Author Topic: Camera Shake and Digital (Read 6739 times)

takestock · « **on:** May 02, 2008, 02:55 »

I read somewhere recently that camera shake is more emphasised when using digital as compared to film.

Do you find that this is so ? - thus the more need for a tripod or image stabilisation!

stokfoto · « **Reply #1 on:** May 02, 2008, 05:05 »

I can't find a logical explanation for that but I sort of had the same impression may be it's just because you see the result instantly,I don't know?

sharpshot · « **Reply #2 on:** May 02, 2008, 05:18 »

I suppose most sensors are smaller than 35mm or medium format film so the image has to be enlarged more to get the same size. That will show the camera shake more.

I can't see how this would apply if the sensor was the same size as the film.

Seren · « **Reply #3 on:** May 02, 2008, 05:28 »

Quote from: takestock on May 02, 2008, 02:55

I read somewhere recently that camera shake is more emphasised when using digital as compared to film.

A film camera is identical to a digital camera (SLR) in it's basic contruction.

If you have the aperture open for too long, then you will get camera shake.

I don't think there is anything in the sensor size theory. My handholding speed for medium format film is the same as for 35mm film, and the same as for 1.6x crop.

Although I find my 350D and my Yashica TLR easier to hand hold at slow shutter speeds than my 5D, but that is down to the weight of the camera more than anything else.

RT · « **Reply #4 on:** May 02, 2008, 05:41 »

You are totally correct in your theory that camera shake is more evident on digital than film.

I did one of the most advanced photography course known to man, and during that three year waste of time they would fill lessons with worthless information such as this.
The reason is that the didgital sensor is far more accurate than film in recording light because the sensor is mage up of a grid that is set and can only record the light in the way it was designed to at a set angle, whereas film is made up of liquid crysal and therefore has bumps,lumps and dips that record the light at very slight angles, however as it was explained to us you need the type of microscope they use to perform sex changes on fleas to see the effect properly.

I lost interest in their explanation as there's nothing you can do about it anyway, and my explanation takes three seconds to read as appose to the whole day the tutors had set aside for this valuable info, so I may have brushed passed (more likely forgotten) some of the details.

On another note did you know when Canon are making lenses in their factory on the island who's name I can't remember somewhere near Japan, if there's an earthquake within a 5000 mile radius they scrap the whole production line, even though their machinery is so accurate that they could have an earthquake next door and it shouldn't make any difference.

Seren · « **Reply #5 on:** May 02, 2008, 06:36 »

Quote from: RT on May 02, 2008, 05:41

The reason is that the didgital sensor is far more accurate than film in recording light because the sensor is mage up of a grid that is set and can only record the light in the way it was designed to at a set angle, whereas film is made up of liquid crysal and therefore has bumps,lumps and dips that record the light at very slight angles, however as it was explained to us you need the type of microscope they use to perform sex changes on fleas to see the effect properly.

So to the naked human eye there is no effect...

Never knew about the lenses. That's interesting.

RT · « **Reply #6 on:** May 02, 2008, 07:58 »

Quote from: Seren on May 02, 2008, 06:36

So to the naked human eye there is no effect...

In relation to what the OP is referring to then no, essentially if you had a film camera and a digital camera with the same specs taking the same photo you shouldn't be able to see it, but as it's an impossible thing to test the whole thing is irrelevant anyway.

The thing I said about the lenses is true, we had a guy from Canon come in to see us, it was a long time ago so I can't remember all the details, but I do remember the earthquake thing albeit I may have used a bit of poetic license on the 5000 mile radius, but it was quite a distance.
And before this opens the usual debate I'm sure Nikon probably do the same, I mean they normally copy Canon

vikavalter · « **Reply #7 on:** May 02, 2008, 10:36 »

Quote from: RT on May 02, 2008, 07:58

Quote from: Seren on May 02, 2008, 06:36

So to the naked human eye there is no effect...

In relation to what the OP is referring to then no, essentially if you had a film camera and a digital camera with the same specs taking the same photo you shouldn't be able to see it, but as it's an impossible thing to test the whole thing is irrelevant anyway.

The thing I said about the lenses is true, we had a guy from Canon come in to see us, it was a long time ago so I can't remember all the details, but I do remember the earthquake thing albeit I may have used a bit of poetic license on the 5000 mile radius, but it was quite a distance.
And before this opens the usual debate I'm sure Nikon probably do the same, I mean they normally copy Canon

well they didn't copy focus operating system , like hold with one finger a button, scroll infront with another finger if you want the point move up and down and do handheld acrobatics with the wheel on the back with your third finger to move the focusing point from side to side... while still holding the bloody button with finger number one

sharpshot · « **Reply #8 on:** May 02, 2008, 11:34 »

Quote from: Seren on May 02, 2008, 05:28

Quote from: takestock on May 02, 2008, 02:55
I read somewhere recently that camera shake is more emphasised when using digital as compared to film.

A film camera is identical to a digital camera (SLR) in it's basic contruction.

If you have the aperture open for too long, then you will get camera shake.

I don't think there is anything in the sensor size theory. My handholding speed for medium format film is the same as for 35mm film, and the same as for 1.6x crop.

Although I find my 350D and my Yashica TLR easier to hand hold at slow shutter speeds than my 5D, but that is down to the weight of the camera more than anything else.

Put another way, the smaller sensor effectively increases the focal length of the lenses. A faster shutter speed is required with a longer focal length lens to avoid camera shake.

Seren · « **Reply #9 on:** May 02, 2008, 12:23 »

Quote from: sharpshot on May 02, 2008, 11:34

Put another way, the smaller sensor effectively increases the focal length of the lenses. A faster shutter speed is required with a longer focal length lens to avoid camera shake.

No, that's not putting it another way.

The original poster asked about digital cameras. My digital camera doesn't crop focal length, so therefore faster speed is not required.

Had the original poster asked specifically if an identical lens on a 35mm film SLR and a 1.6x crop sensor would need different speeds, the answer would perhaps be as you wrote.

Having said that though, not necessarily. Since you're not actually changing the way the image is recorded, you're just ignoring the data that comes round the outside of the lens, so I doubt you'd actually need a faster shutter speed. Don't make me get out my Langfords Advanced Photography!

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Camera Shake and Digital (Read 6739 times)

takestock

stokfoto

sharpshot

Seren

RT

Seren

RT

vikavalter

sharpshot

Seren

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors