change the fact than you cannot apply the same formula to different camera formats and have the same result. I hope you understand my math above that proves this.

bobbyz wrote in post #5538034
Dermit, here is a comparison shot I took last month. Wish I had new 1dsNk3 to add to the compairson.

5d on left. Then 1dmk2, 30d and finally 400d on right. All taken with canon 400mm f5.6. 100% crops without any pp. Show in RAW. Subject to camera distance was same.

As an aside, I am impressed by the clarity of that lens. Might fine detail for such a bazooka!

I just got my Sigma 70-200 f/2.8. According to the specs, it's slightly heavier than the Canon non-IS version but 100g less than the IS version.

Anyways, prior to this I had a plastic Tamron 75-300mm lens. To me it seemed that I was getting less camera shake, due to the fact it weighed half as much as my Sigma. I'm still getting used to the 1,380g weight and f/2.8 aperture, because if I don't nail the focus dead on, the pictures are garbage. Outdoors I will likely be shooting at F/4 or more just to make it a bit easier.

I will have to see... in the future I might sell it and upgrade/downgrade(??) to the Canon 70-200 f/4 IS.