Here's a scene I took a few images of... D7000, 9.5mm, f/5.6, 1/800th, hand-held.
Now, on this posted image, there's a 3" sign on the right-hand door that's easily readable at 100%. This image is VERY sharp. But the D7000 resolution cuts two ways...
While I'm super pleased with the posted image, I tossed a few of the exact same scene, shot at exactly the same settings, because at 100%, I could see effects of vertical motion blur, induced by me.
My reason for posting this is because I believe the increased resolution of the D7000 means that the standard rule of thumb relative to focal length/shutter speed doesn't always hold up. Normally 1/800th at 9.5 millimeters would easily be fine, and maybe when viewed at 50%, it still would have been. But, since we commonly use 100% viewing magnification, be prepared for sometimes seeing some imperfections (that may have always been there) but you might never have noticed.
#1. "RE: D7000 Resolution -- Cuts Two ways..." In response to Reply # 0 Tue 18-Jan-11 02:02 PM by JPJ
Maybe the lesson from all of this is that we need to stop pixel peeping at 100%. Ultimately very few people are going to use the image in a way where that viewing size is relevant. At corresponding relevant viewing sizes any perceived motion blur becomes undetectable.
Now stop posting your Sigma 8-16 photos, you are making me jealous and you are going to cost me a lot of money!
#3. "RE: D7000 Resolution -- Cuts Two ways..." In response to Reply # 2 Tue 18-Jan-11 05:19 PM by gkaiseril
The rule of thumb is not an absolute rule. It is derived from experience. And for the rule of thumb to work, one must have a good hand holding technique for the SLR type of camera. The rule is very general but individual differences could affect it. The biggest problem is establishing the proper stable stance.
Some EXIF information might provide more information aobut the settings.
#4. "RE: D7000 Resolution -- Cuts Two ways..." In response to Reply # 3
>The rule of thumb is not an absolute rule. It is derived from >experience. And for the rule of thumb to work, one must have a >good hand holding technique for the SLR type of camera. The >rule is very general but individual differences could affect >it. The biggest problem is establishing the proper stable >stance.
Yeah, I'm with you on the technique thing.
My original post relates to the use of a very hi-res. sensor, in conjuction with a very sharp lens, where extremely tiny details in an image viewed at 100% may show very slight movement that lesser res. sensors would have left imperceptible. Yet these images might be excellent in actual execution.
A real world explanation of what 100% of a 16mp sensor really translates to in a print, might demonstrate that while useful in many ways, 100% viewing might be overkill in determining "real-world use" sharpness.
#9. "RE: D7000 Resolution -- Cuts Two ways..." In response to Reply # 5
>So viewing a D7000 image at 100% on my Dell 2209WA I am >viewing an image that is about 55 inches wide by 37.69 inches >high. >
Yes, this is exactly what I was talking about, no one prints this big in the real world (usually).
I am not going to dissuade people from practicing great technique but we have to put things in perspective. Any 'flaws' we see at 100% are not going to be visible on normal prints or photos posted for web viewing.
#10. "RE: D7000 Resolution -- Cuts Two ways..." In response to Reply # 0
This is good information. I work for a printing company large format screen,litho and digital printing. Our screenprint presses will print 6 color 54in x 120in litho 52 x 77in and out digital inkjet printer will print sheets or web 80inches wide by whatever length. I have printed a couple of my pictures from my D300s to 10 feet tall after running them thru genuine fractal program and one of the biggest issues in large format printing is viewing distance, similar to enlarging on your computer monitor. If you could stand close up to a billboard the resolution is terrible but stand back and it look great. So if you were to print a 30 x 40 enlargement it should be viewed from some distance and not standing 2 feet from it, so if you want to view at 100% you should back up from your monitor some
#12. "RE: D7000 Resolution -- Cuts Two ways..." In response to Reply # 11 Tue 18-Jan-11 10:51 PM by agitater
>And while good technique is critical, human beings breathe, >and have heart-beats...
But Bill . . . that's exactly the point. Good technique means establishing handholding methods, stance and grip which take breath movement and heart pump movement into account.
>With 16mp at 100% from 14" viewing distance, imperfect >details only a few pixels wide may be perceptible, but even >at, say, 16x24, they may be completely invisible. > >The technique, lenses, etc. may be near-perfect, but at 100%, >the "flaws" may be far more pronounced on-screen >than they ever could be on paper.
Most of these (and similar) so-called flaws aren't reproduced by printers on any kind of paper. As well, minor so-called flaws seen at 100% mag are also, I think, completely meaningless viewed on screen because they tend to reveal only the limits of the optical and electronic technology, the limits of handholding technique in certain circumstances - nothing more - and represent a view or look at a particular photo which will never be seen by any other human being.
Photographers don't make photos and then deliberately enlarge them 100% for printing, exhibition or display unless they specifically want to show softness and/or grain-noise and/or special effects.
The whole notion of blowing up images to large magnifications grew out of the need for high-resolution photo editing in which individual pixels have to be manipulated in order to do re-touch work. Obviously we can't easily, efficiently or accurately manipulate individual pixels unless we're working at extremely high magnifications in Photoshop or some sort of similar pixel-level editing software.
Viewing digital images at 100% mag never had much to do with determining focus accuracy or identifying flaws in shooting technique. After all, if we're not editing/manipulating individual pixels and if some so-called flaw is not visible at intended print sizes or at intended display sizes, what the heck are we really looking at and why are we wasting time doing it?
As an academic exercise which demonstrates how terrific these cameras really are, the effort is fascinating. But it may have little practical value other than unequivocally satisfying us that everything from the D200 on up is capable of technically amazing results.
Do you happen to know the cornerstone date of the building in your sample shot?
(Added: your lovely, sharp, bright image reminds that I'm already fed up with snow and road salt even though it's still only mid-January).
#13. "RE: D7000 Resolution -- Cuts Two ways..." In response to Reply # 12
>>And while good technique is critical, human beings >breathe, >>and have heart-beats... > >But Bill . . . that's exactly the point. Good technique means >establishing handholding methods, stance and grip which take >breath movement and heart pump movement into account.
Thanks for noticing. It's why I posted in the first place. As one who has more than a few portraits hand-held at 1/15th, I was pointing out (perhaps not clearly enough) how 100% mag of 16mp images (even at 1/800th) with very small details may well "reveal" so-called "imperfections" that are actually quite excellent results.
>Do you happen to know the cornerstone date of the building in >your sample shot?
1857 for the Main Building, 1917 for the Front Pillars and Stucco.
#14. "RE: D7000 Resolution -- Cuts Two ways..." In response to Reply # 13
>>Do you happen to know the cornerstone date of the building >in >>your sample shot? > >1857 for the Main Building, 1917 for the Front Pillars and >Stucco.
Well maintained American Federal architecture is almost always a great subject in any sort of long light. There's little else like it anywhere outside the U.S., but your building seems to be a remarkable combination of post-colonial and greek revival. It's strange, but it works. Wonderful building.
#15. "RE: D7000 Resolution -- Cuts Two ways..." In response to Reply # 14
I wonder if the shock created by the movement of the mirror is captured with the higher resolution? Although the camera has a fair amount of mass to it I can still slightly feel the mirror movement. This is easily tested by taking an image hand held with it down and then MUP. Hand movement tends to be a low frequency disturbance compared to the mirror movement which a high frequency disturbance.
As a closed loop system VR is likely has a low frequency loop response that I would guess is slightly under damped. This would not handle any high frequency disturbances.
#19. "RE: D7000 Resolution -- Cuts Two ways..." In response to Reply # 5
New HArtford, US
> “What might also help is a clear way of understanding >what 100% translates to in an an actual print. This wopuld put >it all in perspective, for me at least...” > >This can be determined by the resolution and size of your >monitor. > >Using my workstation with a Dell 2209WA monitor… > >The monitor is 18.75 inches wide and the horizontal resolution >in 1680px. So my monitor displays 89.6 pixels per inch. > >A D7000 image is 4928 pixels wide. So 4928 divided by 89.6 is >55. > >So viewing a D7000 image at 100% on my Dell 2209WA I am >viewing an image that is about 55 inches wide by 37.69 inches >high. >
I use a 30" monitor for viewing. At 100% magnification, do I have the same field of view as you? Obviously viewing an image to fit on screen my image is larger and I will be more apt to see flaws, but I wonder about 100% magnification. If my field of view is the same as on a smaller monitor I am even a worse pixel peeper than I thought.
"Cameras and lenses are simply tools to place our unique vision on film. Concentrate on equipment and you'll take technically good photographs. Concentrate on seeing the light's magic colors and your images will stir the soul." Jack Dykinga
#20. "RE: D7000 Resolution -- Cuts Two ways..." In response to Reply # 18
>At the half shutter position, one needs to allow the VR >system to encgage and lock on the image before fully dpressing >the shutter release.
I don't doubt it, although I can't say because don't have any VR/OS/IS lenses.
In general, it looks as though the 16mp sensor at 100% will show certain details (positive or not) that may well have been undiscernable before, and at "normal" print sizes, may well be undiscernable after.
#22. "RE: D7000 Resolution -- Cuts Two ways..." In response to Reply # 20
>>At the half shutter position, one needs to allow the VR >>system to encgage and lock on the image before fully >dpressing >>the shutter release. >
I was trying this out last night and you can in fact see through the view finder when the VR locks. It does take a second or two to achieve lock. I was viewing the moon at 200mm, hand held. So any slight movement is magnified as well.
So to see this yourself, as pointed out above hold the shutter release half way while holding the camera and note the image movement literally lock as the VR kicks in. FWIW the lens I was using was the 18-200mm VRII. I was pretty impressed how well the VR system worked. Probably goes without saying but the subject should be stationary.
#25. "RE: Where does the "rule of tum" come from?" In response to Reply # 0
>My reason for posting this is because I believe the increased resolution of the D7000 means that the standard rule of thumb >relative to focal length/shutter speed doesn't always hold up. When Olympus launched the OM system with the first shutter dampening system in the late 1960's their advertising mentioned 1x shutter speed with an SLR had become possible, though 2x was more reliable - interesting! The earliest references I can find go back to the 1950's - when it has recognised that a Roleiflex with leaf shutter cradled in the hands induced far less camera shake than a medium format Thornton Pickard SLR. The Kodak Professional Photoguide from 1977 works to an edge blur of 1/50 of an inch in a 10x8 inch print with a standard lens at 12 feet distance - a quite modest sharpness level by 2010 standards. Subject magnification also plays a part - with the 1x guideline for some shots sharp and 2x for most shots sharp only being relevant for subjects between about 8 feet wide and infinity. By 1:1 magnification camera shake increases by the equivalent of about 5 shutter speeds. It follows that the "rule of thumb" can be as variable as the length of a piece of string.
Photography is a bit like archery. A technically better camera, lens or arrow may not hit the target as often as it could if the photographer or archer does not practice enough.
#26. "RE: Where does the "rule of tum" come from?" In response to Reply # 25
>When Olympus launched the OM system with the first shutter >dampening system in the late 1960's their advertising >mentioned 1x shutter speed with an SLR had become possible, >though 2x was more reliable - interesting!
This is fascinating! As is your whole post.
I owned an OM-1 (which I believe came out in the early 70's) and indeed, the shutter was just beautiful. I actually think the D7000 is smoother/quieter! I'll have to get my OM-1 back from my daughter and compare...
#29. "RE: Where does the "rule of tum" come from?" In response to Reply # 28
>Wow that Sigma 8-16 MTF is crazy (in a good way). And 4 FLD >elements! > >I have been hemming and hawing over the Nikon 14-24 or 16-35 >for my FX camera, but maybe the 8-16 on a DX camera is the way >to go... Looks pretty good in your stuff.
Thanks! There's a guy somewhere on this Forum who's actually compared the 8-16mm on his DX very favorably with the 14-24 on his FX.